Skip to main content

FACEBOOK and GROUP PROJECTS


WHY YOU MIGHT WANT A FACEBOOK GROUP FOR YOUR ONE-NAME PROJECT: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE RUBY PROJECT

This post comes from team member Peggy Chapman, who usually posts the work of others on the blog but has taken on the role of writer this time. 
For many one-namers or genealogists in general, their work is a solitary activity and while they may receive input from others, it is simply another information source rather than a project member.  However, larger studies often have group collaboration.  Surnames that cross different cultures may mean participation of those more familiar with different countries are integral to the study success.  This describes the Ruby project, an initiative of the Guild of One-Name Studies to celebrate its 40th anniversary.  If you are not familiar with the project, go back in the blog archive to the first post. 

It was always intended that a closed Facebook group would be a communication tool for the project, in addition to a dedicated email address and files on Google drive. But it is the Facebook group where conversation can take place in a more dynamic way than other resources. February 2018 was the startup date so it is about one year since the group began and reviewing posts from the beginning to the present leads to some observations. 
It is not a surprise to anyone who has worked in collaborative genealogy projects that the subject of sources and citation emerged as the #1 topic of discussion!  Many opinions were expressed, all with merit, while the project leader tried to come to an agreement that took into account factors such as consistency and ease of transition to databases and websites.  Not an easy task with divergent opinions and record differences from one country to another. Discussion the most intense at the beginning, but emerged from time to time and proved to be the most frequently raised topic.   
Other common posts, in order of frequency[1]:
o   Sharing information: these were primarily from the project leader, or from someone working on a specific task, and were of course, informative and keeping people in the loop.
o   Process:  These were mostly technical in nature and were about working with different genealogical software, geo-coding, specific ways to represent Census data, etc.
o   Seeking advice:  One of the best uses of a Facebook group and perhaps underutilized by this group; running into a genealogy challenge and seeking suggestions
o   Progress updates: separated from general Info sharing as these specifically provided data on how many people in the database, progress of the website, etc.
o   Feedback: Usually providing response to a proposed process item or an experience that did not “fit” the rule.  This also includes the crucial function of clarification for individual(s), and one team member to another over specific families overlapping.
o   Software and country differences:  Grouped together as the theme is basically my software/country records do not work the same as yours.

What are considerations for a Facebook group for your project?
o   Make sure it is a closed group
o   Create an atmosphere of free conversation and try to draw out those less vocal – as with any group, there are always those who remain in the background
o   Regardless of degree of participation, everyone who is a member will be able to follow the trail
o   Keep in mind that not all your members will be Facebook fans and this adds an additional role for someone to ensure these people get the information by other means
o   There will be natural ups and downs in participation and this is okay
o   Make it clear at the beginning that the Facebook group is the main tool for communication, decision-making, updates, so people are clear of its parameters
o   Use approaches that are targeted: for example, the project leader at one time identified 5-6 proposals that needed to be decided – this of course provoked attention and discussion
o   When decisions discussed, ensure a concrete post advises of the final decision.

It being award season in film and music, I could not help but identify a few award-winning posts.  First, in best historical overview of a Ruby cluster:  Marie, who on 22 February 2018 described the multiple origins of the Wisconsin Rubies: Canada, Württemberg, Prussia, Germany, Switzerland, and another US. 
Paul, for best musing late at night, on 10 July 2018 waxed philosophically on quantitative and qualitative aspects of the goals of the Ruby project.
Fiona, for best sharing of information found about a Ruby being researched: on 15 April 2018 she shared a document on a Ruby Breach of Promise case.  
Margaret, for best comment on a post: In response to Fiona’s post above, drew on Gilbert and Sullivan with “She may very well pass for forty-three in the dusk, with light behind her”.


[1] An explanation of the less than scientific review – I eventually was able to reach to the very first post but as I tried to follow the posts, the order kept changing and jumping about. I tried two or three workarounds and searched Google for tips, but nothing worked out but I was able to get a reasonable, while not comprehensive, estimate.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

PASSING THE TORCH

Thank you to Paul, who took on a project that was untried and became a rather large initiative.  His post below is an excellent summary. It is just a fact that without Paul the bumpy start to this concept would never have achieved what it did.  My own contributions never met their unrealistic goals - oh sure I will cover every Ruby in Canada - and due to many shifting priorities, my commitment regretfully decreased as time progressed but Paul persevered and never gave up the goal - Kudos! Peggy Chapman This is the final note from me as project manager for the initial stage of the Ruby One-Name Study, started by the Guild of One-Name Studies as a means of demonstrating what Guild members could do when working together in a tight timetable to celebrate the Guild’s 40 th birthday in September 2019. We started this project early in 2018 when three of us, me in Florida, Peggy in Canada and Karen in Australia had a few video-conference discussions to figure out how best to take
In today's post, Paul Howes describes how the Ruby study has taken on a contemporary approach by looking at UK files that reflect a primarily English one-name study of a different era.  Aside from electronic vs paper, a primary focus in today's one-name study is family reconstruction from the beginning.  A different dynamic Thanks to another member of the Guild of One-Name Studies, we recently became aware of some considerable work done on a large number of Ruby families by a man named Reed, now deceased.  The member had prepared a large number of electronic files for transfer to the Society of Genealogists (SoG)* together with ten boxes of paper files.  The SoG now owns this material but has kindly given us access to Mr Reed's work in advance of its being fully accessioned and we acknowledge with thanks their kind contribution to our effort. Mr Reed was not a Guild member but as I viewed the paper copy of his material at the SoG it was clear that he had gone about

DRY Genealogy and a word from the new Ruby team

For readers who are not Guild members, the Ruby project will be transferring to "real" Rubys the end of September.  Michael Ruby has introduced himself and provided a very interesting read on DRY approach to genealogy.  I think many of us can relate to the amusing but true definiton of WET!  And with Michael's permission, I would love to adopt the sentence " Genealogy as a whole is forever beautifully unfinished."   Peggy Homans Chapman Hello, everyone. My name is Michael Ruby. I am part of the team that will be inheriting the Ruby One-Name Study on 30 September. I would like to take this opportunity to express gratitude, to introduce myself, and to offer some initial thoughts about the future of the study by way of this blog post’s main body. In it, I wish to offer something that I hope is at least a little bit fresh: a computer science-style argument for the value of approaching genealogy through the one-name study.   I have a feeling that most geneal