Living <as of...>

macalter
2011-03-20
2013-05-30
  • macalter
    macalter
    2011-03-20

    Some genealogy sites, such as JewishGen for example, indicate people as "Living". The index shows last update of the entry so can assume that as of a certain date, the person was alive. Also happens when there is an obit for a person, their spouse is given by name, not as "late <name>" assuming therefore the spouse is alive. (And possibly remarried which is another kettle of fish for tracking :)

    To me, that means not to bother looking for obit or other data for dead people. Is it something that should be added to PGV BIRT with the Source associated with BIRT? With entries using "Living", there is rarely a birth date shown.

     
  • Gerry Kroll
    Gerry Kroll
    2011-03-20

    Actually, "Living" means that the person is not known to be dead or cannot be assumed to be dead because of age.  These programs or sites are just using "Living" as an indication that the details are private.

    PGV indicates "Living" by means of "Private" in place of any personal details when (a) you're not signed in and (b) Privacy has been enabled.

     
  • Stephen Arnold
    Stephen Arnold
    2011-03-20

    Many sites indicate 'living' for people known or presumed to be alive. PGV operates similarly, but should not expose any data on any person where we do not know a DEAT fact (or DEAT Y) or BURI event (with or without a date).

    Exactly what are you asking? I am very confused. I know you search for and enter many obits, and doing so, unless entered as SOUR and you have PGV configured to hide SOUR from casual visitors, will expose living persons names. What are you looking to accomplish with your post?
    -Stephen

     
  • macalter
    macalter
    2011-03-20

    okbigkid/canajun2eh:
    Thanks canajun2eh for clarifying that! I've always assumed that seeing "Living" meant just that. Instead you're saying the math doesn't figure the person is dead, which is entirely different!

    It's easy to find obits and other info for death of person with same name. Easy to confirm if same gives details of related people AND I have listing for the same people. Not so easy when all I have is the one name (a person but no spouse known). If I have John Doe "Living as of 2011", then I know it's not my John Doe. Or, it's not him until I can prove otherwise (find wife & children that match entry).

    My threshold for living people is 96 (based on legal release of birth statistics) so it's sometimes hard to know whether to use BIRT Y only or DEAT Y. Thought this would give me a clue.

    It's not for privacy issues as my site is registered viewers only.

     
  • Stephen Arnold
    Stephen Arnold
    2011-03-20

    BIRT Y  is a huge waste of time and doesn't improve performance. If a person is listed without any death fact (died young, stillborn, premature death, or buried - perhaps 'infant of") then PGV will assume BIRT Y. IMHO, The only purpose for adding a BIRT Y would be to provide a definitive location (PLAC) or NOTE or SOUR for the child.

    I still don't understand your original question, but it seems you have sorted it out with the additional information we (Jerry and I) provided.

     
  • macalter
    macalter
    2011-03-20

    You've just answered a question I longed to ask but thought otherwise. Should I use BIRT when no info known. Indeed, not of value onto itself. Not worth going backwards of course but will change going forward. I do like it when no other facts/events are given.

    Yes, between both of you, got a reply. I can see purpose for "Living" for some entries, again for use in doing follow-up but probably should add "assumed" depending on source used. Thanks.

     
  • Thomas52
    Thomas52
    2011-03-22

    Late 2008, "FishAreBest" wrote a "Batch Update" that was added to the Admin menu, including "Add missing birth records."  He said "…the advantage is performance.  It allows PGV to short circuit some logic. If there is no BIRT, PGV looks for a CHR, a BAPM, etc." Ditto "Add missing death records."  I found it sped up my searches, so I have to take exception to the "huge waste of time" comment.

     
  • Gerry Kroll
    Gerry Kroll
    2011-03-22

    The 1 BIRT Y sub-record is useless.  If the person is in the database, obviously he/she was born!  How can someone exist without being born?  I don't think science has progressed to the point where cloning is a viable option for engendering a human being.

    You don't need Y if you have a date or a place of birth. 

     
  • Thomas52
    Thomas52
    2011-03-22

    Gerry: I'm not sure you're reading the entire message.  "IF THERE IS NO BIRTH…" is what was said.  In some cases, I (& others I have no doubt) have entered a death and/or marriage, & not knowing the birth data, left it blank. I no longer do that. You're correct, the "Y" is redundant IF there is a birth date or place.  From a logical standpoint, I agree, but from a programming standpoint, I think you're mistaken - the 1 BIRT Y sub-record is not useless - but I am a very weak programmer.  I'd be interested in any explanation of the programming logic, but I think I have a reasonable handle on the "science."  If you're expressing an "opinion," I think you might qualify your comment.

     
  • Stephen Arnold
    Stephen Arnold
    2011-03-22

    Thomas
    It may be opinion, or it may be factual, but if someone has a name, it is a fair assumption that some event created it. The person may have been stillborn, or died prior to birth, or a few days or weeks later, or we may have no information about the birth event, but IMHO, simply a 1 BIRT Y is redundant and useless - a waste of time and effort.

    You mention Greg's nifty batch update, but fail to mention that 1 BIRT Y is no longer included in his latest efforts. Only the 1 DEAT Y improves the program's ability to calculate privacy as this non-event event removes many unnecessary calculations based on a complicated algorithm of close relatives.  1 BIRT Y does not aid in this calculation whatsoever.

    So, in effect, Jerry (and be deduction me) is correct.
    -Stephen

     
  • Thomas52
    Thomas52
    2011-03-22

    Okay, now I understand.  Thank you for the clarification.