Casefile Clues deal for Cyndi's List Users

Casefile Clues is Michael John Neill's weekly genealogy how-to newsletter. Geared to researchers with some experience it discusses in clear detail research sources, methods, and procedures in an eary to read and follow fashion. Fans of Cyndislist can subscribe to Casefile Clues for 1 year at a discount rate of $14 http://www.casefileclues.com/cyndi14.html

Deep Linking makes Cyndi's List Unique

I saw this on a Google+ stream from July:
"(P.S. I don't use Cyndi's List so much since most things can be found with search.)"
This statement isn't quite true. One of the unique things about Cyndi's List is that I deep-link into web sites that contain genealogically-specific information. Google doesn't always return hits for pages deep within a web site. Sometimes even I have to look for some links the hard way - browsing and digging my way down through several layers in a web site's hierarchy. Use Cyndi's List in conjunction with your Google searches for a broader success rate.

Cyndi's List is 15 Years Old

Cyndi's List was first published on March 4, 1996. I have a hard time believing that was 15 years ago. One of the questions I get asked a lot is how Cyndi's List got started. Each fall our local society meets to share what we did over the summer. In the summer of 1995 I bought a new computer with a blazing fast 9600 baud modem, preloaded with AOL software. I immediately started looking for genealogy resources online. I took what I had found to our society meeting in September 1995—one printed page of everything I found online. I had ten copies to hand out just in case someone else was interested. They were. They jumped on me like a pack of ravenous wolves! Our society's quarterly editor, Nancy Peterson, asked me if I would be willing to turn that into a 5 or 6 page article for the fall issue. Unwittingly, I did. And I decided I should probably categorize the web sites to make things tidier. This is how Cyndi's List was born. The following January I taught myself how to write HTML and I created a personal web site. When building the site I thought I would share my article with the links just in case anyone might find them useful. It was one long web page with about 1,025 links. The name I gave it wasn't very creative, but it stuck: Cyndi's List of Genealogy Sites on the Internet.

I shared my new web site and the list of links with others online via genealogy mailing lists. People started asking me to set up links to their web sites as well. So, I did, adding dozens of new links every day. I recall early on in 1996 that a gentleman told me that my page of links was too large and took too long to load. Remember, this is the early days when most people were using a dial-up connection. He had a good point, so I started building separate pages for each category of links. From that point on Cyndi's List took on a life of its own. It was a snowball, heading downhill. It was the Roadrunner and I was the Coyote. In those first days I worked on the site for a couple of hours each day. Before long I was spending 4 hours, 6 hours, and then 8-12 hours a day.

I also spent time on several genealogy mailing lists and helped by answering research questions. Between that and the link requests I was inundated each day as my e-mail grew to 500-600 messages daily. I spent less time on mailing lists and all of my spare time building Cyndi's List. My own research and my personal genealogy web site have gone virtually untouched since then. I created a FAQ and put up a "Before You E-mail Cyndi" page to try and stem the incoming flow of messages. I currently receive 200-300 messages a day, many of which can be answered with some pre-written templates.

In 1998 I was fortunate to receive sponsorship that lasted about 4 years with Sierra Software. That same year I registered the domain name and was offered web hosting by RootsWeb. Cyndi's List had become a more than full time job and business. Over the years I had some part-time helpers here and there, including my sister-in-law whose only job was fixing broken links. Five years ago I redesigned the site, as it appears today, with cleaner navigation. As of October 2007 I was on my own again, a one-woman show. I had to move the site to a paid server and advertising income drastically dropped along with the economy.

Today, Cyndi's List exists on more than 680 individual web pages, 180+ categories with more than 292,000 links for genealogical research. And I have been maintaining it the same way for 15 years—handwritten HTML. It is time for a new look. It is time for Cyndi's List to join the 21st century. I did something that is both personally and financially very scary for me. I hired fusionSpan, a web development company, to transform Cyndi's List into a database driven site. The upgrade will result in easier navigation for you and much easier maintenance for me. It should also mean a much greater reduced wait time for new links to make it into the appropriate categories. With time I hope it means I'll be able to do more writing, blogging, and researching. We had hoped to have the upgraded Cyndi's List online for today's anniversary. But, as you might imagine, transforming 292,000 links into a database is a tricky thing. We're close to having the site ready to go and might soon have a pilot version online for you to see.

Thank you to everyone who has supported Cyndi's List through the past 15 years. I hope you'll stick around for the next 15 as well! Keep an eye on Cyndi's List over the next few months because there are good things coming!

• Historical Timeline
• Support Us
• Why Donate Money to Cyndi's List?
• Cyndi's List on Facebook
• Follow Cyndi's List on Twitter

Genealogy Rule #326: Watch What You Say and How You Say It

Recently, on the Cyndi's List Facebook page, on an unrelated topic, the following two statements were made:

"Be careful with the LDS thing. Very little documentation."

"Yes, my ancestors on one side joined when the church first began - lots of wrong, wrong, wrong info on them on the LDS site!!! No verification of information at all. It's like going on Ancestry and just grabbing family trees without documenting the info!"

I was disappointed with the very general, broadly condemning, generic statements that were made about an invaluable resource to genealogists worldwide. And I was disappointed that the statements weren't more specific with verifiable facts. This is something that we, as genealogists, should attempt in all written communications. Therefore, I have a few points to make about these statements.

1. When people refer to the "LDS site" they are generally referring to FamilySearch located at http://www.familysearch.org. FamilySearch is made up of numerous resources for genealogical research, including:
• A searchable catalog of all the holdings of the Family History Library located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The library is open to the public and the holdings are shared with everyone.
• The new FamilySearch Indexing Project that allows volunteers worldwide to index the records on microfilm held by the library. The indexes are available through FamilySearch Record Search.
• The ability to share your research with others.
• Research helps in the way of articles, Research Guidance, FamilySearch Wiki, Ask a Question forums, and online classes.
• And databases including Ancestral File, the International Genealogical Index (IGI), the Pedigree Resource File, the US Social Security Death Index (SSDI), a Vital Records Index for Mexico and Scandinavia, and free access to three censuses (1880 United States, 1881 British Isles, or the 1881 Canadian Census)
• See my page for FamilySearch for a breakdown and deep-links into this incredible site.



Clearly the "LDS site" has a lot of great records and documentation available, as well as other information that will help you in your research. And you do not have to be a member of the church in order to reap the benefits of their dedication to genealogy.



2. When people are talking about that "LDS thing" and "very little documentation" they are actually referring to the lineage-linked databases hosted at FamilySearch. Those are the Ancestral File, the IGI, and the Pedigree Resource File. And here is where I get a bit picky about language and broadly painting these databases with a negative brush. Those three databases are not the only lineage-linked databases out there. There are similar databases hosted at RootsWeb, Ancestry, OneGreatFamily, and many others. See my page for Lineage Linked Databases for definitions and examples. Basically, the lineage-linked databases are a dumping ground where everyone can put a copy of their family tree. The problem is that most people who do so do it when they are relatively new to genealogical research. Sometimes they are also put there by people who don't really care about doing any research beyond talking to Grandma and writing down what she remembers. And often the family trees are generally just a collection of names and dates without verification and documentation to prove each of those items. Lineage-linked databases should be used with caution and used only as possible clues that point you in the direction you need. It is up to you to find the documentation to prove the data you will use in your research.



Clearly, "very little documentation" is not something specific to that "LDS thing" at all. The cautionary statements should refer more specifically to all lineage-linked databases and all sites that contain a collection of names and dates without something to back to them up.



3. There are a lot of things that go into being a good genealogist. One of the most important is that the statements we make—sentences, names, dates, research conclusions, proof arguments, and more—MUST be clearly written and factual. And when a fact is not known the statement must clearly indicate that a fact is not known. If a guess is being made it needs to be labeled as a guess. If an assumption is being made, you shouldn't be a genealogist.

I believe that the statements made on the CL FB page were misleading and wrong. I believe the intent was to point out that it is important to know that lineage-linked databases can contain unproven data. However, the statements pointed unfairly to the entirety of all LDS holdings for genealogy online. And in doing so they also indicated unfairly that all LDS research is something to be wary of using. I used these statements as an example to show that sometimes the intent of what we are saying isn't what ends up being said. I challenge all of us to be careful in what we write and be thorough in how we present our ideas and opinions.