5

I'd like to address this comment from the question: I do not think the discussion about our research about our common ancestors is of interest to anyone else, nor is it suited for the Q/A design of this site. Whether your research is of interest to anyone else is a different issue from wanting to conduct your collaboration in private. Your research ...


5

I can empathise, as you will see in my answer to How strict should we be with Not An Answer flags/closure on new users? I would encourage both you and your cousin to include contact details in your user profiles like I have done in mine. You can tailor your profile to each site that you participate in. I think it is OK to use comments to direct each other ...


5

I think we need only one FindMyPast tag, with an updated tag wiki as indicated below (with my bolding to indicate the change): findmypast A suite of genealogy websites operated by brightsolid online publishing across several national domains (including .com, .co.uk, .com.au, .ie). Use this tag when the question is applicable to any of these. The ...


5

Remove the research tag. I have never tagged any of my questions research even though most are about research. There is nothing in common with questions tagged research, rendering the tag useless. For questions about specific aspects of research we have the following tags: research-methods: For questions about how to conduct genealogy research and best ...


5

Vote for this answer if you would like G&FH SE to have hats available for those who would like to see their avatars adorned with them during the festive season.


5

What about jewish (which we already have, so don't needs Jews) and endogamy (to handle the broader topic of endogamy? From the ISOGG Wiki: Examples of endogamous groups include Jews, Polynesians, Low German Mennonites, the Amish, Acadians or Cajuns (French settlers in what is now Nova Scotia, Canada), French Canadians, people from many Arab ...


5

I don't understand what having online buys us. Will people follow such a tag? I'm happy to see it go.


4

We had problems with a datacenter test that left our caching layer in a partially broken state. All issues should now be resolved. Also, see https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/268957/topbar-notifications-dont-go-away


4

Having thought about this for a while I think it is confusing how for many events we have a sort of "general" tag as well as a "records" tag. While it is simple to re-tag questions with the right tag, it would be better if we could have some clearer names and usage guidances so that questions are tagged correctly in the first place. Therefore I propose the ...


4

For marriage-records add 'banns' to the list of types of marriage records. I like this and think it will add more clarity.


4

This Meta SE Q&A suggests that there may be some hope: Allow questions to be saved as drafts prior to posting. Hopefully, you will not be stymied by "Drafts are not supported on self-answer." I cannot remember whether I've ever seen it work. I think I may have on occasion, but I also think that I have seen no draft available much more often. I tend to ...


4

Hats! I rarely wear hats IRL - they make me look "weird", or "sort of like a murderer", at least according to my wife. But virtual hats? Bring 'em on!


4

I suspect part of the problem is that every question has to have a tag and there isn't another tag that would fit the questions about legal/social implications of relationships within current family structures, so the OP clutches at a straw. We should not create a tag that covers that topic. I do agree the tag info is misleading, as Jan Murphy has said: ...


4

Some of us thought it was unclear, some of us thought it was off-topic (I happen to think it was both, but you can only pick a single reason to close). However, unless you work on it substantially to make the focus clear and on-topic, it is not about tracing the history of your family/genealogy, which is what this site is about. There are a number of Stack ...


4

Your question is problematic because it doesn't say how this information will be helpful to you in answering a research question for your genealogy and family history. From What types of questions should I avoid asking?: You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the ...


4

I don't think we need a tag for it. What is the likelihood that someone would want to subscribe to a site to get all the new acronym questions? Anyone looking for prior questions about acronyms can easily search for the word instead.


3

I have gone through the 61 questions which are currently (as of 4 Feb 2018) tagged with relationship-mapping. Jan and others have already described the downfalls of this tag, so I won't dwell on that. What I propose below is based on the proposal of PolyGeo and ColeValleyGirl (whose idea I initially – and most shamefully – pooh-poohed). Proposal ...


3

I think that there is also a case for your question (Why are some families more into tradition than others, and use their surnames as a way to enforce them?) to be closed in its current state for the reason below: primarily opinion-based Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question ...


3

Yes! Yes! Yes! I love hats!! Bring 'em on! Hopefully one year, they'll bring the Unicorns back.


3

Use four tags: army - for land forces navy - for sea forces air-force - for air forces military-records - for anything that does not fit the above simple classification (e.g. for multiple forces, for when something like Marines does not quite fit). Can be used on its own or in conjunction with above tags.


3

Here's our Genealogy & Family History SE Winter Bash 2014 leaderboard, for who's earned the most hats on our site.


3

Putting the pitch together took a fair deal of discussion when we were trying to get this site going in Area51. There were lots of proposed pitches. The way it ended up, it had the "experts" in it. Here's a bit of the history: Sept 8, 2012: Why does the proposal include the term serious amateurs? Sept 24, 2012: New proposal description is too restrictive/...


3

I think that we should use your wording and place it like below immediately before the last sentence at https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic which is "For more help, see "What types of questions should I avoid asking?" A note on 'lookup requests' Questions asking for somebody to perform a lookup on a site/at an archives that is not ...


2

I'd like to make a request that we revisit the tags for military records. I was attempting to pull up all the questions with the tag navy because I have a question about Royal Navy records. The search appears to redirect to showing me all the questions tagged military instead. I DO NOT WANT THIS. I want only Navy records, which are going to be quite ...


2

At present, we have only a few tags concerning military matters that I can find: military-recordsx111 "For questions about documents pertaining to military personnel or units, including service records, muster rolls, medal rolls, casualty lists, regimental log books, etc." military is a synonym of this tag. navyx20 "The sea-going arm of the military ...


2

Yes, merge the ambiguous new-york tag into new-york-state and remove any New York synonyms. Keep specific new-york-city and new-york-state.


2

I am grateful to lkessler for linking back to the Area 51 discussions and the earlier discussions on Meta. I am opposed to dropping the word expert from the site description -- I don't know of any other English word that conveys as well the idea that the site is designed for people with knowledge and skill. On Twitter, I pitch the site like this: Got ...


2

It's December 21st, so I do a little survey of the top users list for the month at Genealogy SE. 6 of the top 12 users for the month are wearing hats. That's a little below the 10 of the top 12 users at Stackoverflow. But that is to be expected, because we programmers are more geeky. I've worn 4 different hats already. :-)


2

I have performed a merge (moderator tool) of status-animarum with vital-records leaving the former as a synonym.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible