We all love Genealogy & Family History Stack Exchange, but there is a whole world of people out there who need answers to their questions and don't even know that this site exists. When they arrive from Google, what will their first impression be? Let's try to look at this site through the eyes of someone who's never seen it before, and see how we stack up against the rest of the 'Net.

The Site Self-Evaluation review queue is open and populated with 10 questions that were asked and answered in the last quarter. Run a few Google searches to see how easy they are to find and compare the answers we have with the information available on other sites.

Rating the questions is only a part of the puzzle, though. Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are not? Questions or answers that could use an edit? Anything that's going really well? Post an answer below to share your thoughts and discuss these questions and the site's health with your fellow users!

3 Answers 3


There seemed to be an over representation of questions related to determining/calculating the names of a (non-blood) relationship between people.

Perhaps someone may be interested in creating a Canonical Q&A that addresses a number of the questions tagged with a view to making a proportion of them duplicates.

I've written an answer about Canonical Q&As at Meta GIS SE that may (or may not) be of interest.

  • +1 It's difficult not to respond to the "what do I call this family member" type of question with a "let me Google that for you" snarky answer.
    – Jan Murphy Mod
    Commented Aug 29, 2014 at 15:53
  • Re: the discussion on Meta GIS.SE, I note with interest the comment by blah238 about how Server Fault has a list of topics which are not yet addressed by a canonical Q&A.
    – Jan Murphy Mod
    Commented Aug 29, 2014 at 15:59


How can I make it easier to read scans of records when the other side of the page bleeds through? didn't get very high search results in Google when I searched for "image processing bleed-through". "Bleed-through" is in the question but not title.

The first few pages of the search result are filled with academic papers discussing the topic, full of the math associated with the process.

I don't know how the message can be improved to make it rank higher.

I think the question and answer are valuable; the reason I marked it 'Satisfactory' was because it didn't rank high in the search results.

Needs Improvement

Is there a resource for easily determining relationships between two relatives?

I searched for "relationship calculator" and got pages of hits, several of which are 'relationship' in the sense of romance not genetics. Adding the term 'genealogy' to the search weeded out the match-making sites, and brought the question Calculate Family Relationship from Genealogical Data from Stack Overflow to the top of page 2. How do I determine a relationship with a cousin?, which is linked in this question, appears at the top of page 5.

We got much better results when I added the word "step" to the search. Steve Morse's Relationship Calculator from his One-Step Web Pages was the #1 hit on the first page. Not far down on page 1 were two questions from G&FH.SE, What would a step-grandmother's(?) brother be called? (showing a title pre-fix of "relationship mapping") and Determining name for family relationship that involves a step daughter?. At the bottom of the page was the Stack Overflow question referenced above.


I skipped voting on Inferring father/son relationships from Senior (Sr.) / Junior (Jr.) naming? because it's my answer. A search for "father son senior junior kinship terms" shows it pretty high on page 1. It's not a great answer, with only three upvotes, so it probably could have been better, but it satisfies the "get high search results on Google" test. It ranked higher than some of the resources I used to answer the question, anyway. If you take out the "father son" terms from the Google search, it still shows up on page 2.


Final Results - Mean Net Score: -0.2

Net Score: 3 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 3, Needs Improvement: 0)

Net Score: 3 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 0)

Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 3, Needs Improvement: 1)

Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 1)

Net Score: 1 (Excellent: 2, Satisfactory: 3, Needs Improvement: 1)

Net Score: 1 (Excellent: 2, Satisfactory: 3, Needs Improvement: 1)

Net Score: 0 (Excellent: 1, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 1)

Net Score: -3 (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 3)

Net Score: -5 (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 5)

Net Score: -6 (Excellent: 0, Satisfactory: 1, Needs Improvement: 6)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .