* Collecting Data From Online and Other Researchers

[Moirty]

There is a lot of information about how to use FH. I've transferred my data from TMG several years ago and have used FH exclusively since then.

Workflows for getting information into FH do not seem to be well documented anywhere so I thought I would summarize what I see as three basic techniques for populating FH.

1. Manually: Many online and printed documents (birth certificates, marriages, military records, census, etc.) as well as interviews require the data to be manually typed into the program. FH has a variety of tools for facilitating this process (including Ancestry Sources, for example) and media is saved with the program.

2. Ancestry.COM: Data from Ancestry.com can be downloaded through RootsMagic which enables the media to be transferred into FH. After the data is imported to FH, there is a painstaking process to identify and merge duplicates. Formatting variations also require quite a bit of checking. The process can be reversed for uploading my data back to Ancestry.com.

3. Other Online Sources (My Heritage, Find My Past, Jewish Gen, etc): Data must be downloaded via GEDCOM files into FH. If there is any media, it must be manually downloaded and transferred into FH. Like #2, after the data is imported to FH, there is a painstaking process to identify and merge duplicates as well as collecting and reattaching media.

Do I more-or-less have these processes summarized correctly? Am I missing workflows or techniques?

To date, most of my data was manually entered per #1 above. It has been a rather gratifying process, but my focus has been relatively (pun warning) narrow.

I am fortunate that that there are a number of online researchers that have uploaded extensive extensions to my family. I plan to embark on the process of incorporating their work into my FH database. My first GEDCOM import created a daunting amount of work to get everything linked and properly entered in FH. That was a relatively small file. Much bigger ones are ahead.

Thanks much for further thoughts.

-Moirty

[AdrianBruce]

I would seriously question whether it makes sense to download trees as GEDCOMs, load them into your FH database and then identify and merge duplicates. (Or do similar for data from Ancestry trees via RM).

If there are "a number of online researchers that have uploaded extensive extensions to my family" then I presume there is little alternative (RM stuff excepted?) other than to get a full GEDCOM and load that into your FH. But if your number of researchers have been working on your family, then there is every chance that you'll be loading the same individuals several times, with every chance that you'll be getting punch-drunk by the end of the process and missing duplicates or identifying dupes that aren't actually dupes. I'm sure I would...

Instinctively, I'd want to keep these downloads in a separate FH file and manually cross-check. Doing it that way keeps your own data safe in the broadest possible sense. The manual cross check also allows, I suggest, you to sense check the research by asking, "But where's the source for that?" Somehow I feel that if I've got some dodgy data in my own FH files, then the wall has been breached and I'd be looking for reasons to accept the data rather than reasons to reject it.

To take a concrete example - if I were to be doing similar for my Pickstocks of Cheshire, I'd be picking up a number of cousin lines that are new, I have no doubt. But I also know that I'd be picking up the umpteen trees that link my ancestral Cheshire Pickstocks of the 1660s to similarly dated and named ones in Staffordshire and Shropshire - a connection that I flatly refuse to believe. If I contine to disbelieve those links, then I have all the work of deleting the spurious Pickstocks - or the temptation will dangle itself in front of me for ever...

I have an investment in the ancestral Cheshire Pickstocks of the 1660s - I have less of an investment in the cousin lines - they're not that important to me. (Sorry to them!) And if there are any that are interesting, I can do that myself, fact at a time. There is one branch that is very interesting as it involves a marriage between one of (I think) my Pickstocks and a Chinese national, with one of their children ending up in New Jersey where another branch of my Pickstocks emigrated earlier on. But I'm happy to do that line manually if I ever find the time.

Best of luck, whatever strategy you choose to adopt.

[Moirty]

Thanks much for the response, Adrian.

"Punch-drunk" aptly describes my concern.

So, to summarize your methodology, ...
I surmise that you carefully review each online genealogy tree/datasource and manually (aka type) data into your FH file only after convincing yourself that the data is accurate (presumably by validating sources from the online/downloaded data source).

This is clearly a more rigorous, responsible and professional methodology.

In addition to any media references, do you also cite (in FH) the online researcher who provided the information to you?

-Moirty

[AdrianBruce]

... I surmise that you carefully review each online genealogy tree/datasource and manually (aka type) data into your FH file only after convincing yourself that the data is accurate (presumably by validating sources from the online/downloaded data source). ...

That's pretty much it, yes. Validating those sources mentioned and maybe others that I know about - I do remember saying, "Hang on, that name sounds familiar - haven't I seen..." (That's when Ancestry's Shoebox comes in handy - I can park stuff there that looks interesting.

... In addition to any media references, do you also cite (in FH) the online researcher who provided the information to you? ...

That very much depends. If it's a significant lead, then yes, as a thank you nod in their direction. If it's just stuff that I have been able to fully duplicate with historical records, I probably won't bother, not least because I might end up wondering if any of the results came from their tree rather than the historical records - even if they didn't. The one area where I am happy to believe other people's trees, is the bit from themselves back to their own grandparents. I'm not sure it applies to the general public but I'll tend to trust genealogists to know the names of their siblings, parents and grandparents. Then I'll cite those trees, absolutely.

[Gowermick]

Adrian,
There’s a saying it is a wise man who knows his own father

[ColeValleyGirl]

it is a wise man who knows his own father

Or somebody who has taken a DNA test and got their father to do the same.

Actually, they don't even have to get their father to do the same. I have identified my half-sibling's father even though he's been dead for 64 years and thus not available to take a DNA test, and my mother refused to name him.

[Ron Melby]

been there, done that. Grand mother, (mother's)

it is not at all a scarce situation in all the world's history.

Having worked in an industry where phones were a prominant slice, I know that (then) when a phonebook was published it was already 15% out of round (innacurate).

I would not think that a published genealogy is likely 30% out of round is any sort of stretch.

[jmurphy]

I have a source-centric workflow, starting with the image itself (what Ancestry calls "Citation Media"). Unless I am using Ancestral Sources, I generally create the multimedia object first, then the source, then use Auto-Source Citation to extract the data, along the lines of Colin Spencer's YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrBOcHAwc1o

I also have Ancestry Online trees, and if I download an Ancestry GEDCOM, I use either RootsMagic or an old copy of FTM to view the GEDCOM side-by-side with what's in Family Historian. The online trees are my Sandbox/Shoeboxes; only the most reliable data gets entered into FH.

One of my projects for 2023 is to get back to using Clooz, since the new beta supports tracking businesses, buildings, ships and artifacts as well as people. https://clooz.com/prerelease/ Clooz does have mechanisms to send information over to lineage-linked software. I have not used the Document Export function, but I may try it in future with some of the newspaper articles to see how that goes.
https://clooz.com/interfacing-clooz-doc ... mily-tree/

Back in the day when we could download data from FamilySearch in GEDCOM format, it made sense to import those tiny GEDCOM files and merge with FH, but doing a large merge with FH is a pain, so I avoid it as much as possible. These days FamilySearch only offers various flavors of spreadsheets or *.csv files, so you can't get mergeable GEDCOMs from searching the historical record collections.

I would never merge someone else's entire GEDCOM file into my own project. I would prefer to keep it and refer to it side-by-side.

Info I get from correspondence or phone interviews gets written up and turned into a source so it can be cited. Stuff I copied from a tree, where the author was not available to collaborate with me, is likely to be kept in my research journal in Scrivener until I can find something to verify it.

If I want to play around with verifying the information from an old unsourced genealogy on a large scale, I'll usually make a separate project for that rather than putting the data into my main project.

[tatewise]

Back in the day when we could download data from FamilySearch in GEDCOM format, it made sense to import those tiny GEDCOM files and merge with FH, but doing a large merge with FH is a pain, so I avoid it as much as possible. These days FamilySearch only offers various flavors of spreadsheets or *.csv files, so you can't get mergeable GEDCOMs from searching the historical record collections.

I don't know what data is provided in FamilySearch *.csv files, but have you tried using the Flexible CSV Importer plugin to convert them into a Project and thus a mergeable GEDCOM?

[jmurphy]

I don't know what data is provided in FamilySearch *.csv files, but have you tried using the Flexible CSV Importer plugin to convert them into a Project and thus a mergeable GEDCOM?

Thanks, Mike, I'll check out the plugin.

The new FamilySearch search interface allows the user to choose what information is exported, so we have a good bit of leeway about what gets brought in. Probably the best result will be when choosing a single source or record type for the export (a parish register from a single church, etc. for doing a one-place study) instead of trying to capture and import results from a global search for an individual.

[victor]

I don't download data from other sites but simply copy them onto FH. The same goes with images I copy them into my photo software and save them in a folder

Victor