Do you have feedback on how we can improve future Source-a-Thons?

+28 votes
1k views
First, a HUGE thank you to everyone who participated in the Source-a-Thon this weekend!  You guys did an awesome job and really helped improve our Tree.  Watch for a Source-a-Thon stats post coming later today.

That said, what suggestions do you guys have to help us improve future Source-a-Thons?

I have some thoughts but will post them as an answer.

Thanks!
in The Tree House by Eowyn Langholf G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
This is my favorite event & I look forward to it every year.

I think it's time to set up some rules.

WT needs to figure out what is the main objective for this event? Is the goal to add 1 source at the end of each profile or do we actually take the time to improve the profile? Shouldn't the source info be added to the bio? If not please tell me & I'll stop. Do you think you need to change the way you count? Many of us did multiple sources per profile.

I also think if it's going to be a true contest then there needs to be a level playing field. I, and others, would like to know what app is being used to add between 1 & 4 sources per minute? It's not the WT research button because it doesn't work that fast & anyone who uses FamilySearch knows that normally who you're looking for doesn't automatically show right up & you have to scroll a bit.

It was a great weekend & a lot of sources were added to the overall tree. Maybe we should have a Thon to do something with them.

28 Answers

+27 votes

This is something that has come up in discussions after previous Source-a-Thons but I’m thinking that it may be time that we officially discuss it.  

First, this is not an insinuation that anyone is intentionally doing anything wrong and because there aren’t rules about these things, please don’t assume that any individuals or teams have “cheated” or done something wrong.  This is to just determine if we need to clarify some Source-a-Thon rules for going forward. 

It came to my attention that there are a couple ways that pre-sourcing is taking place:

  • Creating a bunch of unsourced profiles ahead of time and then going back to add sources during the Source-a-Thon.

  • Preparing beforehand by finding sources for profiles and then keeping a list of those profiles and sources so they can be rapidly added during the Source-a-Thon. 

My question to everyone is: Is it time to define what types of prepping are acceptable?   

To me, the two types of prepping that would be appropriate are 1) determining what kind of profiles you want to be working on; 2) adding the Unsourced template to profiles with no sources.  The actual searching for sources would take place during the Source-a-Thon.

What do you guys think?

by Eowyn Langholf G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)

I think all is said already.

Just a short note.

For me personal, the main thing is we improve WT. No matter how, as long as we do it right.

And we did improve WT big again! We can be proud.

But the second thing is, what we meet as Team Captains, is every SaTh we have participants that ask us how it is possible someone is able to add so many sources during SaTh as some can.

As it is a challenge, participants like to compete. At this moment it is very hard to compete.  Differences so big in numbers do discourage participants. So I think some rules are needed. The "but" is how to check the rules are followed.........

And I have always problems on just adding one source to a profile and leaving all profiles out of the related unsourced family without the category. frown
Thank you for opening this discussion.

I think the Musty Dusty team probably took the other extreme as we are chasing harder to source profiles (pre-1500). I started with one Borthwick I was trying to source. I found errors with parents and went into complete rat hole from there. Good news is that the first 5 generations of Borthwicks are rather well sourced with multiple sources. I only ended up with a couple of sourced profiles for the Thon count though. Lots of merges had to submitted and completed - I did forget to count the unsourced profile that got merged away. My children had to be reassigned as they were off by two generations.  I also had numerous sources for these profiles because some of which were in the Scottish Peerage, that did not always agree. Many profiles were extensively edited with research notes sections to explain the differences and sources were generally tagged inline. And profiles were rewritten to more closely align with PIP guidelines. And that how I ended up so few in my count. But that's ok.
Marty, hats off to you for doing a great job!
There are unsourced lists for each state.   I have my choice of over 26,000 in New York State.  Not all of them are marked with the unsourced template so I don't know how they have
been discovered.
As the representative for Team Roses, I would like to say our whole team wholeheartedly agrees with asking teams to please not pre-source (look up sources ahead of time and make a list of those sources to copy/paste later)  or create unsourced profiles ahead of time (the latter is against the honor code anyway). Both of these go against the spirit of the challenge in which we see how much we can improve the Tree during a 72 hour period.

As far as quality over quantity, I thought about this quite a bit this week. Both have great merit, but there is a huge positive to getting to as many profiles as you can in 3 days. During the SAT I worked on two gedcoms from 2011 with thousands of profiles each. The majority of them hadn't been touched since upload. Because I was trying to get to as many profiles as possible, I worked on over 1000 profiles. Many of the ones I did had no birth location and no bio headers. Some had no dates.  Some had problems with name accuracy. All of them now have all of that corrected. I also proposed several merges and cleared DD errors. For challenges like these, I rather think quantity is actually a very good thing as long as each person is working to not just add sources, but do clean up as well.
To maintain the spirit of the Thon and reducing "gaming," I support the idea of not giving credit for profiles that were created recently by a member who came back to source them during the Thon (and probably completed that task in nanoseconds, having pre-positioned the source).

However, I would oppose the idea of accomplishing this by not giving credit for profiles that the member personally manages. Most of the grand total of 13 profiles that I sourced during the recent Source-a-Thon were problematic profiles (mostly pre-1700) that I had adopted a long time ago to remind myself to come back some day and do the research needed to resolve the problems with them. So although I was profile manager on those profiles, it was definitely not a case of creating unsourced profiles so I could come back later and get credit for adding sources. Efforts like mine don't make a huge dent in the number of unsourced profiles, but they should not be misinterpreted as "gaming the system."
Your situation is different Ellen since you adopted these profiles rather than creating profiles with the intent of sourcing them later during the SAT. Like you, I adopt profiles all the time with the intent of working on them later. It just seems easier to track them by getting them on my watchlist.
Seems reasonable to say, no points for sourcing profiles you created.  But adopted profiles are OK.
RJ: It would be a wonderful thing if the Source-A-Thon motivated members to come back and add sources to profiles they created years ago, via Gedcom import or otherwise. Indeed, I think these Thons do motivate some of that sort of activity. As in the biblical parable of the prodigal son, it seems to me that members who do that during a Source-A-Thon should be eligible for rewards that same as anyone else.

It's the more recent creation of unsourced profiles in preparation for a Source-A-Thon that needs to be discouraged.

Emma: In an earlier comment someone proposed that "only sources applied to profiles which one does not personally manage are countable in the Source-a-thon." I was reacting to that proposal.

+20 votes
I really like the intentions behind these contests. The contests are fun and they're meant well.

It seems to me, though, that they can possibly lead to some  sub-par research. Putting a Findagrave or Wikipedia page link on a profile that previously had no sources is not really careful research. Often it's not the number of sources on a profile that leads to its content being trustworthy or solid. It's what the sources say much in concert with one another, and how the different citations add up to be more than the sum of their parts. With good research, if you take one brick out of the wall, other parts are liable to crumble. It's not strictly a matter of adding one or two sources. It's interpreting them against one another, and building a structure that supports the stated facts. All of this takes time and care, which contests may not always encourage.

Also, there is the special problem of older profiles often lacking primary source citations. Really, specialists are needed to properly source and evaluate medieval profiles. How many of us can read the necessary languages (how's your middle English, middle French, or Latin?), or have seen and can interpret contemporaneous sources involving them?

Just a few thoughts, meant well.
by Ryan Ross G2G6 Mach 1 (18.7k points)
I like your thoughts, Ryan. As a team captain, I do try to encourage our team members to stress quality over quantity, and given the numbers for this year's Source-a-thon, it does seem like people were slowing down and putting more effort into not only add quality sources, but to also make sure that any errors within families were being corrected.

We also make sure to talk about this during our video updates, and the reason we don't offer prizes for the people who source the most profiles is because we don't want to encourage haphazard work.

There are still going to be people who don't understand the spirit of the competition, but hopefully, their teams will coach them and help them understand that the overall goal is to improve the tree, not race to the finish. :-)

As for the medieval profiles: We do have one team in particular -- The Musty Dusties -- who focus on the pre-1500 profiles that need work. The members on this small team have an expertise in the areas you mentioned, and they do fine work!
You seem very conscientious. That's excellent.
Thanks, Ryan, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to share that.
Well said Ryan. Mindful profile changes should be the goal before leader board ranking. Quality over quantity wins every time. Rushing through something may create more work for Data Doctors and frustration to the profile manager.
+18 votes
I recommend consideration be given to have a time period requirement that a new member is here, before assigning them to a source-a-Thon and giving them a badge when they haven't really experienced sourcing their own family profiles. We had a couple cases where a person was given a badge but had less then five contributions to WikiTree.!

I recommend this, as it is already a requirement for some of the other weekend and monthly challenges that a member be with us at least 3 months before signing up for a challenge.
by Dorothy Barry G2G Astronaut (1.8m points)
Hi, Dorothy!! Nice to "see" you!!

Another perspective: We had a few members on our team who were brand new to WikiTree, and this turned into a really good opportunity for them to learn how we like to do things. They asked a lot of questions in our team chat, and our more experienced members were able to coach them along. I think it helped them get off to a good start. :-)

Maybe we just need to make sure that team captains are aware of the newest members, and perhaps we could even have them buddy up with a more experienced member??
Good idea, Julie!
The idea behind this is good, but what do you actually define as "the own family"? I ask that because I had a bunch of unsourced profiles that are managed of someone with the same surname (so presumably his own family). Sometimes people don't find sources in the beginning, when they build their tree here and don't go to FamilySearch every other month to look if there are some (newly uploaded) sources in the meanwhile. I know that would be desirable, but the Genealogy World isn't that way for everyone...
As I think about this more, maybe as Team Captains, we could poll our teams during registration and ask who would be interested in being a buddy for new members or people who haven't participated in that particular 'thon before.

And Jelena! You did great work this 'thon!! I'm sorry you were all by yourself. If you want a group to chat with next time, let me know, and we'll add you to our Discord channel. :-)
Jelena, I was actually grateful that I think I saw your name pop up as sourcing one or two of my family, so thanks!
You're welcome Scott :)

I agree here with Julie. 

We love it when "new" members join the Thon. They learn to know the people around better and that makes it much easier to ask questions.

We also coach them on "how to at XaTh"  and that is at the same time "how to at WT". Saving a lot of energy on both sides. laugh

I would suggest a “number of contributions” threshold, rather than a simple waiting period, for participation in challenges. I have been a member for just over a year, and it’s taken me thousands of contributions to get up to speed. WikiTree is powerful as a shared tree, but the learning curve is steep. For newbies, or everyone, really, some evidence that the necessary skills have been mastered is reasonable, IMO. Perhaps a spot-check of recent badge-related activity by a data doctor to allow participation in certain badge-related challenges, though that might be too onerous.
+18 votes

"Preparing beforehand by finding sources for profiles and then keeping a list of those profiles and sources so they can be rapidly added during the Source-a-Thon. "

This definitely doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of friendly competition.  

I'm not talking about strategic planning and looking ahead at what sourcing is needed in specific places. Looking at families to see how many members need sources, etc. All of that is fine and helpful!

I'm talking about spreadsheets with profile WikiID's and sources ready to copy and paste and move on to the next profile. I know these have to be out there among the WikiTree population. You've still done the work (thanks!) but it gives you an advantage over people using traditional methods during the weekend. 

I sourced 275 (about) over the weekend and lived my life as usual..cooking, taking walks, talking to family members, etc. I still got 275 done and my eyes were going nuts at some point on Saturday night. laugh

by Natalie Trott G2G6 Pilot (557k points)
Natalie thanks for showing people that a normal life is possible during Thons. I also lived my normal life, went to bed at normal times, and still got nearly 200 profiles sourced. Yay to us!
Way to go, ladies!!!
You did great Natalie and Jelena!! I have to admit my hubby spoils me, especially during the SaT as it's my favorite. He cooked, did the shopping, chatted with me while he worked on household projects, and only asked that I stop adding sources during our 'dinner and a tv show' we do each night. I jumped up and helped him a few times, but he didn't ask me to.
Score for Mindy! That's fabulous. :-)
Natalie - I agree with your strategic planning.

Normal life during a thon? What's that?wink I'm lucky if I remember to get up to go to the bathroom. LOL!

+18 votes
Eowyn, I think everyone did a great job participating regardless of numbers.

But just for discussion purposes, why is it necessary to be assigned to a team if you want to participate?

Now before anyone beats me up, I fully understand the concept and thought behind teams. The Marine Corps taught me well.

Would there be more participation if people could work at their own pace?
by Rodney Long G2G6 Pilot (312k points)
Hi Rodney!  People can always work at their own pace.  There are several teams that focus on quality over quantity and their members each work at their own speed.  I think it's about finding a team that's a good fit for how you work.  We should probably give a little more detail in the teams list so interested participants have a better idea what the teams' focuses are.

Hi, Rodney! I'm sure Eowyn will have her own thoughts about this, but if you don't mind I'll share mine, too. :-)

The teams are just a way for us to focus on particular regions or topics, but they also make it easier for people to help each other. As I mentioned above in response to Dorothy, we encourage other, and we help to answer questions and teach other team members who might not be as experienced. If we didn't have these little groups of people working together, it would be harder for people to get their questions answered.

p.s. Oops! I see Eowyn and I were answering at the same time. laugh

Maybe it would be good to just have a Team Independent out there, and those that want to remain outside a formal team can participate in a non-group like that.
Shouldn't we always focus on Quality?
That's what I like about Team Tree Nuts, it is a relaxed pace with no expectations of huge numbers. I assume nuts grow on any continent, except for Antarctica, maybe?
I know nuts grow in my household. Does that make me an honorary member of Tree Nuts, or just a distant cousin?

Thank you, C!! That's what we aim for ... quality genealogy and fun. wink

You're welcome as a Nut any time, Scott!

I happen to like the team environment that is offered. As you know we cheered each other on for numbers, but it wasn't just the top producers that were chatted about. We also gave the option for team members to opt out of chat so they could work quietly on their own and just visit the webpage if they wanted to see what was going on, or ask a question. Hopefully we didn't fill your email up too much (wink) but an Independent team isn't a bad idea!
Just for the record, many people used the source-a-thon tracker without being registered or on a team. They showed up in the "UNTEAM" group. So that kind of fits your idea of not needing to be on a team.
I will keep that in mind Stephen, thank-you
Rodney: Not all of the Thon "teams" engage chat with each other or engage in group cheering. Some teams are grouped around common interests, but don't interact much (if at all) during the Thon.
Thank-you for the response Ellen. Yes, I think it will just me a matter of getting placed with a "team" that fits my style of working. I do not have interest in numbers completed. I have a checklist I use when I work on a profile, that I like to complete as much of it as I can before I move to the next profile. I am not saying anyone else's method is wrong, I am just saying I feel better about myself when I work that way.
Hi, Rodney!

I'm not sure that any of our teams have a pre-defined method for their members to follow. I could be wrong about that, but I know that the members of the team I was captaining worked in their own way.

Also, we had a live chat set up on Discord, but not everyone participated, and that was OK, too. It was just nice for some of us to be there in case anyone had questions.

Like you, I really struggle with simply dropping a single source on a profile. This is why you can often find me at the bottom of a rabbit hole ;-)

I hope you'll join us in the next 'thon. It's a great way to get to know people.
Thank-you for the comment Julie, I will look for your your name next time.
+15 votes
Speaking as someone who almost but ultimately did not participate (my skepticism regarding competitive speed genealogy previously being noted), the first (deliberately creating unsourced profiles) is a negative for Wikitree as a whole, is probably a violation of the honor code and seems to me that it doesn't add to the "fun" of a competition. The second, sourcing ahead of time, may be perceived as "unfair" to those who don't have the time to source ahead, but unpressured, thoughtful, thoroughly researched genealogy is exactly the behavior Wikitree tries to encourage in volunteers. I have never quite understood why the Thons are a weekend off from usual standards.
by Ellen Curnes G2G6 Mach 5 (58.4k points)

I have never quite understood why the Thons are a weekend off from usual standards.

This is not at all what we encourage during the 'thons. ;-) 

I completely agree that thoughtful, unpressured sourcing is required. Any pressure people are feeling is probably self-imposed. 

As I mentioned in one of the hangouts yesterday, we don't have another way of talking about the progress that's being made other than the numbers of profiles being sourced. So, we try our best to stress that quality is far more important than quantity. 

This is why we don't award prizes based on high numbers. We really just want people to enjoy getting together to focus on a common goal.

I can see your point about "sourcing ahead of time," but my viewpoint on that is a bit different: If you have information that will improve the tree, you should be improving the tree with it instead of holding onto it for some point in the future. There are plenty (plenty!) of unsourced profiles to go around. laugh

I'm sure it is not encouraged. I am well aware of the high standards of those who organize these events and the care and pride they take in Wikitree, and the same for most participants. However, it is my impression that the encouragement is not always reflected in the results.

After participating in Source-A-Thon in the past, my note was that it would be more beneficial to the tree as a whole to encourage sourcing of "facts" rather than "profiles". Maybe focus on adding only one kind of source, a different one every year, such as census, birth records, death records. Then it makes more sense to encourage everyone to prep the heck in advance as to what kinds of materials are available in the jurisdictions/populations of focus, but not copy and paste.
Thanks, Ellen ... especially for taking the time to offer thoughtful feedback. I think you would be a good team captain if you should choose to participate again. The more people we have setting a standard of quality work, the better. :-)
Ellen, focusing only on Census records would make the Thon to an English/Canadian/USA-Thon. In Germany we don't have the traditional Census every 10 years. This is just starting now, but this is one point that makes genealogy in Germany far more difficult than in the Anglosaxon countries. I admit that changing the counting from profiles to facts would change my approach to the Thon as well, but a restriction of facts (allowing only a certain type of facts for a Thon) excludes automatically a part of people who aren't lucky to have relatives in that part of the World.
Julie, I agree with everything you said! Improving WikiTree is what it is all about!
While they might not win prizes they receive shout-outs & are listed in the weekly email. That's all some people need in order to forget what WT is really about & go for quantity vs quality. To be clear I'm not saying any of the high achievers did that but I do know some of the medium achievers who did.
+15 votes
IIRC, in last year's Source-A-Thon, profiles that didn't have the {{Unsourced}} template, but actually were unsourced respectively had only the "Cook County, Illinois, Death Certificate" or the oh so loved "Firsthand knowledge of..." for a wedding of 1825 were counted as well when they were properly sourced. (This weekend I ran in both "Sources" I quoted above). I improved those profiles no matter if they counted for my tally or not. It's for the better of the Tree after all. But actually I'm not that sure I like that those profiles that were improved, properly sourced, but not marked as {{Unsourced}} didn't count. I know that in the monthly Sourcerer's Challenge improved profiles also count. Maybe you should open the Source-A-Thon tracker again also for "only" improved profiles without the template.
by Jelena Eckstädt G2G6 Pilot (298k points)
I agree, Jelena. The 2017 rules were linked, but untemplated profiles didn’t actually count. Similarly I know of profiles with the template where sources were added, but the template was not removed. I added more complete sources, then removed the template, only to find that someone else probably got the point. (I don’t mind that as the profile was improved anyway.) All these competitions rely on a certain element of honesty - no one checks up that a reasonable source was added. Can’t we be trusted to not cheat if a source is added to an untemplated profile?
Most of the profiles I improved did not have the template. All unsourced profiles count towards your points as long as you mark the tracker after you add a source.
The first time I marked the Tracker for a profile that didn't have the Unsourced template, I got an error message saying that the profile wasn't eligible for this Challenge. It did show up in the Tracker, but the error message suggested otherwise.
That is so bizarre Ellen. I didn't get that message for any profiles and very few had the template. Was the profile perhaps a newly created one in the past week before the SAT?
Every single profile that had NO template had as message in the tracker (beside the checked box): "For this challenge this profile is officially not eligible." The same message you get when you want to connect a profile that already is connected to the Big Tree.
I'm officially dumbfounded. I never saw that message on anything ever.
The profile where I saw that message was created in February 2017. Not as old as most of the ones I worked on, but hardly brand new.
The message existed and I'm not sure if the source addition was counted or not. It put me off and I didn't follow that line where there were a number of unsourced and untemplated profiles. Similarly some people didn't remove the template so the profile still showed as unsourced. I found a more comprehensive source - I'm not sure who got the point, but luckily we were on the same team.
All of the profiles were counted in total as I understand it.  On the totals page they were separated in two columns, Marked unsourced and others.  My total came up 171 which included both.
+7 votes
I'll throw a couple of suggestions out there, although I'll call them "half-baked" ideas as I haven't thought through them enough to know if they're any good just yet.

1) Maybe we can update the unconnected lists throughout this weekend to help people step on each other less often. Maybe we run the updater once a night/day on each of the Source-A-Thon dates and give people a fresh list to work with, and even have a mini-celebration of what we've accomplished each day. I noticed that some people had updated the profiles without remembering to click on the challenge tracker sometimes, so I suspect the actual numbers will be better than the challenge amounts.

2) Along those lines, perhaps some team "kudos" for the team that did the best each day. It doesn't have to be a formal prize or anything, but perhaps a badge, a Wonderful WikiTreer, or just a Thank You post for the team that did the best on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and/or Monday. We could also do the top three individuals for each day as well. Just building on this, maybe we save one special prize for the top contributor of the weekend? How about a special t-shirt that says "I won the 2019 Source-A-Thon on WikiTree". As long as they're willing to send back a photo posing in the shirt...? Just pitching ideas.

3) Should we consider making the teams the same size? I think it's great that we have people who want to swell up some of the teams with large numbers of people, but if we're going to compare apples-to-apples, it can be discouraging to want to be on a small team if you know you're going to literally be swamped by the numbers of the larger teams. There could easily be pros and cons for this approach, so this should be thought through carefully.

4) Encourage a bit more coverage of areas ahead of time if at all possible. There were overlaps with certain teams on certain areas, and that's fine, but there were also large areas that had no team covering them. I ran into so many profiles that my team and other teams had updated that I swapped to a state that wasn't on anyone's radar and was able to speed through them. I also noticed that since they weren't covered, their numbers seemed larger - probably since no one was actively trying to reduce their numbers. So perhaps ahead of time, when people are forming teams, we should list the areas of coverage, which teams have chosen to cover them, and indicate areas that are still unclaimed and encourage an existing team or even a new team to go out and get them.

If I think of anything else, maybe I'll throw that in the mix as well.
by Scott Fulkerson G2G6 Pilot (648k points)
I like the way your think! All are good suggestions.
On your third point, there is now also a "normalized" count based on the number of people in a team. The need for splitting up teams or trying to limit the number of people involved in particular teams isn't really necessary anymore.

On coverage of areas I understand your point that it might be better if teams worked on one particular geographical area however I think that is too limiting. I worked mainly on my watchlist of adopted profiles - many which didn't have dates or locations. Then you have the issue of if you are following a family you move into different geographical areas because parts of the family moved.

The video hang-outs are great to hear statistics and updates on how the various teams are doing along with the drawing of prizes that were donated. I missed at least half of them, but they are fun to watch. Perhaps there could be a G2G thread that someone can update periodically on how the teams are doing as the weekend progresses.
I'm not thinking so much of restricting groups to a single region, but to at least make sure that groups are considering doing some profiles in a designated region so that no region is left behind during these source-a-thons. I think we had only part of the US covered and large areas left out (for example) and it would be good to have teams that at least said their intention was to cover all areas. Even if we expanded the existing groups to cover a slightly larger area, it would have been more effective in ensuring all states had some sort of representation.
Scott, we had at least 1 team not participate and 1 or 2 others show up late this year. Normally every state is covered. As a matter of fact, the Western Red Cedars was designed specifically to claim the last states not currently covered by a team. They were only going to do Washington and Oregon at the beginning. NorthEast has overlapping coverage and southern sections have some overlapping as well as duplicate coverage. If you chart it on a map and Team Tornadoes shows up, all states are covered.

Now as far as actually worked on, that is up to the members located on the teams.
I agree Scott. During the last Clean-A-Thon, I focused on States that had no coverage whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure that since we did not have a Great Lakes team out there, that there was a big gap in the midwest states (Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, possibly Illinois, Iowa, etc.). I remember seeing someone ask if that team was going to be available and it appears that didn't happen. No blame to those who might have managed that team in the past, as they may not have had time this Thon to run it, but it did leave a gap that was pretty significant.
Great Lakes showed up in the past few days so their team was rather light. Team Tornadoes didn't make an appearance at all and that is what left a hole in the country. Some of it was taken up by Team Missouri which does that state and every state that borders it.

We don't really have a good overall map but the addition of Western Red Cedars covered every single state if all teams participate.
Regarding team size, Team Roses loves the fact we now have the open team size with normalized scoring because we are a cohesive group who likes to stick together throughout the year, not just thons. When we had to be split into multiple groups it was dispiriting for us.

With that said, we no longer openly recruit for new members because our team size is large enough. We do welcome all who specifically ask to join though.
+15 votes
My biggest suggestion and in support of higher quality is to not just give one point per profile but rather 1 point per source. I found several census records with large families. I would add to the parents and each of the children (even if they didn't have the template to source). I would then find census records for each of the children at adulthood. Many of these profiles only have one record. One source is better than nothing, but wouldn't a continuous source be from census to census and make for a stronger case? I loved watching the families grow and spread across the southern US. After the first census, I didn't have much incentive to continue to search for every child and grandchild even though I wanted to badly. If I was getting credit for all those census records, I could focus on one single family and make sure their parents, grandparents, siblings, spouses, in-laws, children, grandchildren and so on were all properly sourced.

As far as prepping beforehand, that doesn't bother me. I personally cannot stay awake 72 hrs at a time. I see nothing wrong with the copy/paste method. Sleep is important. Everyone knows I'm in favor of a 7 day marathon as opposed to the 72 hr event. And adding unsourced profiles, I'm on the fence with this. I told my team members that I would research any of their family from 1840 to 1940 as long as they knew they were on a census. I added my own unsourced category. I'm very specific though. It must be in Alabama and have the Alabama unsourced tag. I can't source what I can't see. But you'll rarely find any of our profiles in the Clean-A-Thon. I feel like the Source-A-Thon is an extension of the Clean-A-Thon so I taught my team how to take care of each profile they come across. I feel like once it's sourced and clean it should only be visited by outsiders. I found so many profiles where someone sourced a person and left behind their parents, spouse, siblings, and children. I reiterate, we need to have incentive to check all connected profiles. 1 point per source, not profile. Quality over quantity.
by Topher Sims G2G6 (9.2k points)
Excellent post Topher!
Topher,

I concur. I worked quite a few 133 errors, and other families that had profiles with no date and/or location, thus walked the families (sideways, down, up) across multiple census and any BMD records that I could find. While on the profile, it makes sense to add all the applicable records one can find. I think that I even added birth marriage or death to a couple where someone had 'dropped a single source' and run, as long as the information was in hand.
I did the same on the profiles I worked on. I mean, you are already there, why not add everything you can.
Yes, quality over quantity is the better method.  To glean information from the sources found and update the profile accordingly does so much more to improve WT, while making it easier to search and find those profiles.  Maybe a way to quantify this for the challenge is to enter the # of sources added when you update the tracker at the top after each saved profile.
I agree with being giving points for more than one source, even if it means you have to hit save before entering the next one. It would enhance a single profile more, if we could do so. In addition, I ran into a few that already had one source but I had located another type of source for that individual.

I'm one of the few opposed to quality (adding a heap of sources to one profile) over quantity because these are not my family members and I have little desire to build up bios and profiles for other members families when they should be doing this for themselves. 

As I stated above, "there is a huge positive to getting to as many profiles as you can in 3 days. During the SAT I worked on two gedcoms from 2011 with thousands of profiles each. The majority of them hadn't been touched since upload. Because I was trying to get to as many profiles as possible, I worked on over 1000 profiles. Many of the ones I did had no birth location and no bio headers. Some had no dates.  Some had problems with name accuracy. All of them now have all of that corrected. I also proposed several merges and cleared DD errors. For challenges like these, I rather think quantity is actually a very good thing as long as each person is working to not just add sources, but do clean up as well"

+8 votes

These are random thoughts, nothing set in stone. The only thing I am upset about is the lack of internet over the weekend...grrrr  lol  

Prepping in advance - I feel if someone has done the work to research a profile, they should get credit for it at the time they did the research, not weeks later during a Thon. WikiTree benefits either way but it is so obvious during the thon that these people have prepped in advance only to win 1st place. That is unfair to the rest of the people who cannot prep in advance to be automatically disqualified from getting the honor of getting 1st or 2nd place. We need a level placing field. We need a set of rules that everyone follows!

Creation of Unsourced Profiles before a Thon - I agree, this goes against our Honor Code and should not be allowed. IMHO no discussion needed.

These following were not part of Eowyn's original question but I feel they need to be discussed.

Registration - Could it get any more confusing? If someone posts as a comment, maybe we need one person to contact them thru WikiTree via private message. We don't need everyone posting a comment below their comment. I will volunteer to help Eowyn with this. If someone answers the question but does not pick a team, same protocol as above. The pages and pages of posts make it difficult for Team Captains to Find their prospective teammates. All this clamoring to grab people is ridiculous. Just a Thought!

Teams by Region - I have asked this question before and was summarily shut down. It was my belief that if you joined a team that covered a particular area, you were to work in that area. Now WikiTree has Teams popping up like dandelions and overlapping other Team's area. One problem with this, there are areas that are not covered at all by any team. I believe (at least in the United States) we need have set regions, for each team and maybe a two teams that work ANYWHERE. Maybe Chris can divide the USA into areas for Teams or maybe each team can choose a couple of states and stick to that area. IDK, what is correct, but there a lot of areas with overlapping teams and other areas without coverage at all.

New to WikiTree - Maybe we should consider forming a team just for newbies, team each newbie with a seasoned WikiTreeer to help them learn what Wikitree expects and how to do the research and sourcing properly. This would have been extremely helpful to me when I first started out.

Sorry for making this so long. I do believe all of these suggestions merit discussion.

Also, I would like to Thank our Leaders for their work this weekend. The video chats were wonderful! Only got to see one "Live" due to internet problems.

by Loretta Corbin G2G6 Mach 7 (77.5k points)
I do not agree with your Teams by Region discussion. Sometimes your research will lead you out of a particular region and also regions do overlap over time. I often like to work on a group of surnames that I imagine I am familiar with, so I don't care where they lived. I also think it may be discouraging to place limits on our research. If a team wants to have a particular focus, that is great, but sometimes people join a particular team because that is where they live or they want to be on a team with their buddy (looking at you Beulah!).

If there is a great need of help for a particular region or surname or whatever - shouldn't the appropriate Project put out an appeal for volunteers? We don't have to wait for the Source-A-Thon.
Teams by Region - After some thought Teams by Region shouldn't apply to the Source-A-Thon. You are correct. Teams by Region really only applies to the Clean-A-Thons.
So many Australian profiles may end in Aus, but they began elsewhere.  It seems counter-productive to restrict us to simply Australian sourcing, when we might need Ireland, England, Scotland, Germany / Prussia /wherever it was that is now Germany, Scandinavia, the USA, etc.

Restricted to only Australia would severely handicap us all.
Loretta, I actually ponder before the Thon (no matter which one), what I want to work on in the Thon and the result of that process determines which team I will join. Last year in the Source-A-Thon I decided to do something for the Canada project, so I joined the Maple Leafs. In the Scan-A-Thon I was with Legacy as there was no Slavic team and I wanted to upload family pictures also from my Serbian family. In the Clean-A-Thon I decided to kick ass to the USA too early suggestions. The easiest way to do that was in New England as they all turned into USA on 4 July 1776. So the Nor'Eastern were perfect for that. And in the Connect-A-Thon I added my German family, so the German Genies were my choice then.

Registration - Could it get any more confusing?  I did go straight to the persons profile that last night, but I agree it would be great for the whole registration period. I also hid their 'comment' after they 'answered' properly. There is so much 'clutter' added to the initial posts or the ones that don't pick teams, it is a great idea to give Eowyn a helper that can take care of that.

New to WikiTree

What if we did a newt prep of some sort before the Thon begins? Post a separate sign-up for that. Let an experienced WT'er walk them through the process, or give each a WT buddy, and then a 'test run' of some sort so they can ask questions ahead of time? We had some newt's sign up with us, but I don't think they felt confident enough to ask questions, even though the rest of us were doing so.

Great suggestions!

Returning the look!
Jelena, what a great idea! Joining different teams for different reasons. I love it.
We may prefer you stick with a team but there was never any rule about it. LOL Some of our members on Nor'Easters went elsewhere. (I wonder if it was because Chris was absent?)

As far as registration, due to wikitree rules we can only recruit in the reply of the registration thread. And wouldn't you know people keep replying instead of answering burying the recruit posts. Maybe add a picture of where to click right in the registration question? I dunno.
Teams by region could be very difficult if your approach is to focus on those profiles that have no dates, no locations, no sources, and no Unsourced tag. We certainly do not want to ignore or miss these which are surely in need of attention.
the Kiwi Crew team were hampered because we ran out of profiles so had to look elsewhere, Melanie, so no, I wouldn’t like people to be restricted. They can already be hampered doing another area because they don’t know the sources.

Oh, hey .. I don't want restriction to/by area. surprise

I am 100% against it for the reasons I stated. 

It was Loretta who said restrictions might be a good idea.

Did anyone read where I posted "Teams by Region" would only work for Clean-A-Thons.smiley

I think having teams by region is fine, as long as we leave it as a "guideline" and not a rule. It's great when regional teams provide lists of those in areas they are focusing, and then state "but you can work your own unsourced lists or even pick an area outside of our region if that's what you want to do". It's helpful to know there's a list you "can" work from but don't "have" to. Otherwise we get into someone having to backtrack competitive counts to determine if there are any hanging chads out there, and no one wants that.
+12 votes
I didn't participate in Source a Thon. I just did my regular wikitree work, by working on certain Suggestions.  I also added plenty of sources to profiles, removing the Unsourced template when it was found, so the Source A Thon counts won't include my work, but there are plenty of profiles that now have sources.

In reviewing recent changes to my Watch List yesterday, I found quite a few profiles that had a change made because of the Source a Thon.  The last change showed that someone removed the Unsourced template and added a source, BUT the profile already had a source on it.  They took the existing source that had been the child listed while searching for the parent, and added an additional source with just the child's name.  It is the SAME source, no reason for a new source to be created, but that was done multiple times, removing the Unsourced template.  Agreed the Unsourced template should have been previously removed, but I am sure that plenty of people sourced a profile to get credit when there was already a valid source on the profile.  That also is 'cheating' the system when there was a source on the profile.  Also, the profile needed to be cleaned up because there was no reason to have the 'exact same source' included twice on the profile.  

To stop people from doing pre-sourcing, I am not sure how you are going to know that people have done that, other than seeing too many quick updates being done by one person 'because they only have to do a copy / paste' from the pre-sourced document.  The same quick updates can happen, though, when a census is found for a family.  It is added to the father's profile, probably because it is easier to search for the father, but then it can be quickly pasted into each of the other profiles of the family members.  That person didn't do pre-sourcing, but they will have quick update happening, at least for a time.

Giving incentives for most profiles updated does not seem like a good idea because there are always people that will try to get the top numbers and putting quality into the profiles is always better.

Similar things happened during the Clean a Thon when some teams took certain suggestions and did not add sources, as the suggestion stated, and only added headings to empty or nearly empty profiles, which is a very quick copy / paste to be done.  Yes, it added headings, but the suggestion also stated to add sourcing which everyone should be doing to all profiles that have no sources.
by Linda Peterson G2G6 Pilot (155k points)
I found several profiles that had a source - but the unsourced template was not removed.

So I removed the template and counted it, even if I didnt find the original source.

Most of the time I was able to find a second source to add to the page as well.

Not all newbies know how to remove the unsourced template - and others forget to go back and do it later.
All valid points.

One can tell if someone has pre-sourced to copy and paste, just look at the Stats, if they are hitting profiles every 30 seconds, they have presourced because in real time one cannot source that fast. 72 hours times 60 minutes an hour equals 4,320 minutes, at 10 minutes per source that is only 432 sourced profiles in a 72 hour time frame. Think about it. :)
I agree. Sometimes you can add same source to multiple profiles, like a census with many members.
I disagree Loretta.

Once a census record is found, it takes about 3 seconds to open a profile add and save and move to the next family member.  Sources for 19th and 20th Century are far easier and quicker to find :) In fact you have to be careful you don't go too quickly and get blocked :)
Wendy, that is true. But the stats I looked at, this was not the case. They weren't adding the same source to multiple family members. :(
Loretta, It's also possible to get contributions in a burst if the style is to start with a family, say 2 parents and 8 children then research and add sources (multiple) for each of the profiles (perhaps for each family group), then methodically go through and save the profiles. There might have been a bunch of research, then a bunch of saves...especially if working from an unsourced GEDCOM.
Kay, I agree with you on that point.

But that is not what happened! LNAB was different on the profiles and this person didn't even put and explanation of type of source added. Absolutely nothing! Not even Added Census Record...nothing.

I just hit one of these profiles and it still needed to be cleaned up. Disappointing that someone would just copy and paste, leave no explanation, not take the time to read the profile and spend a couple of extra seconds to tidy it up a bit.
I removed Unsourced templates from a number of profiles that had decent sources. I didn't claim credit for those edits.

I also didn't claim additional credit when, after sourcing a profile and correcting the profile data, I found a unsourced (and unconnected) profile for the same person and proposed a merge (there were several of those). I only counted one sourcing event -- the first profile I sourced.

I guess my "score" would have been a good bit higher if I thought of this as a game rather than as a weekend to work on dealing with unsourced profiles.
@ Ellen, I thought the system determined credit for corrections. I'm not sure I understand your assertion. Are you saying that you didn't hit the tracker button after each correction?
Apparently the system would have recorded a credit any time I hit the Tracker button after an edit, but I only hit the button when I had added at least one valid source to the profile(s) for a person. It's evident that I wasn't nearly as interested in racking up points as the majority of contributors were.
I really worked hard to get my 9 points. :) Done right!
I really worked hard to get my 9 points. :) Done right!

.

I worked really hard to get my 7(?)!   (If I got even that many, as the tracker told me the profiles did not count.)

+20 votes
The primary issue I've seen that bothers me is when someone adds a citation to a profile, but they don't update the profile with dates and/or places provided by the citation.

If our goal is to improve the data on WikiTree by adding sources, then you have to do both parts, or you're not improving the tree.

And that's my little soapbox speech. :-)
by Julie Ricketts G2G6 Pilot (304k points)
It adds the children by order of profile creation, not order of birth.
Thanks.  I've bookmarked it for the next week of research.  At least I've learned how to do that in senior computer class at the library.

Ah ... I fall in the camp of people who doesn't like to list the children on the profile like that. smiley I feel like it's redundant. I will include them in a narrative when that seems to make sense, though. 

Maybe the developer can revisit the code for the order of listing children, Melanie. They might be using the profile ID or person # instead of the birthdate. 

@Beulah ... That sounds like a plan! And good for you for taking a class!!
I list them .. especially if they don't already have profiles, but also because it helps the bio look as though it actually is a biography.  YMMV
I list them, too, with their WT-ID.  No sources - that's on *their* profile.  But it all helps with the Genealogical Proof Standard i.e. linking the families.

@ Julie, the Bio Tool is a great addition to have in one's toolbox. I have used it many times when there is no bio for a profile. It's a good starting point.

The reason I don't like to include profile IDs for children is because they will not be updated if a merge occurs -- yes, it will redirect, but for some reason, it just bugs me. ;-)

And yes, Loretta, I can see where that tool would come in handy. I'll be taking a closer look at using it.
I agree on the children. I have cleaned up many of those messes after a merger. ugh

Hear, hear! Otherwise, what's the point? Seriously!smiley

+15 votes
I enjoyed doing the sourceathon, although my efforts would have been more in line with a PIPathon - do we have one of those? - I couldn't leave them with just one source per profile, maybe I am a bit OCD because I had to add every source I could find to each one I did xxx
by Karen Butler G2G6 Mach 7 (74.6k points)
Thats why i dont participate in source a thon. One source may help but a profile should have all the sources found when a search is done, which goes back to quality over quantity
Quality should be the priority, if you want to improve profiles then every source you can find should be added, trat each profile as though it is a member of your own family, because if we do reach the goal of linking everyone to one global tree, then it will be a family member xxx
If I saw more than one source, then every source went in that profile. I’d have had twice, maybe three times the number of points if I had only added one per profile. So, you’re right Karen... every source!!

Makes WikiTree look like other sites with loads of data and only one source! Such a shame.
This is one reason we would like to count sources added instead of unsourced profiles getting just 1 source.
Agreed, Steven!

Same here Pipster smileyheart xxx

I think that would be better, and maybe more members would join in then. It was still fun to do smiley xxx

I'm with Pip and Steven! Point per source.
The problem comes with How are you going to count sources?  Let someone say how many they added?  There will be people giving that info incorrectly, just like they are not adding sources properly now.  It does sound like a good idea and would be the best, but not sure how that could possibly work and be accurate.
@Linda: right. Though I’d rather have each source count, I cannot figure how to accomplish it. I have thought about it, tech is definitely not my specialty.

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I would not trust self-reporting.
Hi Cousin,

True! It runs in our genes!

My best thought was looking for the key words "added" and "source" in the "explain your changes" section. Yes, it has the drawback of trusting members to actually add sources but then again we already trust them to add "correct" sources.

Some may abuse it, most won't. But the goal is making wikitree profiles better. Personally, I think adding 5 sources is much better than adding just 1 and moving on. 

Adding to that, I also wish people would add the appropriate maintenance category from here. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Needs_Profiles_Created also depending on state or country to help set it up for the connect-a-thon.

I sent you an email that points to just that problem alone.

You do such great work for WikiTree, Thank you!!!!
+17 votes
I have tried both prepping existing profiles and finding sources during the event.  There are speed advantages of prepping beforehand, but not a great deal of satisfaction.  Finding just one source for a profile and moving on seems a bit pointless to me. I do not feel as if I have done a good job.  There is much more satisfaction in fully sourcing a profile and leaving it tidy and presentable. Perhaps one point per source added might be a better way, even if there are already some sources on a profile. I know I would get much more satisfaction leaving a profile as fully sourced as I could make it, and cleaning it up in the process. There are a lot of messy profiles on WikiTree and just adding a single sources in a hurry does very little to improve them.
by Joan Whitaker G2G6 Mach 7 (71.5k points)

I feel that if I do a search and multiple obvious sources pop up, then I have to insert all that are available: it would just be wrong to leave things otherwise.

That was my thought, Joan, once I had added every source I found, I felt that I had done my best for the person in the profile, the more information added the better and it is interesting to know as much about them as you can xxx
I agree.  Frustrating at times just adding 1 source w(en there are so many available.  Maybe a way to quantify this for the challenge is to enter the # of sources added when you update the tracker at the top after each saved profile.
@ Morgan .. isn't that what you do with the comment you leave?  I know I do (until I run out of character-space, anyway).

E.G. "Added birth, marriage, and death registration sources/numbers, and added dates and places to data fields."

"Added marriage and death registration sources/numbers, listed the children, added census data, noted emigration, and noted burial,"

"Added marriages and death registration sources/numbers, listed the children, added census data, noted emigration, corrected CLN and other data fields."

But maybe I'm doing it wrong.
Joan... nail on the head!
Melanie, you can list what you added on the tracker, but all still counts as 1 point.  I'm suggesting you fill in a box with a number indicating how many sources you've added to the profile. Eg. Birth record, census record = 2.

It's Melanie, not Paul.  cheeky

Having an extra tick box or something for each separate source is a good idea, but is it doable?

Melanie, excellent idea!
+12 votes

I tried to prep.  I really did.  I managed a dozen profiles before I quit, because I realised that it was not for me. It was explained to me that the purpose of the Thon was to reduce the number of Unsourceds, which did not mean necessarily to do the research during the Thon, but beforehand instead.  But the idea of a Cut'n'Paste-a-Thon did not sit well with me.  So I researched on the day (well, over the weekend) and got a score of 280.  

I chose the type of source which would provide the mother's maiden name, and the satisfaction I got was thinking that maybe I was breaking down someone's brick wall by doing so, or confirming a link from a child to a mother.  I had already realised that no way would I reach the astronomical scores of some people.  But I still participated (and enjoyed) the team's banter over on Discord.

by Ros Haywood G2G6 Pilot (767k points)
I was assigned a letter so prepared about 20 the day before as I knew I had visitors and limited time, and I didn’t want to completely let the team down. One involved three sources to be sure I had the right person as the death date was incorrect. It was great to get a message from a dormant PM thanking me. If I had done it on the day, I might have abandoned the profile as too hard and just moved on to the next one.
+11 votes
I also prepped a few...171 to be exact of which I could only add 142 of them as other people had done the rest already. The remainder of the 772 I added were done as they showed in Wikitree+ as I got to them.

From adding one source to profiles, especially with active or semi active PM's I have received private messages thanking me and a re-kindled interest in their managed profiles.

Adding one valid source to an empty or almost empty (gedcom junk style sources) profile gives others something to work from.

I agree the satisfaction of complete sourcing is diminished but it is replaced with the satisfaction of knowing a huge number of profiles now HAVE a source which can be the basis of further research.
by Wendy Sullivan G2G6 Pilot (141k points)
Wonderful answer Wendy, I think we ALL want fully sourced profiles. But that’s what we do the rest of the time. I think one properly added proper source is acceptable for a Thon otherwise we are talking about a different Thon, not number of profiles sourced but number of sources added.
That's kind of how I looked at it as well (after trying to fully source a few at the beginning).  Adding one good source, at least, makes it easier for others who may come after to find additional sources (since they aren't starting from scratch).  I think there's value to both . . . getting the work of sourcing started on many profiles vs. fully sourcing fewer profiles.   

I do think I may go back and try to fully source at least some of the profiles I worked on, now that the event is over.  I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Yeah, that was precisely my thought, Wendy. I feel like a significant impact of this event is how it will bring some people back to their profiles. So many of the profiles I sourced hadn't had any activity on them since they were first created. My hope is that the message that gets sent to the profile manager, about me adding a source to one of theirs, renews their interest and will bring them back to complete the profile.

I agree the satisfaction of complete sourcing is diminished but it is replaced with the satisfaction of knowing a huge number of profiles now HAVE a source which can be the basis of further research.

I agree Wendy! I added one to some profiles, and eight or more to others. One thing that helps me 'only' put one is remembering that there are now more profiles that people have a starter clue on. Also, there are many members that see the activity and go and look at the profile. They may not all improve them more, but for the ones that do - that is satisfaction for me.

+12 votes

As a new person (I've only been here a few months), I'd like to contribute my thoughts.

  • I did feel pressured to do more (quantity). I think I could have been much more thorough on some profiles. That being said, I felt like I walked away from each one with it much better than it started.
  • It would be helpful for me (as a new person) to get considerate feedback on profiles.. things I could do better, should do differently, etc. This could be a huge learning opportunity for people, maybe pairing newbs up with partners/mentors or something. For the most part, I was just off on my own, hoping I was doing things well enough.
  • With a background in content, I'm a big fan of rounds of review. One person does something, another person checks it, or does another part. Sourcer, biographer, editor, QA.. something like that.
  • I love the chats and can't believe you didn't draw my BIB! :) My feedback for next time is, draw my number! :D
  • I also found a ton of profiles that had no source and no template. I fear that there's a true ton of unsourced profiles that aren't labeled.
Just a few thoughts!
Happy I joined! Glad I could contribute an exact 100 - and for me, I hope that some relative of those profiles I worked on, find my little nuggets of information and that it helps them make connections or inspires them to keep going. To me, it felt like I was leaving little presents.
Thanks for putting it all together Eowyn and crew!

by Stef Anderson G2G6 (7.3k points)

Stef, my experience this time around is that probably 95% of he profiles I sourced did NOT have the template. Usually for other members of the very same family!

We try to have the Data Doctor weekly challenge find the unsourced profiles and the source-a-thon find profiles for the Connect-a-thon. The Clean-a-thon is totally done by bot.

At least that is how we try to do it. :(
I think I need to find and join more challenges! :) Probably a lot I could learn from them!
+8 votes
I found, much to my surprise and everyone else's, (from statements being made in this thread) that little blurb that
some profiles didn't qualify.  After checking with Ros and being assured that ALL did, I kept on filing for every profile
I improved.  Some answers here seem to indicate that some are still not aware that all improved profiles counted in the tally.  I was also pleased to see on the second day that the thon box had been pre checked with a (v ).  I had been trying to remember to do that but sure I missed some on Friday and felt it was really unnecessary since it was the only designation on the page.
by Beulah Cramer G2G6 Pilot (201k points)
I was too Beulah (happy about the tick mark). As it was the only option, it was nice to have it already selected!
+11 votes
All good points noted by everyone.

Creating profiles only to add sources later, I'm not a fan of. I seem to recall that's not allowed for the regular monthly Sourceres challenges, so why would that be okay for the SAT?

On the other hand, I agree, researching ahead isn't that that big a deal. But if you are going to do that, you should make sure the profiles are updated to include the details of the source you added. It would be strange to find a source, and not incorporate the data from that source as part of the profile. If this was allowed, my final score would be much higher. I have been adding hundreds of profiles to the Needs

For many of the profiles I sourced, I found multiple sources. I couldn't ignore them, so I would often go back and add those extra sources as well. Or in many cases, I would find sources for profiles with secondary relatives that were already sourced. I would add those sources as well, even though it was not needed, and didn't count towards the SAT. But the profiles for secondary people more complete.    

I did notice that I was less efficient this SAT compared to last SAT. Last SAT, I just simply added sources and moved to the next profile. Now, a year later, my problem solving skills with Wikitree have improved somewhat. Now, I tried to solve all problems I encountered with each profile. Also, for many profiles, rather than simply add sources, I added text as well. I did this following the guidelines outlined by the Bio Builders group. I tried to follow their suggestions, rather than just paste a source in the biography. Both of these scenarios slowed me down, but I probably did a better job over all.
by Alex Stronach G2G6 Pilot (184k points)

I was slower this year too, Alex  because I couldn't help cleaning up as much stuff as I could on each profile. It's all improvement regardless of the numbers at the end of the weekend!heart

+10 votes
If WikiTree would develop some Source-a-Thon coffee, say with a triple dose of caffeine and some other stuff that the FDA might object to...

24 hour streaming of the videos. Yeah, I said that!

Mindy Silva cakes for everyone.

Did I mention coffee?
by Pip Sheppard G2G Astronaut (1.6m points)
Have you had any sleep Pip? enough coffee for you this weekend ;-)

And next SAT if you’re still on our side of the pond you should so come to play with the Warriors for the weekend ;-) (Gillian and Janet will kill me for saying that lol, but they will forgive me....eventually :-))
Hahahaha! Yes they would!

Lots of cake and coffee! 

Ha! My wife made a pistachio cake for this past weekend.

Love that coffee cup!
Do they make an espresso style tea? Because some of us really don't care for coffee, and just a regular tea won't cut it on Source-A-Thons... I'm sensing an entrepreneurial adventure approaching... DON'T READ THIS! I'M RUSHING TO THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE RIGHT NOW!!
too funny Scott!! Have you tried a chai tea? My girls love them!

You’re too late, Scott. Do a search on Amazon for espresso tea. cheeky

Related questions

+28 votes
15 answers
+19 votes
30 answers
668 views asked Oct 3, 2018 in The Tree House by Eowyn Langholf G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
+9 votes
6 answers
+21 votes
1 answer
+17 votes
4 answers
214 views asked Oct 4, 2016 in The Tree House by Leigh Murrin G2G6 Mach 5 (55.6k points)
+8 votes
1 answer
+30 votes
2 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...