Why a blog is more attractive than a website

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are better off publishing parts of your tree as separate articles in a blog than as a full family tree website as produced by most family tree programs. My reasoning will be demonstrated by searching for a name and a place that I am interested in for my own family history:

The very first result in this list is a blog post: 

Compare that page with this one: 

Which one looks more interesting? Which one would look more interesting to someone who wasn't all that interested in genealogy?

If I'd put a picture or two in the blog post it would be even more interesting.

So that's two good reasons:

1. A blog post about a specific person or family line will be higher in a Google search
2. A blog post will be more likely to hold the attention of a casual reader

A third reason is this: I have my full family tree as a separate website as produced by Second Site, a program to turn my The Master Genealogist project into a website. Most of the enquiries I get from it are for people on the edges of my tree, people who have married cousins of my ancestors. I have no more information about these people than what is on the tree, but the researchers who find them get excited when they find the name and email me for more. Really it's a waste of  my time and theirs.

Anyone who finds the names in my blog posts is really looking for my family, and we are usually related. Over the years I would say that as many real relatives have found me through my blog posts as through my tree, although of course I can't count the people who find my tree, grab the information, and leave without contacting me.

Blogs make it easier for them to contact me, as there's a form for comments at the bottom of the page.

So there it is. Write stories about your ancestors in a blog. Don't just put your tree up and wait for people to find you.

Note: in case you're wondering about the Google logo in the first image - it was the 46th anniversary of the first Star Trek episode, and Google was celebrating. And why not?

This pot was first published in March 2013 on my blog Social Media and Genealogy.

Google+ for family historians

Google+ is the new social network in town. It's a bit like Facebook and a bit like Twitter and a bit different from anything I've seen. It's easy to share stories and photos with a few peopple or a lot of people or everyone.

It's not really a blog but it could perform the same function, since you can write as much as you want in a single post, and add photos to it. You can then put a link to the post on other networks such as Facebook or Twitter. You can share photos in web albums and publish them on Google+, and others can comment on them. It's become very popular with photographers, as a way of connecting with other photographers and for displaying their wares to the rest of us.

Google+ invites and supports discussion in a way that Twitter does not. You can say more, and the conversation is kept together and flows more normally.

I see no reason why genealogists haven't taken to Google+ in the way that those with other interests have, but so far they have not. Many bloggers leave posts to show that they have published a new blog post elsewhere but say nothing about it, thus reducing the temptation to click on the link to read what they have written.

Google+ also has hangouts, which is a communication tool to allow up to 10 people to all talk to each other by voice and video. Video is not essential but it is a bit disconcerting if you can see everyone but one person behind and blank black square. Hangouts can also be used to broadcast to many people at once. Genealogists and families could use hangouts for many, many uses. Some businesses now use hangouts instead of Skype.