On Certainty in Genealogy

On the other hand, as I experienced: even some nearly unbelievable stories in the family which came down from generation to generation can turn out to be true! So do not push them aside but search for them.

Here are a few miscellaneous points.

Sourcing: It is too bad that it isn’t possible to attach documents easily as in Ancestry.com. The “about’ section is useful as a place to keep notes and put in direct links. Now that the Badatelna records site makes it possible to go directly to a vital records page with a hyperlink, it is easier to source and it is less necessary to copy a section of the vital record and upload it as a photo.

Networking on Geni: Participation on Geni has been invaluable in allowing connections with users located all around the world, so that we can extend our trees much further out. I can’t imagine being able to do this without the possibility of collaboration and social networking. Besides, it is a lot more fun than solitary searching.

New ways of looking at genealogical pursuits: The concept of reconstructing the Jewish population of Bohemian and Moravian towns as parts of Geni projects is tremendously exciting. To move beyond one’s immediately family tree and to see the connections between families in the small villages and throughout Bohemia-Moravia, brings insight not possible with a purely private exploration and makes the pursuit of information dynamic.

Genealogical intuition: After looking at enough records, hearing recollections, and learning how to interpret errors and inconsistencies, one gets better at coming to some tentative sense of the “truth,” which is of course subject to modification with the availability of new data. It is an exciting time when new records are published, e.g., those on Badatelna, genteam,at, etc. With Jewish genealogy, it seems necessary to search for and factor in every tiny shred of document evidence and then build a picture from it. Interaction with other Geni users who are looking at the same data is a great help in reading and interpreting the evidence.

re: Sourcing: Have you added documents via the Source tab when Viewing the full profile? I find that rather flexible (e.g. upload new document, *** copy web document via URL ***, use a source which was previously uploaded or copied to another profile, ...).

That (Source Tab -> Add Source) is also where one can 'cite' particular facts from the document which pertain to particular fields on the profile. (Use the 'Note' field to put in the value for the field being 'checked'; save, repeat for each additional field with a value referenced in the document.) By 'citing', one can then easily see on that Sources tab which documents agree (and which don't) on the values for a particular field.

Thank you. I haven't used the source tab and wasn't aware of its' flexibilty. Putting notes in the "about" section has the advantage that they are immediately visible when looking at a profile.

re: About

I think some 'key' references (esp. links) in the About are very helpful; the Sources tab is great for showing additional sources and especially where different sources may have different values for the profile.

The most 'interesting' Abouts, for me, are those which are structured as:

- Start with a short story of the person's life.
- provide a brief set of genealogical connections (in case the profile gets mis-connected).
- Identifies some key points of "contention" or "common misunderstandings" about the person by various sources & references.
- A few key reference links for more information.

Parts of that 3rd element can sometimes then get put into a Curator note at the top of the profile to provide a guide or cautions for future merges.

Of course, most About's don't start out that way! I often will put the first 'source' I find as a "reference link" in the About, unless it is already something I've added as a Source on another profile -- in that case, it is quick to just find and 'cite' that previously-used Source.

Hi Ann

To add to your point - and to Dan's.

I try to do both; cite references in MLA format in the "overview," and add document as citable facts on the sources tab.

One advantage of doc / image uploads is they can be "also" tagged to multiple profiles, projects, and custom events.

So for example, with a census report as the data source:

1. I create a custom event on the "timeline" tab
2. I add the document to the event
3. I add the household members to the event
4. I tag the household members with the census report, and "tick off" the "facts" the document supports
5. I use the "description" section on the "timeline" tab for a text transcription of the document (census reports can be hard to read)
6. I cite, in brief, under a "sources" section, using an aliased URL if the source also exists on the internet
7. The document then "also" becomes a kind of tree, and the document cited facts are also a readable series of events

It's like building a house; the frame is behind the scene.

Example profile in progress:

Dr. Philip F. O'Hanlon

I put links in both the About Me and in Sources. It's faster to jump from a link in the About Me to a relevant document. I usually have a Sources section at the bottom of the About Me and sometimes also cite the source right after a quote.

I myself will follow links from the About Me for profiles, especially when things have been messed up by a merge and I want to refresh my memory.

I always use the Sources and Media tabs nowadays. It is way faster that doing it through Edit Profile. After I have added the link or the document, I hit full screen view and go in and add Facts to the profile and add all the other profiles/facts that are mentioned.

URLs [hope I am using terminology correctly] can -- and in my experience often do - get moved, or even deleted -- thus making what was a great link in your About Section now just pull up "Page Not Found", a completely different page, or etc. Putting it in as a Document [ie creating it there, from a link] means folks can actually see what it was, even if it is no longer there.

Does not mean you cannot put it in About -- But - A reason why, if you love it in About, also add as Document, just in case.

Very true, Lois. I had some great links a couple of years ago & when I revisit now - site gone! So I'm taking more trouble to upload docs of interest.

Some documents cannot be printed and scanned, but only linked to, for example Google Books. Although some of them can be cut and paste from.

I did investigate screenshots but have not figure out how to do them. Perhaps with my new computer it will be really simple.

Grab utility from Preview. And I think the latest Mac OS has something even simpler.

I think so too. I never got Grab to work.

All of the suggestions on how to source are helpful. Erica's example of Dr. Philip F. O'Hanlon shows how it can be done if there are a lot of sources (and a lot of time to attach them). Here is where a subscription to My Heritage can make it easier at least with census documents.

For some of the older Jewish profiles, we have very fragmentary documentary evidence. Those of us who are laboriously searching for Czech Jewish vital records on Badatelna have the choice of clipping (grabbing) the image to upload as a picture or posting a link to a url. It is true that urls disappear, so may be it is good to post both the picture and the url. However, the url makes it easier/faster to retrace steps and review information, since the image tends to get fuzzier when clipped and uploaded. For these kinds of profiles, it is helpful when even part of the tree in skeleton form is already on Geni since it provides a framework for later additions and sourcing.

Ann

And that brings it back to Randy's point, doesn't it. You need a structure in place before you can source properly.

What I've found is the source irons out those devilish details - "ah ha! It's a brother, not a son!!"

But if you never had the family group you can't make the corrections the fine tuning provides.

Yes. It is important to get some of the ego out of this activity and be grateful that someone has started the process by erecting the structure, even if some of the details are wrong. There are some barriers on Geni to fixing things, especially if the initiator of a deceased profile doesn't make the profile public, but persistence usually pays off eventually now that the Curators are out there to help.

I have not investigated or fully developed the issue, HOWEVER I most certainly find MANY faults in the curator actions and approaches on geni, in my opinion we have a bunch of loose cannons.
Geni curators are not facilitators and in my interactions have not helped me or my tree toneither resolve or preserve differing views on the Geni platform.
In actuality, the "volunteer Curators", have made unilateral changes and deletions that effected years of work and research. I do not understand how "strangers" to a family/families tree/s have the chutzpa to insinuate themselves and always respond that they are doing me a favor??!!

Meyer there are 125 volunteer curators working on Geni. Surely you did not intend to offend 125 plus volunteers by this comment? Since you didn't intend that, I will stand UN offended. For now.

Erica, see the first sentence of Ann Fuller's comment. I have commented elsewhere (Tracing the Tribe - Jewish Genealogy on Facebook) on some of the issues raised in this discussion, so I didn't want to weight in here. But I think a readiness to consider criticism (even if brusquely stated) might be in order.

I think Geni is a very good tool. I have got a lot of new insigths and new info thanks to all friends on Geni. I look at Geni as one tool of many other tools in my genealogical toolbox. The Birg Tree is just a big family tree under constant change. But it is not my own family tree. That I have on my laptop and that is my master family tree with all sources and info that I not always have had time to put on Geni. However if you want know more about "my profiles" just contact me and you will get whatever info I have. Many of you already do that. That is what is unique with Geni.

And there will always be things that are not correct in the big tree. Sometimes I change things that I know are incorrect, but sometimes I have not time to do it and then later when I return to the same part of the big tree someone else have done the job. So that is one other fine thing with Geni.

Erica Howton, you wrote that you are not offended by the accusations of Meyer tzvi Apfeldorf.
But consider, there are some 10-15 jewish curators, and he mentioned that the curator(s) who did him wrong had the chutzpa to do it, so he probably refers to one of those 10-15 curators. So this brings the accusations much closer. Not one out of 125 but one out of 10 or 15.
So Meyer tzvi, please speak more precisely. Who did you wrong.
Group accusations and group punishment are not the proper way.

While I document all of the sources in my own database, when I first came to Geni I found the "Sources" process so daunting that I simply ignored it. Instead, what I do is document all image sources in the "Images" notes and other sources occasionally in the "About" field. Profiles I have added to Geni far outnumber the entries in my database, so I do not have source records for countless profiles. Erica's wonderful example of use of the "Sources" process has inspired me to begin to correct this lapse. I may require some hand-holding.

"About" or "Overview" is sufficient for typing in basic source information. "Sources" itself is a nice tool, and fits some situations, but is indeed time-consuming to use. However, that does not justify exclusion of source info, since one can just put citations and links quickly on the "Overview" front page. To do so is to get at the heart of "collaborative." By contrast, comments made earlier that ""adding documentation ***merely"** helps others check available sources to see if they come to the same conclusions" and "If you know what you are doing, you can usually find the sources within seconds" represent the essence of the problem. There's nothing "merely" about others being able to pursue lines of investigation and to do so readily, without having to start from scratch to replicate another person's search-work (especially when the initial entry doesn't even provide a location/town). The approach quoted represents an assumption of perfection in initial results (never a typo possible, even ...); it implies that there's little worth in someone else's looking at original materials, and that -- if anyone insists on doing so -- it's OK for that person to have to spend up their time chasing down that same original material. The fact is, though, ***every*** researcher's time is valuable -- not just that of certain, particular, people who work on genealogy. And not everything initially thrown into/onto Geni is actually accurate. Sources matter, and so does making them available to others: it's not about just "leaving clues." BTW: Erica and those like her are absolutely TerRiFfIC, and do what can be tedious, often frustrating, work with the best will in the world. Happy holidays to them all !

Private User I agree with you wholeheartedly. I find it very frustrating when someone has added a profile but has not bothered to add dates, locations and sources, or doesn't make a profile for some who died 200 years ago public and provides no documentation. I understand that sometimes there is no additional information or documentation and the best we have is memories or a handwritten tree or something, but there are far too many profiles that are lacking basics that are readily available because we are seeking quantity over quality. The problem is that, particularly for more common names it is very hard to figure out if you have the right person if there is no detail and no back-up. Additionally, some of us are more or less experienced and even if experienced may not have experience in specifical regions and be familiar with all of the sources for a given area.

As I noted in my previous comment I have a backlog of 300-500 documents to add but as tedious as it can be if I got an entry from a document I try to add the document and tag profiles and facts (no, usually not the rabbi and mohe and witnessesl, only the main parties), particularly for distant relatives so people know why I added them (although too be fair, it doesn't seem like I get whole lot of people looking at my entries). I have also added profiles where I have not filled in all of the dates fully or need to correct maiden name and birthnames etc. But I try to go back systematically when I have time to fix these things. I think it is important to find a good balance between adding lots of names and exhaustive documentation. More names is good but there has to be at least enough for the next person coming along to figure something out unless there really is no more information.

That said, I have not experience the problems that my second cousin four times removed's husband's second great niece's husband's first cousin Meyer has. I have found all of the Curators that I have worked with, except for one, extremely helpful. My frustration is with abandoned trees with non-public entries on them or with people who do not respond to merge requests or requests for more information or who are dismissive of these requests. Geni is not the right platform for those who are not interested in collaborating.

Seth you are right that the point is for "people [to] know why" a given Profile was added. Regarding whether lots of people are looking at one's entries -- they're there to be discovered, that's the point. Some years ago I found info on a relative on GENI about whom I could not have learned things any other way; she was there thanks to early work of Randy Schoenberg's, and probably no one else in the world would have had a clue who she was. But I really needed that info.... In the end, as you say, there has to be "a good balance between adding lots of names and exhaustive documentation" -- all that's needed is enough info to support an entry, *and* helpfully to point others to what led to that entry in the first place (especially if it comes from long-ago, hard-to-find, hard-to-read records).

Debra, yes indeed, I am grateful for the help of several curators in connecting to lost family. I have found quite a few living cousins whose branches family lore said were extinguished in the Shoah or otherwise. I am also grateful to those that have taken the time to respond, often in great detail, to my messages. Even if they don't know the answer it is always nice to get a reasoned helpful response has opposed to a terse "I don't know." .

I have to agree with Meyer, I think that perhaps some curators on Geni are a bit too zealous in what they do, and in the process can actually "mess up" someone's tree that has been developed over many years. As long as there is mutual agreement between the creator of the tree and the curator in making any changes to a personal tree, then I do not see a problem. I also agree with Thomas Furth, that there might be some information that is not necessarily entered in a personal Geni tree and keep private - perhaps because it is felt that further information is needed to complete the profle to their satisfaction, or maybe a relative has asked that it not be included. Geni is another tool in a researcher's tool box, and there are valuable connections to be made - but any changes should not be forced upon those who post their trees here. I have made some valuable contacts on Geni, and probably will continue to do so. The curators should be here to assist and guide those who post their information here. We are all different and are entitled to develop our trees as we see fit, and be able to seek advice from the curators or others on here who may have information that we are looking for without feeling coerced to make changes that we are not comfortable with.

I wonder if you could define personal tree? Once you get only a couple of generations out, the tree starts to be shared, in my experience. Certainly, out 5 or 6 generations, there are usually other descendants, often many other descendants.

Rafi and Erica -- it was my understanding that it was a no-no to make Public Accusations by name against specific curators in these Public Discussions. Am I mistaken in this?

If I am correct, then please go easy on folks who make the more generic complaint without naming names. They are undoubtedly expressing the situation as they experience it, and possibly deserve a bit more sympathy.

Lois, it is curators who deserve the sympathy. We are passionate genealogists who donate our time and efforts. Like anyone human (and all machines) errors can be made; they are usually easily sorted by direct contact via Geni mail.