PR Budget = $0.00

Long-time readers of this newsletter know that it is private project of mine. It's not part of some publishing empire's stable of publications. It's just Pam and me. I write the articles and do most of the technical, behind-the-scenes work. Pam edits all the articles that I write, converting them to proper grammar with correct punctuation marks. She is also an expert genealogist and a trusted business advisor. Together, she and I pick the topics of new articles.

That's the total staff of this newsletter: just the two of us. There's no budget and no facility to handle outreach and promotions. The newsletter depends on word of mouth advertising to grow. Sometimes I refer to this as "word of mouse" advertising, whereby a reader may send an e-mail to a friend.

That's where you come in. In each issue I try to offer you useful and interesting articles to help you with your genealogy searches, software hardware, and time online. I also offer news about what is happening among genealogy vendors and societies. Can you take just a minute to help me out in return?

If you think Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter is a worthwhile read, please recommend it to your friend. Your friend also may find it to be a useful new source of genealogy information.

If you edit a genealogy newsletter or web site, you might want to tell your readers about the wealth of information available at http://www.eogn.com.

Thank you.

Comments

[Miriam Robbins Midkiff]

Hi, Dick:

I've been a reader of your online newsletter for quite a while. I teach an online genealogy class each quarter as part of my local community college district's community education program. I recommend this site to all my students, and of course, enjoy it immensely myself as well.

Kudos!
Miriam

[Shamele]

You and Pam are superstars, in my opinion. You tell it like it is, from your point of view. I trust your point of view and dedication. Your blog is my #1 blog in any category. Often I forward stories to my buddies and they are thankful. Also I will tell those in the Researching African American Ancestors course at IGHR about EOGN. Thanks for all of the great information. Thank Pam too. (One day I hope to have a Pam, but of the male variety.)

[C. CHRISTOPHER SIRR]

11 May 2006

While I have been working on my family genealogy for several years, by no means am I an expert. I am a member of NEHGS and also use many other research sources. There is an uneasy sense that the more I learn the more it becomes apparent that I don’t know enough. This feeling will always apply to the persons being researched but I am talking about the tools and methods used in the process. My interest is to be as accurate and well documented as possible with a goal of someday publishing my findings at least in part.

There is little information to take me back very far on my father’s side but I have a vast amount of information on my mother’s family because her father and many other family generations are listed in Bowen’s History & Genealogy of Woodstock, Conn. In addition I have excellent sources for my step grandmother who lived in Rockland, Mass.

My questions relate to the following areas.

1. There seem to be many contradictory recommendations in the genealogical press about the best software. I want to be using the best as it should make it easier to publish with the best format and documentation. I use Family Tree Maker and sense that I should not, but I dread the thought of trying to transfer to another program; loss of data, no good export method and thus a huge manual data transfer. Should I move to ROOTS MAGIC and will it be worth a manual data transfer of data for 5,000 people?

2. I have read much of the information about numbering systems and understand the differences but I am left still confused. The demands placed on computer generated data compared with the dissimilar needs of various institutions presents a dilemma. What is the best approach? I can also see a problem when a portion of a data base is extracted for publication as the numbers would change.

3. We are constantly reminded to look at the original source. This makes a lot of sense as people make mistakes. Observation of the original source helps to eliminate some, if not most, doubt about the apparent facts. But to what extent should this method be followed? When can one rely on a published source? If the answer is never. are we then saying that every published source is purely full of details to be doubled checked? Is there ever a final authority? If there are two corroborating data sources on the internet do they serve to fill the definition of an original source?

Please excuse the long group of questions.
Sincerely,

C. Christopher Sirr
Warwick, Rhode Island

[Dick Eastman]

Hi Christopher,

Those are excellent questions and the complete answers will be much longer than the few words I can insert in this comments box. However, I will make a quick attempt.

1. I do not believe there is any such thing as "the best software." Each person has his or her own requirements. Some people are very concerned about source citations while others may be more interested in multimedia scrapbooks. A third person may care more about web publishing of genealogy data. Another major factor is ease of use. Someone who is comfortable with computers has different requirements than someone who is inexperienced with the technology. I am also ignoring the question of Windows versus Macintosh. The best program for you might not be the best program for me and vice versa. The "best programs" for either you or me might not be the best choice for that third person.

2. Numbering systems are mostly a matter of personal choice. Personally, I don't number any of the people in my database. I prefer to think of them as people, not numbers. I will always refer to them by name, usually with date and place of birth. I would never refer to an ancestor by a number. HOWEVER, you will find many people who strongly disagree with me and insist upon using a numbering system of some sort. I do not believe there is any right or wrong answer here, just personal preferences.

3. The general rule is to always check original sources, if possible. If that is not possible, try to get as close to the original source as possible. A transcription created by a knowledgeable transcriber can serve as an excellent second choice. Of course, how do we know the transcriber is qualified and did a good job? I have done some transcriptions and can assure you that it is difficult work.

As to your last question: "If there are two corroborating data sources on the internet do they serve to fill the definition of an original source?"

Generally, I would say "No." I see too many instances of two or more corroborating data sources on the internet in which the second "source" is simply a copy of the first.

Luckily, this is changing. We are in the midst of a revolution in which IMAGES of original sources are appearing often on the Internet. Seeing a high-quality IMAGE allows you to make up your own mind. However, the revolution is still ongoing, not complete. We do not yet have images of ALL sources although I suspect we will someday.

One person's opinion, your mileage may vary...

- Dick Eastman

[Sally Jacobs]

Dick and Pam,

I simply don't have enough time to follow genealogy-related news as closely as you do. That information alone makes your newsletter incredibly valuable. Throw in your straight-talking original articles and...Wow! What a deal! I especially appreciate your articles on the real-world usability of current and emerging technologies. Your reply above is a perfect example.

Later today I'm giving a talk at our local LDS Family History Center on how to "Think Like an Archivist" -- I've just added your URL to my resources handout. Thanks for reminding everyone that small businesses like ours rely on word-of-mouth advertising.

Keep up the good work!!

-Sally

[G. Marie Agnew-Marcelli]

My sincerest thanks to each of you. It is a huge job and may not receive the appreciation it deserves.

Quite aside from the genealogical information, I welcome the technical information the eogn provides.

You may be pleased to know that, thanks to your column, Mozy greets me every morning with "you are backed up". Now what am I to do with that stack of backup CD's?

[Morg Henika]

If you're not subscribing to Dick's "PLUS EDITION" at such a ridiculously low cost, all of you are missing a really good bet!

[SHERRY]

In response to the questions from C. Christopher Sirr...
As for the "best genealogy software" -- I have no idea which one is best for your needs, however, a word of caution is due here.
I had a wonderful program, highly recommended, that I really loved (easy to read, loved the family pages, and lots of "nice" charts and forms) and had transferred all of my work to that database. I suddenly found myself in the position of having to upgrade my computer. "No problem" or so I thought. When I got my new computer home and installed my program and all of the information I had added at that point, everything appeared to be just fine. (I had neglected to make GEDCOM files from that program when my old computer became useless)However, as I selected information I found that, each time I selected some data, the program DELETED the information I had highlighted unless I clicked on a "cancel" button. "That should be no problem," I figured I would just make a GEDCOM file and transfer the information to my old PAF program untill I could figure out the problem. Much to my surprise and dismay, my old program is NOT COMPATIBLE with WindowsXP and refused to create ANY file: GEDCOM, report, RTF, text, etc., etc., etc. I couldn't even create a printable file. "No problem" I thought! I'll just call the software folks and they'll tell me how to get my information. Guess what? The software company was no longer in business and had sold their program to another company. Oh, no problem! So, I called the new company and they "no longer support" that program software and there was "nothing they could do to help!"
I have spent many, many hours and days transferring my database of 1,357 folks (with notes, sources, and lots of other miscellaneous data) ONE AT A TIME to PAF. I have to be very careful when viewing the old file for fear of deleting information I have not yet transferred. What a pain!

Bottom line, it may not be the prettiest program around, but I feel I can trust PAF to be around for a long time to come and, from now on, that's where my data will stay.
Use your own judgement, I've learned my lesson.
Sherry