Top Secret FamilySearch Project

You may have been able to tell from my last two articles (here and here) that I loved Ron Tanner’s presentation last Saturday. But I’ve saved the best for last. Keep in mind Tanner’s humorous presentation style, wrapping serious information in mock-seriousness. (While it plays extremely well live, it can be misinterpreted in written form.)

So when I tell you that Tanner laughed at us immediately after asking if any of us thought New FamilySearch improved genealogy, I don’t want you to write and complain to your son’s grand-father-in-law, the General Authority (high official) at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sponsor of FamilySearch. You’ll get both me and Tanner in trouble.

Conclusion Model

In mock-comedic seriousness, Tanner warned us that the proposal he was going to share with us was all theoretical. These were ideas being tossed around. He not only invited us to share are reactions with him, he passed out 3 x 5 cards, invited us to write down our feedback, and at the end of the presentation he conscientiously collected them.

To set the stage, Tanner asked us what might be the capabilities of an ideal family tree system. He suggested we would ask for (contrast these with NFS, if you will),

• The ability to easily correct information
• The ability to prove conclusions are accurate with source references and images
• Invite greater peer review and collaboration
• Allow for the evolution of a combined human family pedigree

Tanner then proposed ideas that sounded like genius to me. Sure, he was pretty much quoting ideas I published last year, but hey, I recognize genius when I see it.

Tanner announced that we would be the first sentient beings outside FamilySearch to hear the top-secret, internal project name for this proposal. He mockingly made us raise our hands and swore us all to secrecy. Then he revealed the internal code name:

Source Centric, Open Edit (SCOE) model

Hmmm… At least I think he was joking about that solemn oath of secrecy…

(Oops.)

SCOE proposes a new human pedigree that encompasses all the principles that Wikipedia uses to make it such a successful, massively collaborative project. SCOE will be freely editable by any registered user. That’s the “open edit” portion of the SCOE moniker.

And it will establish a community where sources, polite discussion, and dispute resolution procedures lead conclusions to converge towards best possible values as judged by genealogical community standards, backed by proper evidence. That’s the “source centric” part of SCOE.

Wikipedia

I know some of you are anti-Wikipedia ideologues. Tanner had at least one attending his presentation. While academia has been loathe to give any nod to a publication that favors “consensus over credentials” (see “Wikipedia”), Tanner shared a 2006 review of Wikipedia by Library Journal. The review concluded that,

While there are still reasons to proceed with caution when using a resource that takes pride in limited professional management, many encouraging signs suggest that (at least for now) Wikipedia may be granted the librarian’s seal of approval.

In its short lifetime, Wikipedia has racked up some awfully amazing stats:

• Launched just 8 years ago, on 10 January 2001
• 13 million articles among 262 languages
• Through Jan 2007 the number of articles doubled every year
• Thereafter, about 1600 articles were added every day
• The current size is the equivalent of 784 book volumes

As to the accuracy of Wikipedia, Tanner said,

I did an experiment to see how quickly incorrect information was detected and corrected on Wikipedia. I vandalized… er… I mean, some unnamed individual went out and introduced wrong information on the solar system page. The page was restored to the prior version within 27 seconds.

(I hate to tell you this, Ron, but as you yourself mentioned in your presentation, another precept of Wikipedia is that changes are all logged so that undesirable members of the community can be held accountable. The Wikipedia solar system history page shows every change that has ever been made to the article.)

As a second test, the dragon page was modified. The thinking was that the solar system article might be too mainstream, but a less popular page might be watched less carefully. Not only was the dragon page restored in 26 seconds, but a helpful message was included, discouraging addition of information that cannot be substantiated.

User Testing

FamilySearch tested a basic prototype of an openly-editable tree system with a group of people from a broad range of genealogy and Internet experience. FamilySearch discovered that users can become comfortable with such a system if

• sources are used as evidence,
• they can see who changed the data and why they changed it,
• they are able to contact those making changes,
• they can optionally be notified when changes occur,
• they can hook reliable and verified sources to their data, and
• sources are protected and can be modified only by the contributor.

“We’re thinking about having theories, with reasoning, and one theory can be set as a conclusion,” said Tanner. “We’re looking at making the system more consistent with genealogical best practices.”

Tanner said that a Source Centric Open Edit system must:

1. Provide a genealogy-structured interface rather than the free-style format of a traditional wiki system

2. Prevent non-registered users from modifying data

Registered users have to provide contact information. We’ll verify e-mail addresses by sending them a message as part of the registration process.

3. Allow restoration of previous values after data is changed

Each person page would have an associated history page that logged and captured every change, as with the history page for the Wikipedia solar system page. Like Wikipedia, it must be simple for a user to restore a previous version of the page.

4. Separate evidences (sources) from conclusions

I applaud FamilySearch product managers for including this extremely important concept. The necessity seems to elude product managers during their first years of operation in the genealogy industry. Picking on FamilySearch for the moment, witness the treatment of sources during the past 40 years:

• After 1969, temple submissions were no longer rejected without sources
• Contributor information was not keyed into electronic systems from submissions
• Ancestral File was stripped of sources prior to incorporation into the database
• TempleReady submissions did not require sources and if any were present in the PAF file, the sources were excluded from the submission file
• Sources in Pedigree Resource File submissions are removed before the data is presented online
• New FamilySearch (NFS) excludes source information from ordinance data, even when the IGI lists sources that may contain additional data
• Much of the data in NFS shares a general, common source: “Temple Records, March 2007”
• Source handling in NFS is widely regarded as inadequate if not counter-productive

5. Notification and collaboration features

As we’ve seen from Wikipedia, these features are critical to facilitate friendly discussion and avoid inadvertent errors or vicious vandalism (not viscous, as my spell checker suggested).

6. Protection of classified or sensitive genealogical information

Administrators need to be able to lock a page from view or edit. This is needed as part of dispute mediation. It’s needed for groups such as the Japanese burakumin, for specific individuals, medieval families, and famous or infamous persons.

7. Mediation of conflicts between contributors.

The system needs moderation or dispute resolution. This would be modeled after Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Tanner reminded us that these are just ideas being thrown around. He asked us to give him our suggestions, as they’re still thinking this all through. He had us think back to the beginning of the presentation, when an open edit system sounded insane. He said, that while we might not be totally convinced, he wanted us to sit on it.

“Now aren’t you thinking that maybe this could work?” he asked. “This is still just research. We may not do any of this.”

Q and A

Tanner had a couple of minutes to answer questions, and attendees didn’t hold back. (These are not quotes.)

Q. Won’t vandalism be a big problem?
A. Sure, It’s a problem in all open systems. We’ll need community administrators. Wikipedia has 2,000 volunteer administrators.

Q. What do the General Authorities think about this proposal?
A. I’ve talked this over with Elder Maynes and Elder Sybrowsky. Their biggest concern is over inappropriate images.

Q. How long will temple reservations last?
A. Forever. Forever. Seriously, we realize this needs to be looked at.

Q. When will SCOE happen?
A. I have preliminary approval to proceed with this project. If I were King, I would have the beginnings of this start in February or May. Maybe the first step will be the addition of discussion pages. The full treatment is a year or two away. I’m trying to get the features added incrementally.

For more information, see Ron’s PowerPoint presentation from the March 2008 BYU Family History and Genealogy Technology Workshop.

NFS August 2009 Release

The beta test for the August release of New FamilySearch (NFS) started last Friday and Ron Tanner, product manager, gave attendees to his presentation at the UVPAFUG meeting Saturday an advance pique at some of the new features.

Notice: Virtually all of this article is germane only to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Friends who are not members might want to skip this article.

New Temple Ordinances Tab

The old Temple Ordinances tab looks like this:

The new Temple Ordinances tab has been taken from FamilySearch Family Tree, where it has garnered great user response. It will look like this:

This new temple ordinance tab has several advantages:

• Accumulating names prior to printing Family Ordinance Requests (FORs)
• Reprinting FOR
• Reassigning ordinances from the temple back to yourself (if temple hasn’t yet printed card)
• Removing (cancelling) reserved ordinances
• Sorting and resizing columns
• Reserving all ordinances for an individual, including sealings

Other Changes

Family group records do not automatically show all sources. Instead, you can click a link to the sources and display or print them separately.

The new Temple Ordinances tab requires Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.115 or newer. If you are unable to use the FamilySearch Family Tree Project, you will also not be able to use the new Temple Ordinances tab.

See my previous article, “NFS Rollout News: Ron Tanner Presentation,” for information from the presentation about the NFS rollout. Tanner went on to talk extensively about possible future features. I’ll talk more about those in an upcoming article. Stay tuned…

NFS Rollout News: Ron Tanner Presentation

Ron Tanner is the current New FamilySearch (NFS) and Family Tree product manager at FamilySearch, replacing Jim Greene (NFS) and Tim Cross (Family Tree). Tanner presented last Saturday at the Utah Valley PAF User Group. (UVPAFUG Motto: “While we’re no longer PAF-specific, we’re still using up old letterhead.”)

To properly interpret Tanner’s NFS news, you have to understand his manic, even zany, presentation style. Tanner had attendees smiling ear-to-ear when not breaking into laughter. He joked that while working at Bell Labs (he has a masters degree in computer science), his extravert score on a personality test set a new record.

Now that he’s moved from engineering into product management his job is to guide the progress and future direction of the products assigned to him. He does this by researching user needs, observing how his products are used, even gathering user suggestions. “I listen to all your suggestions, throw away most, then implement a few. [I’m] like a politician,” he joked.

August Release

Tanner verified what NFS watchers have long observed: The development team plans to do a release every three months with improvements and bug fixes. The beta test for the August release started last Friday. See my upcoming article, “NFS August 2009 Release,” for information.

Tanner disclosed that one change in this release isn’t directly visible to end users. The code that manages data internally, called a database, has been mostly re-written to handle IOUS (Individuals of Unusual Size) better. While this change should result in better performance, there will not be an increase in the number of duplicate individuals that can be combined, which was recently increased from 85 to 150. (See, “Mid-May releases of NFS and Family Tree.”) While warning us that the limit will never be completely removed, Tanner suggested the limit may increase with the November release.

Family Tree

I also learned that the planned role of the FamilySearch Family Tree Project has changed. In fact, it has reverted back to the original purpose for FamilySearch Labs. Family Tree is part of the FamilySearch Labs website, where new ideas, features, and products are developed in a public setting, letting users kick the tires and give feedback. I first reported back in June 2008 that FamilySearch Lab’s Family Tree would eventually replace NFS when FamilySearch (the organization) combined all the pieces onto FamilySearch.org (the website). This was still the case in March 2009, when Tim Cross reported a long list of features necessary before Family Tree could replace the current NFS.

Tanner, however, admitted that it would take too long to make Family Tree complete. Instead, individual features from Family Tree will be moved into NFS. The first feature is the August release’s new Temple Ordinances tab. The Family Tree project will likely sit unchanged for awhile as personnel are used to move desired features into NFS.

Rollout Roadmap

Tanner reported that all non-Asian temples are now using the new Ordinance Recording System (ORS) associated with NFS. In the tables of my article, “Temple Districts Using New FamilySearch,” this statement corresponds with the column labeled, “Process FORs.” This is different from the complete switchover, which corresponds to the column labeled “Temple on NFS.” Users have been warned that the complete switchover is coming by the end of July.

“Remember, I’m a product manager,” quipped Tanner. “I make lots of promises that I don’t keep. All remaining Wasatch Front temples will be done this year. Asia temples are planned for the first half of next year.”

An audience member quizzed Tanner about access for users who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And in his blunt, non-serious manner Tanner shot back, “Don’t you think the system today would make non-members retch?” We all laughed, but realized the degree of truth in his joke. Tanner stated that FamilySearch’s Executive Director was asking intently when non-member access could happen. Tanner told us, “maybe early next year.”

To control the velocity of the non-member rollout, Tanner thought they might use a system like Google Mail’s initial rollout plan. When Google Mail was first released, to use it one had to receive an invitation. Each user could invite one friend to use Google Mail.

Tanner also mentioned plans to combine NFS into the old FamilySearch.org but gave no timeline or details.

Tanner went on to talk extensively about adding support for a “conclusion model.” I will cover that portion of his presentation in an upcoming article. Stay tuned…

Come See Me At The BYU Conference

At the Disneyland Resort, one attraction invites park visitors to discover what Disney cartoon character best matches their personality (I’m Jiminy Cricket). One question used in the evaluation is,

Would you rather have lunch with nice people or have nice people for lunch?

Well, it seems I’m on the lunch menu Wednesday (29 July 2009) of the BYU 2009 Conference on Family History and Genealogy. The schedule for the four day conference only shows a lunch speaker on one day. And it’s me! How weird is that? I don’t feel like I’m any different than any of you kind folks that say such nice things to me when we get to talk with each other at conferences.

They’re not calling it a keynote, mind you. That would be weird. There is a classroom map on the BYU Conference Center website. I’ll be presenting in room 2258, according to the Quick Glance Schedule. I wonder how this will work. Will it be a lunch area where people bring sack lunches? Will there be food items for purchase? Will people be wandering in and out, like a mall eatery? This could be scary!

I hope to see some friendly faces there in support!

It’s Not Stonehenge Nor The Generations Network

You’ll recall last week I posted this picture and asked where you thought it might be:

You may even recall the hint:

This magnificent circle of stones is located next to a highway.

Looking for a genealogical-world tie-in?

The highway leads to a genealogical company rumored to be changing its name…

…again.

The actual location of this stone edifice is the Stonehenge Retirement Center of Orem (motto: we provide health care from the Bronze Age), located on Orem Center Street, the highway that connects Interstate 15 with The Generations Network headquarters in Provo, Utah.

As Predicted

As predicted, yesterday the company formerly known as The Generations Network (TGN), formerly MyFamily.com, Inc, formerly Ancestry.com, formerly Ancestry Publishing, announced that it was changing its name to , the unpronounceable symbol recently abdicated by the artist previously and subsequently known as Prince.

Just kidding! The Generations Network changed their name to Ancestry.com. No, really! This time I kid you not. See their new corporate website, www.tgn.com, for the complete text of the announcement.

It’s ironic, don’t you think, that the new Ancestry.com corporate website and the announcement that they are no longer TGN is found on www.tgn.com. At the time of this writing, www.thegenerationsnetwork.com still points to the old TGN corporate website.

The problem of an appropriate corporate website address existed for MyFamily.com, Inc. They eventually found a home at www.myfamilyinc.com. It seems unlikely that the Ancestry.com corporate website will stay at www.tgn.com, but it remains to be seen where it will land.

The other problem that MyFamily.com, Inc. faced was the ambiguity of the name “MyFamily.com.” Nothing deflates an important business discussion like trying to explain whether you’re talking about the company or the website. “No, Ancestry.com is not part of MyFamily.com, it is part of MyFamily.com, Inc. No, the Ancestry.com website is not going away or being replaced by MyFamily.com. Yes, Ancestry.com provides the family tree feature of MyFamily.com, but if you want all of MyFamily.com, Inc.’s tree functionality, use Ancestry.com.”

I can only assume that this name change means one of two things:

1. Ancestry.com (the company) executives lack corporate memory about the problems caused by naming the company after one of several web properties.
2. MyFamily.com (the website) is dead, dying, or otherwise going away.

I have a lot of respect for current Ancestry.com (the company) management, so I’m betting on the latter. Look for Ancestry.com (the company) to close its MyFamily.com (the website) development office in Seattle as an indicator that this is the case.

Sorry, MyFamily.com (the website) fans. However, if Ancestry.com (the company) executives are looking for a good rest home for MyFamily.com (the website), I know of one in Orem…

They Were Under Her Bed All the Time

It's called coincidence, hunch, synchronicity, fortuitous luck, spiritual guidance, paranormal activity, karma, extra sensory perception, life-after-death, fate, divine intervention, genetic memory, manifestation of providence, intuition, statistical inevitability, inspiration, psychic channeling, revelation, subconscious reasoning, vision, sixth sense, collective subconscious, dream, past-life imprinting on present consciousness, educated guess, inner voice, out-of-body journey, chance, non-mechanical reality, portent, omen or "the sheer cussed ... wonder of things."¹

We call it Serendipity in Genealogy.

Serendipity in Genealogy

Listening to Alaura Ramsey's story, it sounds like Uncle Sammy might have been a favorite Uncle. But while she felt a special closeness to him, Samuel Wilson Black had married into the Boyce family and Ramsey grew up without learning much about his family. Like most of us, I imagine the genealogy bug didn't bite her until Uncle Sammy was gone and it was too late to ask him.

As she acquired each evidentiary artifact, she dutifully typed the information into her computer, marked the document with a check-mark in the corner, and filed it into her Boyce Family folder. Ramsey found Uncle Sammy as a boy in the U.S. census. That gave her his siblings' names and approximate birth years.

But then years went by and Ramsey could find little additional information about three of the siblings. She knew Uncle Sammy's parents and grandparents had moved to Idaho when he was young. Living in Boise, Ramsey availed herself of the state's historical archives. Many a time she concentrated hours of her research on just these three siblings, only to come up empty. The sisters were especially difficult because she was unable to identify their married names.

Recently, Ramsey decided to perform an exhaustive search for Sammy's sister, Virginia. She spent hours. Again, she failed to find any additional information. Having pursued every avenue she knew how to do, in utter frustration she appealed for help from beyond this world. "Heavenly Father," she prayed, "please help me find them, if it is Thy will." She got her answer the very next day.

Ramsey was getting something from under her bed when she glanced over at some genealogy files and the thought came to her:

You really should go back through those records and check to see if you have the sources accurately recorded.

Ramsey was meticulous; she had no doubt that there was nothing in her files that needed to be recorded. Still, perhaps more for curiosity than for any other reason, she opened the box. She opened the Boyce Family file and examined the document on top. She discovered it was the obituary for Uncle Sammy's father!

And it didn't have a checkmark.

I imagine her heart skipped a beat as she skipped to the end of the obituary where survivors are enumerated.

And there it was.

Surviving is a daughter Virginia Schmutte, living in Nebraska.

And it didn't stop there. The other two siblings of interest had also survived their father. They were listed, married name and residence.

Alaura Ramsey sought Uncle Sammy's family all over the state, only to find they had been under her bed all the time.

---

1. Henry Z Jones, Jr., Psychic Roots : Serendipity and Intuition in Genealogy (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1993), p. 81.

2. Alaura Ramsey, Family History Moment: A Distinct Thought, 14 February 2009, LDS Church News, p. 16; online edition available (www.ldschurchnews.com : accessed 20 April 2009).

3. 1920 U.S. census, Gooding County, Idaho, population schedule, Bliss Precinct, Enumeration District 2-170, sheet 1-B, p. 604, dwelling 14, family 14, Sherman E. Black household; digital image, Ancestry.com (www.ancestry.com : accessed 22 April 2009), citing National Archives microfilm publication T625, roll 292.

4. Michael Boffey, photographer, "Under The Bed," digital photograph, flickr (www.flickr.com : uploaded 24 January 2009, accessed 21 April 2009); some rights reserved.

Ancestry Insider Named to Top 101

When I met Family Tree Magazine’s Diane Haddad earlier this year I admitted that each article I published was done in fear that my writing skills were lacking. She was a darling; she reassured me and told me not to worry.

So it was an especial treat when I received a letter from Allison Stacy, Family Tree Magazine Publisher and Editorial Director, informing me that for the second year in a row the Ancestry Insider has been named one of Family Tree Magazine’s 101 Best Web Sites.

There’s a couple of letters

But there’s a couple of letters I can read lest my head gets feeling too big. The first:

Hi. I love your column and read it ravenously whenever it appears in my email!  I know you will keep me updated on Ancestry.com, as well as other matters. 

But......there IS one thing I wish you would do.  Not just you.  A lot of other people, too.....and that is:  PLEASE stop using grammatical structures such as "There's two new links....." as you did in this last AncestryInsider.  It should be "There ARE two new links...."  You need a plural verb (are) to agree with the plural subject (links).  The word "There" is merely a place holder, not the subject;  therefore, the verb should NOT be "is"  which you have used in your contraction "There's."

You are certainly not the only one I have seen forgetting the rules of subject-verb agreement.  Lately, I have seen quite a few folks slacking in their usage.  I consider you to be a "master" in many realms, and so I am bringing the usage problem to your attention simply because I know so many people read your column.  We tend to mimic those we admire.  I don't want anyone picking up any bad grammar habits from a "master" who simply slipped.

One of your greatest fans,

Brenda

Dear Brenda,

Thank you for your fragrant argumentation about my flagrant augmentation, the implications of which, constant and casual contractions that they are, precludes the presumption of formality frequently associated with grammatical masters worthy of mimic; and for the greatness of your rhetorically ravenous fan-chi.

Sincerely,
The Ancestry Insider (two words)

Mountain Climbing

Dear Ancestry Insider

In a response to 'Geolover' on 30 December 2008 on your blog, you said, in part, "... [b]ut you've peaked my interest. What do you know about Ancestry.com's post-New Years plans?"

The correct word to have used here is piqued, not peaked.  The former is a transitive verb that means 'to provoke or arouse'; it comes to us from Vulgar Latin through Old French and means, literally, 'to prick or irritate'; while the latter is an adjective that means 'ending in a peak'.  I believe you meant the former.

The reason that "[s]ome things just drive me nuts ..." is that it is my belief that, as bloggers, we have an obligation not to mislead.

But, then, it's probably a minor point ...

Best wishes,
Lawrence Bouett
Lafayette, California

Dear Lawrence,

Are FamilySearch employees allowed to speak Vulgar Latin?

Sincerely,
The Ancestry Insider

All things considered, I enjoyed Allison’s letter the best.

Serious Census Search Techniques

A somewhat arbitrary part of my editorial policy has been to avoid regurgitating the blog posts of others. Don’t get me wrong; I enjoy the service some bloggers provide of alerting readers to really good blog posts. Since that need is already being filled by others, I try to provide fresh news, insights, and commentary. But the policy is more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules…

I love to learn. That’s one reason I enjoy genealogy; there’s always something new to learn. That’s why genealogy conferences are so popular—and so important. Arlene Eakle recently reported the main points of Bernie Gracy’s keynote from the 2009 Colorado Family History Expo. This is some serious census sushi.

Check out “The TRUTH is Out There…”

Ancestry.com Releases “Expert Connect”

I must admit to being so busy keeping up with the news of FamilySearch’s New FamilySearch, that I’ve neglected taking time out to learn about a new service from Ancestry.com. However, Expert Connect is too important a development to let the announcement go by without mentioning it. I realize some of you subscribe mainly for Ancestry.com news while others mainly for FamilySearch news. I think it’s important that you also learn something about the other vendor.

In stark contrast to FamilySearch’s free genealogy and culture of volunteerism stands Ancestry.com, whom Family Tree Magazine places in a class all by itself. From all indications, Ancestry.com emerged from the dark days of the dot-com drop to become hugely successful. Early Ancestry.com investors were always caught between fearing that Google would discover how much money there was to be made and hoping that Google would discover what a desirable acquisition they could be. Ancestry.com’s huge material success has made them the company to hate and they have become the lightning rod for those that despise commercializing genealogical information.

But besides Ancestry.com there are many, many people and organizations that are making money from genealogy. Or at least trying to make money. Some are just trying to pay for their genealogical “habit”… er… “hobby.” I meant to say, “hobby.” Some have found a nice income stream doing heir research for law firms. But by and at large, professional genealogists are a hard-working group that sometimes requires supplemental income because genealogy can be a tough way to make a living.

And so, professional genealogists have had various reactions to news that Ancestry.com was adding a service designed to connect potential clients to professional genealogists—for a cut. It’s like eBay and auctions. On one hand, eBay has increased the amount of money being made in the auction market. On the other hand, prices of some items (such as semi-rare books) have been driven to record lows.

Think of dividing up a pie among professional genealogists. The size of the pie will get much larger. But the number of vendors dividing up the pie gets larger. It’s not clear whether the end result will be bigger or smaller pieces for each professional. For more reactions from professionals, see Randy Seaver’s, “Expert Connect Service from Ancestry.com.”

For consumers, the same issues faced on eBay are present here as well. Is the provider honest? Competent? Dependable?

Expert Connect is organized around five services (quoting the Ancestry.com website):

• Record Pickup: Save yourself a cross-country trip. Hire a researcher in another state to visit a specific archive, collect the record you need and mail it to you. Learn more at Ancestry.com.
• Local Photo: Get a picture of your grandmother's headstone without leaving your living room. Pay a researcher who lives near her old hometown to snap the photo for you. Learn more at Ancestry.com.
• Ask an Expert: Pose a research question to a panel of experts, but only pay for the most useful answer. Then proceed with your research on your own. Learn more at Ancestry.com.
• Record Lookup: Hire a professional to verify a hunch you have about an ancestor. Rely on an expert to identify the document you need and track it down for you. Learn more at Ancestry.com.
• Custom Research: Outsource an entire section of your family tree, or recruit a seasoned genealogist for a project that's beyond your experience or time availability. Learn more at Ancestry.com.

I checked to see how many people have already signed up to provide record lookups at the Family History Library and found 15. I imagine that number will be ten-times that amount in a year.

Competition

Expert Connect is not the only attempt to create a marketplace to bring professional genealogists and clients together, although none of the existing services have the megatraffic muscle to offer professionals that Ancestry.com can. Other competitors are

• www.genealogyfreelancers.com
• http://www.genealogypro.com/%C2%A0and
• http://expertgenealogy.com/

And finally, FamilySearch is exploring use of the FamilySearch Wiki as a means allowing professional genealogists to advertise their services for free. I doubt this is a competitive move in answer to Ancestry.com’s offering. Instead, I think it is the result of one of two causes.

1. There may have been inappropriate attempts to advertise services on the wiki. FamilySearch warns,

Don't add an entry to a page like Ohio Vital Records that says "Joe Genius is a professional genealogist who does fee-based vital records lookups in Ohio vital records. Click here to go to his user page and see his services and fee schedule."

The professional genealogists project on FamilySearch Wiki may be a response to such actions.

2. Alternately, FamilySearch may see professionals as potential wiki contributors with a vested interest. When someone contributes to the Wiki, there contribution is logged on the history page. The contribution is tagged with the contributor’s username and a link to the contributor’s user page. That’s right, each contributor is allocated their own page on the wiki which can be edited like any other page. FamilySearch invites professions to

• “Post your education, credentials, experience, and professional associations on your user page.
• “Attach sub-pages to your user page which include featured services, examples of client reports, and customer testimonials.”

When users find Wiki articles containing know-how that they’d like to tap into, they can see who contributed the information and can check to see if they offer professional services.

FamilySearch wins. FamilySearch Wiki users win. And the professional wins.

For additional information about Ancestry.com Expert Connect, see

• Expert Connect (Beta) – Learn from the horse’s mouth
• Dick Eastman’s Ancestry.com Announces “Expert Connect”
• Randy Seaver’s “Expert Connect Service from Ancestry.com”

Is Google’s Search Really a Single Field?

This is one of a series of articles about Google’s search interface and its application to genealogy.

Have you read Daniel M. Lynch's new book, Google Your Family Tree? If you don't have the book, you can learn many of the tips and tricks by doing a Google search for "Google" and "Genealogy." What you'll find is that Google is gradually introducing pseudo-multiple fields that are essential for many types of searches, including genealogy searches.

Name Fields

To account for an optional middle name and to simulate first and last name fields, separate the first and last names with an asterisk (*), like this:

Dan * Lawyer

Fortunately, Google is “smart” enough to look for “synonyms” like Daniel for Dan. Unfortunately, the same algorithm will match Attorney instead of Lawyer. To simulate of name fields, you must take another step. Include the names in reverse order to match web pages that list last name first:

(Dan * Lawyer) OR (Lawyer Dan)

To account for occurrences without middle names, also include the names without the asterisk:

(Dan * Lawyer) OR (Lawyer Dan) OR (Dan Lawyer)

It also occurs to me that we’re seeing results with just Dan. To assure we get Dan and Lawyer, put quotes around the names:

"Dan * Lawyer" OR "Lawyer Dan" OR "Dan Lawyer"

Unfortunately, using quotes disables synonym checking, so we’re no longer seeing Daniel. You’ll have to use additional searches to match other common spellings or forms of names.

Date Fields

Introduce a pseudo-date field to search for a range of dates. Separate the two dates by two dots like this: 1958..2009. To make certain the date applies to any of the three name arrangements, we add parentheses like so:

("Dan * Lawyer" OR "Lawyer Dan" OR "Dan Lawyer") 1958..2009

Other Pseudo Fields

Google provides a whole set of special words and prefixes which can be used in the single search field to invoke the same capabilities as its multiple-field advanced search. For example, if we wanted to search records only on FamilySearch.org, we could use the “site:” prefix:

("Dan * Lawyer" OR "Lawyer Dan" OR "Dan Lawyer") 1958..2009 site:familysearch.org

Single field or multi-field

Now, if you can’t remember how to invoke all these pseudo-fields inside Google’s single-field home page, you can use Google’s multi-field Advanced Search page and accomplish the same things. Q.E.D. These single-field special tips, tricks, weird punctuation rules, etc. create the equivalent of a multiple field search.

Think about it. Google, with dozens and dozens of search engineers—certainly many times more than FamilySearch has working on search—can’t figure out how to make a natural-language single-field search work for something as simple as searching for all forms of a person’s name and a date associated with that person. If Google can’t do it, what chance is there that FamilySearch can do it?!?

Google Genealogy Searches

If you’re serious about doing genealogy searches with Google, you’re better off using one of the many multi-field genealogy search forms that are available. These search forms remember all the arcane Google rules for you. You enter data in a simple, genealogy-oriented search form and the website generates the weird Google single-field search syntax for you.

One example of such a website is www.genealogy-search-help.com which gives this familiar-looking search form:

Enter all the information you know and click Submit. Most Google genealogy search websites responds with several choices and this website is no exception. Pick a choice and the website suggests one or more Google searches for you to try. For the example above, some of the suggestions are:

• "Drusilla Dorris" OR "Drusilla * Dorris" OR "Dorris, Drusilla" "James Hendricks"  ~genealogy OR ~ancestry – One of three forms of the spouse’s name. The other two are suggested as separate searches.
• "Drusilla Dorris" OR "Drusilla * Dorris" OR "Dorris, Drusilla" "James Hendricks" Tennessee OR +TN – Same as above, but includes place of birth instead of subjects “genealogy” or “ancestry.”
• "Drusilla Dorris" OR "Drusilla * Dorris" OR "Dorris, Drusilla" James -Hendricks Utah OR +UT – Use death instead of birth place. Check for websites that didn’t know married name.
• allintitle: Dorris  ~genealogy OR ~ancestry – Search for Dorris websites.

For additional information about Google genealogy searches, see

• Barry & Associates, Inc., Genealogy-Search-Help.com (www.genealogy-search-help.com : accessed 17 June 2009); this is the example website from above.
• “Easy Google Genealogy Searcher,” Ancestor Search …Find your family history (www.searchforancestors.com : accessed 17 June 2009); special forms that work instead of remembering all the special Google keywords and prefixes.
• “Easy Google Genealogy Searcher - Part 2,” Ancestor Search …Find your family history (www.searchforancestors.com : accessed 17 June 2009); more special forms.
• Kathi Reid, “Using Google in Genealogy Searches,” Ancestor Search …Find your family history (www.searchforancestors.com : accessed 17 June 2009).
• Kathi Reid, “Google in Genealogy Searches,” Ancestor Search …Find your family history (www.searchforancestors.com : accessed 17 June 2009).
• Kimberly Powell, “Google Genealogy Style,” About.com (http://genealogy.about.com : accessed 17 June 2009).

For more help with Google Search, see

• Google search basics: More search help
• Google search basics: Advanced Search
• Search Features

Where’s Waldo… er… the Ancestry Insider?

Last weekend I took a little trip to celebrate the summer solstice. Can you guess where I was?

Tell ya’ what. To make things easy for you, we took photographs.

Not obvious enough for you? Fine, another hint.

This magnificent circle of stones is located next to a highway.

Looking for a genealogical-world tie-in?

The highway leads to a genealogical company rumored to be changing its name…

…again.

Son of Blogger: Summit 2

Saturday I participated in the “Son of Blogger” summit at the Southern California Genealogy Society Jamboree 2009. I’m nursing a head cold, so I had to wear a mask to avoid infecting anyone. ;-)

Here are the panel members and some of their panel reports:

• George G. Morgan, Moderator
• Stephen Danko, Ph.D. - Photos
• Leland Meitzler – audience photos, panel photo
• The Ancestry Insider
• Craig Manson - Link
• DearMYRTLE - photos
• Dick Eastman
• Schelly Talalay Dardashti
• Lisa Louise Cooke

Here are some of the bloggers in the audience and their reports:

• Thomas MacEntee – Follow #scgs09 on Twitter
• Elizabeth O’Neal – photo and clever commentary

Thank you to all of you that said hello, introduced yourselves, or left little notes. It was wonderful to meet all of you!

As Thomas mentions, if you wish to follow along with real-time updates from the Jamboree, then search for “#scgs09” on Twitter. Refresh the page to see the latest. The conference wraps up today.

NFS Rollout News: Read-Only Access Becomes Wait-Only Access

On 18 June 2009 FamilySearch announced that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Idaho and Utah could get read-only accounts for the New FamilySearch (NFS) if they didn’t otherwise have full accounts (see “By July 2009 NFS to replace IGI”).

Wednesday, FamilySearch abruptly “rescinded” the program, as was announced in New.FamilySearch.org Help Center document 107353:

Read Only Access to members in the Wasatch Front has been rescinded (stopped). Members who already had read-only accounts will no longer be able to access new FamilySearch.

Help Center document 107347 has been reworked to eliminate reference to read-only access. (See Renee Zamora’s “New FamilySearch Access” for the full text of 107347 as it was before.) Now the document instructs members that in place of using the IGI,

Members should meet with a family history consultant or visit a family history center [FHC] to view and verify the latest ordinance information. Family history consultants and family history center staff have the information necessary to help members view completed ordinances using the new FamilySearch system.

After verifying that an ancestor needs temple ordinances, members may continue to prepare ancestral names for temple ordinances using the TempleReady process. After a TempleReady submission file has been created, the family history center staff can assist the patron to create and print a Family Ordinance Request form that will be taken to the temple, and used by the temple staff to print temple name cards.

Alternately, consultants or FHC staff can use the Helper Feature of NFS and assist the member in directly entering information into NFS, checking for duplicates, and printing an FOR, thus skipping TempleReady altogether. Consultants are responsible to supervise members when using this approach.

And Then There Were None

To allow members to comply with the new policy, consultants in the final two temple districts received notification and access to NFS yesterday. The final Logan stakes received word that they would go live on 29 June 2009. With Logan finished up, Boise received word that her stakes would be next for the stake-by-stake rollout.

Temple	Stakes	Process FORs	Temple on NFS	Consultants on NFS	Members on NFS
* Boise	29	Yes	22-Jun-2009	19-May-2009	Soon, by stake *
Bountiful	32	Yes	16-Jun-2009	4-Jun-2009	No
* Draper	25	No *	14-Jul-2009	18-Jun-2009	No
Idaho Falls	45	Yes	By end of July	18-Jun-2009	No
* Jordan River	87	Yes	By end of July?	25-Jun-2009 *	No
Logan	43	Yes	2-Jun-2009	8-May-2009 (All)	02-Jun-2009 (5) 08-Jun-2009 (10) 15-Jun-2009 (7) 22-Jun-2009 (7) 29-Jun-2009 (14) Total (43 stakes)
Mt. Timpanogos	61	Yes	8-Jun-2009	26-May-2009 (60) 6-Sep-2007 (1†)	No (60) 6-Sep-2007 (1†)
Ogden	76	Yes	?	11-Jun-2009	No
Oquirrh Mt.	—open house--
* Provo	74	Yes	7-Jul-2009 ?	25-Jun-2009 *	No
Salt Lake	71	Yes	15-Jun-2009	4-Jun-2009	No
St. George	44	Yes	23-Jun-2009	8-May-2009	No

Abruptness of the Change

The cancellation of the Read-only program happened so suddenly, not all help documents have been updated to reflect the change. A search for “Read-only” from the Old FamilySearch.org product support page still returns these documents about Read-Only Family Tree access:

• A User’s Guide to the Family Tree Project Family Tree User’s Guide
• What Family Tree Project is, and What it Does
• Using the Family Tree Project in Read-Only Mode

A search for “Read-only” in the New.FamilySearch.org Help Center returns these results:

• new FamilySearch: Data corrections for accounts with read-only access (107402)
  Published 6/23/09 – old info prior to the change
• new FamilySearch: Read-only request for Wasatch Front members (107353)
  Published 6/25/09 – reflects the change

Two Rowboats

I would have thought FamilySearch would have released the schedule of temples switching over to the new system. Don’t switch to FORs in Draper until 14 July 2009; apparently they can’t take them.

With so little warning in our district, it was a nightmare at my FHC Wednesday, swamped with patrons sent back from the temple with TempleReady floppies. I personally offended patrons at the rate of one per hour, pleading to get them to check for duplication in NFS instead of the IGI, and refusing to convert their TempleReady submissions without the check, as consultants had been doing.

Don’t be fooled. Converting a TempleReady submission to an FOR does not do an automatic duplication check. I’ve already come across two submissions that created duplication. These were duplicates from the same patron with the data entered exactly the same both times! NFS gladly produced duplicate FORs with nary a complaint. The same wasn’t true when I told the patron that he’d been led astray by his ward consultants and FHC staff earlier in the week. He complained.

I explained to another patron that we were currently operating as though we were standing with one foot in one rowboat (without patron access to NFS) and one foot in another rowboat (temples using NFS). It’s a lot of work to keep from falling into the water.

It’s going to be a long year.

Unanswered Questions

Since FamilySearch isn’t saying, maybe some of you know. When will Ogden start keeping ordinance records in NFS? How about Jordan River? Will Provo be using it when they reopen so close to the 4th holiday, as rumors have reported? What about Idaho Falls? Inquiring minds want to know. AncestryInsider@gmail.com. Please, no confidential information.

Has Google Conditioned FamilySearch Patrons?

This is one of a series of articles about Google’s search interface and its application to genealogy.

Dan Lawyer, FamilySearch product manager made this comment:

FamilySearch Product Managers have not suggested that Google is good at searching genealogical data. They have correctly (in my opinion) understood that Google has trained the masses to use a single field for search. The logic then follows that if…using a single field search for genealogy could [be made to work well], then those that are new to genealogy may more quickly be productive if they are able to use their current search paradigm.

Dan has worked tirelessly to make genealogy simple for “the masses.” He has my respect and full support.

In my article, “Google’s Spartan Interface,” I talked about the widespread praise Google’s single-field interface has received. It’s no wonder that product managers at both FamilySearch and Ancestry.com have asked product developers to study the possibility of applying such an approach to genealogy.

But I’d like to raise the issue that Google-conditioned masses probably don’t correlate with existing FamilySearch.org users. By making genealogy easier for the masses, do you disorient existing users? I used Quantcast.com to compare the demographics of Google.com users (below, left) and FamilySearch.org (below, right).

Google.com	FamilySearch.org

(If you can’t see the demographics in the table above, try viewing this article on my website.)

The numbers on the right side of each report are compared to 100, the Internet average. As you can see, Google and FamilySearch demographics are almost complete opposites. Without exception, anytime one of the two is above the Internet average, the other is below.

I'm guessing about 80% of the patrons I help at my FHC are regular FamilySearch.org searchers, but I doubt very much that more than 25% of them use Google.

What do you think? Can you think of an intuitive way to enter genealogy searches into a single field?

Click “Comments” below to share your thoughts.

NFS Rollout News: And Then There Were Two

Yesterday’s New FamilySearch (NFS) rollout news was so riddled with problems, I finally scrapped it. Today, we try again. Apparently, not all the rumors circulating right now are sanctioned. I don’t know if that means the information is incorrect, or just not yet officially announced. I’m still waiting on clarification from FamilySearch.

To keep track of the varying stages of rollout in the different temple districts, and the various flavors of rollout, I’ve created a new table format. For the remaining temple districts in the red zone, here’s my new table. When I can, I’ll get this copied to my regular page, “Temple Districts Using New FamilySearch.” I’ve added lots of question marks to reflect current uncertainties.

Temple	Stakes	Process FORs	Temple on NFS	Consultants on NFS	Members on NFS
Boise	29	Yes	22-Jun-2009	19-May-2009	Read-only ?
Bountiful	32	Yes	16-Jun-2009	4-Jun-2009	Read-only
Draper	25	No *	14-Jul-2009	18-Jun-2009	?
Idaho Falls	45	Yes	By end of July	18-Jun-2009	?
Jordan River	87	Yes	?	No	?
Logan	43	Yes	2-Jun-2009	8-May-2009 (All)	02-Jun-2009 (5) 08-Jun-2009 (10) 15-Jun-2009 (7) 22-Jun-2009 (7) Total (29 stakes) Read-only? (14)
Mt. Timpanogos	61	Yes	8-Jun-2009	26-May-2009 (60) 6-Sep-2007 (1†)	Read-only (60) 6-Sep-2007 (1†)
Ogden	76	Yes	?	11-Jun-2009	Read-only ?
Oquirrh Mt.		Under	construction
Provo	74	Yes	7-Jul-2009 ?	No	?
Salt Lake	71	Yes	15-Jun-2009	4-Jun-2009	Read-only
St. George	44	Yes	23-Jun-2009	8-May-2009	Read-only ?

Numbers in parentheses refer to the number of stakes.
* Recently updated
† Highland Utah Stake

That leaves just two temple, the Provo temple and the Jordan River temple, that have not yet entered the transition to NFS. And only one temple, Draper, can’t process Family Ordinance Requests (FORs). I’ve updated my map to reflect the current situation, with just two red dots left.

When I can, I’ll get this updated at “Temple Districts Using New FamilySearch.” Do I have the dates correct for your temple starting to use NFS internally? What about consultants in Jordan River and Provo? Can you register in NFS? Full-access or read-only? Let me know. Keep everyone informed by sending your news to AncestryInsider@gmail.com .

Google’s Spartan Interface

This is one of a series of articles about Google’s search interface and its application to genealogy.

An article in BusinessWeek back in 2005 titled “Google’s Search for Simplicity” notes that while Google’s “payroll has rocketed…to over 4,200 staffers” and “sales have jumped…to more than $3 billion,” its “famously minimalist home page looks almost as it did when [Google was an] upstart search company.”

BusinessWeek attributes Google’s success to this “no-frills, fast-loading” interface.

In an interview for Good Experience Google’s product manager for its user interface, Marissa Mayer, compared Google to a Swiss army knife.

All of us on the UI team think the value of Google is in not being cluttered, in offering a great user experience. I like to say that Google should be "what you want, when you want it." As opposed to "everything you could ever want, even when you don't."

I think Google should be like a Swiss Army knife: clean, simple, the tool you want to take everywhere.…

“Pincer”
© 2008 aqua_flavor, some rights reserved 

When you see a knife with all 681 functions opened up, you're terrified. That's how other sites are - you're scared to use them. Google has that same level of complexity, but we have a simple and functional interface on it, like the Swiss Army knife closed.

In a 2006 DMNews article, Google engineering director Jen Fitzpatrick acknowledged how much testing Google does, combining “internal testing, user studies, log analysis and customer feedback.” Said Fitzpatrick,

The audience of people using Google was not of the people building Google. … If there's one thing we've learned time and time again, [it] is we're not representative of our users.

Fitzpatrick admits that Google approaches user interface in an iterative fashion. One is not likely to get it right the first time. I’m glad to know that both Ancestry.com and FamilySearch use iterative development processes. I welcome the refinement process we are seeing on both organizations’ websites.

What do you think about the search interface on these websites?

• www.familysearch.org
• new.familysearch.org (This is a currently a private site. See “New FamilySearch” for more info.)
• pilot.familysearch.org 
• www.ancestry.com (Free at some public libraries and institutions.)

Are they intuitive? How could they be improved? Click “Comments” below and let us know what you think.

Happy Fathers Day

I hope all of you enjoy a warm Fathers Day being with or remembering our fathers.

In celebration of Father’s Day, let me share a video titled “A Father Indeed,” produced by FamilySearch sponsor, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If you are unable to view the video, above, then try viewing it online.

By July 2009 NFS to replace IGI

Yesterday FamilySearch announced to users of the New FamilySearch (NFS) that all temples in Idaho and Utah will record ordinances using the new FamilySearch System by the end of July 2009. Because all temples outside the Orient will be using NFS, no further temple ordinance information will be added to the International Genealogical Index (IGI).

“Because of this, members [of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] should use the new FamilySearch site to view and verify the latest ordinance information,” states Help Center document 107347, which is only available to users logged into NFS. “Members who have registered in the existing FamilySearch.org site will be given access to register in the new FamilySearch system.”

Also because of the total switch-over to NFS, temples will not accept TempleReady floppies except in extenuating circumstances. Instead of taking a TempleReady disk to the temple, patrons take a Family Ordinance Request (FOR), which is a sheet of paper with a bar-code.

However, some members in Utah and Idaho will only be given read-only access to NFS for several months. For such members, the temple submission process will require these steps:

1. Research and identify ancestors as normal.
2. Use New FamilySearch to check what ordinances have already been done.
3. Use TempleReady to prepare a submission file.
4. Have a family history consultant in your ward or family history center (FHC) convert the TempleReady file to an FOR. For this step, you will need your membership record number.

Family history consultants should be warned that converting a TempleReady file to an FOR does not check for duplicates, as some of the prompts imply. Last Wednesday at my FHC a patron accidentally brought in a TempleReady file for a family that he had submitted earlier in the day. NFS accepted the file without complaint.

After reading the announcement, I felt unclear on several points:

• When will members who have registered in the existing FamilySearch.org site be given access to register in the NFS site? Now? As their temple goes live? At the end of July?
• What determines who gets full-access versus who gets read-only access? System load?
• Will all members who have registered in the existing Family FamilySearch.org get full access?
• When will members who have not registered in the existing FamilySearch.org get to use NFS?

In the Timpanogos temple district, members are already required to take FORs to the temple, even though only consultants have access to NFS.

• Is this true in other Idaho/Utah temples?
• Is there a place in the Help Center we can go to see a list or a schedule showing when that requirement starts at the remaining Idaho and Utah temples?
• Members in the Timpanogos temple district must have a family history consultant do the duplication check for them since only consultants currently have NFS access. Will that continue to be the case for some stakes after the end of July?

If I get any answers, I’ll pass them on. Stay tuned…

P.S. Draper and Idaho Falls consultants received notice yesterday that they now have NFS access. Watch for the latest news at “Temple Districts Using New FamilySearch.”

Utah Vital Records Fees to Increase in July

Fees are increasing in a couple of weeks for vital records from the state of Utah. This table shows the increases that go into effect on 1 July 2009:

	Old	New
Certified abstract birth or declaration of paternity	$15 – first copy $8 – additional copies	$18 – first copy $8 – additional copies
Certified certificate of stillbirth	$12 – first copy	$15 – first copy $8 – additional copies
Certified death certificate	$13 – first copy $8 – additional copies	$16 – first copy $8 – additional copies

Details can be found at these web addresses:

• https://silver.health.utah.gov/applications/04%20BIRTH.pdf - Old fee schedule (see page 2).
• https://silver.health.utah.gov/feeincrease2009.pdf - Changes to fee schedule starting 1 July 2009.