The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly ...
... genealogical research, that is.
During the Computerized Genealogy conference a few weeks back I was going throught the vendor area and saw a demo of PRFMagnet. This is a cool program that will access Pedigree Resource File data to build a pedigree from submitted databases. This can give you a quick overview of previous research, which can be very helpful when you get started on a new line.
That's the good part. The bad and ugly parts are when you start analyzing the results it delivers. Now, this isn't the program's fault. I think the program is flat-out fantastic for being a niche product. The problem is the data that has been put into Pedigree Resource File.
For example, while I was there a fellow asked to see what the program would retrieve for Serena Evensen, who was one of Archibald Gardner's plural wives, and who, supposedly, has ancestry traceable back to the first century, AD. I've created a PDF file from the data in Pedigree Resource File showing her with her parents and first husband. When I saw this data I could immediately tell that no one had ever bothered to do any verification with original records, or attempt to follow any recommended standards for recording names, dates, and places. I'm not being judgemental about anyone who may have contributed this information, but in an effort to educate others regarding proper recording practices, I will make some judgements on the quality of the recorded information.
First thing is this: Women should be recorded using their maiden names. Don't look for record of Serene's birth using the name of any of her husbands. Her surname in those records isn't Evensen, or Gardner. Since she was born in Norway prior to the 1890s, her surname is a patronymic. That means her surname ends with -datter. Not -sen, -ssen, -son, or anything like that. She's a girl, therefore, she's someone's daughter. To find out exactly what her correct patronymic surname is, and locate her missing baptism date, I checked the records of the parish where she was supposed to have been born. According to the PRF data, Serene was born 23 Aug 1822, in Nipe, Sondeled, Aust-Agder, Norway.
Here's the second thing: Places should be recorded as they existed at the time of the event. It's not that hard to find this information out. Challenging sometimes, but doable. In fact, when standards exist (such Norske Gaardnavne or the Family History Library Catalog) you should apply those so that you can refer back to an accepted, verifiable standard. Spellings change over time, and so do jurisdictions. The only difference between Breuckelen and Brooklyn is one is contemporary, and the other is the orignal Dutch spelling. Likewise, the spellings of place names changes over time in Norway, too. The farm name is currently spelled Nipe, but in the parish records, the minister spelled it "Nibe." Either one works for me.
The name of the parish is a bit different as well. In the PRF entry it's spelled Sondeled. It should be Søndeled. That second character may look like an "o" but it's not. You could even use Sønnelov as the parish name, as that's what's used in the records from that time. Well, anything else wrong with the locality? Yes. In 1919 the Norwegian mid-level government structure changed from "amter" to "fylker" and several of these locality names changed. Aust-Agder didn't exist prior to 1919 (well after Serene's birth). Prior to this, it was known as Nedenes amt. So, how should the locality be recorded? Two possible ways, both acceptable: Nibe, Sønnelov, Nedenes, Norge; or Nipe, Søndeled, Nedenes, Norge.
Stay tuned for the next installment. :-)
During the Computerized Genealogy conference a few weeks back I was going throught the vendor area and saw a demo of PRFMagnet. This is a cool program that will access Pedigree Resource File data to build a pedigree from submitted databases. This can give you a quick overview of previous research, which can be very helpful when you get started on a new line.
That's the good part. The bad and ugly parts are when you start analyzing the results it delivers. Now, this isn't the program's fault. I think the program is flat-out fantastic for being a niche product. The problem is the data that has been put into Pedigree Resource File.
For example, while I was there a fellow asked to see what the program would retrieve for Serena Evensen, who was one of Archibald Gardner's plural wives, and who, supposedly, has ancestry traceable back to the first century, AD. I've created a PDF file from the data in Pedigree Resource File showing her with her parents and first husband. When I saw this data I could immediately tell that no one had ever bothered to do any verification with original records, or attempt to follow any recommended standards for recording names, dates, and places. I'm not being judgemental about anyone who may have contributed this information, but in an effort to educate others regarding proper recording practices, I will make some judgements on the quality of the recorded information.
First thing is this: Women should be recorded using their maiden names. Don't look for record of Serene's birth using the name of any of her husbands. Her surname in those records isn't Evensen, or Gardner. Since she was born in Norway prior to the 1890s, her surname is a patronymic. That means her surname ends with -datter. Not -sen, -ssen, -son, or anything like that. She's a girl, therefore, she's someone's daughter. To find out exactly what her correct patronymic surname is, and locate her missing baptism date, I checked the records of the parish where she was supposed to have been born. According to the PRF data, Serene was born 23 Aug 1822, in Nipe, Sondeled, Aust-Agder, Norway.
Here's the second thing: Places should be recorded as they existed at the time of the event. It's not that hard to find this information out. Challenging sometimes, but doable. In fact, when standards exist (such Norske Gaardnavne or the Family History Library Catalog) you should apply those so that you can refer back to an accepted, verifiable standard. Spellings change over time, and so do jurisdictions. The only difference between Breuckelen and Brooklyn is one is contemporary, and the other is the orignal Dutch spelling. Likewise, the spellings of place names changes over time in Norway, too. The farm name is currently spelled Nipe, but in the parish records, the minister spelled it "Nibe." Either one works for me.
The name of the parish is a bit different as well. In the PRF entry it's spelled Sondeled. It should be Søndeled. That second character may look like an "o" but it's not. You could even use Sønnelov as the parish name, as that's what's used in the records from that time. Well, anything else wrong with the locality? Yes. In 1919 the Norwegian mid-level government structure changed from "amter" to "fylker" and several of these locality names changed. Aust-Agder didn't exist prior to 1919 (well after Serene's birth). Prior to this, it was known as Nedenes amt. So, how should the locality be recorded? Two possible ways, both acceptable: Nibe, Sønnelov, Nedenes, Norge; or Nipe, Søndeled, Nedenes, Norge.
Stay tuned for the next installment. :-)
Comments