Standardising how we present data?

[MarkCDodd]

Exactly the point I was making. Templates act as a prompt to record all of the supplied information.

[Northern Lass]

How an individual looks up the info in the Parish registers is up to them.
How they then enter them into their own family tree is up to them.
I am certainly not going to use templates when I do look ups, I have no need of them or desire for them.
I would not wish on BCC any marriages or other info entered in in that type of format,
with huge gaps of info and certainly never just lifted from another site.
I am fine with it being transcribed eg
Grooms name-such and such
Brides name-such and such
and then other relevant info
but not with all the template info and then no info next to it.

[grangers14]

I understand what you are saying Mark but using a list like you put would be no use on BCC at all. The space it would use up in list form aswell as not pleasing to the eye.

Everyone who adds to BCC is asked certain ways to input but to bang a drum on too many things would be terrible! A long with time consuming for us.
BCC and the forum take an awfull lot of time and lots of things go on that you dont see just to make it work.

Each person records things in a way that suits them.
Jo

[snoopysue]

As NL says, these lookups are done as a favour. If anyone is unhappy with the information I have transcribed, then they are welcome to either get a certificate from the register office or pay the archives to send it to them.

I am extremely grateful for the people who have done look ups for me, living in Denmark this isn't practical. I'm also happy with the way the info is presented and am confident that if there is info missing, then it's because it's not on the record in the first place! A lot of people who do look ups use a lot of time and effort to do so, and yes mistakes happen - we're only human, so I'd be surprised if there were none.
My own tree is a work in progress, and it's been evolving not only in size, but also in accuracy over the years.

I'd hate to see this forum degenerate to the standards of others - that if I don't do things in the correct way, I'll be told off like a naughty school girl. I've been impressed from the start with the friendly, open manner of this place, and definately not least the willingness to help others.
My last encounter with a genealogy forum, made me a little slow to look at this one (took me a couple of months to get around to it), there were often deleted posts leading me to believe that people were being slagged off in a not too pleasant way.

As NL points out (more politly than I'd be capable of ) BCC is her tree, so she is the lady and mistress of it, and we have to respect that!

[grangers14]

I dont think anybody was doubting the look ups people give here, they are precise and precious

We are lucky that we have a a really good forum here. Good people

Jo

[mallosa]

I know Mark probably means well but I agree with the others.
Adding as much info as we do,is very time consuming but we wouldn't be able to if we didn't have those doing look ups for us

It's all because we enjoy seeing our precious tree grow

I'm more than happy the way it is

[MarkCDodd]

I think we have all agreed that BCC is fine as it is.

I do wonder where the idea that data presentation is somehow copyrighted!

There are logical headings for each piece of data. i.e there is only a certain number of ways you can say "Groom's Name" or "Bride's Abode".

There is a logical layout for presenting such data.

Nobody can look at a list of data and say "You copied the way I do my list. That is breaching copyright!"

FamilySearch has an export button that places the data in a set format onto the clipboard because they expect you to paste it into your website or family tree as part of a reference.

Similarly, most Genealogical software also has an export button for the same reason.

What is protected by copyright is the format of the database and forms/software used to retrieve the data but not the layout of the data!!!

i.e TheGenealogist and FindMyPast have both reindexed the UK marriage records.

So now you have FreeBMD, The Genealogist and FindMyPast all working from the same set of data but with differing ways to search and store the data.

The way they have stored the indexes into their database, and the way their software searches the data is copyright.

The format in which they present the data is not!!!

Then you also have the fair use laws.

If a website or software programs allows export then you are quite entitled to cut and past the records into a discussion forum and your family tree.

If you start publishing thousands without any research context then you are probably going to breach the fair use agreement of the website/software.

i.e. I could export and quote hundreds of Dodd burials from the National Burial Index as long as they can be seen to be used as valid parts of my research.

I could not paste the same number of records onto a website as a free resource for Dodd genealogists!

[grangers14]

Copyright is a mind field!
I really have no idea on that and it is very complicated.
Some CDs the kids bough me say for usage of them,
This Cd is for the use on a single computer only with a single monitor screen only. This cd is for the personal research use only. It may not be copied, lent, hired, or resold to another party. The index information must not be posted on the web. The material contained on this cd is copyright on.......

Many of the others , may be more new, have similar things

Baffles me.
Free BMD, Reg and Cen run under a different thing and cant be classed under this, I dont think?

Jo

[Northern Lass]

Again, how one presents information on their own site is up to them.
I choose on BCC for any information not to be lifted in a "tell tale" format
from another site but to be transcribed, and source acknowledged.
It is their format in their style and I do not think it is fair or necessary to
copy and paste, then dump onto the notes so it doesn't happen.
Some of the formatting I don't like anyway, too many gaps between
the information as I mentioned previously.

As far as putting

Grooms name - Joe Bloggs
Brides name - Jane Bloggs
Church ...such and such
Date...sucha and such
Maiden name..such and such
etc

I don't have a problem with that (with no huge gaps) and yes that is standard wording.
I don't like it as much as the way we enter marriage info now but would
allow as long as it looked ok.

The way we add marriage could still be added as we do now too, I will continue
to add as I do in the notes, and others in the citations as Maggie does.

This is how I personally choose to run BCC others with their own websites can add
info on theirs as they choose.

[gardener]

Wikipedia advise against copy-paste, as a general rule. Instead they recommend re-writing in paraphrased form or using quatation marks, and then citing the original source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copy-paste

I think Familysearch have no objection to re-use of their material, as Mark says. FMP on the otherhand are against look-ups for other people and say so. I expect that is why a site like Rootschat has banned 1911 material except in very limited useage.

If the image of a record is available on Ancestry then I think it can be safely transcribed here. If an image is only available on FMP then I think it cannot be transcribed on here since that would violate the FMP licence agreement.

That said, I don't suppose that anything would happen other than a request to remove the material. But some people will remember the trouble that someone on the old Rowley Regis site caused when he helpfully scanned and emailed copies of old maps? That turned nasty.

So my vote is with the Wiki advice and don't copy-paste. "You know it makes sense" - and I would cite that but not sure who said it first

[sparkstopper]

I am happy the way it is, but,I should like to make a suggestion: That all additions to
Bcc after a lookup and which include a child etc: That the
corresponding census covering the detail also be added.
Many marriages and children are recorded with no census,
and only the lookup noted.

[Northern Lass]

I am happy the way it is, but,I should like to make a suggestion: That all additions to
Bcc after a lookup and which include a child etc: That the
corresponding census covering the detail also be added.
Many marriages and children are recorded with no census,
and only the lookup noted.

Hi Sparks the problem is time and help adding info.
The census is certainly useful and where it can be added, and folk
have time to do it great.
I don't have time to add all the census following a look up.
The fact that a look up has been done is a bonus.
Anyone looking at the info on BCC should check the detail on the census
themselves too, we are only a finding aid, folk need to look at the census for
themselves to ensure it is correct.
Sometimes too the children info is from bapts so no census.