The California Genealogical Society and Library Blog has a great article concerning the design of a new graphic that tells newcomers something that the "old-timers" have known for years. Click on the image to the right to see a larger graphic.
Perhaps the best line in the article is a quote from Lisa Gorrell: "What would be nice is to have a poster of it in every research facility – especially those with computers – to remind them that so little of their research will be found on the internet."
You can read the complete article at: http://calgensoc.blogspot.com/2009/03/internet-genealogy-its-just-tip-of.html.
That is a great graphic! I'll make sure to share it when I can.
Posted by: Nathan W. Murphy, MA, AG | March 27, 2009 at 07:11 PM
Oh how true is that!
Here in Canada it took me two years of going weekly to my library to find the passenger record of my Mothers family coming from Scotland.
They were not index, it was a nightmare, but when I found it the whole library knew! I was so excited now I can log on to ancestry and call it up. The chase is half the thrill, In SLC going through parish by parish, we have come a long way, its only a little part getting better every day though, even Newspapers indexed great! Many thanks to all the transcribers out there and the website owners who let us view them.
Mary from Surrey BC Canada
Posted by: Mary turnbull | March 28, 2009 at 03:56 AM
Although internet records may be called "the tip of the iceberg" the simple fact is that "the tip" is growing larger every day and more and more information is becoming available. It is just a matter of time when disasters like the loss of records in Cologne, and previously Norfolk, England, don't happen BECAUSE they finally caught on that if the records were digitized and available from several places, no records at any one place could be lost.
Those that digitise (and then index records), are the true Keepers of the Past for all future generations.
Posted by: Noel Elliot | March 28, 2009 at 09:32 AM
I don't agree - more family history research than ever before is being done over the Internet.
Despite an enormous increase in interest in the UK over the past 6 or 7 years, many records offices and archives here are seeing a reduction in visitors, and in London the Family Records Centre in - where I spent many a happy day - has been closed.
Is there more material offline than online? Yes. Do family historians spend more time perusing offline material? Maybe. Does the average researcher find more information offline than online? No way!
When information is online I can find it in a fraction of the time, and in most cases at a fraction of the cost (particularly if travelling expenses are included). And when there are scanned images - and increasingly there are - I'm invariably seeing something that's far more legible than the scratched microfilm of yesteryear.
Of course, it's crucially important that people whose only experience to date is of online research should learn that there are many important records that are only available in archives, records offices, or libraries - and that some of these may never be available online.
But the statement that "most research is done in libraries, archives, courthouses etc" can only be true of a small band of elite researchers who either have a lot more time than the rest of us, or have chosen to limit their research, perhaps to just one or two of their family lines.
Posted by: Peter Calver | March 28, 2009 at 09:37 AM
Read the graphic! "Most research is done in ..." Research is very different from Lookups. As an ex-Californian, I am in agreement.
Happy Dae·
http://ShoeStringGenealogy.com
Posted by: Dae Powell | March 28, 2009 at 10:21 AM
And the difference is????
Posted by: Peter Calver | March 28, 2009 at 01:09 PM
Sure Peter,
You can look up a name in a phone book. This isn't research. Accessing a database of any kind online is simply a lookup.
Research requires collating known facts to discover unknown ones. For example, in researching early New England families, it is important to know that early Massachusetts was not one colony, but two. In researching early Pennsylvania families, it is important to know that the early province was a proprietary; not a crown colony. This information will help you determine WHERE to look.
With church records, it is important to study the entire book of church records; not just specific names. Are the names of the parents consistently included in the baptismal records in this book? Are the parents' names missing from this particular baptismal record? Does this, perhaps, indicate that it may have been an adult baptism?
Do you see what you can obtain through research as opposed to mere lookups? In research you must look up information, to be sure, but the process it much more extensive, isn't it?
Good luck to you.
Happy Dae·
Posted by: Dae Powell | March 28, 2009 at 04:32 PM
I agree there are more and more images online, but I don't think we will ever see all records online. Most of the research I have done for my family has been by writing letters to churches, cemeteries, and libraries for the information that is not found online.
Posted by: Lisa Gorrell | March 28, 2009 at 04:47 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Dae - I needed to know what your definition was in case there was something I'd missed, but there's nothing you describe as 'research' that inherently can't be done online.
Perhaps the online resources available to you for your own research aren't as comprehensive as the ones available to us here in Britain? Seen from this side of the Atlantic, when you say "this isn't research.. accessing a database of any kind online is simply a lookup" it seems you're failing to recognise the excellence of many of the online resources that are now available.
I'm not suggesting that all research can be done online - it can't, at least not at the moment. But since most research that's carried out in records offices here in Britain currently utilises microfilm or microfiche, I really don't see that viewing images online is so very different.
Handling parish registers that are hundreds of years old is a wonderful feeling but, realistically, if we all did that they wouldn't survive very long!
Posted by: Peter Calver | March 28, 2009 at 08:24 PM
Hello Peter,
I agree with you (and Lisa) about the online images. They are wonderful and we'd all like to see more of them. And you're right, I love having an original document in front of me -- whether I handle it or not.
One of the problems with online databases, which "they" are trying to remedy, is the mis-indexing of the names or properties. Often just a misspelling can prevent or hinder a lookup in the scanned image. And, as you well know, names in an index don't allow for collateral research -- which must be done from the original or an image of it in order to see the contents in its unsorted order.
We have excellent online resources this side of the Atlantic, too, but they aren't what you can find in Kew, are they? The LDS Family History Library is phenomenal, but most of it is not online. Even for one of your calibre it is often necessary to research offline. My humble response to you was more for beginners (my apologies) who simply collect names to place in their own database.
This is no insult to beginners, as we were all beginners once, but experienced researchers really do understand the large differences between lookups and research. We all know the problems of similar or same names. Back in 1972, as a beginner, I had spent months pursuing the wrong family.
In my presentation on the Seven Stages of Genealogy Growth, the Collector Stage is the first one. I feel that it is the first stage that most of us go through, if we don't have a mentor.
Nice chatting with you, mate!
Happy Dae.
http://ShoeStringGenealogy.com
Posted by: Dae Powell | March 29, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I've just read the opposing views expressed by Peter and Happy Dae regarding online and offline genealogy research. I absolutely agree with Happy Dae--and I speak from experience.
My paternal surname (of Welsh origin) has been violated by, I assume, a descendant of a man with the same surname, but not the same lineage. His research is obviously not documented (which means it was not properly researched), and I am constantly getting e-mails asking for verification of people NOT in my lineage.
There is also an "authority" here in the U.S. who has a virtual Yellow Pages of the surname, and his information is as untrustworthy as that of others. He supposedly collected names from an online mailing list of subscribers to the surname, and their research, then, must be questioned. I have constantly corrected his information and received nothing but silly arguments in return. What a shame--all that undocumented and incorrect information going out to earnest genealogists.
I have found so many sources of different data online for the same person, stated to be authentic, that I no longer research--except for familysearch.com, whose records ARE accurate.
Don't we ALL want accurate genealogies to hand down to our descendants? Isn't that worth the extra time (and expense) to DOCUMENT? I believe too many of us search for favorable ancestors and then adopt THEIR ancestry as our own.
Just another voice to be heard from. . . .
Oh, and please do visit www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com if you haven't already. It has an impressive number of links to web sites, helpful forms, etc. Check it out.
Posted by: Barb | March 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM