tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post3855915826014104737..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: RootsTech: Future Directions in SearchThe Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-66894360143111667202011-02-17T11:01:22.037-07:002011-02-17T11:01:22.037-07:00Repeat after AI: "Sources, information, and e...Repeat after AI: "Sources, information, and evidence are distinctly different than conclusions, ancestors, and trees."<br /><br />This should be emblazoned on that nice iceberg graphic from California.<br />Thanks for your continuing emphasis on this point despite enduring seeming obliviousness to it in many quarters.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-13346617622126173012011-02-17T10:35:26.950-07:002011-02-17T10:35:26.950-07:00Good notes. One thing you didn't mention that...Good notes. One thing you didn't mention that I got excited about was the mentions of expanding the geography of a search. We all know that someone recorded as living in county X will often have records (of them and their families) in surrounding counties, even across state lines. (or replace these terms with parish, shire, country, etc) With geocoding, such searching would be very practical, and tremendously useful. After suggesting the idea (not very effectively) for a decade, I'm still not seeing this searching available from the vendors. Ian went one step further, suggesting that geographic, economic, and cultural boundaries could be considered in such searching. I WANT it - for censuses, familysearch.org, even tree databases. Best part of a very good session!Mike St. Clairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01538853806934498791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-27364238926659516722011-02-17T10:05:34.364-07:002011-02-17T10:05:34.364-07:00Ian Tester of Find My Past said the input to a sea...Ian Tester of Find My Past said the input to a search is a little bit of information about an ancestor, and the output is an ancestor. (Wrong, Ian. The output of a genealogy search is not a person, but a record. You’re committing the mistake that I’ve so often criticized in this space. Genealogy is deceptively complex. Sources, information, and evidence are distinctly different than conclusions, ancestors, and trees. <br /><br />This is why I contacted you about the bulk merging on family search. Something needs to be done quickly.<br />SuzanneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-25718924758518309142011-02-17T08:53:52.133-07:002011-02-17T08:53:52.133-07:00Thanks for your coverage of RootsTech. Your blog h...Thanks for your coverage of RootsTech. Your blog has been the most informative of any.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-82787177295055528742011-02-17T04:41:09.929-07:002011-02-17T04:41:09.929-07:00Hi Insider,
First of all thanks for coming by, an...Hi Insider,<br /><br />First of all thanks for coming by, and covering my talk, it was really great to be at Rootstech. Apologies for any oversimplifications in my talk, especially around search "outcomes" - we are very focussed on delivering evidence-based outcomes to users and this concept is at the heart of findmypast's DNA - as we originally came from a Forensic genealogy background, primary sources and the accuracy of them are entirely at the heart of what we do. I'd be delighted to talk further on any aspect of any of the issues i raised - it'd be a pleasure to talk face-to-face the next time our paths meet. Go Rootstech!Ian Testerhttp://www.findmypast.co.uknoreply@blogger.com