From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Sat Jul 22 22:44:22 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6N4iMjb022197; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:44:22 -0600 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l.rootsweb.com [66.43.16.22]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6N4htw4017636 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:43:55 -0600 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l [127.0.0.1]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k6N25eFI025411 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:05:40 -0400 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k6N25eGV025410 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:05:40 -0400 Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [66.43.27.41]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k6MNaIFI025102 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:36:18 -0400 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k6N2EMag020380 for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:22 -0600 X-Envelope-From: mscheffl@twcny.rr.com Sat Jul 22 20:14:22 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6N2EMjb020371 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:22 -0600 Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com (ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com [24.24.2.56]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6N2EJNI013147 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:20 -0600 Received: from m1070n (cpe-69-201-76-92.twcny.res.rr.com [69.201.76.92]) by ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k6N2EJqv019153 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <03d301c6adfd$b3779e90$6501a8c0@m1070n> From: "MScheffler" To: References: Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] AWT, OWT, and Ancestry.com Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:14:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 Sender: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com The Ancestry World Tree and the WorldConnect are the same database. Several years ago they were separate, and somewhere in a several year process of companies merging they became one large database. Thus the reason for duplication initially. One wanting to post a gedcom to this combined database should post it only one time. And then when they have additions, they should REPLACE the old database and not post a new one. I chose to post mine at WorldConnect because of the advanced features where one can limit the number of generations one can download in a gedcom file in one operation. If the individual wants more generations, they have to work a little harder at choosing what they want to download. The One World Tree is a different process and when Ancestry made the original selections for OWT they wrote and asked people to let them know if they wanted their tree omitted from this new endeavor. I didn't object, but my tree didn't get included, probably because it is submitted from the WorldConnect rather than the Ancestry side. What I don't know is if they have added more trees to the original base. But I have been told that all trees in the large shared database are not included in OWT as some people believe. OWT combines many databases into one. And what makes things even more confusing is that people can add their own information to specific families in OWT over time. so if your data got into OWT, someone else can change it in OWT (not in the other database). If one looks at some of the resulting families made from the combinations and the additions, there is much confused conflicting information. I think this is what some people are referring to when they say Ancestry has changed their tree. It is not Ancestry per say, but people like you and me who have gone into OWT and made changes. Some people like OWT. Personally I do not use it much. I like the WorldConnect/AWT database where one can get into an individual database and search through it. It is easier this way to determine if the tree is generally well researched. If one sees lots of typing errors, recognizes gross place errors, sees the database has no documention or used gedcom files for documention, then they might want to pass it by. In any case, before anyone blindly accepts anything as "truth" -- no matter how good the material looks on cursory glance -- they are going to want to find records that prove or disprove what is posted. Otherwise the same errors are perpetuated over and over. All of us can help this endeavor by doing our best to post accurate material. And when we find mistakes in our own data, we should make changes and UPGRADE/REPLACE our own online submission Those of us with duplicate similar databases should remove all but the most recent one. Margaret Scheffler