Legal name

Hi Adrian

Generally in genealogical software the legal name goes in Alternate names. The best current equivalent we have for that is AKA in the current fields. This used to be the nickname field but has been renamed and moved to a better position on the edit forms.

We are waiting for testing on searching by the Dutch team, before we can really finish that part of the conversation. We also have the display name and about me to play with but based on the proximity and functioning of the fields AKA seems to be the best field to use at the moment.

I think we all agree that Capitalising is not the way to go in Geni today. For those that want it there are better ways on the viewing preferences.

The genealogical numbering is invasive for some but it is a crucial tool for us who manage the tree and we use it mostly for keeping the tree correct. There simply is not a better system in Geni. I could explain with some examples. It also allows us to leverage the genealogical books in South Africa.

You may want to not display suffix for when you are browsing.

I'm not clear on your last point. Sources are important to be indicated in good genealogical practice. The guidelines do not consider sources to be scans or specifically a document attached although that is kind of a Geni idea I think. A note that set as per death certificate is enough validation for me. I will send you a few more links to topics I think relevant to your points.

Boomkyk Voorkeure - Viewing Preferences

Just thinking more about your comments on the legal name issue and it so mirrors another conversation.;-) Geni is planning in the future to bring new fields that we expect could allow us to record names a little better, but our key issue is how do we use the fields today to our best benefit and to the most accurate standard.

I wonder of it is possible to consider AKA and About me is the best field to use for legal name information. Do you feel strongly for the last name field to be used for this because the key issue with this field is taht in it's current position it is tough for the genealogist who have a need to use the genealogical name at birth in the basic name fields as described.

Adrian,

To add a little to what Mauritz explained:
A person can have multiple legal names during life. We only have one field last name at the moment. If you put a legal name in last name it is difficult for others to know if a legal name is in the last name field and if so which.
For married woman who take the last name of their husband it gets even more complicated. Are all husband listed? Are they in the correct order? Did a husband have different legal names and if so which is used by his wife?

By just putting a legal name in last name others have to guess.
So it seems more logical to put them in the AKA field (so they can be found by searching) and put a description of the name time line in the about me (when there are multiple legal names)

Job

Don't rush this - we just learned that search only used the first value in AKA. So the better options for searching seem to be birth surname, last name, and display name.

Erica,

Where did you get that information about searching only the first value in AKA?
Mike explained it differently and in the Dutch group we tested it and found that it uses all information in the field.

For those that want to put a legal name in last name please be aware of the potential problems and please put some info in the about me, when a person had multiple legal names.
And also PLEASE put information in the birth surname.

Job

We asked him about multiple AKAs. To paraphrase - please, it's really better to ask him directly - it seemed that using multiple AKAs is the same as using about me text, as the string, say, Erica Isabel Howton will only search the "Erica."

So for those of us with legal name changes we would be in a pickle.

Mike Stangel Mike, can you please join this discussion and help us better understand how search looks at the AKA field? We seem to have several different understandings going on here and some clarification would help! Thanks so much.

I agree with you Adrian

Erica,

Now I get your meaning:
There is a difference in searching if a name is in the AKA field and search of what is in the AKA field is in a name.
But it would be nice if Mike explained it here.

this is what he and some others explained before:

The matching algorithm has evolved over time and has a lot of little corner cases that would take too long to fully document here, but I'm happy to answer your questions.

* We now require a match on living / deceased
* Last name and birth surname are matched against each other
* Middle name and display name are not matched
* Immediate family first names are matched, requiring usually 2 or more to match (and at least one parent, if any)
* Alphabets are NOT transliterated to Latin before matching, .e.g. Иван will not match Ivan

FirstName" + "MiddleName" will match "FirstName MiddleName" + "" because, as Mike said, the separate middle name is ignored, so the match you get is "FirstName" will match ""FirstName MiddleName"

So technically (assuming last name and other rules Mike mentioned match)

✔ "John" will match "John Doe"
✘ "John Doe" will not match "John"
✘ "John Doe" will not match "John" + "Doe"

but unfortunately
✔ "John" will also match "Saint John"

and even worse
✔ "John" + "Edvard" will match "John Doe"
and the same with all John's with anything in the middle name field

Are you asking whether the search engine is more or less likely to match if the AKA field has delimeters? I don't think it'll matter. If one profile has first name "John" and another has AKA "Jon, John, Jones" then the first will match the second (but not vice versa, unfortunately).

see: http://www.geni.com/discussions/85255?msg=740447

Also please be sure on what kind of search / match we are speaking:

http://www.geni.com/list/tree_matches

or

http://www.geni.com/search/advanced

and on http://www.geni.com/search/advanced there is
the simple search
and the
advanced search (which is now also available to basic users)

Johan, just t be sure I have clarity on what you agree with from Adrian as he has a few points in his post. You guys are feeling you want to use legal name in Last name field?

The issue is complicated and many users will agree with you on this view. I think it is good for us to register this perspective . We have a profile already that I think is probably along the same lines as what you guys are thinking?
3B Legal Names Alternative Married/Legal names to 1850

Possibly we need yet another one?

We all see names differently. I think we cover the basics in the discussion here for anyone who wants the full picture on where we are with the conventions: http://www.geni.com/discussions/101031

Guys. Maybe we could explore why you feel we should use this name in the last name field as opposed to another field such as display name or AKA? How would you use it in your genealogical research and why is it important for you in this particular field?

I have a few things to do but will come back with a basic analysis of the issues that I believe are influencing what we are discussing here.

OK mense. SIEN DIT ASSEBLIEF IN DIE LIG WAT DIT BEDOEL WORD. EK VAL NIEMAND AAN NIE. PROBEER NIE MOEILIK WEES NIE, MAAR PROBEER NET VIR EENS EN ALTYD 'N VOLHOUBARE OPLOSSING VIND.
Hier is my kommentaar in suiwer Afrikaans aangesien dit die Afrikaanse boom beïnvloed. Hierdie storie is al so holrug gery en ek sien eerlikwaar nie kans om weereens met 15000 merge issues te sit net oor alle soorte van maniere van doen nie. Is dit dan so moeilik vir die beginner genealoog/navorser om te probeer leer om die korrekte Genealogies voorgeskrewe reels eerder aan te leer en sommer sodoende hulle eie navorsing te kan vergemaklik, i.p.v om voort te gaan met die onkonvensionele maniere.
Ek gesels te heerlik met die Nederlandse groep sowel as die Vlaamse groep. Ek in Afrikaans en hulle in hulle taal. Sodoende voorkom ons 'n misverstand. Dit is te heerlik. Daardie mense volg die riglyne soos deur hulle lande voorgeskryf en vra ook en is altyd dankbaar wanneer die professionele of meer ervare mernse hulle help. Nooit 'n getroutrekkery soos ons in SA nie. Maar nou ja, hulle sê mos maar ons mense is maar so.
SIEN DIT ASSEBLIEF AS 'N PLEIDOOI. Kom ons as Suid Afrikaners stel ook 'n voorbeeld en werk saam. Oor die afgelope 5-7 jaar was daar al soveel onaangenaamhede oor hierdie selfde dinge dat ek al regtig voel om te onttrek en slegs die mense wat my hulp benodig, wat ek waar ek kan met die grootste liefde gee, want dit kan tog nie saam met my graf toe nie, help waar ek kan.
Maar ek steek vas by die volgende.
1. Alle volledige name in blok een. Geboortevan in albei van blokke.
2. Indien julle oor die de Villiers numering beskik, plaas dit, dit maak dit net makliker , maar ander los dit uit. Dit sal nie 'n verskil maak nie. Soos die tyd aanstap sal julle self die drang voel om julle eie numering te kan weet.
3. Getroude van of vanne en noemname in die laaste of dan die AKA kolom.
Glo my dit sal beter werk.
HOOFLETTERS VS KLEINLETTERS.
Dieselfde as bo. Veroorsaak net onnodige merges enn dit is korrek om dit in hoofletters te plaas maar weet almal dit? Hoekom vir ons self hoofpyne gee met sulke klein detail?
Ons het ons almal s'n juis verander in die tydperk 2008 toe ons almal met 15000 merges moes worstel. Vandag bring jy dit af na 5000 en more oggend is dit weer 10000 - 15000. DIT WAS 'N NAGMERRIE.
Baie groete en lekker dag aan almal.

Key Topics and Issues to measure in consideration for a decision:
• Personal and cultural preference
• Difference between how the living may write their name and the genealogical way of writing a name (Confusion on the position of the fields)
• Why the need for guidelines and to follow an agreed common approach
• What are the alternatives?
• Sourced vs fabricated and maintaining duplicate values
• Basic 'best way' to use the fields to maximum benefit
• Considering Searches and matches
• Practical aspects to browsing the tree and finding people.
• What do I use in South Africa to search for a person and why..

I translate two aspects of Judi's mail to help our English users.

=Is dit dan so moeilik vir die beginner genealoog/navorser om te probeer leer om die korrekte Genealogies voorgeskrewe reels eerder aan te leer en sommer sodoende hulle eie navorsing te kan vergemaklik, i.p.v om voort te gaan met die onkonvensionele maniere.=

Is it then so difficult for the beginner genealogist/researcher to try to learn the correct genealogical approach and standards and by so doing to make their own research easier instead of going ahead with unconventional methods.

=Maar ek steek vas by die volgende.
1. Alle volledige name in blok een. Geboortevan in albei van blokke.
2. Indien julle oor die de Villiers numering beskik, plaas dit, dit maak dit net makliker , maar ander los dit uit. Dit sal nie 'n verskil maak nie. Soos die tyd aanstap sal julle self die drang voel om julle eie numering te kan weet.
3. Getroude van of vanne en noemname in die laaste of dan die AKA kolom.
Glo my dit sal beter werk. =

"I stop at the following:
1) All names in Field 1. Name at Birth in both Field 3 & 4
2) If you have a de Villiers number place it in suffix. It makes things easier otherwise just leave it. As time goes by you will also feel the need to know your own number.
3) Married names, Surnames, Nicknames and Common names in Also Known As.
Believe me it will work better."

Okay I looked into this more closely. I was wrong when I said the first name was matched against Also Known As any differently than last name. Here's the breakdown:

1. Advanced search matches field-for-field; what you type in the "Also Known As" search field will be matched against what's stored in the profiles' Also Known As field. What you type in any other search field (First Name, Last Name) will not.

2. Basic / Quick search (in the header, and the single-input field labeled Quick Search on the search page) will match what you type against what's stored in any of the name fields (first name, middle name, also known as, display name, suffix)

3. Tree matches ignore Also Known As altogether.

Dankie aan Judi En Mau vir harde werk om eenvormigheid in die boom te bewerkstellig. Ek is heelhartig saam met julle voorstelle en gaan die boodskap aan al my saamwerkers versprei. Een manier van data invul,soveel meer ooreenstemmings en soveel minder teenstrydighede!

Nogmaals dankie julle!

Judi
We have "agreed" almost 2 years ago that unless we have all the names in the first blokkie, it is very difficult in case of tree conflict/merges to see whether 2 apparently similar looking first names are in fact the same person. One then had to go out of the process and check before you could resume your actions. Since that time, long before the current standardisation efforts I put all names under first name (blokkie) and saving valuable time.

This sounds very much like folks are about to start trying to impose their decisions on all of us. I am very much opposed to this!!

Re: Judi's comment translated as: "Is it then so difficult for the beginner genealogist/researcher to try to learn the correct genealogical approach and standards and by so doing to make their own research easier instead of going ahead with unconventional methods." ----

This ignores the fact that that one of Geni's two major goals is for Family interaction/sharing photos and info and etc. -- so lots of folks are here for that, not as a "beginner genealogist/researcher" - stop assuming everyone on Geni is interested in genealogical conventions, and/or wants them imposed on them.

Lois, this is a South African initiative and has nothing to do with any other area of the tree. Please do in your part of the tree what you prefer and let us who work most in our part of the tree do things that work for us. I would appreciate if we can leave this conversation to the South Africans to complete.

Lois,

for Family interaction/sharing photos and info and etc. you will send an invitation to them to join Geni. They will not have to search to find you.
This convention should help with finding relatives you do not know much about.

Mauritz,

When a conversion has a title like 'Legal name', you can get international responses. When starting new conversation everybody has to be aware of that.

Yeah, fair enough. We should have moved the conversation to the relevant project maybe, but Adrian asked it here..

genealogical conventions a should be imposed on everyone SORRY - this has been the GREATES problem with GEDCOMS all the differen variants this is also why we have such screwed up trees any any sector of the family tree - - the legal name first, middle last, and in cases of felamles should be adhered to - suffix and titles also

It is because of this that some mnay records are "Screwed" up not only on GENI - but on ancestry.com; the the family world trees and even in the data bases of the LDS (Latter Day Saints)

this I DO NOT CARE about genealogical conventions on the part of any family researcher whether a novice to the professional level HAS TO STOP

Researchers over the years have just kept dumping GECOM's into their files not bothering to open them up into a seperate file to see what they do contain before merging into their own and then if the do they do not bother to clean up or een fully try to merge them - -

has any one every wonder where all the 'FUNNY LOOKING" qrazy, stupis spelings of places come from? is from the glodbal replace for places in for programs suchas persona; ancestry file, Legacy, family tree because people fail to write out the place in full - they choose there own abrevaintions excample would be trying to goboally replac the abbreviation of "IN" to Indiana - if not done as a case preference any place the the letters "IN" or "in" get Indiana inputted into every last place field in the file thet would apply goign from full to abbreviated as well then no one cleans these up does another global replace for either spellign etc - thus more weird compouded names

there has to been a genalogical standard in place for years http://www.geni.com/projects/Data-Entry-Standards-for-Genealogists-... - and should be followed - as everyone benfits from it now today and in the future when we are all dead and gone but our records are still around for ther to research and uses

I may be guilty of not following but I have done a lot of cut and past into GENI from other sources - so there mistakes follow on to here and thus are compounded ...

Okay off my soapbox and sorry to but in on this - but this has always been one of my biggest pet peeves...

Made myself a warm cup of cofffee and feel like I can face this discussion ;-)

LOL..which is such a typical Geni discussion? 1) going (somewhat) off topic 2) although it is where we would get this topic every time we start a new thread on it. ;-)

Lois and Judi and Judy so well sume up the key issue I think. The genealogists would appreciate Geni to also work for them and those who do not care so much about the genealogy side of things want the same thing for how they want to do things. Somewhere we will need to come to some sort of compromise if we want Geni to work. In South Africa we are generally further than most people because our Genealogy is pretty advanced compared to most areas, particularly in our use of Geni. We have been working to some sort of convention for a long time already.

The High level background is in the Coallition Projects (Links on left) and can be summed up by what is in 'About me' on the these two profiles:

Vision To Make Geni better Using The Existing Fields? 100% with a few changes from Geni on key fields, Having fun doing it together
Mission and Objectives

There are links from the guideline project to the South African specific issues.

To follow up on what Job noted about LEGAL being such a public concept, I do want to come back to our approach on public discussions and would like to point out that when we join a thread it would help if we make sure we have the full background on a particular situation before we jump in. - To be clear - I don't mind the input here - I appreciate it. But it is a difficult enough subject as it is and it would help participants to familiarise themselves fully with the background of a thread before they jump in at the deep end?

Adrian was very specific in his question and refered to South African 'Afrikaans' Profile Guidelines. Lois, this is not anyone imposing any decision. This is someone inviting participation to achieve the above stated Vision and Mission in our local tree.

There is much to be said about this. Who for instance are the paying users (PRo's) in our tree and why and who does the most work on the tree? I think you will find those peolple participating most avidly in this initiative are those most interested in getting the tree to some level of genealogicaly accuracy and validity and stop the edit and merge issues.

Those who do not share this need and like to use Geni for social networking or pure historial interest could only benefit by the genealogists getting the tree right..

I think both sides of the coin here have valid points. We will need to get a negotiated settlement of sorts though to be able to confirm a convention as we are doing for South Africa here...

Judith "Judi" Elaine (McKee) Burns You've done such a lot of work on this project of yours. I think it is great!

thank you - I belonged to ngs for years because of their home loand library program - i kept the membership up for awhile after they gave their library to the ST. louis Public library - they house the over 20, ooo books they had that they shipped from outside washington D.c. ahlf way across the country tol St. Louis Mo. the condition was that they had to be made avaiailable to everyone on aniinterlibrary loan program the intial trial preiod was 10 years - think it is near the end - but i tink it will contiue there.

This is such a fascinating discussion. I've had to really work at trying to understand the various points of view being offered, and I've learned a lot. One of the things that I've been thinking about is that inclusiveness and collaboration are always more challenging than going one's own way, alone. For many of us the effort is more than worth the struggle because the rewards are so rich. As my son says, "Everything is more fun with other people!"

Yes, it's hard to find compromises that work for everyone. But I really hope we can keep trying until we're successful! All of the different goals and perspectives that have been presented in these discussions are valid, and it's important to keep in mind that people are here for many different reasons. The thing is - no one HAS to be here. It's purely voluntary, so even though I truly believe we need some sort of conventions, if we impose too many rules or they're too hard for the majority to follow, people will leave. And I don't want to end up playing all by myself!

I think that finding a way to work together - to work WELL together - is going to require all of us to stretch a little. ;-)

Jennifer,

I fully agree.