SIT: Suggestion Box

[Rian]

[quote author=NigelG
Whilst allowing free format comments is an excellent idea would something more structured be preferable to ensure that everyone records their data in the same way?
Something like "enter name - enter location - enter dates applicable" - would standardise the format of all comments?

I agree with NigelG — give people more structured boxes to fill in and they will probably do it, whereas just "comments" is a bit too broad and folk aren't sure what to put. I don't think anything needs to be mandatory, as, if they leave all their options open for matches, then they will have more matches to sort through — self regulating!

ALSO

I did notice the coincidence (and lovely photo!) but unfortunately my Hopkins don't come from the same area— mine are Warwickshire, Staffordshire and Liverpool. However if Ryan can find a few ancestors from there........!

BTW— this is a fantastic site: many thanks to the organisers and everyone who participates!
Rian.

[Ruth]

This is a brilliant step forward which will make Rootschat even more helpful than it already is!  And it couldn't be easier to add surnames - so thanks for that.

But I totally agree with those who think more structure is required.  Any of us who use Genes Reunited realise that they missed a trick by not insisting dates and places accompany names right from the beginning - and by leaving the place field as free form there are usually no county names to help filter your matches.  Now they've got literally millions of entries and can't go back to the beginning and make it work better.

We've got a real chance here to make this work much more effectively.  Don't worry about making stuff mandatory - those who've already input stuff can do it again - after all we're the real enthusiasts!  But without it I'm not going to be looking for my Yorkshire SMITHs or Cambridgeshire NEWMANs on here in a few months - I might drown...

Keep up the good work though.  Marvellous stuff.

Ruth

[mnmilt]

Structure may be helpful in some circumstances, but hopefully it won't be too onerous that it scares people away.  For some of the names that I have entered I have listed place names since I am only researching that family in a certain area.  For other names I haven't entered a place name since my interests cover numerous counties.  As mentioned, if place names are important then people will enter them and it will be self regulating (search for Thomas and you will see that most (if not all) people have entered place names since it is a very common name).  The date utility could also potentially be counterproductive.  If I entered a date range of 1850-1900 and somebody else was interested in the same name but for 1770-1820 they may choose not to contact me since the date ranges don't match, although there could well be a link.  Personally I would always enter the widest date range possible since I don't want to accidentally miss possible links.
I appreciate the difficulties that Genes Reunited are having but their database is different in nature in the sense that it involves individuals and not surnames.  They certainly do have a large number of entries but I wonder how many they would have if they had insisted that dates and places be entered.  That could put a lot of people off.
My 2c worth is to keep it simple and make it easy for people to enter their data.  The worst thing that could be done is to make it too daunting and put people off from adding their interests.  Most people that are posting their interests (especially the early adopters) will be highly motivated to e-mail other with the same surname interest even if it turns out in the end to be a dead end.

Regards

Mark

[ozwendy]

Hi

I think this is a brilliant idea! I have just entered my names with the town/city and county in the comments area and have already come up with someone who has three of the same name interests in the same area. So we will probably find some connection there somewhere. I had, just yesterday, found someone who maybe a second cousin because they noticed my name interests at the bottom of my posts, butthe table is a much more direct and easier way to go about finding connections. The only thing I can suggest is to tell people, explicitly, to put the towns and counties in the comments area after their individual name interests as, especially with common names, as this makes the match up easier.

Good work!
Wendy

[Lloydy]

I agree with all the comments made by all you Rootschatters, but I do think it is very important to put a place name/area especially where the surname is a very common one.

I have hundreds of Welsh JONES in my tree, with repeating christian names which can make searching a real headache.  Just putting in JONES from WALES is like looking for a tiny needle in a huge haystack!!!! LOL

Apart from that, the SIT is a wonderful idea and Bob should be very proud of himself


Jan

[Ruth]

I would argue that the primary objective of SIT is to get information out, rather than in.  Obviously data input is vital - but it's not an end in itself.  As early testers, we should be scrutinising the output to ensure it's going to meet researchers' needs for a few years to come.

There'll probably never be a problem with the rarer surnames, but if you take a look at the search results for SMITH it can already be seen that the user will need a further option to filter or search within these results.  It won't be long before that list of Rootschatters will be ten times as long and changing the layout will only do a bit to make it more readable.

We could of course depend upon the programmers to continue to be brilliant (which they are!) and develop a sophisticated mechanism to parse search strings and return meaningful results.  Or we could let them off the hook and make sure that the data going in is of reasonable quality.

My suggestion would be for five fields -
Surname
County of Interest (a standardised dropdown list - headed by ALL)
Town or Village (freeform text - could be left blank)
Earliest Year of Interest (could be left blank)
Latest Year of Interest (could be left blank)

The main constraint with this system is that people who are interested in a surname in multiple counties would have to enter it multiple times.  But this is already standard practice with many FHS surname lists and should not be too onerous.

By standardising counties in particular, this surname list would benefit from potential tie-ins to the county-based structure of the rest of Rootchat. 

I hope this is a helpful addition to the debate.

Ruth

[DebbieDee]

I've now entered all my names and it looks like I may have a couple of possible matches... 

However, this is mainly because of entering counties which I have also found problematic. 

I agree with areas being necessary for more common names but I really don't like the idea of having to enter each name with a single county or 'all'. 

For example:

One of my names is Randell or Rendall or Rendell or Randle or Rendle or even Rundle.  My branch were only in Somerset from abt 1875 but there was a sighting in Devon in 1870 and mention of Devon as a place of birth in one census (the others saying N/K).  So I have put Somerset and Devon as places in the SIT, but for all I know at this stage, they could originate in Dorset or Cornwall or elsewhere.  Can you imagine having to enter all those combinations in an attempt to find a match    I can't say 'All' because over the UK as a whole there are too many branches.  I could just wait to enter this name until I know more but that way I will probably miss out and not reach that stage anyway. 

Another issue is whether this site is exclusive to the UK?  I know I have 'cousins' in the US, Canada and Australia.  I am very interested in tracing these branches of my tree so if places are going to be compulsory are we going to need a country as well? 

As for searching the SIT - when the full version 'goes live' will it be included in the general 'Rootschat Search' ?

Just a few of my thoughts, I don't mean to sound negative.  I think it's excellent so far and I'm just off to PM my two new contacts...lucky them  

Debbie

[Boongie Pam]

However, this is mainly because of entering counties which I have also found problematic. 

I agree with areas being necessary for more common names but I really don't like the idea of having to enter each name with a single county or 'all'. 

Hi Debbie,

One way round this would be to put an area?  Maybe in your example put South West England or list counties in the three letter codes - SOM, DEV, DOR etc

I have a problem with Having three lines of Robinson - one in Anglesey, Wales one in Longtown, England and one connected to the latter but not the former in Lochmaben, Scotland.  I just plumped for the Cumberland one as "all" is too big.

Pam
 

[Linda_J]

Hi all

I added my name interests with no problem, but listing them made me wonder as one "Sussex and Hampshire 1800-1900"  looks kinda untidy. I noticed that listing all who share the same names, most have no area or dates.

Is there a suggestion for a better way ?

Linda