Place Pinning My Genealogy Books

Genealogy is all about location right? Well, what better way to map out the coverage of my genealogy book collection than to try and use Pinterest’s new Place Pins feature announced earlier this week. While, I could of course, use Google Maps to do this, Pinterest has a strong visual component that I believe makes it more appealing than creating a custom Google Map.

The Place Pins feature allows you to assign a specific geographic location to any of your Pinterest pins. For my 1st test case, I knew right away what I would use for my experiment. You see, I have a fascination with the books published by Arcadia Publishing – especially their Images of America and Black America Series. The books in the series emphasize pictures to help tell the stories of many locales around the country.  In the past few months I’ve decided to start collecting them and have been planning to make a more concerted effort to keep better track of the ones I have.  Since the books are location-specific, a map makes perfect sense.

This afternoon I created a new board and began pinning my books. Here is my new map! Click on the picture to visit the live version. 

As my collection continues to grow, I will keep adding pins. And, I also have plans for additional boards that could make good use of map, including a series of blog posts I’ll be doing focused on places I’ve lived throughout my childhood.

Let me tell you what I like about the new feature:

  • I appreciate that the map automatically includes the full geographic region covered by my pins.
  • The pinning process is easy — though it did take me a couple of tries to realize that I’m supposed to enter the pin description before I actually upload the pin
  • as you rollover a number on the map, the corresponding pin is highlighted; and vice-versa

What could be improved?

  • when more than one pin is in the same city, the overall map you doesn’t show multiple numbers if zoomed out to far, only one number
  • it would be nice if the map zoom function would work by mouse scroll (like Google Maps)
  • The feature leverages FourSquare maps, so locations have to be in the FourSquare database; that could potentially be limiting. Perhaps there could be some integration of Google Maps

I’m going to have fun with this. Thanks to the Pinterest team for adding the ability to do this!  Interested in other ways genealogists are using the new feature? Here are just a few other examples I’ve seen in the geneasphere so far:

I would enjoy seeing other’s pin maps, so if you have one, let me know!

Idea for Collaborative Genealogy – Easier Edit Options!

If you are a regular reader of my blog, then you may know that I am a huge proponent for collaborative genealogy – specifically, platforms for working on family trees and genealogical information via shared tools where multiple contributors work together.  Well, I recently stumbled across Wikipedia’s Visual Editor and it’s awesome! I have contributed to Wikipedia many times in the past, but have always abhorred having to use the Wiki markup language. However, their Visual Editor program is nice because it makes editing much more “WYSIWYG” or “what you see is what you get.”  As stated in the video below, it

..makes writing for Wikipedia like writing a paper for class or sending an email..

I am loving the Visual Editor and would love to see something like it implemented on the FamilySearch Wiki and at WeRelate. Other genealogy-based wiki’s would also benefit. I contribute to FamilySearch now as it is and they do have a visual editor option, but it works differently and I think Wikipedia’s Visual Editor approach is a great model for how FamilySearch Wiki could be improved to make it even easier for people to share what they know.

Do you contribute to FamilySearch or WeRelate? Do you think it would be great to have edits work like Wikipedia’s Visual Editor?

Anticipating the Next Generation PERSI

FindMyPast has recently announced their partnership with the Allen County Public Library to revolutionize the PERiodical Source Index (PERSI)a database well known to many genealogists. PERSI is a fabulous resource in that the ACPL has, over the past 30 years, been indexing publications from genealogy society newsletters and journals.

However, as great as PERSI is, two years ago I blogged suggestions for further improving it and in general, thoughts for how the genealogy publishing industry could become more aligned with models used in science and medicine for online publishing. I am so glad to see this new partnership and believe it will be a great impetus for a start in this direction!

image from http://goo.gl/bdztj9

In my blog post, I listed several features I would love to see included in PERSI – perhaps FindMyPast can incorporate some of these elements — these included RSS feeds for each title, the ability to comment at the individual article level, the ability to share publication details via social media, and offering HTML and PDF versions of articles. Ideally, I would also like to see ways to purchase access to articles (with some older ones being provided for free).

I can anticipate that many genealogy societies may have reservations about how their content will be reflected and included in the new version of PERSI, since there are plans to include full-text content, but I would also hope that many will see this as an opportunity to be open-minded and reflect on the potential for new business models.

As it stands now, I as a user, remain highly frustrated by the publishing models of many genealogy societies and hope that this may open a path for widespread consideration. Far too few offer easy-access methods for true online subscriptions to current, much less, historical content. Do you know how inconvenient it is for me to have to send a check for print volumes, or even wait for a CD to be sent? Digital delivery is greatly needed by more genealogy societies

The Federation of Genealogical Societies would be an ideal organization to help with some of the transition so the fact that D. Joshua Taylor is FGS President and lead genealogist for FindMyPast is almost too perfect! :-)

As Curt Witcher is quoted in the FindMyPast press release

Having the ability to provide much more frequent updates and further, link index entries to serial issues, is a real game-changer…

and I eagerly anticipate seeing this come to fruition for us all to benefit even more than we have in the past!

 

 

FamilySearch’s FamilyTree: Oh How It Excites Me!

I’ve had great fun this weekend catching up with RootsTech activity. From the formal web streams, to blog posts, and videos produced by those on site, I’ve truly enjoyed it.  Among my favorite of the material I took in this weekend though was to hear the update from Ron Tanner on FamilySearch’s Family Tree.  After his talk last year on the FamilyTree, I was able to play around with it some and did like what I saw. But, the good news from this year is that FamilyTree is now open to the public and you don’t have to be an LDS member (which I’m not) to use it.  This excites me!

You want know why don’t you? The reason is because I do an extensive amount of work for others via my USGenWeb activities and have access to information about many people. To date I have indexed thousands of names from many different types of records (newspaper articles, yearbooks, wills, etc.) and sometimes I find myself looking up these people I’m indexing and/or reading about. I do post to various genweb sites and on my own personal websites/blogs but I find that I want to place this information as directly as I can into the hands of their relatives so that they can see it sooner, rather than them happening to stumble across it different places on the web. My goal is to match up this info to their families who may be looking for them.

Given my interests, I am a fan of collaborative genealogy and am in favor of the concept of a One World Tree approach — and this is exactly what FamilySearch FamilyTree is going after.

Now, I understand a “One World Tree” will never truly be a One World Tree. But, I do like the idea of one master page for a person that many people can contribute to and work on and monitor. For a long time, I’ve felt that such an approach is the best way for me to share what I come across.. My criteria for the perfect platform = free, one master record per person, lots of people in the database, and a way for changes to be pushed out to anyone “monitoring” for changes.

In the past, I’ve experimented with the following:

  • Ancestry Member Trees
    • Advantages:  large market share which equals lots of people. Putting my info there means it is probably going to eventually be seen by those interested in it. Especially with Ancesty’s record matching technology.
    • Disadvantages: the member trees are *individual* so if I have something to add, I have to create a new record for myself, attach the item and then hope it gets picked up for others to see. Or, else, I’m manually contacting others who have that person in their tree and sending them messages. Lots of work. But, this is what I have been doing up until now.
  • Geni.com
    • Advantages: None for me now. Since they changed their membership model at the end of summer in 2011
    • Disadvantages: with their membership model one cannot search their entire database of profiles unless you pay.  This is a major barrier for me as I’m seeking a free approach to sharing. It’s hard to contribut to records you can’t see. This is a barrier for many.
  • WeRelate
    • Advantages: I’ve liked what I’ve seen from WeRelate and admire what they are trying to do. Also, their partnership with the Allen County Public Library should definitely help with their longevity.
    • Disadvantages: person editing has gotten better over the years, but the wiki format will still be confusing and a barrier for many. And, though they have 2.4 million profiles in the database, when I can’t even find 5 randomly selected former North Carolina governors in the database, it tells me that there is still much room for growth and my contributions would likely not get the traction I’m seeking .
  • WikiTree 
    • Advantages: this is another company who I think is trying to do a great thing by fostering collaborative genealogy. But, I personally see no advantages to use them.
    • Disadvantages: ads appear as I navigate the site and I find them intrusively placed. I think it used to be the case that ads were only for users who are not logged in but that’s not so any more as I see them even when logged in. Also, in my test search for the same 5 NC governors, no results were found for any of them. Again, another sign that the database has more room for growth and may not be the best for my efforts.

FamilySearch Family Tree however, seems to meet all of my criteria!

  • It’s free to use.
  • They have a HUGE database of people (all 5 of those NC governors were easily located in my search).
  • Lots of people use it. It’s FamilySearch after all – a juggernaut in genealogy!
  • Each person can be “watched” and changes are emailed to you if you are watching someone
  • And, as a One World Tree concept – their goal is one record per person. Exactly what I want to be contributing to. 

Not that it’s perfect. I have some recommendations which I’ll share in a separate post, but I see myself investing my time in Family Tree for the forseeable future and promoting that for researchers with whom I interact. IMHO, I believe this is the best platform for me and my goals and thanks to FamilySearch for opening it up! :-)


Image credit: Networking from Flickr user jairoagua. 

 

Participating in Genealogy Market Research

This week concluded with an interesting experience for me – I participated in a market research interview for a genealogy company – AppleTree.com.

AppleTree is a collaborative genealogy website.  They contacted me because of my past blog posts on collaborative genealogy, probably most specifically a post I made about Geni.com and my initial thoughts on it and how it compares to other collab genealogy sites.

It was definitely a fun and interesting experience! I don’t believe I am your “typical” genealogist so I did explain that to them, but of course they are interested in a multitude of viewpoints.

Admittedly, I have not explored the site in-depth, but I may have an idea of where they are heading based on the questions in our conversation.  I explained also that I have a very high threshold for what I expect from a web-based genealogy program so I have very high expectations. :-)  That said, I am even more convinced that we are going to see even more innovation in tech + genealogy in the next few years from companies like theirs and others, and I am going to have a glorious time trying to take it all in!

Thank you Jim & Scott for a great conversation.

 

I’m Finally Using BillionGraves

When BillionGraves launched just prior to Memorial Day I was quite excited at its availability.  Though it was initially offered as an iOS app and I don’t have an iPhone, I enjoyed perusing the website and using what was available there.  I wrote a blog post outlining my initial impressions.  I am a power techie user and their model fits nicely within my paradigm for how I like to operate.  Well, this week, they made the Android app available and I could not wait to try it out!

Earlier this afternoon I took a trip to a nearby cemetery to see how it works.  I am in love.

Getting Ready

  • Android is notorious for all the different phone models, so the app does not work on all Android phones. I appreciated the developers taking the time to present a list of phones in their blog post that they know it works on, phones they know that it does not, and phones they were unsure about. My phone is on the “know it works on list” – yeah!
  • The download went without hitch and it was easy to login. I do wish my avatar would have downloaded when I logged into my account  – but that’s a vanity thing. :-)

Taking Pictures

I went to Calvary Cemetery – a Catholic cemetery here in Nashville.  I’ve only been here once and this was an opportunity to further explore it.  I was concerned about my GPS because my phone is awful for GPS, but this app is right on target as far as the section of the cemetery that I was in!  Here is my photo map of the pictures I took and it is an excellent tool for location purposes. The headstones marked are not exactly in place, but close enough for someone who may wish to follow-up and find them for themselves.  I like this view too because it makes it easy to remember where to pick up when I go back to the cemetery.  In fact, I’m going back in the morning and am going to try and finish this section.

The app is very easy to use. In fact, the camera on it works faster than when I use the regular camera feature on the phone. I did have a few delays between pictures at times but it could have just been my phone -it has been acting up for weeks now.  The GPS signal on my phone was strong and I was able to take around 150 pictures in about 30 minutes.  Not bad!  I had the kids with me, so purposefully did not stay long – just wanted to test it out.

Uploading Pictures

One touch upload.  Perfect! I don’t know how long it took for my pictures to upload because I did it and left my phone to charge back up and didn’t come back to my phone until about an hour later.  After the pictures are uploaded, the numbers show up on my online dashboard.  For some reason, one of the pictures was attached to the cemetery next door, so I’ll have to try and fix that.

From here, the transcription process is just like all other photos on the website after you click on the “My Photos” tab.  After having used the site for the past month, I can conclusively state that I prefer their transcription process to FindAGrave – I can move more quickly through it.

On an interesting note I see that some of my pictures have already even been transcribed by others. How cool!!!

I am very pleased with my app experience.  Thank you to BillionGraves for providing this app.  I may even go back and redo past pictures I’ve taken so I can further contribute to the site.

Test a Website, Win A Prize!

Would you like to help me test a website I’m working on? If so, you could win a prize!

What You Could Win: A 12-month Geni.com PRO account

Geni.com is a collaborative genealogy website with more than 100 million individual profiles.  The free account gives you the ability to create an online family tree w/ unlimited storage space for photos & documents.  Your family members can sign-up, also for free, to collaborate and help build family trees.  The PRO account provides additional features.

How To Enter:  Share your feedback on a genealogy website I’m working on

I have been working on a site for the NCGenWeb Project – a database of extracts from historical newspapers.  Most of the content comes from an amazing collection of abstracts from the Raleigh Register newspaper (1799-1893) that was created in the 1940s-1950s by the then State Librarian, Carrie Broughton.  I’ve only so far worked my way through the deaths from 1799-1830 years but that alone is more than 3,600 names.  The rest of the content has come from my indexing efforts of a few town newspapers, plus various extracts here and there, and a few contributions from others.

I’m still in the early stages of building the site and I’m eager to have user feedback and learning if information can be found as easily as I envisioned it.  Therefore, I’ve created a list of 5 tasks and invite you to answer the questions and then provide me with your overall thoughts on your experiences.

Click here to grab the questions. Once you email them back to me, along with a link to your Geni.com profile,  you’re entered!

Rules:

  • No purchase necessary.
  • Winner will be chosen at random.
  • Odds of winning are directly related to how many people enter the contest.
  • You can enter anytime between 9am EST March 29, 2011 and April 4th, 2011.
  • You are responsible for anything in regards to the legality of entering a contest in the area in which you live.
  • Rules can be updated at any time without notice.
  • The winner will be notified via their provided contact information the week following the end of the contest.
  • The winner will have seven days to claim their prize.
  • One entry per person.
  • You must have a free Geni.com account.

 

DISCLAIMER: I myself won a 3-month PRO subscription a couple of weeks ago, and in exchange for my continued use of the site and occasional blogging about my experiences, the Geni team upgraded my PRO subscription to 12 months.  They may come to regret that! Just yesterday I sent in 4 items to the help desk w/ comments about things I encountered on the site — to say I’m an engaged user can be an understatement! In any case, I do think Geni has a great concept and I would love for others to explore what it has to offer also! See an earlier blog post of mine about it.

 

 

My Foray into Geni.com

 

A week ago Friday night while participating in the GeneaBloggers Blog Talk Radio session I won a 3-month “Pro” subscription to Geni.com. I am quite excited!  When I read the description of the session and learned that Noah Tutak, CEO of the company, would be interviewed, I knew I needed to listen.  I have had a Geni.com account for a few years, but haven’t used it much.   I love the potential of the shared family tree building approach so knew I needed to revisit the site.  I strongly support collaborative/social genealogy efforts and feel Geni has great potential in this space.

After several days of really using the site, here’s my overall synopsis of what I like about Geni, what frustrates me, and how I think it compares to other platforms that also seek to promote online, collaborative, & social genealogy. I look forward to seeing how my impressions evolve as I use it further.

What I Like about Geni.com

  • collaborative family tree building – multiple people can easily work together on the same tree
  • easy to use interface — creating & editing profiles is easy with their point & click interface.  Unlike WeRelate and other person wiki-based projects, no knowledge of wikitext is needed. This reduces barriers to use.
  • Their goal of having one World Family Tree and trying to connect as many profiles together as possible. Quite laudable.  Unlike Ancestry Member Trees with their multiplicity,  redundancy can be minimized by merging profiles.
  • Built-in calendar – dates entered into the profiles are turned into notifications to family members of events like birthdays and anniversaries.  I’ve not seen this in other collaborative family tree programs.
  • Daily Digests - sent via email to summarize activity for the day.  a great way to stay informed on who’s doing what
  • Good Search Engine Optimization — results from Geni appear in search engines. I don’t believe this to be the case with Ancestry Member Trees?

What Frustrates Me

  • Editing Others’ Profiles – If I find a profile for which I can contribute information to, I have to request collaboration with the person who manages the tree before I can add to it.  This is seriously hampering my like for when I want to make a substantial contribution, I’d like the flexibility to do it right away.  I can add pieces to the profile, but not family members.  I would prefer an even more open model for collaboration where more edits could be made right away. This feature is a standard in wiki-based collaboration projects and I would like to see it adopted here.  I still haven’t heard back on both of the collaboration requests I made 7 days ago.  :-(
  • Relationship management — when adding a relationship, such as a marriage, to a person, the options on screen lead you through the process rather nicely. However, on the screen to manage a relationship you can only add one relationship and you’re not able to add more.  To add more, you have to go to another part of the profile.  My mother has been married three times — adding her relationships was cumbersome to say the least.
  • Counties not used in Place Names– at least not by default.  I would prefer not to have to enter county names  – especially if I’m entering a city.  That data element can be automatically defined. And some place names have zip codes in them that can’t be erased, while many don’t.  That’s odd.
  • Adding unconnected people — as is the case with Ancestry Member Trees, here you also can’t just add someone initially unless they are connected to an existing person on the tree.  If you don’t wish this to be the case, you have to add them, then remove the relationship.
  • Search Box – should have an option to search the entire site, or search just your tree.  Current set up has you enter a name, then the resulting screen lets you specify options to look at just your tree or the entire site.  Would like to see this moved to appear next to the search box itself in order to reduce a few clicks.  This is a common feature with site searches that use Google Search.
  • Path View – at the top of each profile in your tree is view that shows you how you’re related to the person you are looking at.  This is represented linearly, but there should be an option to view it hierarchically.  It can be hard to understand the steps up and down a tree unless you can represent hierarchy.  My genealogy program, TNG: the Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding, does this well.  The Geni team could consider an option to do something similar.
  • Descendancy view – does not include those not biologically related.  I understand the desire to keep it adhered to bloodlines, but it would be nice to have an option to include step-relationships in the Tree View; even if they were color-coded differently.

With a longer list of what frustrates me vs. what I like, you may get the impression i’m dissatisfied – but rest assured that is not the case! I like Geni more than the other wiki and wiki-type user tree sites I’ve come across for the following reasons.  I hope the Geni team considers these thoughts as they continue to make the site better.

How It Compares to other Social Genealogy Sites

  • WeRelate — with no WYSIWYG editor, I find WeRelate too cumbersome to enter data into — even though I am quite adept at HTML and Wiki Markup Language — it just is a time issue for me; it’s faster to do WYSIWYG rather than markup language.  Geni’s interface is point, click, enter – much easier to use.
  • AncestryMemberTrees — Ancestry has a huge user base and is highly visible.  The integration with records is undoubtedly an advantage.  The number of multiple records and how bad information gets rapidly duplicated is a limitation.  Geni is seeking to overcome this and for my purposes when I want to share information I like Geni’s approach better because I would only need to do it once — not to multiple people as is the case with Ancestry Member Trees.
  • WikiTrees – editing a profile you find is also not instantaneous – requests have to be made to the person who manages the profile. I also do not like the layout and structure of WikiTree pages and the ads are obtrusively placed  – often in the center of your screen.  Geni’s profiles are well-structured and ads are placed at the bottom of the page.
  • OneGreatFamily – primary goal is to create one large connected family tree.  I haven’t used this site in several years, but it is a complete subscription based service.  Nothing is visible without the subscription.  Geni.com and Ancestry use a fremimum model, where some information is available for free with additional content/features only available by subscription.  Freemium is better in my book.
  • MyHeritage – the site have a focus on sharing genealogy with those you select.  Thus, the openness of data is often restricted.  I’m not as likely to use this one  given its focus on restriction.

What do you think of Geni.com?

 

 

 

I Created an iPhone App!

I just can’t do anything with it.

Inspired by RootsTech I finally decided to further investigate something I’ve been curious about – how to go about creating apps for Android & iPhone.   I am so not a programmer/developer but I’ve heard of programs that allow non-developers to create apps and tried a few of them.   What type of app was I going for? An app to consolidate the feeds I have listed for the NCGenWeb Project on blogs/twitter/facebook accounts relative to North Carolina genealogy – the NCGenealogy 2.0 page.

Round 1:  Android App Inventor

As much as I love Android/Google, even their App Inventor program built for non-developers is not the easiest thing to get going with.   After spending an hour trying to get set-up, I still couldn’t use it – seems I am getting an error code for something going wrong with my computer.  I may try again later.

Round 2: iSites

After reviewing a list of potential sites for app development, I created an account with iSites.  For their most basic account they offer a 30 day free trial. I had to give my credit card info for the trial.  The process to create the app is done via a nice web interface and it was easy to add to it.  It turns out though that with the basic plan, only one RSS feed can be pulled into the app.  I’m aiming for multiple feeds.  Also, despite the site saying I could preview the Android version of the app, I could not figure it out. Also, iSites apps don’t work on the iPad and since I don’t have an iPhone, I couldn’t try it in real life.

Here are some screenshots of the app I made with iSites.  It shows only the feeds from the NCGenWeb Blog.

Front page of the NCGenWeb Blog feed

one blog entry from the NCGenWeb blog

ability to post to social network

Overall, I like this, but I really needed to be able to integrate multiple feeds and I was not willing to pay the $100 or so just for playing around.  I will be canceling my iSites trial tomorrow.

Round 3: appMakr

AppMakr looked promising b/c the market their app development as free.  This is good since many other companies charge anywhere from $100-$1000 and possibly monthly hosting fees.  Their website was also easy to use – they offered many more customization options than iSites.  Also, their app for the iOS operating system also works on iPads (just have to use the 2x magnification setting).

To my joy I could also integrate multiple RSS feeds! I could also create an app icon, a welcome splash screen, a custom header, and navigation icons across the bottom of the app.  I was impressed by all the options.  At the end of the app development process, AppMakr also rates the quality of your app and tells you how likely it is to be (or not to be) accepted by the Apple Store.  All this with no charges by AppMakr.  Here are screenshots from the app I created with them:

app icon

splash screen i created

feeds from county site category. i was able to create 5 different categories.

a specific blog post. notice the topic!

sharing options

I was very pleased with this and was now ready to figure out how to test it out.  Well, turns out the part that is not free in all this is the registration with Apple in order to develop apps; $99 fee.  This is not a requirement of AppMakr, but a requirement by Apple.  Again, I was not willing to pay this just to play around.  I did like the process though — and AppMakr provides some ability to test the app interactively online – you can do so at http://appma.kr/f6Plz0.

If I were developing an app for real, I would probably go with AppMakr.  Despite the fact that I can’t offer it for *real,* I am excited by the possibilities.  $100 and any organization/website/etc. could have an iOS app.  I do hope to further explore the Android development later on.  This is clearly a case where I could have benefited from a RootsTech class; perhaps Rob Fotheringham’s class on mobile development (TC 068)?

Any takers on creating apps like this??  As I worked through this example, a perfect example came to mind of an app I’d love to see — one for Geneabloggers.  Wouldn’t that be cool?

FGS & Genealogy Publishing 2.0

Though I’m unable to attend the FGS Annual Conference in nearby Knoxville, I plan to follow along as much as I can via blog posts, Twitter feeds & Facebook status updates.  However, I started thinking about what I’d hoped to have gained from attending FGS and much of it centers on what I perceive as an overall need for genealogy societies to better leverage technology and increase their engagement in online media (e.g. social media & social networking).   I have a lot of thoughts about this but in this post I’ll address the traditional publishing models I see in many genealogy societies and why some changes would be more likely to engage me as a member.

Many genealogy societies produce a journal and/or newsletter in print format. In order to be more accessible, some offer the journal/newsletter online as an electronic download, usually in the form of a PDF document.  I’ve seen one society, the Durham-Orange Genealogical Society, who put their newsletter in an online HTML format and provide the quarterly publication via PDF online using Scribd.  This is a great set-up and the members of the D-OGS have a great person in Ginger to figure out some of the technical underpinnings.  However, I’d love to see the entire genealogical society network incorporate similar practices in a more systematic and robust manner and take this even further.

For example, in the medical academic publishing community most journals are published electronically.  Journal websites frequently provide the following:

  • RSS feeds for newly published articles
  • the ability to “comment” at the article level
  • ability to “share” via social networking sites
  • free abstracts with full access restricted to subscribers
  • HTML & PDF versions of articles
  • free access to articles older than a specified time period (e.g. 12, 18, or 24 months)
  • articles organized by subject categories with those specific categories available as RSS feeds for easy browsing and/or searching

Furthermore, individual journals are often part of a larger collaborative/network of journals (e.g. Highwire at Stanford University) and at the aggregate level users have the ability to search across journals, across subjects/disciplines and across article type.  Membership/subscription management is facilitated at the level of the individual journal.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to have an online publishing network for genealogy societies that provided similar functionality for their publications?

Below is a screenshot of PLOSGenetics – if you visit the site at www.plosgenetics.org to get a sense of the interactivity & dynamic presentation of their articles and other journals part of the PLOS network.

PLOS Genetics – visit their website to see their interactive and dynamic handling of journal articles.

Imagine being able to log onto one central site where I could access the full-text of the publications of the genealogy societies that I subscribe to, search for articles by state, county, subject categories (e.g. cemetery research, African-American research), browsing the articles of societies that I’m not a member of, but possibly pay for per-article basis, have access to older issues for free, and being able to comment upon and “tweet” about the articles with the online genealogy community.  The integration of Facebook via their Open Graph protocol could help me learn what my friends and fellow geneabloggers are also finding of value. I could download PDF files of specific issues if I’m a subscribing member for local storage.  To me, this seems a much more valuable membership perk than receiving a print version or static PDF file throughout the year.   Electronic publishing is cheaper and funds could be directed to other projects in the society.The Federation of Genealogical Societies, an organization that aims to serve the needs of, provide services & products for, and marshal the resources of it’s gen society members would be an ideal organization to bring about such a portal.  A partnership with ACPL Genealogy Center may add more benefits given their work with the PERSI database for indexing genealogy & local history literature.  I believe that overall, genealogical literature can become more accessible, discoverable and shareable via this model.
Late last night, I went ahead and created a small prototype site at http://www.ncgenweb-data.com/genpress/ to flesh out my thoughts a little further using the latest issue of the journal of the North Carolina Genealogical Society.   This prototype site is far from where I could see this going, but is at least a beginning.  Had I been able to attend I’d loved to have discussed this with FGS Board members and gen society officers.  There are so many interesting-looking presentations that I’d loved to have attended. Perhaps someone will be talking about this kind of potential? Any takers for making this happen? :-)