Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - julianb

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 145
10
The Common Room / Re: Shocking behaviour on Ancestry
« on: Friday 25 February 22 19:18 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: Josephine on Friday 25 February 22 18:32 GMT (UK)

It would be great if serious researchers could (or would) publish their findings, either in a book or online somewhere, but the huge disincentive is the very same copy/paste ethos that's causing the issue in the first place. This is what prevents me from publishing.


This is a pretty key point for me, though slightly off-topic to this thread - having put all this "professional" work into our research, how do we make sure it doesn't die with us?  That sounds a bit morbid, but as we know from our own research, it is an inevitability!

As it's off-piste to this particular thread, I've started this new one elsewhere to stimulate that conversation https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=859432.0


11
Family History Programs, Tree Organisation, Presentation / How can future generations access your family history research?
« on: Friday 25 February 22 19:14 GMT (UK)  »
A discussion on another thread about dodgy family trees on a certain commercial digital genealogy platform has reminded me that I'm interested in finding out how  much thought others have given to making sure future generations can access your family history research.

If like me you've slaved over a hot mouse and keyboard for years to determine which "Chipping" each of your "Smiths" were born in, I for one don't want all that work to be in vain. 

But these hastily accumulated trees on the likes of ance$try, which hoover up dodgy information and breed it like rabbits, does spell confusion for those that follow us.  So how do we avoid that trap?

Our trees will have information about living people.  How do we balance information like that and its value in the future, against current confidentiality? Can we future proof access to trees to those with a legitimate interest?

And what sort of format would information be best saved in?  We've exploited new technology wonderfully in recording our family history eg the hyperlink to family members, or to sources, but again can we future proof this or might we need to fall back on ink and paper?

Can we do this without surrendering information to a commercial organisation?

I'm sure others have thought about this already.

What are your plans?

What have you done already?

What are your obstacles to doing this?

Leave your thoughts here so we can have a good old chat and problem solve on this very important topic

[Apologies if this has been discussed alsewhere already - I couldn't find an earlier thread directly on this]

JULIAN

12
Wiltshire / Re: Thomas Barlow of Collingbourne Ducis ~1778
« on: Tuesday 22 February 22 23:26 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: nichbuket on Thursday 15 June 17 15:10 BST (UK)

I had no idea that Barlow/Barler/Baller were all name variations...very interesting if not a tad confusing.


Your post is 5 years old, so I hesitated to respond, but my family history society transcription of the Collingbourne Ducis baptisms/burials does use the term "Barlow or Barler or Baller" against some transcriptions.  Before that I too had no idea they were interchangeable.

Sarah Brice was the younger sister of my 4xgreat grandmother Frances Brice (who married a Thomas Brice!), so I guess we are distant cousins. 

I found the Barlows fascinating, not just for the sheer volume of them (and if Thomas Barlow had lived a little longer, there would have been even more!), but also because of the likes of Silas Barlow https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18761120-93

JULIAN

13
Gloucestershire / Re: Lemoir - Letchford - Huge skeleton in the family closet!!!!
« on: Monday 21 February 22 18:35 GMT (UK)  »
Sorry I missed this exciting thread!

I've posted about this family previously, being descended from Thomas Luetchford and Harriet Wood - Percy Thomas Luetchford's great grandparents, and had corresponded with jungle beast considerably as she and her sister pieced together the two families of Percy's father, Edward Luetchford.

The 1921 census finds Percy in Westmorland, working as an actor, but not with his wife and kids, though Percy junior and Basil appear to be lodging with an Ernest and Minnie Hird in the same parish, Hincaster, Sedgwick in the Kendal Registration District; Percy is lodging with Jonas James Robinson, a coal dealer and his wife Hannah.  Wife Lucy appears to be in the parish of Ainsdale, Lancashire Ormskirk Reg District, transcribed as Lucy Litchford (born Norfolk 1890).  And having double checked, I've now found another Percy Born 1892 India in the parish of Altcar, Southport, but this time transcribed as Letchford. According to ParLoc, this parish is just over 5 miles away from Ormskirk. [I have only bought the Percy Thomas record in Cumberland so far - I'm rationing my expenditure  ;D]

So one take-away from this is that it looks like Percy and Basil belong to the same parents, and it is most likely that those parents are Percyy Thomas and Lucy Emily Ward.

Beyond that, all I can say is that Percy is consistently elusive.

JULIAN

14
The Common Room / Re: Shocking behaviour on Ancestry
« on: Monday 21 February 22 16:18 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: groom on Monday 21 February 22 12:17 GMT (UK)
The problem is that once someone puts the wrong thing on their tree others just copy without checking, so you end up with the same wrong information on half a dozen trees. Then others see it, assume because it is on so many trees that it must be right and so it continues. You do get the occasional person who will thank you for correcting them, but others argue that you must be wrong as you are the only one who has that information!

I found several trees who had my grandfather married to the wrong woman, in the wrong place. I contacted people pointing this out and giving my reasons - I'd known my grandmother, had certificates and went to her funeral etc. One person thanked me and corrected it, the rest still have the wrong information. One even said, "I thought it was wrong, but the name fits, so I'll leave it."

I've made a few mistakes with my tree which I've discovered when going through a review process (usually when there's a release of new parish records onto the digital platforms) and of course updated my tree eg on Ancestry.  Then i discover lots of people with my original mistake in their trees, and find they have no records quoted, just "Ancestry Family Tree".  I despair, even though you could say it is a self-inflected wound

[NB a lot of errors of mine have arisen from the old  "member submitted" records on Family Search, which I believe are now banished]

When people approach me about info in my tree, I usually advise them to research and check the records for themselves, and, more generally,  if they have a different interpretation of the evidence to mine, to get in touch. 

15
The Common Room / Re: Shocking behaviour on Ancestry
« on: Monday 21 February 22 16:06 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: ggrocott on Monday 21 February 22 10:46 GMT (UK)
Just as shocking I have had TWO replies to messages in the last 24 hours, one was to a message sent several years ago!   

I have to put my hands up to sometimes not replying for 6-18 months on some ancestry messages - sometimes because I miss them, or I need to find the time to deep dive to check information supplied.  I have a lovely "I think you got x wrong" message about getting the wrong "Mary Ann" in my tree, supplying detailed evidence.  I will shortly be writing back to thank them, when I've finished dealing with my current research priority.  So don't despair some of us will respond to such messages, even if only belatedly

16
Surrey Lookup Requests / Re: Missing GRO record
« on: Wednesday 07 February 18 16:30 GMT (UK)  »
One other point about Banns.  Banns may have been read in more than one parish.  So if one of the pair is shown as being of a different parish, the wedding may have taken place there.

JULIAN

17
One Name Studies: H to M / Luetchford
« on: Saturday 30 December 17 12:38 GMT (UK)  »
....   and sometimes Lutchford, Letchford, and even Leutchford

I am in the process of registering a one-name study on Luetchford (and close alternatives) with the Guild of One Name Studies.  They were nonconformists from the Sevenoaks area of Kent with a predisposition for the christian names Thomas, William, and Mary.  My maternal grandmother was a Luetchford.

I have already made a start in cataloguing births, marriages, deaths, baptisms and burials - but still have quite a way to go in doing that, and then more in working out how it all fits together.

My intention with the one-name study is for it to be a resource for all with Luetchford connections; it's not much use if I keep it to myself!

I'm not sure where this journey will take me, but I will update this post from time to time as regards status of research, website (when available) etc.  I the meantime happy to have posts on here or PMs on the topic (or via GOONS, once registration is complete)

JULIAN

18
Nottinghamshire Lookup Requests / Re: Ruddington Parish registers - Woodward
« on: Friday 03 February 17 10:11 GMT (UK)  »
Peter

Excellent stuff: thanks for the gap filling.

Selina and Eliza Ann:

Selina's Marriage to Thomas Robert Pratt- St Stephen Sneinton. 
In 1871 Sarah Ann Pratt, lodger, and Eliza Pratt, daughter, were staying with brother James Woodward b 1836 and his wife Maria.
1891 census Eliza Pratt has married Henry Hutchinson and Sarah Ann is living with them at 19 Providence Street [Don't know what happened to Thomas Robert Pratt]. 
Eliza (as Eliza Ann Woodward; no father shown) and Henry Hutchinson married at Peas Hill Unitarian Church, 4 Jan 1885

Many hands make light work!

JULIAN

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 145