RLP 125: Privacy and Permission in DNA Report Writing

Nicole (1s):
This is Research Like a Pro episode 125: Privacy and Permission in DNA Report Writing. Welcome to Research Like a Pro a Genealogy Podcast about taking your research to the next level, hosted by Nicole Dyer and Diana Elder accredited genealogy professional. Diana and Nicole are the mother-daughter team at FamilyLocket.com and the creators of the Amazon bestselling book, The Research Like a Pro a Genealogists Guide. I’m Nicole co-host of the podcast join Diana and me as we discuss how to stay organized, make progress in our research and solve difficult cases. Let’s go.

Nicole (45s):
Hello, and welcome to Research Like a Pro, I’m Nicole Dyer co-host, and I’m here with accredited genealogist, Diana Elder, my mom. Hello, how are you?

Diana (54s):
I am doing well. I’m excited to be finishing up my report for the Research Like a Pro with DNA study group. And this has been kind of fun because I’m disproving a Thru Line that has been bothering me and just this morning, I figured out the source of the incorrect information. So everybody listening, you know, I’m always trying to figure out who’s the father of my Cynthia Dillard Royston and someone had attached Cynthia Milner. They had started calling her Cynthia Milner to this Hopson Milner. When I finally found the source of it, there’s the marriage in 1833 of a Cyntha Milner and I am just guessing that a researcher, probably back before information was easier to find, assumed that the Cynthia then married Thomas B Royston and lived in the neighboring county in Alabama.

Diana (1m 49s):
But Cynthia Royston and Cynthia Milner appear on the censuses at the same time. So this is just a case of merged identities.

Nicole (1m 57s):
It’s so great to figure out that merged identity, to know the source of that confusion. I mean, we’ve been seeing this Millner family as you know, the possible family of origin for Cynthia for a while, and wondering, and then all of a sudden it showed up in Thru Lines and so we thought, oh my goodness, maybe there’s something to this if there’s several matches to sending from this Milner family. So what’d you find out when you evaluated the Thru Lines?

Diana (2m 21s):
Well, when I really looked at the DNA, I discovered that the connections were all through Cynthia. So they were really just Thru Lines through Cynthia for the majority of the Thru Lines of the DNA descendants, and then the two or three that were independent and that were for, supposedly her siblings. When I really looked closely at those, they were either under 10 centimorgans, which means they were not viable matches, or they were shared matches with other common ancestors. And so they were DNA matches, but just not through that line, they were on different branches that of the family tree.

Nicole (3m 1s):
Oh, that’s so interesting that so many were such small matches. And we know that small matches under 10 to 15 centimorgans half the time they could be false matches. So great job figuring that out and, and noticing that those other matches were in different genetic networks than the Royston network.

Diana (3m 19s):
Right. It was really interesting to do that. I think sometimes we don’t know what to do with those. And so it was really helpful because you had just published your blog post on Thru Lines. And I went through that and really used all your methodology and doing this research and writing up my report. So now I have something that I can share with others to clear up this incorrect connection.

Nicole (3m 42s):
Great. Every time you do something like this on the Cynthia Royston case, you get a little closer.

Diana (3m 49s):
I do. And now I have the DNA of her great-grandson that you did the network graph for me, and I’ve got a lot of data. So now that I’ve cleared up this part of it, now I can actually look at those genetic networks and hopefully try to find it network that centers on Cynthia’s parents. That’s my next phase of the research, really, really looking at the DNA.

Nicole (4m 13s):
That’s wonderful. I’m excited to see what you can find out.

Diana (4m 17s):
All right. Let’s do our listeners spotlight by our listener, Laura. And she says, we know a family in our neighborhood whose daughter goes by her mother’s surname because her parents didn’t want anyone making fun of her because of her father’s surname, which is Wiener. Also once my mother remarried and she registered me for kindergarten, I went by my stepfather’s surname because she didn’t want my name to be different than hers. Once I found my biological father, another story on its own, my grandmother did the same thing with my father, gave him his stepfather’s surname, which he found out about when his aunt drunkenly blurted it out. Families are so much fun.

Diana (4m 56s):
Well, that is really interesting. And that reminds me of a client project I did a few months ago where the client was so concerned because the grandfather’s surname was different than everyone thought on the death certificate. And so often it is just something simple. Like they wanted to change their name when they were a kid and they wanted to go by the mother’s maiden name. You know, surnames are so interesting.

Nicole (5m 20s):
Yes, I really liked that comment. And I think she was responding to an episode where we were talking about that case, where you had been telling us about him going by a different surname. So it’s just interesting to see some real life examples of why people might be going by a certain name that we didn’t expect them to be going by. And if we see things like this in the past, sometimes we don’t know what’s going on. But thinking about these examples kind of helps us see why it might’ve happened. And you have a direct ancestor who went by her stepfather, his surname, and one of the census records. I think that happened a lot.

Diana (5m 53s):
I do too, because the census taker just thought everybody was by the head of the households surname, or just listed them all that way. And they were a blended family. So we really have to look at that when we’re looking at census records and other records.

Nicole (6m 8s):
Yes, absolutely. All right. Well, today we were talking about how to prepare our DNA research reports for sharing by privatizing people and getting permission from our matches. This is kind of an interesting topic because the BCG has been sharing standards about how to protect the privacy of living people with their new DNA standards. And then recently came out with some changes to those standards. So it’s kind of a topic that’s been on my mind. So wherever you are in the process of researching and using DNA results, you may want to consider this topic and think about your end results. You know, when you’re done with this research and you’ve maybe proven your case, and you’ve found parents were using DNA evidence for one of your ancestors, how will you share that report or proof argument?

Nicole (6m 58s):
And will you want to publish it by posting it on your blog or on FamilySearch or Ancestry? The thing to think about is your research includes living people and their DNA match information. So what steps do you need to take to prepare that report and thinking about getting permission from your matches and thinking about private sharing versus public sharing and all those things.

Diana (7m 22s):
Yes. These are so many things that we may not want to think about. We may just want to not have to worry, but we do need to take that upon us as ethical genealogists. So the first thing we need to really think about is what kinds of sharing we are planning on doing is this private sharing or public sharing, because that does make a difference. So first let’s talk about private sharing. This is when you are simply emailing a report to a client, or relative, someone that’s going to review it. You are maybe working with it in a small group, you’re maybe presenting to a small group, this is a small circle of people that will be looking at it.

Diana (8m 3s):
And so this would be an example of private sharing. And we do this within our study group. Now public sharing is if you’re going to post that report on your website or your blog, maybe on the FamilySearch family tree, maybe your Ancestry tree, perhaps you are doing a recorded presentation that will be out there on YouTube for anyone to watch. So anything that’s going to be very public. Then you need to consider the people that you are using in the report. Anytime you post an article online for the public to see that constitutes publication, you can also be doing something formal.

Diana (8m 45s):
Perhaps you have submitted this article to a book or a journal, and that is also formal publication. It’s out there available for the public to read. So in those cases we have to make sure are getting appropriate permissions.

Nicole (9m 1s):
Absolutely. And this is one of the main reasons that the Board for Certification of Genealogists revised DNA standard 57 in their publication Genealogy Standards, because it was important to differentiate between public and private sharing. Basically, private sharing is different than publication. So before publishing personally identifying information about living test takers, we need to get their informed consent, but privately sharing DNA results with a friend, with an editor, within a small group where all the group members have agreed to keep the information private, then we don’t need informed consent of each living test taker and match that we’re using.

Nicole (9m 43s):
If you read on the Board for Certification website, they have a DNA Frequently Asked Questions page that you can go and see all their recent updates to standard 57 and to their Code of Ethics and answer some of the questions that go along with this. So you can check out that link in the show notes and go read more about it. But one of the main things we need to think about is whether or not the person whose DNA results we are using, like the person who owns the match list has given permission that is always required no matter what kind of sharing you’re doing, whether it’s private sharing or public sharing. So we need to have permission from the person who’s match list we’re using.

Diana (10m 24s):
Right. So how do you know if you need permission from those DNA test takers that you are using? Well, if you are doing a client report and sharing within a small close group of viewers, no permission is needed. So let’s think about this. The client already has given you access to their match list and so you’re not revealing any information that they don’t already have. And the small group of reviewers will agree not to share the living people’s information they see. And if you’re just sharing with a small group of close family members who already have access to the match list, the same applies, no permission is needed.

Diana (11m 7s):
So for instance, Nicole, I would, could share a report with you and not have to privatize anything because you have access to all of the same DNA information that I do. And so it wouldn’t make sense to worry about Privatizing. But if I put that same report up on my Ancestry tree, that’s a whole different story.

Nicole (11m 28s):
Yeah, because you’ve already shared your match list with me. So if you’re using my DNA, let’s say you’re making, maybe I’m your client, and you’re using my DNA and writing your report. You don’t need to privatize that before emailing the report to me, because I already know those matches are in my match list. And I could go look at them and see them. So that’s the great thing about client reports is that they already have access to their match list. Now, if that client doesn’t have access to a person’s match list that you’re using, then you would probably want to ask that person who shared their match list with you for permission to include them in a report to a client that’s not them. So just getting that permission is important. And then when you’re sharing in ways that you don’t have control of where they’re sharing, that’s a good time to be cautious.

Nicole (12m 13s):
And not that we have control over what a client does with our report, but we can at least, you know, include that in our contract and discuss that with them to stress the importance of not posting this online, because these people are living and the client would need to get permission. But if you send it off to multiple distinct cousins and you’re sharing this report with everyone over email, then that’s the time to be cautious because we don’t really know what they will do with that report. They might post it online. They might share it with somebody who will post it online, or they might just continue to share the report really far beyond the intended audience. So if the person you’re sharing it with does not have access to the match list that you are using, and they’re not the owner of that match list, then it would be more ethical and wise in this instance to privatize the DNA matches in the report or get the DNA matches permission to use them in the report before we do so.

Nicole (13m 9s):
Right.

Diana (13m 9s):
So let’s talk about the specifics of Privatizing. You may need to privatize the first two generations for publication, especially when the generation above the DNA test taker is still living. So we often hear in genealogy classes that the dead have no privacy, but when we’re working with DNA, we are not working with the dead. We are working with the living. So it’s good to err on the side of caution. And keep in mind that genealogists are very good at detective work. We know how to figure out who people are and how to trace descendants. So even though we may have privatized with something like initials, we often can configure who that is.

Diana (13m 52s):
So we just want to make sure we are respectful, ethical, and that we protect the privacy of other DNA test takers.

Nicole (14m 2s):
Absolutely. And I think a lot of people wonder, well, why are we Privatizing them? If I can just go figure out who they are through descendancy research because I’m a genealogist and I know how to do that. Well, that’s true. And that’s good that we know how to do that, but that still doesn’t mean that we can’t be respectful of these living people and still try to privatize them and their living parents. One hint is if we want to privatize the person, to not use any personally identifying information. So initials, like you mentioned, are not usually the best choice for Privatizing people because they are still personally identifying. They give a little hint. So if you’re looking at all the descendants of a grandparent, all of her grandchildren, and you have the initials of the person, who’s the test taker, you might be able to narrow that down to just one of the grandchildren and figure out who it is.

Nicole (14m 52s):
And that’s a good, you know, if you’re the genealogist and you’re trying to figure out who this person is in your match list, but if it’s somebody out there who’s reading your report and they just want to figure it out so we can contact that person and yell at them who knows why that would happen, that wouldn’t be very fun. So we just need to do our best to privatize. And so instead of using initials or any personally identifying information, we can use a pseudonym. Or I personally prefer to just use like Test Taker 1, or just list Private Tester A or some other way of giving them an identifying number or letter without using their name or initials. There’s a lot of different ways that we can do this.

Nicole (15m 32s):
And if you want to see some examples, you can go and look in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly because some of the cases that have been published in that journal have privatized the test takers, even though the test takers all gave their permission to be included and published there. Some of the authors just decided it’s easier for the reader to not have to memorize all these different names of matches. So they just gave them different names, like test taker one, test taker two. And then often in their descendency diagrams in these case studies, the authors have privatized the parents of the test takers because they’re living. And so you’ll see different ways of privatizing them. Like, they’ll just say the gender of the person, like male or female, and then their surname, because you can already figure that by their parent in the descendency diagram.

Nicole (16m 23s):
So you might see male Frazier or female Shults listed as the parent of one of the test takers. And the reason why it’s important to include the gender is because sometimes that’s applicable to the case for X DNA inheritance or Y or mitochondrial DNA inheritance to know if it’s a male or female. Another thing you can do to privatize test takers is give them the name of the direct line ancestor. That is the branch point from your hypothesized ancestor and a number. So let’s say your ancestor has a probable sibling named Gladys, and Gladys and your ancestor have the same hypothesized parents. So you’re trying to show this in a diagram and prove it through looking at the matches to send you from Gladys.

Nicole (17m 6s):
So you maybe have four matches who descend from Gladys. So you can say Gladys number one is this test taker, Gladys number two is this other test taker. And then it shows the reader. These matches are all descended from Gladys. The hypothesized sibling that we read all about in the traditional research section, and then they can more easily make those connections. Instead of having all these different names. This strategy is one that Melinda Daffin Henningfield used in her article in 2019 about a family for Mary Jones.

Diana (17m 41s):
The family for Mary Jones Hobbs Clark of Carroll County, Arkansas.

Nicole (17m 44s):
Thanks. I asked her about why she decided to privatize people in that article and she said it was because it’s harder for the reader to remember all the names of the test takers. So that’s one idea to consider when you are writing out your report or your proof argument.

Diana (18m 2s):
I actually really liked that idea a lot because I find myself getting very confused in reading some of these articles using the DNA because it’s not my family and I haven’t done the research on it and I’m trying to keep things straight in my head. So I like the idea of using the name of that ancestor with, you know, like Gladys one, Gladys two, or Benjamin one, Benjamin two. I think that’s kind of brilliant actually.

Nicole (18m 28s):
Yeah. It’s helpful. Another thing that you can do is give all of Gladys’s descendants. You can give them a letter like this is group A, and then we’re comparing everyone in group A to everyone in group B, which are the descendants of my ancestor. And I think that’s what Melinda does in her article. And so you have test taker one A, test taker one B, and then compare those two people. And then, you know, oh, this is a descendant of Gladys compared to a descendant of Benjamin and that helps you differentiate it. Another thing that I really liked is from LaBrenda Garrett Nelson’s article from this year called Parents for Isaac Garrett of Laurens county, South Carolina, DNA, Corroborates Oral Tradition.

Nicole (19m 9s):
She privatized several of the parents of the test takers by saying that they were the daughter of their parent. So then you can still know the gender and they’re identified by the fact that they are so-and-so’s daughter. So I really liked that as well for a way to anonymize, not the test taker, but the test takers’ living parent. When you’re doing presentations though, one thing that I like to do, like when I’m presenting to a class about DNA, I prefer to anonymize match lists and Thru Lines and things like that with pseudonyms and just give them a different first name, because I think it’s a little more realistic to the people watching to see possible names or, you know, whatever it might actually look like and just changing it so that it is private.

Diana (19m 52s):
Right. Because usually when we’re doing presentations, we’re telling a story. And so it’s helpful if the listener can kind of grab onto a person’s name that you’re using all the way through the stories, that’s a great idea. Well, those were excellent suggestions. Robin Wirthlin, our genetic genealogist for Family Locket has published a great blog post that gives all these examples and has a couple of charts in there. So you can see exactly how to do it. I’m kind of a visual learner. I like to just see it because I can see how I’d want to use different things in different reports, different scenarios. So that’s great. Well, let’s talk about those asking permissions.

Diana (20m 32s):
How do you go about doing this? Well, we just have to use the DNA testing websites’ messaging systems to get started because we don’t have any other information. Some of the websites do give an email address, but for instance, if we are using Ancestry, we have to use their messaging. So it’s a idea to just start off with just a succinct request that it mentions how they’re related to the ancestor in the report, maybe saying, I just wrote a report, proving the DNA connection of this ancestor. And this is how you are connected because not everybody knows their family tree, as well as we do as genealogists. Maybe they just did this DNA test for fun to see their ethnicity.

Diana (21m 16s):
And they have no idea how they’re connected to this person 4 generations back on their tree. So if we can give them a little bit of info at the beginning, we don’t want to write, you know, this huge message, but something pretty short that’s informative, then we might have better success in getting something back from them.

Nicole (21m 36s):
Yeah. I really learned that when I was asking a lot of matches all at once and just sending them kind of a stock message that I copied and pasted for permission to use their name in my proof argument about Barsheba Tharp. But there, there were like 30 people that I was messaging and I was kind of working on this late at night. And so I was just getting kind of tired. So I just ended up sending the same message to a lot of them and not explaining how they were connected to the people in the report. Well, one person responded and said, is this on the Harris line in my tree? And then another person said, I don’t see any Tharps in my tree. And so I realized I had extended their trees for them to help figure out the common ancestor so they didn’t even know who I was talking about.

Nicole (22m 16s):
So it would have been better, I think, to have messaged them first back when I was doing the research to extend their tree and say, oh, I look, I found our common ancestor, it’s on the side of your family. Look, this is how we’re related. I was in the habit of just sending messages to people when I needed something from them. But I think it’s good idea to just message them when you figure out how you’re related to kind of open the door to further collaboration and possibly asking them permission later, to use them in your report or proof argument.

Diana (22m 46s):
Yeah. I think that we sometimes are a little afraid to message people, but what’s the worst that can happen? They can just ignore us or never look at our messages or say no, but it doesn’t take that much time once you’re in the mode of just getting that messaging done.

Nicole (23m 1s):
Yeah. Now I think if I could go back and do that again, I would still paste it in the stock message about I’m doing this report. I, I would like your permission, here’s how I’m going to use your information and what I’m going to include. And then I’d like to share a copy of the report with you if you will share your email address with me, because most of the matches were in MyHeritage and Ancestry where you don’t get to attach anything. So you have to ask for their email address. So I think I would still use that. But then at the beginning, I would say, I see in your tree that you have this person and I think they are the son of Elizabeth Tharp.

Diana (23m 33s):
Yeah. So you could create your stock message and then you would just personalize it a little bit at the beginning.

Nicole (23m 40s):
Yeah.

Diana (23m 40s):
Kind of the best of both worlds.

Nicole (23m 41s):
Yes. And I think it’s important also to let them know the information that you will use. Like I mentioned, I had a couple of followup questions when I sent out all those 30 messages. Some of them were just wondering like, how will the information be used? Are you going to be putting this in a book or publishing it online? One person said you can have permission just for the book only. I also tried to ask, well, how would you like me to use your name? Do you want me to use your full name? Or do you want me to privatize your name? Do you want me to use initials? A lot of people wanted me to use their full name, they were fine with that. A couple people said, can you just use like this username that I’m using here on Ancestry? Or can you use my initials? Hmm. So it was good to kind of get their feedback on that. Now that I’ve studied this a little bit more and talk to some of the authors who’ve written case studies in the NGSQ who have a lot of experience getting permission from people, I think I will send each of these people a formal document, a permission form that kind of goes into all of these details, like how I would like to use it.

Nicole (24m 36s):
And they can initial, if they give me permission to use their name and match information in presentations in a printed journal, in a book are posting online. So because there’s so many different ways and things to ask them, I think it’s good to just have a formal form. However, I do think it is harder to get people to return that form. So, and I think it’s good to have that and to try to get it. But I think also as long as they give you permission in writing and you tell them how you’re going to share it, I think that can be good enough.

Diana (25m 8s):
And probably it would be good somewhere to have this in a spreadsheet. I’m sure you probably started a spreadsheet where you list the people and you are showing exactly what’s going on. Maybe you’re doing this in your Airtable spreadsheet.

Nicole (25m 19s):
Yeah, I did. I actually added a field in my Airtable for the DNA cousins, all the different people. So I added a column that is a checkbox because in Airtable, you can add checkbox fields, which are fun. And when they said yes and gave me permission, I just checked the box.

Diana (25m 36s):
That’s great. I was just thinking, it might be nice to also have, you know, like you were saying, have they given you permission to use it in a book and a report? You know, something that has even more detail or I guess that could be in your notes for this specifically what their permissions are or how they want their name to be used. Be so nice to just have that all in one place.

Nicole (25m 59s):
Right. There were only a couple people that had specific things like that. And yeah, I just put those in my notes field, but most people were just giving permission to use their name and the amount of centimorgans shared and their line back to the common ancestor. Another thing we can include, you know, is that we may want to use their chromosome information and their GEDmatch kit number and stuff. So if we’re using a match on a site that gives us that data, then we let them know that I’m going to use this information, which I really just liked the idea of the permission form. I’m going to implement that because once you create the permission form, you can put all this on the form and you can just kind of explain everything and they can sign.

Nicole (26m 39s):
And that’s more of an informed consent, I think, than if you’re just asking them, Hey, can I share your name in my report? But if you have a form that details how it’s going to be used and your reasons why they may not want to have it shared and why they might want to be privatized, then I think it’s better because that’s more informed.

Diana (26m 55s):
I agree. And it really saves a lot of time if you can send them that and then you can have it on file.

Nicole (27m 3s):
Right? Another thing I noticed is that a lot of people did not respond, which of course anybody who’s tried sending messages in like Ancestry knows that a lot of time people don’t get notified that they have a new message in Ancestry. Either the notification email goes to their spam or promotions folder in Gmail, or they just don’t see it for whatever reason. A lot of older cousins that I’ve contacted, they say, oh yeah, I don’t use email. So there’s really no way to get ahold of them unless you can track them down. Like I did through a niece who was a match to my test taker also. And she gave me her uncle’s phone number. So then I could get his permission that way. The thing that I noticed is that when people didn’t respond, I was able to get them to respond after sending a couple followups saying, Hey, I saw that you read the message because Ancestry messaging now tells you if they’ve read it.

Nicole (27m 53s):
And I’m just wondering if you had a chance to think about my question, if you would give me permission. And after I contacted people again, then I got a bunch more responses. So one person who was a really important match, I had to contact him four times without any response before he got back to me. And I was really glad that he did, he, but he just said he had been really busy and moving, and then he got sick. So he just wasn’t able to respond. So if you start in advance, you know, before you want to publish something, then you’ll have a better chance of having enough time to get the responses and hear back from people.

Diana (28m 28s):
Wow, that’s so many good thoughts. I’m glad that you have some examples that you’ve done this because sometimes we just need to learn by experience. So that’s great that you’ve tried it out. Let’s just talk about what happens if somebody says they don’t want to be included in our report. Well, then we are ethical genealogists so we should respect their wishes and not use them even privatized. And if someone is unresponsive to messages, kind of the general feeling is we can still use them, but we need to privatize their information. And we want to think about why someone would not want to be included. We don’t know all the situations of people’s families and if they don’t want to be included there’s a reason, and we respect that.

Nicole (29m 16s):
And as far as those unresponsive matches, it’s great to feel, to know that we can still use them and just remove any personally identifying details so that they are anonymous. Just remember that including their parents’ names is sometimes identifying to them. So we need to probably remove their name, their parents names, possibly their grandparents. We have to think about how to really remove these identifying details, right? So I talked about permission forms and when I emailed some of the authors of NGSQ articles who had used DNA evidence in their article, I asked them about their method for gathering permission. And they all shared that they used a permission form.

Nicole (29m 58s):
Blaine Bettinger has provided an informed consent form that you can give to a test taker when you’re asking them to take a test and you’ll be managing the test where they can initial things. And so a lot of people have used that and adapted it to include permissions for publishing the results and how their DNA information might be used. So that’s one way you can just start with is form that we’ve linked to in our blog post about preparing DNA reports for publication and sharing, and that’s linked in the show notes. So you can just take that and adapt it, because he’s given it a, what’s the kind of license where you can change it,

Diana (30m 36s):
Probably the creative commons, and then just the permission to use it as you want.

Nicole (30m 40s):
Right. I think he gave it that. So you can start with his informed consent form and then you can add whatever permissions you might want to use. Like, I might like to publish this in an article, so will you initial this, if you’re okay with me publishing that. And then if I do post it online or publish it publicly, and what name would you like me to use? Would you like me to privatize your name, use your initials, use your full name, and let them decide. And one of the example, forms that I was looking at, the author just said, I will be privatizing everyone in the study so I’m just going to be anonymizing your name, please initial here, if you get permission to be included. And so she didn’t even ask, like, how would you want to be included, she just told them I’m going to privatize you.

Diana (31m 24s):
Wow, thanks for taking us through all of those ideas and thoughts. So much food for thought and some really great suggestions and ideas of how to actually do this. I think a lot of us look at our DNA test results and we know there’s something we could be doing with them. And so it’s kind of exciting to see how, when we follow a project all the way through and come up with a finished report, proving, or just proving something that we can come up with a finished product and we can share that with other people. So this is wonderful to learn about how to share in an ethical way.

Nicole (31m 58s):
Yes. And we will continue to discuss more about sharing your reports next week. When we talk about after you’ve got permission and privatized everything, kind of some more steps to do and how to share that,

Diana (32m 10s):
All right, well, have a great week everyone and go make some discoveries.

Nicole (32m 16s):
All right. Bye-bye bye-bye Thank you for listening. We hope that something you heard today will help you make progress in your research. If you want to learn more, purchase our book Research Like a Pro a Genealogist Guide on Amazon.com and other booksellers. You can also register for our Research Like a Pro online course or join our next study group. Learn more at FamilyLocket.com. To share your progress and ask questions join our private Facebook group by sending us your book receipt or joining our eCourse or study group. If you like what you heard and would like to support this podcast, please subscribe, rate, and review. We hope you’ll start now to Research Like a Pro.