Join the first ever Locators Challenge! March 2024 [closed]

Question

Welcome to the 1890s Locators Challenge!

---

Goal: To add a birth location to every WikiTree profile

Why? Birth locations help prevent duplicates. When looking at two profiles side by side, you can quickly look at the birth location to see if they are match.

When? This challenge will run monthly starting March 1, 2024

Who? Every WikiTreer who has signed the Honor Code can join this challenge.

We are beginning with people born in the 1890s as generally records for this decade are easy to find. However, any BIRTH location you add for any profiles with a missing birth location counts toward this challenge. 

---

How to get started

• Click the Answer button below and tell us which location you will be working on. 
• If you see another person is already working on that location, tell us which page of the search results (after running your search) you will be starting on so we don't trip over each other. 
• Modify one of the searches below to get profiles from a specific country or region (state, province, county etc.). Change the name of the location in the search box, then click the blue "get profiles" button. If you need help, ask in your answer below.
• Use the sources on the profile to find the birth location. Do not attempt to add a birth location without checking sources first. 
• If the profile is completely unsourced find some! If you add sources to any unsourced profiles, you can also count it for the Sourcer Challenge. Please sign up separately for their challenge.
• If you can't find a sourced birth location, please see the information on our help page about how to estimate a birth location. Do Not simply guess!
• Use the challenge tracker every time you add a birth location to a new profile. See our help page for more information on the tracker. 
• Each profile with a newly added birth location counts as one point.

---

These searches include the country or region in the marriage and/or death location:

• Country: country=Canada open birthlocation=missinglocation 1890s not 1880s
• Region: region=Maryland open birthlocation=missinglocation 1890s not 1880s

Some searches using a WikiTree sticker: 

• USBH Project specific profiles 1890s Missing Birth Location African American Sticker.
• Appalachia Project specific profiles 1890s  Missing Birth Location Appalachia Sticker. 
• Jewish Roots Project specific profiles 1890s  Missing Birth Location Jewish Roots Sticker. 

(You can replace the sticker query above with any sticker used on WikiTree)

---

Please be patient as we work out the kinks in this new challenge. Let's improve the Tree!

Comments

I'm in and will work on Florida.

---

I'm not surprised Thanks, Debi.

---

Oh, I am so glad to see this challenge happening! There are now 3,195 profiles listed in the Unlocated Profiles category, so hopefully, we'll now start to see that number going down instead of up.

---

I didn't know that category existed, Greg. We'll see if we can incorporate it into the challenge.

---

Emma ... you were bored and needed something more to lead?! :-)  This looks terrific. Maybe we need a Locators project and badge to parallel Connectors, Sourcerers, etc.

---

Greg ... If you click on the TABLE button, you will see those profiles that need editing to remove the tag because someone has entered a location but failed to remove the category tag.

---

We ran this for Scotland in January.  People are still working on them, since we didn't limit it to any decade.

---

Haha @Chris. I was actually tired of the duplicate finder have 50% of profiles with no birth locations to compare to. When a pet peeve gets too much for me, I start a challenge 

Answer 1

I'm in and will work on my Watchlist first and then Ireland, County Wexford.

Comments

Thanks, M!

Answer 2

Great idea! I will do some for British Columbia, Canada

Comments

Thanks, Valerie!

Answer 3

I’ll work on profiles from Tennessee. I’m going to start in 1900 because there might be records?

Comments

That sounds good. You can replace the year in the search query linked above. Thanks!

---

This should be renamed the Biography Creation Locators Challenge. None of the profiles I’ve touched have even had the Biography, Sources, or Acknowledgements sections. Most just have a Gedcom note. Thank goodness for WikiTree Sourcer!

---

Autobio in the WBE extension is also my new friend :-)

---

Bane of my existence “Pioneer Stock.GED on 31 October 2010”.

Good news? I’ve been related to all the profiles I’ve worked on through marriage, usually by 18 degrees. 

WikiTree Family Tree is working!

---

I'll start on the Tennessee 1890s list :)

---

Thanks Naomi! It will probably be more relatives of the families I’m working with. Lots of very empty GEDcom dumps. Good luck!

---

Seriously, so much unsourcedness! I'm doing pretty well finding sources but it slows me down because I can't leave them bio-less :)

Answer 4

I'll work on the profiles listed in the Category: Unlocated Profiles to begin with. C'est Bon

Comments

Wonderful! Thanks, Stanley.

Answer 5

I think this challenge is cool and I will probably tag the profiles I add birth locations to as I edit them, but I'm not going to take a whole location list and it's a bit off-putting to be told to mark my territory or whatever.

Comments

Hi E, the reason we declare where we're working is to help keep us from stumbling over each other as we work. There's nothing worse than going to do work and find someone else is already working there or has already edited those profiles or worse yet, edits the same profile I just spent loads of time researching.

---

I can think of many worse things but that's neither here nor there.  

So, when I 'thon I 'thon with the Toddlin' Tortoises.  And I look at challenges like this one as a rollout of site-wide incentives to improve our database searches, paired with a desire to track whether the incentives lead to a noticeable improvement of the relevant metric.  I get satisfaction from contributing to those goals as I work on profiles I'm interested in.  So in that sense I want to "join" the challenge even when I'll never be competitive.

And it's great that we have big-numbers members who are motivated by this kind of challenge to knock out a big chunk of the problem, even if I'll never be one of them.  Maybe the expectation to take responsibility for a cognizable slice of the task is also motivating for members, even if it is not so for me.  I do understand the suggestion to coordinate with other competitors.

I just want to tag the challenge completed for the 1-15 profiles I might improve in this way depending on how busy I am on WikiTree this month (admittedly, not much, of late).  But the sign-up instructions tell me that it is mandatory to claim a location as if I am playing to win if I want to participate at all.  Is that really the intention?

I am confident that if I have this question, other Tortoise types might as well.  Is there room for "quality" participation in challenges that incentivize "quantity"?

---

Please do any that you want to do in whatever way you prefer to work. The goal is to improve the tree and have fun. Any years are fine too. We focused on a decade so the numbers would be more achievable and it all would look less daunting. A tortoise approach is wonderful. Thanks for doing some.

Answer 6

I originally said I would be working Oregon. However as I visit profiles this month I may be in other states too. Presently the Locator challenge track link is not working on my Challenge Tracker page.  Thank you for another fun event.

Answer 7

I'd like to participate with the Canada group.

Comments

Thanks, Stu!

---

Am I going to get on the tracker spreadsheet or did I miss that window?  In any case, I modified the query to show just the ones I manage and there are more than enough to keep me busy for a while.

---

Hi Stu, the challenge tracker works only when you click the button after improving a profile. If you did several that didn't get counted on the tracker, you can list them here to be counted at the end of the month.

Answer 8

I can work on the Kansas profiles. There are currently 1248!

Comments

Thanks, Michelle!

Answer 9

I'll help with Lancashire but also add Cumberland, Westmorland and possibly Yorkshire all England

Comments

Thanks, Heather!

---

Wonderful! Plenty of northern England to work on!

Answer 10

I will work on Queensland, Australia Orphaned profiles.

Comments

Thanks, NG!

Answer 11

So, I am all in favour of a locator challenge, even a country is helpful when checking matches and I try to see if i can add that to any potential unlocated match. However, I think the guidance needs more nuance.

Migration is a major factor as to why some profiles don't have estimated birth places, and so estimating a birth place from a marriage or child's place of birth is actually counter productive as it stops people picking this up.

The reason I raise this is because I have seen it in action. Someone recently, in trying to be helpful, added a death location of England to a couple of profiles I manage. I can see why, that's where they were born and several of their siblings lived their entire lives there. But, i can't trace these particular individuals in local records, so they definitely left the region and possibly the country.

I do think there are some rules of thumb that could work. For example, if their parents married and died in the same place, then there's a very good chance the child was born there. And to be honest, if someone married in England in the 1800s there was a good chance they were born there (unless they had migrated from Ireland), but if they married in somewhere like Australia, Canada or the US, then there's an equally good chance they were not.

I suspect this is the kind of thing you are thinking of anyway, but wanted to flag.

Thanks

Comments

Hi Natasha, when estimating birth locations, especially when no location is in the profile's locatin fields, giving it an estimated location (which may be wrong because people most definitely moved around) gives location context to the profile. It's the notion that "something is better than nothing." That's why it's imperative that when estimating a birth location, people write a research note of what that estimation is based on.

---

The trouble is that if a birth location is "estimated" but wrong, it may lead to duplication of the profile because the estimate is different from the actual birth place which another WikiTree member has found a source for, so that the the two appear not to match. The research note is not immediately visible when the list of potential matches is being scanned.

The instructions are that estimates may be speculative but not a guess: see here and here. A continent can be given as location if there is sufficient evidence for that but nothing more precise. In some cases, even a continent would be a guess: Ian Beacall has made a policy change proposal for dealing with that.

---

Hi, so I realised I was probably trying a little too hard not to be direct and potentially lost my point.

In that I don't agree that something is better than nothing where the something is based on the current guidance in the locators challenge such as marriage or children's locations, as that point in young adulthood is often when people moved and when combined with a lack of sources in the area would suggest that it was actually more likely that they weren't from the area, and as Jim has noted, this significantly increases the chance of having a duplicative profile.

I don't want to slow all the wonderful much needed progress which I am sure this challenge will deliver, just feel that there is more work needed on the guidance.

Jim, have already voted on Ian's excellent proposal, which might be a route to addressing this and helping keep the locators challenge on track.

Thanks

---

I have to disagree, Jim, that more duplicates will be created with this method. With the current status of no birth locations, duplicates are getting missed constantly because who wants to look through 30 profiles with no birth locations? Honestly, there's no perfect answer except to keep improving our WT profiles, and adding more sources. The work being done here includes adding more sources and in many cases, appropriate maintenance categories. It's also giving some context. A profile with no location, especially those with no attached family with locations, has no context and is completely lost in the WikiTree ether. 

Also, by people working on areas they are familiar with during this challenge, there is a stronger likelihood of them finding sources that will accurately place people. 

---

I sometimes have helpful thoughts late at night Although I don't want to spend a lot of time and energy striving for perfection which isn't achievable, anyone who wants to write up instructions about how to best estimate locations for their country or people group on a separate page, I'm happy to link that under our estimation instructions. 

Answer 12

Hi Emma

This sounds like a worthwhile challenge so count me in.

 I will start with Delaware as many of my ancestors were natives of the Blue-Hen State.  

Best wishes always,

Chet Snow-2128

Comments

Thanks, Cousin Chet!

Answer 13

I'll help as a I find profiles missing the location info!

Comments

Thanks, Michelle!

Answer 14

I will give it a try with USBH. Or maybe not. I do not understand what to do with the search.

Comments

Do you mean you are unsure how to modify the search for the location you want to work on? If yes, let us know what you want to work on and we can give you a search to use.

Answer 15

Luxembourg

Comments

Thank you, Gerard!

Answer 16

Love this idea. I'll start with profiles from Sussex.

Comments

Thanks, Brad!

Answer 17

I'll be glad to work on some. Not sure about area though. Can I just pick from suggestion. Is there some list of areas?

Comments

Hi Anne, you could work from the Unlocated category if you'd like to work more randomly.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Unlocated_Profiles

There are over 3000 to choose from :-) Some of these might be tough, so if you can't find sources, feel free to go on to the next one.

Answer 18

I'm working on Appalachia, starting with Alabama. If I run out of those I'll move to adjacent states.

Comments

Thanks, Laura!

Answer 19

I will work in Appalachia, Specifically Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

Comments

Thanks, M!

Answer 20

I'm in and I work on Austria!

Hugs, Beate Hauer -314

Comments

Thank you, Beate!