Do you use WikiTree's surname index pages?

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

As most of you know, we have surname index pages, e.g.

• https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/JONES
• https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/SMITH

We are making changes to them as part of our 2024 redesign and want to make sure they don't lose any important functionality.

Like most pages on WikiTree, they are meant to serve different audiences.

One of the audiences for these pages isn't human. It's bots, Google's indexing bot in particular. Surname index pages help Google find our person profiles so that they appear in search results.

Another audience is new and prospective members. If you're a Jones, the JONES index page might be one of the first pages you would look at on the site. The index is meant to showcase the breadth and depth of WikiTree: we have 100,000+ Jones profiles, a Jones Project, G2G discussion on Jones, etc.

In the past, we have considered advanced members (you) as the third audience. Surname index pages have offered some unique functionality. You can use them to sort and review people in ways that aren't possible elsewhere on WikiTree.

However, we recently improved search so that you can search for "* Jones" and sort the results in most of the same ways, do merging and matching, etc. As part of the redesign, we plan to display search results in a table. And we will add the ability to sort search results by privacy level, and include the last edit date as well. We think this will mean surname index pages no longer have unique functionality. If so, we can ignore advanced users (you) in their redesign, and just design them for new users and Google.

But ... is there something we're forgetting? Do you use surname index pages for some functional purpose?

If you use them for navigation, is it to find something you can't find elsewhere?

Thanks!

Chris and the WikiTree Team

Answer 1

I use the surname indexes almost daily for thorough searches for a person to either check I'm not creating a duplicate or to see if a certain family by surname and location is already on WikiTree for connection purposes. My favorite thing to do is go to the index, then sort by birth date. Since birth dates can often vary, it helps me pick up the person I'm looking for by searching through an entire decade. I also do this to find duplicates for Aborist work.

I use the "orphaned" link when I'm working on a surname study. "Unconnected" when I'm working on connection.

I use the "related surnames" when I might be looking for a surname with multiple variations and I need to know which is the correct spelling for a family before creating profiles.

Comments

"to see if a certain family by surname and location is already on WikiTree for connection purposes."

I do this too, especially for uncommon surnames.

---

I also use it this way. I ofter find someone within a couple steps of a spouse or sibling that already has a profile then I know who I need to make profiles for to connect.

---

Agreed Emma; perhaps a helpful VIDEO might be good; we all work it together and collaborate on the issues.  There are a lot.  I have three children and multiple dead and ex spouses; life get's complicated.

---

I agree with Emma. I use the surname indexes often especially when trying to connect someone to the main tree. As an example, there are many French Canadian profiles already on WT so I often check for a parent’s name to see if they already exist. It is so easy to make duplicate profiles especially considering “dit” names and variations in spelling.

---

I also use the surname indexes listed with birthdates, mostly to find connections. While looking for connections I also run into duplicate profiles (the birthdate listing is good for that) and when it's an obvious duplicate I suggest merges. Most of my merges come from that.

Answer 2

Like Emma, I also use the surname indexes daily. I mostly use them to search for people with the same name before I create a new profile so I don’t create a duplicate (the name searching functionality which is part of the profile creation process has limitations in this respect ) or to see if a certain family by surname and location is already on WikiTree for connection purposes. My favorite thing to do is go to the index, show LNAB and married names, then sort by given name. I can then get a list of  say all the profiles for say Mary Davis, and filter by a location etc. I have found many existing profiles by this method which did not come up when I used the duplicate search function. I find it especially useful for searching for women who have used multiple names over the course of their lives. If anything, I would like to see these Surname Indexes expanded to include names in the Other Name fields. I would also like to be able to filter by spouses family name

Comments

Like Emma and Susan, I use the surname genealogy pages extensively to search for potential duplicates before I start creating profiles for a family. I go to the table format, sort by reverse birth date, get to the page of the table containing profiles for the right birth date range, then use the WikiTree Browser Extension table filters to look either for personal names or for birth locations I am interested in. This is an extremely powerful and flexible way of searching for a whole family at once. The WBE table filters allow me to change the search target very rapidly, without fetching again from the WikiTree servers and adding to their load. Whatever the new search capabilities are, I hope that the existing surname tables will be retained as well to allow this existing method.

---

If the table filters in WBE were added to the search results, would that be enough?

---

Sorry Jamie, I suspect it wouldn't be. I also use other features of the current surname genealogy table view, such as the 5000 row display and access via GET URLs (not available for search results, which use POST).

Answer 3

I never use them preferring the search page so I can restrict the geographical area etc.

Comments

Same here. I very rarely use the surname pages, mostly because I do most of my genealogy on families within the patronymic system, where the search page, locationcategories and WT+ location searches are more useful.

Answer 4

From the top of a profile, I search for first name only a lot for pre-1500 Irish profiles. And then sort by death date. (Very few early Irish people had their births recorded)

The LNAB could have been entered as mac father's first, clan name, parts of the first name name, LNAB in english or 1 of the 4 different forms of Irish, Or some other name the person who created the profile thought looked good.

Answer 5

As an arborist I use them by sorting on dates and just looking for potential duplicates that might not show up otherwise.

Comments

I always use them when making new profiles. When I search the lists I often find duplicates. Then I am off down a different rabbit hole.

---

You can sort by date on the search page -- is there a reason you prefer the surname pages?

---

When I search on just a last name, doesn't it take me to the same surname page?

---

Yes. I just this morning put an * in the first name field (when on a profile page) and played around with it.  I had to complete an extra step by selecting "only exact name matches" option. If it would default to this, we would get closer to apples to apples results.

---

The plan would be to create a shortcut to give the same results -- so a "*" wildcard in the first name field, "only exact name matches", and "only last names at birth".

Answer 6

Most of my current work is concentrated within 20 miles of Alton, Peel County, Ontario with multiple families who are descended from 1 immigrant ancestor.

Sometimes that immigrant ancestor arrived with multiple children, who sometimes were married and other times were younger. The complicating factor is that all the grandchildren of the immigrant ancestor have the same first names.

Being able to check for possible existing profiles before creating a profile for a John or William or any other Hunter is a very beneficial.

I don't know if my use is any different than the intention of original surname index.

Answer 7

I use them to help new ones find family connections!

Answer 8

I use these pages regularly to check for duplicates and family members, particularly for the Palatines which have so many different name variations that our duplicate searches miss quite a few of them.

Comments

I meant to mention that being able to organize by birth date is a particularly helpful tool.

Answer 9

I use them frequently to connect people with uncommon surnames. I find them quite helpful!

Answer 10

Like others, I often use the Surname Genealogy pages to find existing profiles for a name, and also (usually as an accidental side effect of the first use) to discover duplicate profiles needing to be merged. I am well aware that Name Search is more powerful and more flexible than these Surname Genealogy pages, and I use Name Search frequently, but I often find the Surname pages to be more effective for my purposes (in particular, I find more duplicates on the Surname pages than in Name Search results), probably because they make it so much easier to focus on a particular surname without being distracted by hundreds or thousands of entries for slightly similar surnames (not to mention all those hits we get on people with a married name that matches the birth name we're looking for, nor people with variants of the given names). Whether I am using a Name Search results list or a Surname Genealogy page, my first step is to sort the page -- usually by birth date but sometimes by alphabet. A sorted Surname Genealogy list is much easier to review than a sorted Name Search results list.

I will frequently visit a Surname page to see the list of "related surnames" -- to indicate which other names will be probed if I run a Name Search for a particular name. Frequently I discover that the dozen or "related" names do not include the two or three names that are the most likely variant forms of the name I am starting from, but the list does include several names that have superficial similarities but are absolutely not variants for the name I am starting from. And once I know that a particular variant name isn't going to show up if I run a standard Name Search, I will search on that variant name in addition to the name spelling(s) I started with.

I don't fault WikiTree for not having a list of "related names" that matches exactly what I am looking for. That's fundamentally impossible, and every genealogical website I use has shortcomings in this area. It would be wonderful, though, if Name Search had a feature to allow me to limit the range of spellings I see. Example: If I I am looking for "Marytie Van Etten," I would like to be able to enter a search for "Mar* Van Etten" but be able to use  checkboxes to include given names like Mary, Maria, Maritje, and Marytje, but omit Margaret and Martina, and to exclude several "related" names found on the Van Etten surname page (for starters, I would exclude Vaneeden, Vanhouten, Vantine, Vanasten, and Vinton) because they are not variant forms for Van Etten. Even better would be the ability to revise the "related names" list, either WikiTree-wide or just as one of my preferences.

Something else I'd love to see on Surname pages is an editable set of links to WikiTree resources for the name, including any One Name Studies (to include ONSs that use a different spelling of the surname) and Source pages for family genealogies.

Comments

Exactly this. I not only use them, I have a browser tab open permanently with my own birth surname list.

---

probably because they make it so much easier to focus on a particular surname without being distracted by hundreds or thousands of entries for slightly similar surnames (not to mention all those hits we get on people with a married name that matches the birth name we're looking for, nor people with variants of the given names)

You can get the same results as the surname page by making sure to choose the "only last names at birth" and "only exact name matches" options. 

A sorted Surname Genealogy list is much easier to review than a sorted Name Search results list.

Is this because of the table format or some other reason?

Even better would be the ability to revise the "related names" list, either WikiTree-wide or just as one of my preferences.

We are going to move away from the WeRelate db and manage the variants ourselves. I think the ability for users to edit is going to be controlled by a badge. 

Answer 11

Thank you Chris, and whatever you do, there needs to be a consistency and we will follow it.  I have new DNA to upload and it just gets scooped by other sites.  

You are the boss.  I am pleased you are making some rigid and necessary changes; I work in AI and can code and am in YVR by accident (poor Boeing 737's) and enjoying the culture here as I know it well.  Keep guiding us Sir Chris....

Answer 12

Well, I have pitched a tent on my ancestors' surname pages.

The functional purposes that I use them for don't exist until I, as an advanced member, have installed the WikiTree Browser Extension and then switched on the surname page features and entered the table view and clicked on the MORE button. Once I have done this, the birth date and birth place data have been separated nicely into their own separate columns and neatly displayed in wide view (no line wraps). All the columns are sortable/searchable (except for privacy level). I have been able to quickly spot the place names that need fixing using the reverse place name feature. I am able to quickly spot profiles with missing birth and death dates sorted as a group. I am able to quickly spot profiles with missing birth locations in date order or sorted as a group. The profiles have been identified with missing parents, so I can quickly identify which profiles are missing a parent or both. The unconnected profiles have been marked, so I can quickly identify them as I scroll the list. The profiles in which I am the profile manager or on the trusted list have been marked so I can quickly identify them.

I wouldn't say that these features are useful to members with common surnames that have more than one page of profiles per surname, but for me, because some of my ancestors' surnames have less than a 1,000 profiles created on WikiTree, these features work nicely for me when I am on my ancestor's surname page in table view.

Also, I too use the surname page for the same reasons that other members have mentioned above:  to identify duplicates, working the connector's challenge and as an extra check to make sure I am not creating a duplicate.

P.S.:  What list am I working from on the locators challenge ... the surname page, in table view, utilizing the features of the WikiTree Browser Extension.

Comments

If the features of WBE were added to the search results, do you think that would be enough?

---

If all I am doing is searching to see if someone exists, I think that would be enough.

One thing that I didn't mention above is that I glance at the surname counts prior to proceeding with my steps above. This gives me an indication to whether I might want to include  the spouses or not, in order to keep the list under 1,000 (due to the 1,000 page limit). But seeing the name variants is useful at times. At times, I have wanted to combine two surname lists in one view so I could check for possible duplicates.  I think Ian's new app, One Name Tree, is now able to accomplish that.

---

When I do "* Buch" with exact name match I get 999 matches.

When I do "Buch" from from the surname page I get 821 matches and when I include spouses I get 964 matches.

Why the discrepancy in count and which one is correct?

---

There is a discrepancy in the count because the code that manages the surname tables is very old and full of issues. The search results are much quicker (especially for surnames with many individuals such as Smith) and more accurate.

Also if you want to make sure to get rid of the spouses in search results, click the "only last names at birth" option. Then it will show you 823 Buchs.

---

Even if the table code is old and has discrepancies, it's clear from responses here that many people find it essential to their work. The code is already in existence and working sufficiently well to be useful. It should continue to be available, not be removed. Alternatively, its functionality should be re-engineered with the new search mechanism as base.

Answer 13

I have used the pages by sorting first name then birth date to do an exhaustive search on a particular surname I’m interested in, in order to spot duplicates and tidy up profiles that need a more precise birth place or date in England. It’s especially useful for surnames associated with a particular area and with mostly consistent spellings, such as Hardman in Lancashire, England.

Answer 14

I coordinate a one-name study for a Slavic surname which has way more than the three allowed variations (it appears in multiple Central/Eastern European countries with different spellings, the Cyrillic version can be transliterated into other languages in multiple ways, anglicisation of migrants' names was not standardised, and mistranscribed handwriting caused more variations to appear in records). I have an offline document with over 150 different variants, each linked to an automatically generated URL to the corresponding Wikitree surname page. About once a month I click through each of these links, to see if any new profiles have been added, or if any Wikitree users have started following a tag for that variant. Any such variants that appear in Wikitree, I add as a clickable link at the bottom of the Name Study page.

I would prefer to use SearchPerson rather than the surname page, as suggested, since there is more fine-grained control over the results. However, for whatever reason, Wikitree has chosen to pass the form parameters for this page using POST rather than GET (meaning the URL does not contain the search parameters, and so I cannot set up clickable links to individual searches). So if I were forced to use SearchPerson to do the same workflow, I would need to type in each surname variant individually, which would be completely impractical. Furthermore the SearchPerson page does not include a link to a list of genealogists following the surname, so that would need to be an additional set of searches.

I am not allowed to follow more than 20 surnames and the one-name study is limited to three variants. I appreciate my needs may be advanced compared to the average one-name study, so while ideally SearchPerson could be moved to GET, and links to surname followers can be included (if wildcards are absent), I appreciate that there may be reasons this is not possible. I hope that at the very least the current functionality of the surname pages won’t be eliminated.

Answer 15

When I create a new profile for a person, I often add the list of their registered children (in birth order) and find the surname list sorted by birth date in another window is a handy way of discovering if any of the children already have profiles.

For lists of ten children, this manual matching of two sorted lists is much quicker than a separate name search for each child.

Answer 16

Hi!  

I'm pretty new to Wikitree.  I signed up a few years ago, and realized I needed to document my sources more thoroughly in my personal tree before spending much time here.  

I use the surname indexes to learn.  I've been exploring the different links that are here, that help me learn more about my family, and genealogy in general.  Other people have mentioned the similar names at the top.  I love those.  

The G2G forum links especially have sent me down multiple rabbit holes, as well as the links to the Free space genealogy pages.  

I like seeing so much about one surname all in one spot.  I find it very helpful as an exploration tool.  I'm not tied to the formatting, but I do appreciate the functionality that exists, and I know I haven't discovered all the great features yet.

Answer 17

I use the surname index pages frequently, especially for unusual surnames, and to find clusters of profiles related to time period and locality.

I like to get in and out quickly when I am doing a search. Logging in a second time is frustrating. So I don't use any of the extensions, like WikiTree Bee or WikiTree Plus. Names displayed in a table also are sometimes difficult to navigate.

Comments

Names displayed in a table also are sometimes difficult to navigate.

So you prefer the list view over the table view? 

Answer 18

I use them a lot while working on connecting people, with the WBE helping me make tables and sort and filter so I can find likely relatives and connections.  I trust the system to find duplicates in general, this is more specifically avenues of research.

Answer 19

When I am connecting profiles and find one that belongs to a parent profile I read a long time ago and I recall it had a photo, I check the surnames to find it from the photos on the bottom of the page. I also use it for checking for duplicates, and to make sure I do not add a profile that is already there, but I find myself going there to see the photos more often than anything else.. Sorry - I do all my work on a cell phone - the photos are to the right on a laptop.

Answer 20

I use them nearly everyday. 'date order' and 'alpha order' are the two most used sorts. These are extremely important tools for me in many of the ways already mentioned and are vital to my connection/creation process.

Comments

Those two sorts are available on the Search page -- is there a reason you prefer the surname page over search?

---

Jamie,

First off, I'm a geezer . I've found methods that get me to where or what I need --and then I keep using those 'tried~n~true' ways to get the results the way I'm confident in....I'm 99% genealogist/researcher and 1% computer savvy/tech interested...

My specific area of recent work has lots of variables and vagaries. I can go to a surname page quickly by typing it in at the top of any page->click the magnifying glass->I'm there. Do an Alpha sort->see Michele X, Michele Arcangelo X, Michelarcangelo X, Michele Angelo X, Michelangelo X,  Michele Antonio X, Michelantonio X, etc......all lined up in all the variations. 

ETA: I know I can do a direct first name+last name search and get 'most'  of the variations, but this way I'm certain to get 'all' of them....

---

I use the surname list instead of (or sometimes along with) the ʻsearchʻ.

I have used ʻsearchʻ before adding a new profile, finding nothing and then . . . while adding a profile possible duplicates show up. I donʻt understand why, but I find it more effective to do my own search of the surname list sorted by Alpha and then Birthdate.