BRAVO! Masterful analysis and conclusion, Maynard!
I, too, have noticed a recent proliferation of "trash" out there in
the field of genealogy (bet it's somehow correlated with the explosion
of interest in genealogy, which is also correlated with our moving
onto computers and the Internet). Seems like we have maybe two or
three (at most) comings and goings, and the rest are either duplicates
or "careless" (you explained the probable motivation) citations.
There certainly is a lesson-learned in this. I know some folks don't
have access to primary records, but in this age of "careless"
publication, the closer we can get to primary records, the better the
sanity check we'll have. And independent confirmation of "facts" is
becoming more and more important.
From: VKRatliff(a)aol.com [mailto:VKRatliff@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 11:51 AM
Subject: PILI and "Follow the Money"
I took flack before for constructing "economic models" to solve
PILI has a single maybe-legitimate puzzle for us. Beyond that PILI is
seriously flawed data base. PILI appears to be a "for profit"
gets paid on "volume". PILI has no incentive to introduce a
function" process to weed out multiplication of names. Discriminant
functions don't pay. It's much nicer to get paid "by the name" which
indoor work and no heavy lifting.
The PILI title is technically correct. I'll consider it my own fault
assuming the thing to be a compilation of ship passenger manifests
suspect we have all thought that way. Why? Well, our speculation so
been confined to the questions of "just how many trips" did Francis
make......as if "transport land grants" were something like
noncancelable frequent-flyer points (which they OFTEN were).