Discussing Our Family Trees: A Longitudinal Analysis of Online, Community-Based Communication in Genealogical Newsgroups

Discussing Our Family Trees: A LongitudinalAnalysis of Online, Community-BasedCommunication in Genealogical NewsgroupsKylie Veale

Discussing Our Family Trees: A Longitudinal Analysis of Online,Community-Based Communication in Genealogical Newsgroups

6/24/2014 Discussing Our Family Trees: A Longitudinal Analysis of Online, Community-Based Communication in Genealogical Newsgroups | Interface

http://bcis.pacificu.edu/interface/?p=2970 1/98

Discussing Our Family Trees: A

Longitudinal Analysis of Online,

Community-Based Communication in

Genealogical Newsgroups

Posted on September 1, 2004 by Editor

By Kylie Veale <[email protected]>

author bio

Introduction

Genealogists are inquisitive and communicative people, part of rich formal and informal

communities of like-minded individuals. Community links are created out of choice, for

enjoyment, sharing, and for dialogs of interest, though also created through necessity. The

general pool of genealogical knowledge and resources are usually so large and diverse, no one

genealogist could know it all; hence a community of information as support is required. Before

the communication options available today however, informal and formal community links and

communications of choice or necessity were often time-consuming and slow.

With the advent of the Internet, new and exciting options for communicating locally and

internationally became available. In fact, over 35 million people in the USA alone have ‘done’

genealogy online (Maritz Research Inc., 2000). With message boards, chat rooms, mailing lists

and newsgroups, people can instantly communicate with other genealogists and even find highly

specialised groups. Genealogists are no longer hindered by physicality either; they can now

communicate with like-minded people from all over the world. Though it is one thing to say

genealogists are communicating on the Internet – is this communication successful? Is

genealogy’s ‘archaeology of community’ found in the online space?

Some researchers use terms such as ‘online community’ (OC) and ‘common ground’ as

important characteristics for successful online communication. Scoberth, Preece, and Heinzl



(2003) use the term online community to describe “the communication and social interaction that

is seen in Internet and web-based list servers, bulletin boards, USENET newsgroups and chats.”

Common ground, as described by Whittaker, Terveen, Hill, and Cherny (1998), is a key principle

of face-to-face conversations and refers to the fact that participants must establish a degree of

mutual knowledge for their conversational contributions to be understood. Thus if participants in

an online environment can establish common ground, the environment may be considered an

online community.

What is known (and will be discussed later in this paper) is that genealogical USENET

newsgroups are one of the most used forums online for genealogical communication. An

opportunity therefore arises to use newsgroups to test for genealogical community online. As a

result, my study uses the concepts of online community and common ground to test whether

genealogical communities can be found online.

Genealogy and the Internet

Genealogy is one of the world’s most popular hobbies, with hundreds of millions of people around

the world actively engaged in some form of family research. Defined as the “study or investigation

of ancestry and family histories,” (1) researchers known as ‘genealogists’ build family trees person

by person, family by family, to uncover those that walked the earth before them.

As a hobby, genealogists rarely participate in isolation – rather genealogy requires, and creates,

community. Community is required in lieu of every genealogist learning the vast breadth of

knowledge available for them to pursue the hobby. Community is created in part from this

requirement, though also through the many varied communications genealogists conduct during

their research efforts. For example, genealogists correspond with others to enquire on kinship

connections, previous research, and sources of family history data. The relationships forged are

rarely discarded; rather, initial conversations often turn into long-term relationships. In the same

way, unique bonds are forged with strangers through the finding of a common link, the exchange

of information, or at societies or conferences through commonalities of interest.

With the advent of the Internet, an opportunity for genealogists to broaden their community

involvement occurred, allowing them to instantly conduct their enquiries and research far beyond

their immediate localities. A plethora of mechanisms are available online to enhance their hobby

and improve the many communications they conduct during their research. Some even propose

the Internet has increased the hobby’s popularity (Fitzgerald, 2003; Howells, 1999; Lewis, 1998;

Tedeschi, 2002), due to ease of access to genealogical information and resources, made

possible by an internationally distributed, low-cost environment.

With the advent of the Internet, the communication needs of genealogists can be satisfied and

enhanced in many ways. The Internet provides a varied set of interactions, an increase in

productivity through resource sharing, forums for discussing research problems and shared

experiences, and the ability to communicate with other genealogists and historians outside local



communities. It is perhaps due to the last two of these interactions that one specific online

communication medium, USENET newsgroups, emerged as one of the first online

communication forums for genealogists to embrace.

Everyday people – who happened to be genealogy hobbyists – found the Internet as an

opportunity to communicate outside their local, offline communities. This opportunity saw query

boards such as GEN-CONNECT and GEN-FORUM created, and of course IRC Chats and

numerous other ways to correspond, before USENET. The first USENET newsgroup “net.roots”

was created in 1983 and renamed “soc.roots” in early 1987. From 1987 onwards, newsgroups

quickly expanded to meet the growing interest and online needs of genealogists world-wide. To

explain the rapid success of genealogical newsgroups further, I briefly summarise Margaret

Olsen’s (1999) history of genealogical newsgroups.

Soc.roots was re-organised into seven sub-groups with the word “genealogy” in them to ensure

they were easy to find. Separate “ethno” groups were then created to allow people outside the

USA places to discuss genealogy, without having to wade through a large number of American

posts. To that end, soc.genealogy.french, german, and jewish, were created. After this time, the

soc.genealogy hierarchy of newsgroups was being used continuously and increasing demand

was evident for narrower groups. The original newsgroups were soon joined by eleven more: a

marketplace group, a medieval group and nine ethno/geographical groups. More narrowly-

focussed groups were created in May 1997 and a major reorganisation

ofsoc.genealogy.uk+Ireland into soc.genealogy.britain andsoc.genealogy.ireland was successful

in July 1997.

From this short history, we see a communication forum changing and evolving to better meet the

needs of the ever growing number of genealogists online. While there is no doubt these changes

were implemented to better organise the growing number of messages posted, I also suggest

that genealogy’s ‘archaeology of community’ accounts for the fast rate at which newsgroups

were embraced by genealogists as an online communication medium. That is, as I mentioned

earlier, genealogy requires and creates community, thus genealogists are historically used to

participating in communities. It is therefore only natural for those used to the idea and practice of

community, to be able to successfully perform their community activities in another space.

Nevertheless, it has been several years since Olson’s history of genealogy newsgroups, and

other forms of asynchronous communication have emerged online to rival them. Web-based

news forums emerged in the late 1990′s, growing “out of the need for a more vibrant,

centralised, easier-to-use communication medium” (Atkinson, 2003), and mailing lists were

created, often as subscribe-to-use gateways to already existing newsgroups. It is at this point

that I narrow the discussion of this paper: are newsgroups still used by genealogists in the

majority for online communication? Are the communities required by genealogists evident in these

newsgroups, and are genealogists participating in creating online communities?

Answering my first question regarding genealogists’ preferred medium, I utilise posting volume as



a measure. Consequently, I performed a brief posting-volume analysis of four genealogy topics

(Britain, methods, computing, and Benelux) across newsgroups, web-based forums, and mailing

lists, for the twelve months of October 2002 to September 2003.

Despite slight fluctuations in volume, overall, newsgroups are the medium in which genealogists

post the most messages. Web-based forums, although slowly increasing in usage, currently

perform at approximately ten percent capacity of newsgroup volume. Why then are newsgroups

used for the bulk of genealogical communication rather than mailing lists? Although this is outside

the scope of this study, I suggest for areas of broader interest such as genealogical research,

newsgroups are a better choice; otherwise users need to subscribe to many mailing lists to get a

broad scope and risk a barrage of email in their inbox.

Answering the second question however, the main premise of this study, has more far reaching

considerations for genealogical newsgroup communication, therefore the remainder of this paper

will attempt to find community in a newsgroup.

GENEALOGICAL NEWSGROUPS AS COMMUNITY-BASED COMMUNUCATION

This section commences with an explanation of the models, chosen newsgroup, and data used

for my study, before describing in detail the findings from an investigation of community in a

representative genealogical newsgroup.



Methods

Framework

To create a framework with which to assess genealogical newsgroups as online communities,

the quantitative methods of two studies entailing USENET newsgroups, common ground and

online communities were utilised. The first study by Whittaker et al. introduces the Common

Ground Model for testing online community presence. The second by Schoberth et al. presents

the OC Model as determinants for online community in newsgroups.

Whittaker et al. analyse the interactions of 500 newsgroups and perform a set of tests to

understand specific demographic, conversational, and interactive factors contributing to the

establishment of common ground. Common ground, coined by Clark (1992), is the degree of

mutual knowledge required for conversational contributions to be understood, and is cited by

many other authors (Koschmann, Goodwin, LeBaron, & Feltovich, 2002; Mäkitalo & Häkkinen,

2002) as a factor for establishing community online. Therefore the casual modelling technique

utilised for testing predictions of common ground is important to my study. Specifically, in using

the determinants of their Common Ground Model, I can test whether newsgroup participants in

my study can establish common ground and genealogical newsgroups may be considered online

communities.

While the work of Whitaker et al. is focused on assessing common ground, the study of

Schoberth et al. offers an additional model for generally assessing a newsgroup as an online

community. The authors commence by performing a literature review on Whitaker et al., in

addition to the models derived from two other papers on online community. Importantly, the

authors recognise that Whittaker et al. did not consider time as a longitudinal component of the

analyses: their proposition of common ground “is [therefore] not suited entirely” to the complete

phenomenon of online communities, and cannot be considered in isolation when testing for the

presence of community. This finding was the catalyst for my using two models in combination for

this study, in addition to using a four-year dataset.

Additional research on USENET newsgroups and online community is also incorporated for

comparative purposes to my findings (refer Festa, 2003; Jones & Rafaeli, 1999, 2000). Finally, I

document other findings in addition to the two models that may further confirm or refute the

presence of community in the focal newsgroup.

Focal Newsgroup

Fisher (1998, p8) states that a newsgroup “must have enough traffic to complete a reasonable

traffic analysis and to have some idea of who is participating”. Therefore the

newsgroup soc.genealogy.britain was chosen as the focal newsgroup for this study, due to its

consistently high number of posts and posters. The newsgroup is unmoderated, and according

to Olson (2001), available for genealogy and family history discussion among people researching



ancestors, family members, or others who have a genealogical connection to any people in

Great Britain.

Data Collection

Newsgroups statistics from the USENET Social Accounting Search Engine,(2)

(http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/) formed the basis of the quantitative data required for the

analysis. USENET archives from google.com was also be utilised as a supporting resource, such

as the case of message contents.

The time axis for this study was divided into 48 months (3), and each point along the axis

corresponds to a month of data. The data covers 1,373 days from October 1999 to September

2003, and represents the most recent four years of activity in the newsgroup at the time of this

paper.

Common Ground Analysis

The first part of this study investigates whether the focal newsgroup can be considered an online

community by assessing whether the group creates common ground. To test for common

ground, I analyse the newsgroup in a similar manner to Whittaker et al.’s Common Ground

Model; considering message traffic, group familiarity, conversation strategies, and interactivity.

Message Traffic

Before usage of the Common Ground Model, demographic statistics were calculated to ensure

the focal newsgroup demonstrated mass-interaction, and the model could be used similarly to

Whittaker at al. Posts to the focal newsgroup are extremely high when compared to the

newsgroups in the studies of Whittaker et al., Schoberth et al., Fisher, and Patterson (1996). As

the newsgroup received over 123,000 posts in four years activity, and averaged about 90 posts

per day, including an average of 630 unique posters per month, these statistics confirm the

presence of mass-interaction and thus justify the usage of Whittaker et al.’s Common Ground

Model for this study.

Group Framiliarity

The Common Ground Model’s first determinant, group familiarity, analyses the number of repeat

participants to a newsgroup. This factor represents the number of authors who contributed at

least one message to the newsgroup in the time period selected, who also posted in the

previous time period. As these users return, they create familiarity within the group, and as Smith

(2002) explains, newsgroup regulars and the size of the population of regulars is indicative of the

maturity and stability of the space and increases common ground.

The constant level of returnees in the focal newsgroup (figure 2) confirms a set number of people,



as a percentage of posters, are returning and maintaining the dynamic of the group. Specifically,

246 people on average per month are returning to the newsgroup, a retention rate of about

30%. Though are these returnees the same group of people each month or users who stay for a

couple of months then leave? (4) While I look at this more closely in the User Experience

determinant of the OC Model, the Common Ground Model utilises levels of participant

contribution as supplementary analysis.

Single posters accounted for 26.75% of the focal newsgroups activity in 2000, and this rate has

been steadily reducing by more than 2.5% per year, resting at 19.76% in September 2003. While

it seems group participants are becoming more familiar over time, it is especially evident when

compared to other studies: Fisher (1999) found 42% of posts were from single posters, and more

than a quarter of Patterson’s (1996) “AGMers” were unfamiliar. Thus, if common ground can be

found with much higher levels of singleton posters, common ground must be possible in my focal

newsgroup with its much lower percentage.

With regard to participant inequality as a cause for the conflict between singleton posters and the

newsgroup’s high participant contribution level, I find the top forty users in the focal newsgroup

contributed an average of 30% of postings from 2000 to 2003. When considered in isolation, this

metric does imply participant inequality, but when I also consider that 95% of these postings

were replies to the threads of others, familiarity is displayed by these top forty posters always

responding to the conversations of others.

Returning to the mean level of contribution to the newsgroup, the second indicator of

unfamiliarity, participants in the focal newsgroup contribute an average of 25 messages each per

month. When compared to the qualitative study of Fiore at al., – where subjects rated a

contributor as familiar if they contributed more than 3 messages per month – the focal

newsgroup exhibits high group familiarity.

Conversation Strategies

Cross-posting, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s), and message length, are explored in



the Common Ground Model’s second determinant, as measures of conversation strategies

effecting common ground.

High levels of cross-posting, the simultaneous posting of one message to many newsgroups, are

often the culprit behind a community’s struggle to create common ground. While Whittaker et al.

suggest the emergence of cross-posting tends to decrease a newsgroups interactivity, Smith

(2003) conversely notes that low cross-posting metrics are a sign of the “on-topicness” of a

newsgroup. Common ground, interactivity, and Smith’s “on-topicness”, are not challenged in this

way in the focal newsgroup, as apparent by a low cross-posting metric of 5%. Additionally, the

removal of an anomaly in February 2002 – six times over the mean and caused by a single off-

topic thread and associated flames – reduces this figure further to 4.3%.

Excluding the aforesaid anomaly from investigation, cross-posts are highly consistent with regard

to topic in the focal newsgroup, due in part to the types of newsgroups cross-posted to. A large

proportion of cross-post destinations are within the soc.genealogy, soc.history,

or alt.genealogyhierarchy, creating strong communication ties with the broader genealogical

newsgroup community. This evidence supports a long-time practice of genealogists, who

regardless of medium, may concentrate on many simultaneous family lines, resulting in many

concurrent research efforts in different time periods and regions.

The posting of FAQ’s to newsgroups is a conversational strategy says Whittaker et al., and

increases the chances for common ground. The posting of such messages increase the chance

for conversations to occur online, in lieu of the mundane and frequent questions posted that can

be answered by the FAQ instead. Additionally, the presence of FAQ’s as socialisation methods

for new members creates a feeling of belonging to the group, and the focal newsgroup of this

study is no different.

By searching for the word “FAQ” in the messages of the focal newsgroup, and omitting (like

Whittaker et al.) special cases such as “re: FAQ”, I find up to three different FAQ’s posted on a

regular and ad-hoc basis. The Genealogy Meta-FAQ, a place to point out the various FAQs

which may be of interest to genealogists in general, is posted once per year and due to its

commonality to the group, accounts for under 1% of posts per year. Specific FAQ’s however,

such as the “WHAT IS THE IGI”, and “Census-FAQ” mini-FAQ’s are posted more frequently on

an ad-hoc basis, prove more on-topic for the focal newsgroup and increase common ground.



Likewise, the length of messages to a newsgroup can be investigated to uncover conversation

strategies supporting common ground. That is, as Whittaker et al. explain, longer messages can

be seen as an index of common ground. I therefore use mean line count to ascertain message

length and find messages in the focal newsgroup are on average 27 lines long. This figure is

lower than the findings of both Patterson and Whittaker et al. (33 and 44 lines respectively),

though considerably more than the 8.2 lines found in the study of Schoberth et al. I also find that

mean message length is increasing over time (figure 4), to an average of nearly 33 lines per

message over the last six months, therefore I suggest not only is the focal newsgroup exhibiting a

message length contributory to common ground, it is increasingly doing so over time.

Interactivity

Marc Smith explains the “core sociological data type of the Internet is not IP (Internet Protocol)

numbers, or any of that stuff; it’s threaded conversations” (Festa, 2003). Similarly, Whittaker et

al. employ average thread depth as a measure of interactivity and the third determinant in

their Common Ground Model.

Conversational interactivity is the extent to which a given conversational contribution depends on

prior context. NetScan however, the statistical base of my study, does not allow such collation of

data beyond the top forty threads of the newsgroup. As a result, I utilise a unique variation on

theCommon Ground Model based on thread range for the top forty threads per month.

Specifically, I analyse the minimum and maximum thread depths as a range, to reveal possible

patterns of thread increase or decrease.



An analysis of thread range reveals thread depths increasing over time in the focal newsgroup

(figure 5). As the community develops and becomes more mature, threads become longer,

hence the community, over time, is becoming more interactive. When compared to the findings

of Fisher, where the longest thread is 92 messages and mean thread depth is 11, the focal

newsgroups longest thread of 184 messages creates the impression of highly conversational and

interactive debates. Though like Fisher, I ask: are long threads merely two or three members in a

standing, public debate? Or is it indicative of large conversations with many participants,

representative of an interactive group? An analysis of the aforementioned 184-message thread

confirms the latter, with 54 unique authors contributing to the thread.

Furthermore, I find that large threads have an additional dimension of interactivity beyond

the Common Ground Model’s thread depth: elapsed time. While many authors may involve

themselves in a long threaded conversation, some topics are found to continue for days, if not

months in the focal newsgroup. As Mueller (n.d.) suggests, this warrants further investigation, as

a delayed reply could stretch a thread’s length, symptomatic of lower interactivity.

Certainly in further analysing some of the longest threads in the focal newsgroup, I discover

postings on broad topics such as ‘Coat of Arms‘, or ‘English Kings and Queens since 1066 of

pre-Norman English descent?‘, that legitimately and actively continue for more than 30 elapsed

days. Sometimes, in the case of the thread “What is the meaning of the term “Scot-Irish“,

threads continue actively for up to 85 days. These long, highly-interactive conversations involve



many community members, though they also stretch across time, as members come back to

the conversation with more information. This concept increases common ground and is best

explained by the research of Lockerd (2001): “a broad question or topic may have multiple

dimensions on which people will respond back and forth, producing multiple sub-threads within

the conversation.” Thus interactive conversations are created.

The Common Ground Model also uses the metric of unanswered newsgroup posts to uncover

interactivity scenarios adversely impacting common ground. As Whittaker et al. suggest some

newsgroup participants reply privately to newsgroup messages and as far as newsgroup metrics

report, the message remains unanswered. For example, in the case of genealogical newsgroups,

this may be due to topics about families still living; replying outside of the newsgroup protects

identities from public view.

Moreover, with the increased usage of FAQ’s (5) covering commonly posted questions in

newsgroups, regular contributors will often ignore the same questions over and over, and

perhaps simply ignore questions that could have been answered by reading the FAQ. Given

these scenarios, it is perhaps not surprising that of the 123,776 messages posted since October

1999 in the focal newsgroup, 10% remain unanswered (figure 6). This finding is considerably

lower than the 40% reported by Whittaker at al, indicating that the focal newsgroup is one where

members try to address all attempts of conversation, allowing for the aforementioned instances

associated with commonly posted questions and identity protection.

Before concluding the investigation of the focal newsgroup with the Common Ground Model, I

suggest an extension of the unanswered post metric to better evaluate the interactivity of a

newsgroup and hence common ground. Specifically, a determinant incorporating the number of

times a thread is viewed, but not contributed to. This information would indicate if participants are

skimming a newsgroup based on subject lines (and therefore ignoring those messages deemed

answerable by FAQs or for other reasons such as non-interest), or actually reading the post



(investing time) and then purposefully choosing not to answer them. This has far reaching

implications for assessing common ground and community, though is not currently assessable by

available quantitative methods.

Online Community Analysis

The second part of my study investigates whether the focal newsgroup can be considered an

online community, using tests from the OC Model of Schoberth et al. Some of these tests are

similar to the Common Ground Model, though they specifically investigate trends over time to

establish community growth. The model incorporates determinants for relational and attributive

communication activity, community size and external influence, communication strategies, and

lastly, user experience.

Relational Communication Activity

The OC Model’s first determinant for online community is relational communication activity. As

Schoberth et al. refer the definition of Jones and Rafaeli (1999), relational communication activity

is the extent to which individuals refer to each others messages, and is indicated as threads.

Using the findings from my earlier Common Ground Model analysis in terms of interactivity, I find

an increase in average maximum thread depth from 34 messages in year 2000, to 131

messages in the year 2003. Members of the focal newsgroup are increasingly referring to the

messages of other members and therefore practising relational communication. Schoberth et al.

however also utilise an additional metric – the ratio of new threads versus unanswered threads –

to measure relational communication activity in online communities.

The ratio of new threads versus unanswered threads – or the probability of an established thread

resulting in a successful conversation attempt – is increasing in the focal newsgroup as the

community matures. While new threads in the newsgroup study of Schoberth et al. saw a

growth in positive probability of 55% to 65%, new threads in the focal newsgroup saw a similar

increase: 48% to 55% over the four year period. Again, the focal newsgroup is demonstrating

relational communication activity amongst its members.

Attributive Communication Activity

Attributive communication activity is the second determinant in the OC Model, and contrary to

relational communication activity, it is concerned with the individual attributes of users. Again, as

already measured in the earlierCommon Ground Model test for group familiarity, users post an

average of 25 messages per month in the focal newsgroup; a figure excessively higher than any

other newsgroup study referred.

For instance, Schoberth et al. report 40 messages per user over six months, (about six

messages per user per month) and Whittaker et al. report an even smaller metric: one message

per user every two months. With a mean as comparatively high as 25 messages per user,



attributive communication activity in the focal newsgroup seems extraordinary, therefore I must

ask: does this finding suggest imbalances and heterogeneity of communication activity, such as

newsgroup dominators? Certainly as indicated by Schoberth et al., research tells us often that a

small minority of users usually posts the majority of messages in a newsgroup. This skews the

norm and begs further investigation.

Statistics confirm up to 20% of users are contributing an average of 30% of all messages in the

focal newsgroup. This finding concurs with Whittaker et al. as a high amount of messages

coming from a small few, and at first glance is considered a negative impact to attributive

communication activity. As Marc Smith states in Festa’s article however, regular contributors can

be valuable contributors. I add that the presence of ‘value’ in dominator postings can actually

mitigate any negative effect their dominance has on attributive communication activity. Therefore

as the contribution metric alone cannot indicate ‘value’, I expand on the OC Model’s relational

and attributive tests to assess whether dominators are in fact acting in a balanced manner in the

focal newsgroup. The reply-to-post and thread-to-post ratios of some ‘dominators’ in the focal

newsgroup can reveal if they are acting relationally and attributively in their communication

efforts, creating positive and balanced value in the community.

The two most long-standing members of the focal newsgroup in terms of their active days, are

used in this dominance profiling, as both have been part of the newsgroup for over half of every

year in this study. They collectively contribute nearly 5% of all messages to the newsgroup, and

while this percentage in isolation seems small, it historically equates to a total of 6,123 postings of

human effort, or over 185 messages per month. What is more outstanding is that their reply-to-

post ratios translate to extremely valuable community members.

To explain, the most active user has never initiated a message in four years of focal newsgroup

involvement. With an average posting volume of over 100 messages per month, their high

attributive communication activity is also highly relational. Similarly, while the second most active

user did initiate some threads, over 95% of their posts per month are replies to the threads of

others. The second ratio, thread-to-post, supports this analysis, as the ratio can indicate whether

highly active users are dominating specific conversations (high conversational concentration), or

whether they are proving value to the newsgroup by spreading their posts around all members.

Both users have ratios of less than 2:1, therefore neither active member could be considered

‘dominators”, generally posting no more than two messages per thread. Considering the average

thread depth for the focal newsgroup is 47 messages, their contribution equates to less than 5%

of the average threaded conversation.

My deviation from the OC Model has determined that although the newsgroup seems to be

dominated by a small few in terms of message volume and commitment, if this metric is

investigated along side tests for community value, newsgroup dominators are found to be acting

attributively and relationally in the community. Because of this balance, they are positively

affecting the online community space. I now return to the OC Model and look to community size

and external influences to the community.



Community Size and External Influence

Like Schoberth et al. explain, external influences such as advertising or publicity in mass media

may stimulate communication activity. Other influences, they continue, are more specific to the

community, for example, seasonal fluctuations. It is the latter that is of relevance to genealogical

newsgroups.

Family gatherings, especially holidays such as Christmas, are traditionally “a great forum [for]

letting other family members know” (Neill, 2001) about the specific interests of the family

genealogist. I therefore expect the tools for genealogical communication are also used more

around this time as a person’s interest in genealogy is revitalized or increased. External influences

such as the Christmas season on genealogy is evident in the change of community size in the

focal newsgroup (figure 7). Fluctuations in newsgroup membership are seen in the months of

December and January each year. Community size in December 2001 grew 50% to 808 posters

in January, only to return to 697 posters in February. It wasn’t until May 2002 that member

numbers returned to pre-Christmas 2001 levels, perhaps indicating a number of posters in the

periodic increase remained part of the community for up to six months.

Even as Schoberth et al. found community size had no direct influence on the communication

activity of their group under study, they do however cite Whittaker et al. and their mention of

information overload. Specifically, Whittaker et al. propose that user management of increased

community size and posting volume may result in a change in the communication strategies of

users, such as higher instances of unanswered messages. This strategy is evident in the focal

newsgroup and is discussed under the next OC Modelconcept of communication strategies.

Communication Strategies

Schoberth et al. cite the two comparative USENET studies of Jones & Rafaeli (1999; 2000),



whose conclusions find users dealing with information overload in two ways: first, leaving the

community, or second, filtering or ignoring messages. Posting volume for the focal newsgroup of

my study almost doubled markedly in two specific months, therefore it is with these periods of

posting activity I can explore the OC Model’s concept of communication strategies.

A slight decrease in the members of the community following high volumes of posts is also

evident (though no more than 4% of users), therefore members of the focal newsgroup seem to



be dealing with information overload for the most part by leaving messages unanswered, not

leaving the newsgroup. This is a positive indicator of online community in this instance, as

members are favouring membership of the community in times of information overload.

User Experience

While Schoberth et al. use mean membership duration for active users in a week as a measure

of user experience, NetScan does not allow such collation of data beyond the top forty users of

the newsgroup and their posting statistics. Therefore as a variation on the fourth determinant of

theirOC Model, I utilise four tests based on their definition of user experience in newsgroups as

determinants:

Experienced users aggregate over time, write more and more messages, show more loyalty and

are less influenced by the size of the community and external factors.

Additionally, I set the base criteria for an ‘experienced user’ in the focal newsgroup as any

participant who contributed a minimum of one day of every week across the four year period.

2000 2001 2000 2003

Posters 13 27 33 34

Postings 17.66% 31.62% 35.95% 36.43%

Table 1 – Number of Experienced Users and Posting Percentages

In the first instance, Schoberth et al. say experienced users aggregate over time. I therefore use

the number of posters who meet the base criteria to observe whether they are increasing. The

number of these posters are indeed increasing over time as Schoberth et al. suggest, displaying

a positive adherence to their definition of user experience. Experienced users more than doubled

from 2000 to 2001 in the focal newsgroup, and by no less than 25% from 2001 to September

2003. I would expect, using this model and a logarithmic trend, that experienced users would

total between 40 to 45 people by 2005, assuming the community continues to grow at the

present rate.

Secondly, Schoberth et al. propose that experienced users write more and more messages over

time, thus I use the percentage of postings by users who meet the base criteria versus total

newsgroup postings. Again, positive user experience in the focal newsgroup is confirmed. While

postings by experienced users were at 17.66% in 2000, by 2003, over a third of all postings are

from them. Aggregate posts from this group of users are not the only indicator of user experience

however; the number of posts per experienced user also increased from 339 in 2000 to 403 at

the end of 2002.



That experienced users show more loyalty is the third test from Schoberth et al.’s definition for

user experience. To examine this factor, I utilise the historical commitment of those newsgroup

members meeting the base criteria in 2003, revealing patterns of increasing loyalty to the group.

Although the aforementioned tests for increases in experienced users shows their numbers have

increased, the historical paths they undertook to become ‘experienced’ in 2003 is somewhat

surprising.

The final factor from the user experience definition by Schoberth et al., and concluding my usage

of the OC Model to test for online community, is that experienced users are less influenced by

size of community and external factors. Similar to the tests performed to investigate community

size and external influences for the whole of the focal newsgroup community, I compare posting

volume and active days for the aforementioned most experienced users for 2003 against the size

of the community, and also seasonal fluctuations.

The analysis performed on the two most experienced users for 2003 reveal two very different

responses to community size, and is the only factor of theOC Model to which this newsgroup

performs contradictory to notions of online community. In terms of the level of participation in the

group, or active days, both members increase their posting activity when the community swells.

In saying this however, something different happens for the second most experienced user

around May 2002. While their activity level ebbs and flows with community size, their level of

commitment to the newsgroup remains high after May 2002: regardless of community size. I

begin to suggest that after being involved in the community for some time, the user’s

participation in the community increased due to an increase of common ground, therefore their

activity was not effected by community size, though this is unlikely due to their being part of the

community for some two years prior to the change in behaviour. Other factors external to the

group, such as personal time and level of interest may have impacted this activity and would be

interesting to research at a future date.



No other effects of community size were found on either member. Similarly, the activity of both

users were relatively unaffected by the previously identified episodes of increased usage due to

the Christmas period. This finding falls in line with positive notions of online community.

Other Findings

With the analysis of the focal newsgroup concluded with respect to theCommon Ground

Model and OC Model, some general correlations and comparisons emerged. These involve

poster and posting numbers over time.



Similarly, evidence of community is also displayed when I compare the number of posts in the

focal newsgroup to the number of posts per user (figure 13). As the number of posts decrease,

there is a clear pattern of increase for posting volumes per user. This evaluation could be the

result of two phenomenon. The newsgroup could be strengthening as a community, as

members conduct longer conversations in lieu of short attempts for information, and extraneous

members who are not adding or finding value, leave. Alternately, the community may be losing

common ground, therefore longer posts are required to obtain ‘value’ from the community and

as a result, users leave. When I consider the decrease in unanswered messages however (figure

6, p7), in addition to the negligible rate of users leaving the newsgroup, the first suggestion of the

focal newsgroup seems to fit. As a result, the focal newsgroup is strengthening as a forum for

meaningful conversations, in a community of like-minded genealogists.

Conclusion

This study set out to find community in a genealogy newsgroup by using the models of two

comparative studies on common ground and online community. To conclude that genealogists

are using newsgroups for community-based communication, I draw on a number of conclusions

aboutsoc.genealogy.britain, common ground, and the presence of community using my findings

from the Common Ground Model and OC Model.

Common ground is being created in soc.genealogy.britain, therefore from this perspective, the

newsgroup is an online community. I found participants as increasingly familiar community

members, being largely interactive in their communication activities, and conducting rich



conversations as indicated by long threads. Cross-posts to and from the newsgroup, although

low, are on-topic as they travel from other genealogy newsgroups; the interactivity of the group is

therefore not adversely effected and common ground is sustained.

Factors leading to the conclusion that the newsgroup is an online community were also

confirmed using the OC Model. I found newsgroup members to be participating at high levels of

both attributive and relational communication activity; both identifiers of the presence of

community. While dominators were found, they contribute positively to the newsgroup by almost

always replying to the messages of others, rather than dictating conversation through

excessively-created new threads. The group swells and contracts according to the seasonal

fluctuations usually found in genealogy as a hobby, and as a result, community members are

altering their communication behaviour to maintain their role with the group. Furthermore,

experienced users are not only increasing in number insoc.genealogy.britain, they are increasingly

loyal to the group and expend more time and effort – a sign of community ‘pillars’ forming in the

community.

While community was found in the focal newsgroup, the generalities of my findings should be

tested against other genealogical newsgroups in the future. Future work should also consider the

interactions of genealogists from other newsgroups within soc.genealogy and other such

newsgroup hierarchies, to form conclusions about the broader online genealogical community

and their communication activities. Questions to be answered include: do genealogy newsgroups

exist as individual communities or do they (at some level) aggregate to form an online ‘mega-

community’ of genealogists? Are newsgroups a mix of question-and-answer and extended

discussion forums or do specific newsgroups function (whether purposefully or by chance) as

distinct types of communities?

What I can confirm is that while genealogists require communities to enhance and support their

genealogical research efforts, community-based communication is available in genealogy

newsgroups. Furthermore, genealogists are making the choice to continue these communities

by participating in USENET newsgroups for genealogy.

Biography

Kylie J. Veale holds post-graduate degrees in Information Environments and Internet Studies from

the University of Queensland and Curtin University of Technology in Australia. Her recent works

explore the Internet gift economy and reciprocity in First Monday, and the Internet as a virtual

learning environment for hobbyist genealogists in the forthcoming Handbook of Virtual Learning

Environments.

Currently a PhD student in Media and Information at Curtin University, Kylie was recently chosen

to attend the Oxford Internet Institute’s Doctoral Programme for 2004. Her current interests are

metaphors of the Internet as frameworks for investigating Internet usage; how the Internet is

used to engage in leisure pursuits; and the online community of genealogists as a case in point



for the hobbyist genre.

Notes

(1) http://www.dictionary.com

(2) Some issues were discovered using NetScan as a statistical resource and most if known in

advance could be overcome with manual data collection. That the database uses aliases in lieu

of exact email addresses to identify authors made considering the attributes of specific authors in

this study problematic. For example, posters such as “[email protected] (Guy Etchells)” and

“Guy Etchells <[email protected]>” are considered different authors statistically in NetScan,

though in reality, they are the same person posting. Nevertheless, this issue was taken into

account and overcome alias by alias using NetScan’s Find Author by Email addressfeature.

(3) The months August, September, and October of 2000 were removed from the study, as

there seemed to be an anomaly in the data collected by NetScan. For example, NetScan reports

on 25th August 2000 that no messages were posted to the group, however data available on

Google Groups reveals 52 messages were posted that day. Similar anomalies were found in the

other months removed.

(4) It would be interesting in future work to investigate the fall-out rate of this newsgroup in terms

of participant turnover in the community. I would suggest this figure to be low as the sense of

community in this newsgroups seem to be high from the ‘common ground’ created.

(5) A FAQ or Frequently Asked Questions document – there are now over 4,000 separate FAQ

files, written by over 1,500 authors and covering over 2,150 newsgroups .

REFERENCES

Atkinson, I. (2003). Web Based Forums as an Alternative to Usenet. Retrieved 07 August 2003

from

http://satansbarber.co.uk/files/fyp.pdf

Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

FAQS.ORG. (n.d.). More Information on the Usenet FAQ Archive. Retrieved 04 August 2003

from

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/WWW-FAQ-Archive-Tech-Info.html

Festa, P. (2003). Microsoft’s in-house sociologist. CNET News.com. Retrieved 23 August 2003

from

http://news.com.com/2008-1082-5065298.html



Fisher, D. (1999). Newsgroup Networking & Mailing List Madness! Retrieved 20 August 2003

from

http://www.isr.uci.edu/~danyelf/publications/final212_newsgroups.pdf

Fitzgerald, T. (2003). Cool web thing: Tracing one’s roots. New Media, March. Retrieved from

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2003/

mar03/mar03/2_tues/news5tuesday.html

Howells, M. (1999). The Changing Face of Genealogy. Ancestry Magazine, 17 (6). Retrieved from

http://www.ancestry.com/library/view/ancmag/

81.asp?rc=locale%7E&us=0

Jones, Q., & Rafaeli, S. (1999). User Population and user Contributions to Virtual Publics: A

Systems Model. Paper presented at the GROUP 99, Phoenix, Arizona.

Jones, Q., & Rafaeli, S. (2000). What Do Virtual ‘Tells’ Tell? placing Cybersociety Research into

Hierarchy of Social Explanation. Paper presented at the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on

System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii.

Koschmann, T., Goodwin, C., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. (2002). Dissecting Common Ground:

Examining an Instance in Reference Repair. Southern Illinois University, Springfield, USA.

Lewis, L. R. (1998). The Internet and Genealogy. National Genealogical Society Computer

Interest Group Newsletter, 17 (1). Retrieved from

http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/

articles/janfeb1998.txt

Lockerd, A. (2001, 21 February 2001). An Analysis of Newsgroup Interaction. Retrieved 04

August 2003 from

http://web.media.mit.edu/~alockerd/socmeddes1.htm

Mäkitalo, K., & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Building and Maintaining Common Ground in Web-Based

Interaction. University of Oulu & University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

Maritz Research Inc. (2000). Sixty Percent of Americans Intrigued by their Family Roots.

Retrieved 08 August 2003 from

http://www.maritzresearch.com/release.asp?rc=195&p=3&T=P

Mueller, F. (n.d.). Interaction in Newsgroups. Retrieved 03 August 2003 from

http://web.media.mit.edu/~florian/sociable_media/newsgroups.htm



184 THOUGHTS ON “DISCUSSING OUR FAMILY TREES: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF ONLINE, COMMUNITY-

BASED COMMUNICATION IN GENEALOGICAL NEWSGROUPS”

Neill, M. J. (2001). Michael’s Luck. Ancestry Daily News. Retrieved 22 November 2003 from

http://www.ancestry.com/library/view/news/

articles/5032.asp?rc=locale%7E&us=0

Olson, M. (1999, 03 September). Genealogy Newsgroups: One Person’s Historical

View. Retrieved 19 November 2003 from

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~socgen/Newshist.htm

Olson, M. (2001, 07 July). Genealogy Newsgroups – The soc.genealogy Hierarchy:

soc.genealogy.britain. Retrieved 22 November 2003 from

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~socgen/Britain.htm

Patterson, H. (1996). Computer-Mediated Groups: A Study of a Culture in Usenet. Unpublished

Doctoral Thesis, A & M University, Texas.

Schoberth, T., Preece, J., & Heinzl, A. (2003). Online Communities: A Longitudinal Analysis of

Communication Activities. Paper presented at the International Conference on System Sciences,

Big Island, Hawaii.

Smith, M. A. (2002). Tools for navigating large social cyberspaces.Communications of the ACM,

45(4), 51-55.

Smith, M. A. (2003). Data Mining Social Cyberspaces: Tools for enhaving online communities.

Retrieved 02 August 2003 from

http://interconnected.org/notes/2003/04/etcon/datamining.txt

Tedeschi, B. (2002). Popularity of Online Genealogy. New York Times. Retrieved 04 August 2003

from

http://www.tovegin.com.au/src/articles/20020923

_online_genealogy_nytimes.htm

Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., Hill, W., & Cherny, L. (1998). The Dynamics of Mass

Interaction. Florham Park, NJ, USA: ATT Labs-Research.

This entry was posted in Article, Volume 4 by Editor. Bookmark the permalink

[http://bcis.pacificu.edu/interface/?p=2970] .

naija social network

on January 30, 2014 at 11:35 AM said:

Discussing Our Family Trees: A Longitudinal Analysis of Online, Community-Based Communication in Genealogical Newsgroups

Documents