| Basic Background and Some Minor Points |
| This is not an exhaustive list. If anything does come up, it will be added here. |
| Topics Covered Below |
| # | Questions and Answers |
| 1. | Whose idea was schaefferstuff.com (aka 'ss.com')? |
| Roman couldn't keep track of all the family birthdays, anniversaries, etc. So that he would stop insulting people by not knowing how many kids they had (or their names), in mid 2004, he began lobbying Jeanette and Johann to put the information online via a family site. |
| 2. | When did they put all the info online? |
| During November of 2005, Jeanette dug up a family tree chart and accompanying report that had been done by Juli Anna McNutt in 1991. Adding that to gobs of info from Lorraine, Roman organized it, and put it online via the new SchaefferStuff domain. |
| 3. | Who have made major contributions to the site? |
|
- Juli Anna McNutt did a family tree chart back to the 1700's in 6th grade; that info was all incorporated here - Amy Schaeffer, official data hunter for the Lester Schaeffer branch, was enormous help, she's awesome! - Lorraine Shaw researched the Jordan Philips branch (18xx to 19xx), some of which is incorporated here - Lorraine Schaeffer turned over more than 1,000 photographs, all scanned/captioned by Johann and Jeanette - Jackie Schaeffer filled in many gaps, including info from Valkry Toolen about the Marion branch - Lisa Schaeffer did a great job making sure her current Nuclear Family chart is current |
| 4. | Are there any privacy concerns with this site? |
| The maintainer of this site is highly cognizant of privacy and security issues at all times (which is why you don't see him on social media sites.) Oddly, home addresses are on the site; these match addresses that were historical addresses published in 1949, and are now readily available elsewhere online. Do keep in mind that the properties are still privately-owned, and proper treatment of such info is required, even if the property(s) is/are still in the Schaeffer family. |
| 5. | What's w/ the tiny icons for 'Contact' on Personal pages? They don't work! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First: zero, zero, zero contact info will be posted for anybody w/out explicit permission. Even if some contact
info is public (e.g., your FB ID/page), it will not be posted w/out explicit permission. The
maintainer of this site is totally anal about privacy and security issues. Most pages have Contact graphics similar to the first row below (contrast with second row): |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Note the second row has three icons with green (vs red)
borders, those icons have insanely large tooltips, and the links are live. Three things: - ABBA is not actually part of the Schaeffer family - because animation, close icons and huge tooltips, a tooltip may (at times) spaz out (move the mouse) - clicking inside the tooltips works for activating the links (as does clicking the icons themselves) If you would like any contact links activated, just speak up. (And you can go back to the page you were on before being redirected here by clicking here.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6. | What software has been used for this site? |
|
All software used is local, i.e., nothing is done online or with 3rd-party sites - FileMaker Pro for all the data, scripts and page creation - Reunion 8 initially used for creating families and (still used) for charts - BBEdit for text editing, still the best editor around - Interarchie was used for file transfer, now mostly CyberDuck and *nix - Photoshop and other s/w for handling pics - ImageMagick for more serious photo processing in large volumes - Jhead for handling most EXIF data (sometimes ExifTool) - Webcalendar was initially used, then just wrote a custom calendar pgm - WordPress initially for the Message Board, but that was a security nightmare that required lots/attention - phpBB is the Msg Board - AppleScript initially (long since abandoned), A Better Finder Rename and many other utility pgms |
| 7. | Calendar looks good, but the Message Board doesn't look mature! |
| The custom calendar has been updated from its original format. The Msg Board is using a heisted theme, and would take a while to tweak and fine-tune. It may be done...sometime...over a long period of time? Don't wait up! |
| 8. | Can I contribute to this site? If so, how? |
|
There are many, many ways to contribute (most would require some sort of contact w/ Roman) - always make sure your page (and your Nuclear Family pages) is/are current - if you see any errors, speak up - if you see entries missing, speak up - if you see entries missing, and don't know the correct info...find the right answer! (Names! Dates! Places!) - if there is no portrait pic (or any pics!) of you, then contribute at least one decent pic! - contribute photos (note: saying, 'Oh! Go to FB, there's lots there!' isn't 'contributing photos.') - identify those in contributed photos (by ss.com ID, preferably), otherwise we don't know who they are - specify some sort of date/pic(s); if not specific date, then year, or decade (century?) - make sure all those you know relevant to this site look things over for errata, potential additions, etc - if you need more specifics, you can be emailed a specific list of questions/tasks Ideally, each pic submission would be accompanied with text to fill each standard text entry on burned-in caption presentations. Minimally, who's in the pic + something of a caption, e.g: Pic 1: h945,h981,h501; Bob and Carol and Ted preparing to go find Alice Pic 2: h657,h800,h801; Alice telling Annifred and Agnetha to be careful tonight as she prepares to leave etc. |
| 9. | Why do you say propagation may be an issue? |
| This site is all static pages (pre-created), not dynamic (one change automagically available through the entire site.) Since updating a date on a personal page doesn't change a chart automagically, if a new copy of the chart isn't created immediately, then it is out of date until a new chart is created. |
| 10. | Are the photos on the personal pages in chronological order? |
|
Generally, yes (reverse chronological.) But many photos don't have known dates, thus it goes to the 0'th day of the nearest determined
known month. In other words: - 'May, 1995' means: 'May 0, 1995' - '1995 (month unknown)' means: 'Jan 0, 1995' - 'sometime in the 1990's' means: 'Jan 0, 1990' - 'I think she was born in the 1940's or 1950's, looks like a teenager in the pic' likely means: 'Jan 0, 1900' Since the pics are ordered independent of how they are labeled on the site, all visible date info is as accurate as is known (even if the date given is '???') and it shows up in the middle somewhere. (Any known date info is given; if 'sometime in the 1980's' is known, the photo will show '1980's' as the date.) In some cases, the birthday impossibility has been factored in. Let's say there's a pic of someone born in the 1950's. In the pic, she looks to be somewhere between 20 and 50 years old, but can be tough to guesstimate. No question, born in the 20th century, can use Jan 0, 1900 as the sort date. Or...since we know that she was born in the 1950's, we can (with confidence) use Jan 0, 1950 as a more accurate sort date (since her birthday makes it an impossibility for any dates prior to Jan 0, 1950 being accurate.) We could perhaps could use Jan 0, 1970 as a sort date if we're really sure that she was at least twenty years old in the pic (am really good at making an ass of myself when a female asks me, 'how old do you think I am?,' and thus begins the struggle to get within 20-30 years of accuracy, gawd, like life ain't difficult enough...) In many cases, the birthday impossibility has not yet been factored in, and you'll find that somebody born in the 1960's is sorted alongside someone born in 1910. (Had the ability to easily grab all the '20th century, year/decade unknown' pics via the very convenient newly-created photo browser been available prior to now, this issue would have handled already, now it's just added to the bottom of the list.) And since we're on the topic, please click on that photo browser link and (after scrolling down just a little tiny bit) you'll notice there are 38 descriptions of 'File####.jpg,' but the folks in the photos haven't been identified. It's likely there are several in there with the last name 'Dicken' and a few 'Nelson' (as in 'Uncle Buddy'), any help would be greatly appreciated by everybody! |
| 11. | Why use terms like 2nd/3rd cousin, since nobody really knows what that even means? |
|
Your uncle Bob's daughter (Carol) was born the same exact day as you. Ted/Alice also born that day. - You share a grandfather with Carol, thus she is your cousin - You share a great grandfather with Ted, thus he is your 2nd cousin - You share a great-great grandfather with Alice, thus she is your 3rd cousin - Alice's daughter is also your 3rd cousin, but she is your 3rd cousin once removed - Alice's granddaughter is also your 3rd cousin, but she is your 3rd cousin twice removed - etc (there's an additional complexity, but we'll leave it for later.) |
| 12. | Why isn't Lorraine Nelson on Burlie Nelson's (1901) Descendant list? |
| Since Lorraine already has links to John Schaeffer for Gen8 and John Schaeffer's Dad Marion for Gen7 (and links alphabetically to those descendancies), she (and her kids) cannot simultaneously link to her Dad's descendancy (unless a fourth (Prev/Next) line were to be added...total overkill.) |
| 13. | OMG, why, why, WHY so much red and green on the Lists? Isn't there a better way??? |
|
There needs to be clear distinction between 'not dead' and 'unknown' until the status of everybody is known.
When that happens, white will mean 'not known to be dead,' and green will no longer be needed
(so it will go away.) At that point, the red can be toned down (though it has been
that way for quite a while now...) It could be be worse; initially thought that instead of a single brown theme for the site, the Dead Person Pages could be red and Live Person pages could be green. However, clicking the Prev/Next links could easily result in a strobe-like effect of red/green, and bad things could happen, better if none of us end up on the evening news. |
| 14. | Who is Gen, and why do you mention her everywhere? |
|
Gen is the abbreviation for generation. Gen 1 is
John Schaeffer (17xx) (aka, 'the beginning of the world.') Currently, the
first gen for the Philips family is Gen 5 because Jordan Philips (1833) is
the same gen as all the Schaeffers born in the 1830's. Some samples below: - Gen 7: Earl, Marion, Burlie Sr - Gen 8: (John + Lorraine), (Alex + Leitha), (Lester + Catherine) - Gen 9: Erich, Fred, Val, (Lorraine + Steven) - Gen 10: David, Lisa, Janet, Jennifer, Tara, Xander - Gen 11: Katie Anne, Kristin, Angelina, Zoe - Gen 12: Khloe, Svaeh |
| 15. | Whyizzit...Personal page links to a 'chart' actually link to a List page? |
| Because it's really easy to get to the chart from the relevant List page, and rather than changing the label or linking to the chart, the relevant List page is linked instead. |
| 16. | The '.' is supposed to be inside the ')' at the end of the sentence, but you don't do that for years. ??? |
| When denoting birth/death year(s) to differentiate persons, the '.' has been put outside the ')' at the end of a sentence. |
| 17. | Was the Dyan Cannon Easter egg above really necessary? |
| It's called 'life simplification.' |
| 18. | How dare you impute others by ascribing phrases like, "I promise to...pics." You should be arrested! |
|
Does this mean I'm on the lam? This specific topic of which you speak has been given much (too much?) thought by the maintainer, as this site really shouldn't illicit negative reactions (and ascriptions such as the one you mention are often denied.) Hoping the relatively benign nature of the words and this site would more evoke laughter, rather than consternation. Also...the topic of whether to speak in first-person or third-person on a site like this hasn't been easy. It's one thing to speak in first-person terms for a live person (who can throw things), but something else to speak in first-person for someone who has passed. Of course, it can also be sort of creepy to do that, and awfully weird when inconsistent from one part of the page to another. Geez, wish you hadn't brought this up... |
| 19. | The use of "—" vs "-", and date format(s), is all over the map...can't there be just one??? |
|
Perhaps there's no rhyme to it, but there is reason. - Parents: living parents will have dates like, "(Jan 32, 2060—)" - Parents: known dead parents will have formats like "(2060-)" or "(2060-2212)." - Marriages: dates take the format of '1-25-1943' (unless less info available, like 'Jan, 1943') - Children: more space (no last names), so even dead get (Jan 32, 2060—Dec 5, 2212) - Lists: can't use years-only on the right-hand side, 'cause showing 'highest date availability' Note: We don't yet have Jan 32 on the calendar, but may (and live to 150!) by 2060 (orbital causes.) |
| 20. | Photo heading sizes are messed up; ensuing pages are bigger than the first page. |
| Photo headings on additional photos pages are different than the first page...on purpose. The photo heading for Cristan's second page is indeed bigger than the photo heading for Cristan's first page. However, heading hierarchy makes it the same size as the heading for Cristan's Bio heading. |
| 21. | "No pic available" for 'Family Portrait?' Uh...any pic would include a family member! |
| Technically speaking, sure, but then why have a site beyond one single pic? Since you bring up this topic, if you'd like to choose a photo that would appropriately fill in the space you reference, and you'd like to write up a caption (and while you're at it, handle all of them!), the data can be transferred promptly into the site! |
| 22. | I don't like my portrait! |
|
So who does? No, that doesn't mean that nobody likes your portrait; it means it's like a Driver's License photo, wherein most everybody doesn't like their own (but others think it's just fine.) Also, keep in mind the highly involved technical process (called 'two-second eyeball-it') that went into choosing your particular portrait before clicking the mouse. Luckily, if you don't like your portrait, you can just specify the ID of another pic you'd rather use. But be forewarned...pics at the site are generally only resized to 400px wide; cropping not done (huge time difference.) Of course, you can send a 400px wide pic (as well as full size!) that you'd like to use, and it will be changed. Simple! |
| 23. | How come Johann has a cool pic in the title of his page, and I have a dumb tree? |
| If you'd like a photo representation in the title of your page, send a 140x140 pic (as well as the full size pic!), and the 140x140 you send will show at the top of your page. |
| 24. | Some persons to whom pics refer in captions aren't linked. |
| Actually, most all of them now are linked, but some may have been missed. Some are unlinked because they aren't in the database; if you find any that should be linked, speak up! |
| 25. | There is whitespace above social media icons, but not above obit sections (like here.) |
| Whitespace is absolutely necessary above the icons because of the same-color brown background as the data above the icons. Not so with the obit txt, as the red background shows clear delineation of that section, but now it looks a little off. Not sure whether additional whitespace (which would completely separate it from the 'Contact' section) is the right answer. |
| 26. | Why aren't the captions just under the pic, instead of all the way across? |
| Yeah, kinda hate the way it looks now, the brown line (put in later) communicates the separation factor, which was part of the original intent of running the caption all the way across. Turns out even the long captions are really short...future update... Also note: portrait on the left doesn't always match height of Important Details (or Nuclear Family) on the right; the caption can either always be at the bottom (sometimes way below the portrait), or can be directly under the portrait (different spot every time, highly disorienting.) What's the right answer? |
| 27. | There is some inconsistent spelling, even with (duplicate - pics) |
| Yup, 'cause who knows if the correct spelling is 'Xander' or 'Zander'; while no doubt I'm (almost) the only person for whom this is a condition, have seen it spelled both ways multiple times. In true cowardly human fashion, gonna point fingers at two people: (wait...maybe not.) Similar condition with Jesse | Jessie Williams (and others.) Worse: not all captions have periods. |
| 28. | You don't really think you got all the links right in the Portrait captions, do you? |
| Of course...not! Here's the deal: can easily distinguish from the pic the difference between Alex Katchuk Sr and Alex Katchuk Jr. Then again, knew Sr, and know Jr, just saw him recently, about 50 or so yrs ago. But to see an undated photo and somebody in the pic is a Ray Walker, things start going sideways. And have lost track of how many family members we have named 'Robert Joseph Francis James Toolen Jr III,' despite swimming around in lists full of Toolens. Could be worse...luckily, we have nobody named Raymond J Johnson Jr (:38) or RJJ Jr (:36). |
| 29. | The thumbs suck! Why are the brown hdgs/captions on them?!? |
| You say that to someone who has very active Roman Fingers (that have earned him more than a few slaps and hits along the way...but I digress.) As far as the thumbnails go, it was sort of like a coin flip. Recent thumbs with burnt-on captions because the old thumbs don't have them, making it really easy for you to compare. Because thumb-creation has been completely automated, all thumbnails can easily be re-run with or without burnt-on captions (but keep in mind...pics prior to p1500 don't have actual comprised txt, so if you want old thumbs with new design, you need to supply txt to go along.) If folks think the brown captions should not be on thumbs, they can be easily removed, and the thumbs can be naked like the old ones (which look good, IMO...very colorful...makes some pages look like Walt Disney threw up.) A comparison page has been made for your convenience (but if you look, then pony up your opinion afterwards!) |
| 30. | Most of your own pics are captioned third person, but you randomly go first person, without indicator. |
| Yeah, 'third-person for me, first-person for thee!', but for some pics (like the Tahoe pics), it's just sort of obnoxiously clumsy to do third-person when it should be first-person. A non-overbearing method of indicating the distinction has been developed, but implementation will have to wait until a future update. |
| 31. | Photo browser has parens reversed, eg 'Photos (Numbered) 1-500' and 'Photos Numbered (1-100)' |
| Yup, on purpose, noticed, left it there by omission. Wasn't gonna have anything, but then realized that 1600-1989 could refer to years...but then again, it could refer to Photo ID's. Adding in the '(Numbered)' in the Main Hdgs made it look crappy, but guessing that it will drive at least one or two people batty, and that person will yell out the right answer (person needing to go through batty spell = sad consequence of having to deal with my (lack of) design, sorry not sorry.) |
| 32. | What loony uses cryptic 'unions' instead of 'marriages,' and why two columns instead of MUD? |
|
Have been called loony, though not for using the more appropriate 'unions' vs 'marriages'; it's understandable
why someone would question omitting the word 'family,' (after all, the definition is right
at the top of the 'Unions' page), but avoidance of the word 'family' for the Unions page was on purpose. A separate column is used to indicate a divorce (the 'D' column) for both technical reasons ('under the hood' use) and for end-user (viewer of the page) simplicity; while using a single column to indicate either 'M' (married) or 'U' (unmarried) or 'D' (divorced, verifying initial marriage) may seem better to some, this is the way it shows on this page. One might question why there isn't an assumption of marriage, vs positive verification, but in looking at the list, it sort of answers itself. Also, positive verification of 'not divorced' is relevant, as it answers the question, 'are they still married?' (among other questions.) The initial column ('ID') can be used as a reference if emailing/posting a question or comment, but currently is of no further use beyond that. Divorces only specify a year because dates are rarely used when referencing divorces, whereas years are frequently used. |
| 33. | Words on the charts are small and poor quality. Can't they be better? |
| Charts can be made bigger, and better quality. However, the file sizes would typically be 2-3 times as big, making for slower downloads. If folks want better quality charts, it can be done; however, think of others (who may have a slower Internet connection than you.) |
| 34. | Older generations show almost zero info, how come? |
| This is the first of several updates (this one being the most difficult.) Since boatloads of names/info is available for the Schaeffer family, many Persons will be added for older generations in the next major update. Similarly, a tremendous amount of info is available for the Nelson family (it may be an insult that more of Lorraine's research hasn't been included, a bad situation that needs fixing!) Also, two secret stashes are known to exist: one for the Stadler family, and one for the Neumann family. Efforts will be made to transfer portions of those stashes to this site. |
| 35. | There's a pic w/ a tattoo that technically shouldn't be on that person's Personal Page! |
|
What, huh, oops, OMG, how did that happen, must've been a mistake, will get right on that. (And will take advantage of that sharp eye of yours to point out the Photos - Listed by Category statement, though admittedly the tattoo pic sort of stands in its own category.) |
| 36. | In all seriousness...titles for Photos 1-1499 really suck, can that be fixed? |
|
Agree wholeheartedly they suck, not likely to touch them anytime soon...unless... The first 1,499 pics had only the (usually very short) captions for the thumbs (created by Johann.) Many captions were often all of three letters, e.g., "Val," "Jim," etc. Short, but they worked perfectly well for their intended purpose. When pics 1,500+ were added, they got Roman-style decorations, with several different titles/descriptions. Couple weeks ago (Feb, 2022), the Photo Browser was created. Initially the titles (and subtitles) were a la 'Photo 9212' and 'About Photo 9212.' Correct, but rather dull. At the last second, the format was changed to be more like, 'Photo 9212: Breakfast at Tiffany's' and 'About Photo 9212 (Breakfast at Tiffany's).' For pics 1,500+, the several different text bits provided ready material to fill a previously-nonexistent 'Photo Title.' But for pics 1 to 1,499, the only material available was the short captions for the thumbs. So, let the computer copy/paste 1,499 times. In some instances, the captions were too long for allocated title space, so the quick answer was, 'make liberal use of the Delete Key', and 'really long caption, is just seven names, maybe the pic title should just be "Seven."' In many cases, the Title, the Description, and the 'In Pic' entry are identical. In some cases that got liberal use of the Delete key (delete keys don't care about capital letters or grammar, btw), the titles just...suck. So if there is anybody out there that would care to go about 'normalizing' the 'Photo Title', and/or the 'Description' section, am happy to work directly with you. The tech part is inconsequential; the part about slogging through 1,499 pics and developing appropriate text titles/snippets...that's not inconsequential. Very time-consuming. Will roll out the red carpet for anybody willing to both make a commitment and do the work on that topic. In case anyone is interested in seeing what a longer 'Description' looks like on a page, check Photo 524 and Photo 545. In both instances, the text is long enough to wrap around (and is why, writ large, the 'In Pic' section only does 3-4 names, then indicates how many others are in the pic, without giving names (like the pic entitled, Seven.) Am certain I mentioned the topic of 'Description' length in relation to pics 1,500+ somewhere above or on another page, don't feel like looking. |
| 37. | What is the Austin Schaeffer 1949 book? |
| Austin Schaeffer did an extensive study of the Philip Schaeffer lineage, and published it in book form in 1949. Roman got a copy of it in 2007, and in 2022, he found an electronic copy. Much of the info for generations 1 to 7 (Philip lineage) comes from this publication, which contains roughly 2,900 names. |
| 38. | What is the Hollenbach book? |
| Someone from the Berks County Genealogical Society researched the Schaeffer family sometime in the first half of the 20th century. The publication is not dated, was done on a typewriter, and has hand-written edits strewn throughout. The author's name is not included in the publication; the only identification is, 'Raymond E Hollenbach Collection" and "AN #5060." While clearly much work went into this typewritten, single-spaced, 12-page document, it is eclipsed by the Austin Schaeffer book referenced above. |
| 39. | What are Fun Facts? |
|
Generally, something about which you may have been embarrassed at the time, but shortly thereafter, thought it was
funny. People may find it amusing enough to mention to you if they find out, which probably makes you laugh. Some
examples: - Fact: I fell in the lake once - Fun Fact: I fell in the lake once while I was eating a sandwich - Fact: Cops hauled me in to the station twice when I was a teenager - Fun Fact: Cops hauled me in to the station twice when I was a teenager; parents found out twelve years later - Fact: Seeing blood made me faint when I was young - Fun Fact: Seeing blood made me faint when I was young...then I became a doctor - Fact: Walked around Philadelphia for three hours with TP on my shoe - Fun Fact: Walked around Philadelphia for three hours with TP on my shoe; friends knew, didn't tell me It may also be something peculiar or unusual which might make people notice, e.g, 'when I was in college, I'd go straight from my part-time job as a mortician (stuffing dead bodies) to my part-time job as a waiter delivering freshly-cooked food to people (yes, I always washed my hands first!)' |
| 40. | What is the Schaeffer Homestead? Or the Fleetwood Cemetery? Etc? |
|
The Schaeffer Homestead is the 132 acres of land George Schaeffer acquired on
Sep 25, 1759 in what became Richmond Twp in
Berks, County PA. You can read more about the acquisition in the custom section
of his page. The county seat for Berks County is Reading, PA; the Richmond Twp Municipal Bldg is in Fleetwood, PA. Many Schaeffers were buried on the Schaeffer Homestead, and many were buried in the Fleetwood Cemetery. |
| 41. | Why wasn't Leyna named Hanswella? |
| Don't know. Trish and James initially debated the names 'Madelyn Rose' and 'Isabelle Rose' (am unaware of them debating 'Madelyn Isabelle' or 'Rose Rose.') Johann suggested Hanswella, and there were no apparent objections. Somehow, Leyna ended up with the name, 'Leyna Karleigh.' |
| 42. | You talk too much! |
| I've nothing left to say. |
| And in Closing... | |
| There really was effort to keep the tone of this page dry and flat, but kept hearing the questions posed by a particular persnickety Schaeffer, always fun to listen to him/her talk and hear the exasperated impatience in his/her voice...so answers were aimed at that person! The name of the person will not be revealed, nor confirmed or denied to other people (excluding themselves), other than to the subject person that he/she is said person, and that person will have the option of identifying himself or herself publicly. (Gawd, annoying, huh???) | |
