One Name Study categories [closed]

Question

If a category is applicable to a profile, normally the parent category would also be applicable, but should not be provided as it is already provided implicit.

Special thing with stickers and One Name Studies: The ONS sticker provides the profile automatically with the global category of that name (i. e. Ostermann Name Study). Additional there is the state-based category (i. e. Nordrhein-Westfalen, Ostermann Name Study). It's OK.

But now, I removed the sticker, because I don't like the stickers on the profiles. Should I provide the category (i. e. Ostermann Name Study) directly? It would be redundant. But is this neccessary for apps to evaluate? For statistics?

Comments

As I can see, the app One Name Trees shows the narrowest category Nordrhein-Westfalen, Ostermann Name Study. It seems that the top category Ostermann Name Study is not neccessary.

---

That's a general problem with One Name Studies that every study has their own preferences - and often, different members of the same study have different preferences. If you don't like ONS stickers on Ostermann profiles, the Ostermann ONS members should first agree to change the study's goal: 

• Tag all Ostermann profiles on WikiTree with Ostermann Name Study sticker

---

Note that this goal may be in conflict with the rules on adding and removing stickers.

---

Thanks, Jim, for the hint. In general, I would work on an Ostermann profile before adding the ONS sticker.

Answer 1

Yes, it is necessary, otherwise the profile will not get included in the ONS, and if you have removed the sticker - then there is no category.

Comments

But the profile still has

Category: Nordrhein-Westfalen, Ostermann Name Study

Doesn't that mean it's in the study?

---

Yes, I think so.

---

It will be more difficult for statistics because it will no longer be sufficient simply to take the number of profiles in the parent category. For example, for the Ostermann ONS statistics, I would now have to count all profiles in all categories but subtract those profiles with double categories again. I don't think I would go to that trouble ...

---

Yes, that was the reason for the initial question.

To consider that, it is reasonable to have both ONS categories, the main ONS category and the state-based ONS category.

Ros, I will re-establish the category … 

---

I disagree. The statistics issue seems to be with how statistics are being gathered. It should really be recursing into all sub-categories and counting those entries as well (and also discarding duplicate profiles, of which there will be many as a lot of people lived in more than one state / province / country). 

Trying to solve the problem by putting in redundant categories seems doomed to failure. Even if you update your own ONS, will others follow suit?