Re: Unknown Maiden Name [WAS how-to ruin a perfectly good FGS]
- From: "Laurie" <lanenelson1@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
It's easy to let people know what convention you're using. Several
years ago I started using this convention for unknown maiden names:
______ (Smith)
lanenelson1@xxxxxxx
<sigh> I guess all the messages about using a standard "convention"
to display unknown or missing maiden names in a database has fallen
on deaf ears (or maybe blind eyes?).
You are the one who's deaf and blind, not to mention extremely RUDE.
This works for me and the people I share data with; if it doesn't
work for you, too bad. I'm NOT going to have lots of women with
nothing but first names (and mostly the same first names) to wade
through at the beginning of my database, just to please you.
No matter how carefully and thoroughly you explain to people in
notes, arrows, asterisks, etc. how YOU have listed the names...
people don't always read it, people don't always understand it even
if they read it--let's see--is that (Smith) after the underscore a
possible maiden name? A married name? Was that the first or
second husband's surname?
Also, not all software programs are going to IMPORT your notes and
arrows and symbols and diagrams the way YOU intended them to show,
or display your information in the fields you intended for them.
I really don't care how other programs import my notes, etc. I don't
plan to change programs, and others don't need to import my data.
They can retype it if it's a problem for them.
And next thing you know you find YOUR data on the Internet
(submitted by the person you shared it with) and they have displayed
the names in a manner you didn't intend and the meaning has become
something other than what you intended. How do you think so many
Lnu, Mnu, Unk and other "surnames" ended up in online databases?
The answer--because they were shared by someone who KNEW what they
meant when they used them--with someone who did NOT.
If my data is on the Internet and people don't understand it, that's
their problem. Remember, people aren't supposed to be copying data
blindly without researching it for themselves. I do copy other
people's data for the auxiliary families that I haven't had time to
research yet, but their data is nothing but a CLUE for me. That's
what my data is supposed to be for them. Maybe you're the one who
has missed the point.
I've just been trying to explain to my brother, who suddenly took an
interest in genealogy and claims that in 4 months he traced one line
back to the 1500's in Scotland, that copying a lot of people's data
from the Internet isn't "research," that other people's data is
nothing but a CLUE for further research and is probably full of
errors. Maybe you need to learn that lesson yourself.
I'm disgusted with watching you berate everybody who doesn't agree
with you. Maybe it's time for you to take a rest.
Laurie
"Laurie" <lanenelson1@xxxxxxx>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Unknown Maiden Name [WAS how-to ruin a perfectly good FGS]
- Next by Date: Re: Unknown Maiden Name [WAS how-to ruin a perfectly good FGS]
- Previous by thread: Re: Unknown Maiden Name [WAS how-to ruin a perfectly good FGS]
- Next by thread: Re: Unknown Maiden Name [WAS how-to ruin a perfectly good FGS]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
