Cemetary image duplication?

Question

I note the new cemeteries project that was described in a recent email. The nearest one to me in Fredericton, NB, Canada is Forest Hill, just down the hill from me. I notice that on Billion Graves it has 36 records and at Find a Grave there is "23% added". There is no way (that I can see) of knowing if these records are duplicated and if these will be further duplicated via the WikiTree project. I suspect that there is a vast amount of duplicated effort worldwide by well meaning people who are imaging the same stones. Without a some coordination, there may be a lot of wasted time, or is there such a thing and I don't know about it? What are some wikitreer's experiences and thoughts?

Answer 1

Chris, I'm with you to a point. We have an opportunity here to tell more of the story of the lives of the people in those cemeteries, instead of just a photo of the final resting place. 

At Find a Grave, the percentage showing is the percent of the existing memorials that have a photograph attached. Even this is not accurate, as some photos added are of obituaries or family photos. Billion Graves has a lot fewer memorials than Find A Grave, and I quit adding to it myself when it went to paid membership. 

One thing we don't want to do it to download/reuse photos from either of those sites without permission from the person who took the photo. I've given such permission on my findagrave profile and have received such permission from other users there. A few have refused me and I respected their wishes. If we duplicate photos, I don't think it's such a bad thing. Have you seen some of the photos at FindaGrave? My favorites are the ones with the reflective stones in which you can see the photographer's lower extremities. 

 

Comments

Natalie, I'm with you. I use Find A Grave extensively and am constantly suggesting edits to profiles that I have further information on, as well as taking photos locally as time permits for other members. I feel like duplication of information can be a good thing too, since corroboration of information can only be beneficial, so I don't have a problem with it. I get very excited when I see a profile with pictures or information I don't already have, but I am always careful to make sure I a) have permission to use those images, and b) attribute the photo to the photographer/collector.

Answer 2

Personally I find it very annoying with all the photo-less memorials, that are listed on findagrave. There is no way of telling where this information came from, and it's a far cry from actually finding agrave, if it's not even there anymore. So I think we should stick to photo entries only. Then there is hard proof for everyone to see. The contributor can then either transcripe the photo, or the viewer can see the writing for them selfes.

If we get the permission from the photographer, then I see no reason why their photos could not be used on here too.

Comments

'Hard proof' on a tombstone isn't always accurate. My grandfather was born in 1879, but his monument says 1880. More than once I've found one date of death on a death certificate/draft registration and another one on the stone. Human error is always lurking...

---

Yes, we will always have to take errors like that into account off course. It can happen on paper records as well. But what I meant by hard proof, was an image of the actual record,- being gravestone or paper record, rather than just what someone has typed in on the website. Typing errors can occur here too  ;o)

Answer 3

Thank you to all who answered. I'm just finding these replies now: I was waiting for emails, but maybe I forgot to check the email box.

The answer to my question seems to be that duplication is good as it bolsters the archival records, and I'm all for that. I guess I will probably sign up.