aaa-0757.html

Getting the Most Out of Your Local CIG

Carmen J. Finley, Ph.D., CG

Sonoma County Genealogical Society Projects Director

[Reprinted from National Genealogical SocietyComputer Interest Group Newsletter

vol 18, no. 3, (May June 1999), pp. 127, 142]

In the last thirteen years the Computer Interest Group of the Sonoma County Genealogical Society (SCGS/CIG) has grown from eleven members to almost 100. The stages from initial technological naivetè through growth to maturity have probably been fairly typical of other such groups, but much depends on local membership talent as to how fast this process proceeds.

This past year, the SCGS/CIG took on the task of reproducing an early publication of the local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (D.A.R.), Sonoma Cemetery Records: 1846-1921. Published in 1941, this original report contained 11,259 names of persons in 90 cemeteries--a classic for this period of time. Five copies were typed on onionskin paper using carbon paper and, of necessity, they were deposited in a limited number of places. In 1976 in celebration of the Bicentennial, the SCGS reproduced 105 copies which sold very quickly. The task we now assumed was not only to make the information available again, but to enter the data into electronic format so that an index could easily be added.

The really exciting part of this project is that it was possible to divide the work among different CIG members who used different hardware and different software and to make it all come together in a common database. Except for the initial assignment which was received via regular mail, the entire project proceeded online. Each individual who participated received his assignment, set it up on his own computer using his own database program, sent it via e-mail to a central location where it was imported into a common database, FileMakerPro. The data was then made available online on a web page so the person who created it could check it and make any corrections that might be necessary. That is really an oversimplification of what it took to get this project organized. The details follow.

Preliminary Hurdles

Of course, the first problem was to obtain copyright permission from the local D.A.R. to reproduce the material since it was still under copyright protection. That was easily obtained, but problems cropped up when, not far into the project, it became obvious that there were errors in the original data. What kind of errors? A little validity checking found that where date of birth and death were given along with age at death, the figures did not always agree. We found that some people had died before they were born. We found that some people lived to be as much as 150 years old. We found persons being born or dying on 29 February in a year that was not a leap year or on the 31^st of a month that had only 30 days. This raised the question of how much "adjusting" we should do with the data, and to what "authority" we should turn for the "correct" data.

A study found fairly recently floating around the Internet made us leery of which source we could use to make any corrections.1 Comparison of deaths recorded in one or more of three sources--county death records, cemetery stones, and obituaries--was very revealing. It found any two of these record sources agreed with each other less than 50% of the time. While the sample was small (15 to 44 deaths in each comparison pairing) results suggest caution

in selecting one source over the other.

At this time we made contact again with the local D.A.R. chapter to inform them of our dilemma and to work out the best solution. They were firm in their belief that the original data should not be tampered with in any way, no matter how obviously "wrong" it was. However, they agreed that we could add addenda explaining the problem and giving any available additional evidence.

Another potential problem that surfaced early in our planning period was whether this production should be placed online or should simply become another hard copy publication of the society. Our Publications Board met to discuss this problem, one seen cropping up from time to time on the genealogy Internet, concerning free access to information vs. the right of societies to restrict free availability so as not to cut into potential sources of income for the society. While our members were not unanimous, we decided to proceed with hard copy, but to place some portion of the information online as an index.

Getting It Off the Ground

Once the preliminaries were over, an e-mail announcement was sent to all CIG members with e-mail addresses regarding our plans and asking for an expression of interest in participating in the project. We also asked them to give us some indication of what hardware and software they would be using. We received fifteen responses from members who said they were interested in participating.

At this point, initial instructions were set up on a web page regarding formatting of the database and conventions to be used with data entry. Before the first assignment was undertaken, a test unit was prepared to be sure that the hardware and software being used by the data entry person was, in fact, compatible with importation into FileMakerPro. Of the original fifteen volunteers, nine were able to "pass" this test and continued to receive materials to copy in units they felt comfortable to handle. A number of persons completed several units. Hardware used included both PCs and MACs. Software included Access, 1-2-3, Word Perfect, and FileMakerPro.

This first stage of getting the transcriptions went fairly fast. Within six months we had approximately 80% of the material in the central FileMakerPro database.

Even though each data entry person was encouraged to proofread his or her materials, a second proofing was done by two members who checked each and every entry against the original document. Most of the data entry persons discovered contradictory data and pointed them out. When problems were found, they were referred to a third person, who checked local records to try to resolve the differences. If answers were found, they were placed in an addendum for that cemetery, along with other notations and irreconcilable differences.

From FileMakerPro, the data was transferred online to the person responsible for preparing final copy. The easiest way to do this was to format it as a web page that could be easily downloaded. Final camera ready copy was prepared in Word Perfect 7.0 using table format.

Summary

This was definitely a learning experience for our society's computer interest group. We had a project that needed to be done. We thought we could parcel it out among our members. We thought we could do it online. We thought we could make it all come together in a single format in spite of the differences in hardware and software. And we were right!

_________________

1. Beck, Stan, "Documenting Your Research," from Family Trails, by way of White Bear Lake, (Mn.) Genealogical Society Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 11, Sept. 1980.