Fw: [APG Public List] client who ignores billing

Jeanette Daniels jeanettedaniels8667 at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 23 06:02:41 MST 2010

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Jeanette Daniels <jeanettedaniels8667 at yahoo.com>
To: eshown at comcast.net
Sent: Tue, February 23, 2010 6:02:08 AM
Subject: Re: [APG Public List] client who ignores billing


Obviously neither of us is getting what the other is trying to get across.  It's better to just drop this one.



From: "eshown at comcast.net" <eshown at comcast.net>
To: apgpubliclist at apgen.org
Sent: Mon, February 22, 2010 9:22:22 PM
Subject: RE: [APG Public List] client who ignores billing

I wrote (in response to Larry)
assignments in which research essentially involves “searching records,” [your
suggestion of reporting after every 10 hours of research] is wise. On the other
hand, in many areas across rural America, where research is far more complex
and piecing together even a pattern might not be possible in less than 40
hours, reporting every ten or so hours would not work. The time would be
insufficient to develop anything meaningful and clients would walk away
thinking “once again, I got nothing from the search.”
Then, in response to
Larry’s response, I explained more fully:
>>“The ‘patterns’
to which I refer are evidentiary patterns developed through correlation and analysis
of seemingly disparate pieces of evidence. It can take a considerable amount of
research---not just on the elusive ancestor but on what I call his FAN Club
(Friends, Associates, and Neighbors)---to develop patterns of migration, naming
and religious practices, activities, land ownership, etc., from which we might
squeeze the first viable clues to origin, identity, or parentage. In cases such
as this, reporting after, say, 10 hours would provide the client with nothing
of any obvious value.  
Now, Jeanette writes:
having trouble with this.  If you can't figure out where the problems are
within 10 hours - rural or not, something is wrong with the genealogical
researcher's skills.

Jeanette, I did not say
that I (or any other researcher, generically) cannot figure out where problems are within 10 hours. That
point is obvious in the above snippets that you quoted.  
Beyond that, If you’ll
reread my original message, you’ll see that figuring out where the problems are and what approach to use is the critical
part of the problem analysis that I recommend as the first step prior to launching research. 
However, I’m the one who
is now confused by your comment above. A while ago, you transplanted this APG
discussion onto TGF and there you stated your disagreement with me quite
>Elizabeth, you also mentioned that 40 hours might not
be enough to find needed information.  I'm having a difficult time believing that a "professional
genealogist" would not be able to find enough information in that amount
of time.  The "professional
genealogist" who can't is the last person I would want to hire.
At this point, I’m pulling out my hair trying to figure
out exactly which it is you disagree with—my planning or my research.  But, here as there (or there as here), I have
to agree with Jack’s TGF response in which he asked if you were “seriously
suggesting” that “absolute evidentiary proof [could be found] for any research
question in 40 hours or less.”
Elizabeth Shown Mills,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: ../attachments/20100223/c5d9039e/attachment.htm

More information about the APGPublicList mailing list