Sources vs. Citations


Alan Hoeschen <wyle.coyote8@...>
 

It seems that I have a life-long struggle with sources vs. citations even though I think I finally "get it."  In other probrams, namely Legacy & RootsMagic, I finally got the hang of it, I think.  Using a 1910 US census, for example, I would have something like "US Census, 1910, Minnesota, Stearns County" as the main source and then for the citation I would have information on the enumeration district, local jurisdiction, page number, dwelling & family number, etc.  I started doing the same methodology in Family Historian, creating the main source as mentioned above and then in the "Where within source" textbox I would enter the information as mentioned in the citation above.  In the "text from source" textbox I would then enter the particulars such as name, sex, age, marital status, etc.

When I go back and look at the source in the records pane, all the "where within source" and "text from source" goes into the source.  If I want to use the 1910 US census for Stearns County, Minnesota again, say for a different family, FH keeps the original information and if I change the details, they replace the original in the source.

Am I misunderstanding how to use sources & citations? How should I handle multiple different families in the same census, should I have a source called, for example, 1910 US Census, Minnesota, Stearns County, Smith family" and one called 1910 US Census, Minnesota, Stearns County, Jones family?"

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!


Jane Taubman
 

Have you read through

and

There have been plenty of discussions on FHUG about this and it really depends on what you want to do.   Choose your preferred solution and stick to it.

Me I am a splitter as I like to keep attached media and full transcriptions of the Families so one Source per Family suits me, it also means it's easy to grab a source and find all the people and facts taken from that family group.


On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 18:23, Alan Hoeschen <wyle.coyote8@...> wrote:
It seems that I have a life-long struggle with sources vs. citations even though I think I finally "get it."  In other probrams, namely Legacy & RootsMagic, I finally got the hang of it, I think.  Using a 1910 US census, for example, I would have something like "US Census, 1910, Minnesota, Stearns County" as the main source and then for the citation I would have information on the enumeration district, local jurisdiction, page number, dwelling & family number, etc.  I started doing the same methodology in Family Historian, creating the main source as mentioned above and then in the "Where within source" textbox I would enter the information as mentioned in the citation above.  In the "text from source" textbox I would then enter the particulars such as name, sex, age, marital status, etc.

When I go back and look at the source in the records pane, all the "where within source" and "text from source" goes into the source.  If I want to use the 1910 US census for Stearns County, Minnesota again, say for a different family, FH keeps the original information and if I change the details, they replace the original in the source.

Am I misunderstanding how to use sources & citations? How should I handle multiple different families in the same census, should I have a source called, for example, 1910 US Census, Minnesota, Stearns County, Smith family" and one called 1910 US Census, Minnesota, Stearns County, Jones family?"

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!



Lorna Craig
 

What you have described is known as 'Method 2' or 'lumpers' method for sources, as described in the links Jane gave in her reply.  In other words you want to have one source with many different citations.  That is  a valid way of doing things, but something must be going wrong because the "where within source" and "text from source" should relate only to a particular citation. They should NOT be appearing in the Source record itself.  Can you confirm that you are entering these details in the fields in the yellow 'Sources for' pane for the census fact? If possible can you attach screen shots of the yellow 'sources for' pane as well as the Source record itself?

Lorna

On 05/03/2020 18:12, Alan Hoeschen wrote:

..... When I go back and look at the source in the records pane, all the "where within source" and "text from source" goes into the source.  If I want to use the 1910 US census for Stearns County, Minnesota again, say for a different family, FH keeps the original information and if I change the details, they replace the original in the source.....


uhkh3tsccmz9@beconfidential.com
 

When I go back and look at the source in the records pane, all the "where within source" and "text from source" goes into the source.  If I want to use the 1910 US census for Stearns County, Minnesota again, say for a different family, FH keeps the original information and if I change the details, they replace the original in the source.Am I misunderstanding how to use sources & citations? How should I handle multiple different families in the same census, should I have a source called, for example, 1910 US Census, Minnesota, Stearns County, Smith family" and one called 1910 US Census, Minnesota, Stearns County, Jones family?"
Your description in the first paragraph is the standard approach for "lumpers" (like me - for census records). So that looks OK. As a lumper your are treating sources and citations in the same way as in academic papers. Your source is "the book [census]" to which you are referring and the citation (held in the "where within source" field) is "the relevant page number [census sheet/household/line]" from which you have got the specific information. As a lumper you will have potentially multiple citations for each source - one for each household or individual (if you are working down to a census line).

When you go to enter a second citation for the 1910 Census (for a different household), are you selecting the source again (the left-hand icon in the Yellow "Sources" part of the property box), or are you attempting to copy & paste the previous citation using the 2nd and 3rd from left icons? If the first (selecting again), you should find that you have selected the 1910 Census again and you will/should(!) have a blank set of fields like "Where within source" to fill in for the new citation. If you have "copied and pasted", you will have copied the citation (and its source) for the first household into the second household - which is not what you want.

That should work well - it does for me. I find it useful to have each census as a separate source - it allows me to keep notes specific to the census (for instance my research history or notes - such as:
"Using Ancestry for this source - clearer images" [if that is the case!]
"2020-03-05 Searched 'Willett' (Exact): Found 5 records - 3 fitted into family tree"

Your final paragraph is the alternative "splitters" approach - which some people prefer. For each record type you need to decide whether to adopt the lumper or splitter approach - don't mix approaches for the same record type.

David


Alan Hoeschen <wyle.coyote8@...>
 

Jane, thanks for the links.  I appreciate your response and I've found my answer.

Alan


Alan Hoeschen <wyle.coyote8@...>
 

Hi Lorna,

Thanks for your response and the explanation.  I'm not sure what happened, but I haven't been able to duplicate the problem.  I've entered a number of new sources and citations and all seems to work as expected.  I'm sure that it was something that I did wrong; maybe pasted something that I wasn't aware it was on the clipboard, or something like that.  

Alan


Alan Hoeschen <wyle.coyote8@...>
 

Hi David,

As I mentioned to Lorna, I haven't been able to duplicate my problem after adding a number of new sources and citations so figure it must have just been me being brain dead.  I do prefer the lumper method; it just makes more sense to me.

Thanks for responding.

Alan


Trevor Rix
 

I don't use sources or citations as such. But I do download source images wherever available and link then to the people concerned. And make good use of flags, and the associated icons in diagrams. The images are my sources!


Mike Tate
 

Trevor,

As long as you can answer the following question for any fact then your method works for you:

“What corroborates that this happened on that Date at that Place for this person?

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Trevor Rix
Sent: 06 March 2020 08:36
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources vs. Citations

 

I don't use sources or citations as such. But I do download source images wherever available and link then to the people concerned. And make good use of flags, and the associated icons in diagrams. The images are my sources!


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Trevor Rix
 

Mike, sorry, I don't really understand your question. c99% of my source images are of 'official' public records such as census, baptisms, marriages, burials, wills etc. This topic, and many similar topics, discuss methods of recording sources and citations in great detail which was fine decades ago when images of source records were not available. In my opinion the widespread availability of source images renders such time consuming practices as both unnecessary and outdated. We now live in a completely different age.


uhkh3tsccmz9@beconfidential.com
 

Presumably though Trevor you do caption your images so that you know that a Census Schedule is the 1881 Census for Huddersfield and not the 1891 one for Knowsley? I have found that for some of the Census records (especially E&W 1841) where legibility is an issue, it also helps to record whose image I have copied (Ancestry, FMP etc)

Do you go so far as to ensure that "Images of baptism records" not only make clear which parish, but whether the image is of the actual parish register or of one of the Bishop's Transcripts? In Cumberland the Bishop's Transcripts and Parish Registers can differ due to the transcriber either omitting detail - or adding his own personal comments (often about the moral standing of the mother and her number of illegitimate children - sometimes even suggesting who he thinks the father is!). I imagine that diocesan officials elsewhere indulged in similar practices.

Where there are difference (between legibility of the records or what is actually recorded), I find it very useful to be able to go back and identify my source so that I can understand comments from others and to discuss whether we can agree an interpretation.

I personally find the source/citation facility in FH useful as it helps impose a little structure on my work. The same detail can of course be held in the caption/label of the image. But if you do that FH is less able to produce helpful reports etc.

We may live in a "different age"; we may no longer have lots of loose leaf files with various labels attached, but we do have the electronic equivalent and this new age permits us to index our images in such a way that we can access them from multiple directions - unlike the old "linear" way determined by our particular filing system.

David


Mike Tate
 

Trevor,

OK, let us take an example or two.

Pick any person in your Project who has both a Birth Event and a Death Event recorded.

Can you easily corroborate from the attached images where you got the Date & Place of Birth and the Date & Place of Death?

Can you easily corroborate from your images who their parents are?

Repeat that process for each parent.

If you can answer ‘yes’ to such questions then your method works for you.

 

Do you intend to hand your research on to anyone else?

If you know who that might be, then perhaps ask them the same questions?

 

I don’t understand why having readily available images makes any difference.

Citations don’t have to involve great detail, but simply link each fact to a corroborating source record that could just be an image.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Trevor Rix
Sent: 07 March 2020 13:19
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources vs. Citations

 

Mike, sorry, I don't really understand your question. c99% of my source images are of 'official' public records such as census, baptisms, marriages, burials, wills etc. This topic, and many similar topics, discuss methods of recording sources and citations in great detail which was fine decades ago when images of source records were not available. In my opinion the widespread availability of source images renders such time consuming practices as both unnecessary and outdated. We now live in a completely different age.

_._,_._,_


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Adrian Bruce
 

It's perfectly possible to add all the relevant data to an "image" as Metadata. I can, and do, add a load of stuff to the IPTC Metadata of a JPG. Not least because it might sit for ages in a folder before I create the source record in FH with the ancillary data that will form the citation. 

However, to me, going off to interrogate the Metadata is a bit of a pain, not least because I only have one program that shows the IPTC stuff. Better for me to have it all visible in FH. 

What the IPTC Metadata can't do (for space reasons) is record my logic about why the Fred Bloggs in this record is the Fred Bloggs in my data and not his cousin (say). That is what I put in the Source Record - once! Which is why I'm a Source Splitter. Other people may record that logic elsewhere. 

I might add that I am continually being burnt by people changing URLs - Record Offices (of all people) are dreadful for this, so a nice simple link in the Metadata will often fail.


David Potter
 

I started to capture the Ancestry. Co.uk hint image URL and as you say it changes over time. Now at least 1/3 of my Ancestry URL go nowhere.


Jan Murphy
 

We're often told that the reason we should cite sources is that we can find them again if we need to, or point other researchers to the same source.  That's valuable, but there's an even more compelling reason.  In the opening of Evidence Explained, Elizabeth Shown Mills says:

We identify our sources -- and their strengths and weaknesses -- so we can reach the most valuable conclusions.

In the 2nd edition of EE, this is on page 10; if my memory is correct, in the newest (3rd rev) it is on page 8.

I've seen discussions on the EE website about cases where census pages had been re-arranged by Ancestry. I've heard FamilySearch indexers complain about arbitrators taking the wrong reading for place names when they (the speakers) had local knowledge and had inputted the correct one.  

We can argue about lumping vs. splitting and the format of citations, and all the other things, but in so many cases, we skip over the critical task of properly identifying what it is that we're looking at.  And none of the "we can find the images just about anywhere" websites are particularly good about giving us enough information to understand what we're collecting.  Findmypast at least gives us an archive reference most of the time, so we can go to the RO or TNA's catalogues and get more informaiton, but they too have collections where the information in the 'transcription' is not really sufficient. 

People struggle with Family Historian sometimes because other programs have different ways of 'helping' us collect source citaitons.  However you choose to record your sources (or not), please take enough time to look at your source and understand what it is and understand its context.  Did the online 'source of your source' re-arrange the pages in a different order than they appear in the original work?  Did they drop a page or two and insert them in a different parish?  Did they assign the parish to a different county in the 'transcription' or 'record' page?  

If you're cribbing information from an index, do you understand how the index was created, what its structure is, what its purpose is?  

Trevor says:

 In my opinion the widespread availability of source images renders such time consuming practices as both unnecessary and outdated. We now live in a completely different age. 

My opinion is completely the opposite. Given how easy it is for websites to screw up, by dropping images, re-arranging images, attributing images to the wrong location, and introducing other problems with bad metadata, I think understanding our source material enough to write a decent citation is more important than ever.  

Jan Murphy
Moderator Pro Tempore



On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:12 AM David Potter via Groups.Io <David.potter5=googlemail.com@groups.io> wrote:
I started to capture the Ancestry. Co.uk hint image URL and as you say it changes over time. Now at least 1/3 of my Ancestry URL go nowhere.


Adrian Bruce
 

On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 at 19:12, Jan Murphy <packrat74@gmail.com> wrote:
... I think understanding our source material enough to write a decent citation is more important than ever.
For me, the most important thing there is the understanding - actually
writing the citation in any specific format is of lesser importance,
providing you've reached that understanding and have stored it
somewhere (because I forget!)

A cautionary tale where I wish I'd made a note - I have a baptism
noted down from Haslington - all the details copied from the page,
fine. I just haven't written down where I got the data from - the
microfilm in the local library? Ditto in Chester Record Office? Ditto
in Manchester Central Library? I didn't write it down because I
thought it was all obvious... Ironically, it's not this baptism that I
want to enter into FH - it's another baptism that appears to be on the
same page that someone else has found. But that other baptism isn't in
the FindMyPast images - eventually I realised that the FamilySearch
camera operator had turned over two pages - the frame numbers are
visible in FMP and there's no omission there - but there is a big jump
in the dates, right over that baptism that I had previously collected.
This means that somewhere I *have* seen a film of the PR with the
omitted page - but I have 3 choices (that I remember!)

Like I said above - I'm happy with sticking this stuff into image
Metadata as a minimum (or annotations on PDFs which I can do in Adobe
Acrobat Reader. Usually). But I think it has to be stuck somewhere so
I can find the stuff again.

Adrian


Trevor Rix
 

Thank you everyone for contributing.

@uhkh3tsccmz9 David
For census images I use Ancestral Sources to record the census year, census place, names ages occupations and places of birth for the people in the household. AS links the downloaded census image to those people. Switching back to FH, each person has the relevant census flag which in turn switches on the relevant census icon in diagrams. I have a routine that ensures that the census image shows in the property box media tab for all of the people concerned.

For images of baptisms, I name the downloaded image for example "1859 Frederick-Joe Bloggs & Sarah Smith". I link the image to the person baptised, recording the date and parish of the baptism. I assign a flag 'baptism image'. If there are images available of the baptism both from the parish register and from bishop's transcript and/or archdeacons transcript I download and link in all of those images. The flag switches on the relevant icon in diagrams.

@Mike
For a birth and death events, if the information was from a GRO index I use for example "Q3 1873" for the date and say "Sudbury registration district" for the place, but do not assign a flag or icon. If the information was from a birth or death certificate I record the exact date and place as in parish/county/country (if outside the UK), link in a photograph of the certificate, assign a flag 'birth certificate' or 'death certificate' that in turn switches on the appropriate icons in diagrams. I have a complete collection of BMD certificates 1837 onwards for my ancestors.

I use a text scheme that displays birth baptism marriage death and burial dates and places in diagrams. So viewing that information and the associated icons for each person I can see at a glance in diagrams what I have and have not discovered which in turn prompts me where to research next.
"Can you easily corroborate from your images who their parents are?"
Yes, the linked in photographs of the certificates contain that information.

Yes, I intend handing on my research. Currently it will be digitally as in Family Historian projects that contain everything including the images. I have multiple copies on both physical media and in the cloud. My family are tech savvy so would easily understand the structure that I have described.

I see many topics and threads where people worry and fret about how to record sources and citations to conform with standards such as those promoted by Elizabeth Shown Mills. What I am saying is that such methods are now in my opinion old hat and unnecessary. Where source images are readily available people would do better to spend their time researching rather than spend hours/months/years trying to conform to those old standards.

@Jan
For the my reasons above I consider that the whole concept of standards in Evidence Explained are now out of date and waste oodles of time that would be better spent researching. Yes, the content of websites may change and the images may be moved or disappear, but I have downloaded my source images so those concerns are not relevant.

Trevor


Mike Tate
 

@Trevor
Now you have confused me!

Initially, you said: “I don't use sources or citations as such. But I do download source images wherever available and link them to the people concerned.”

But you now say you use Ancestral Sources, which does create sources and citations and links images to them, not directly to the people concerned.

So how do you show the census image in the Media tab of the Individual Property Box of each person?

 

Why don’t you use Ancestral Sources for Birth, Baptism, Marriage, Death & Burial cases?

The sources and citations do not have to follow any formal regime, they are simply links between events and images.

 

Assuming you record the Occupation of people, how do you know where that came from?

Was it a Census, or a parent on a Birth Certificate or Marriage Certificate, or what?

 

BTW: Using Flags to trigger Icons is not as efficient as using the events themselves.

The Diagram > Options > Boxes > Conditions can test for the existence of any event (and if necessary a source citation) and display an Icon.

Then you don’t have to waste time managing Flags.

See FHUG Knowledge Base > Using Flags and Icons and Expressions:

https://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:using_flags_and_icons_and_expressions

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Trevor Rix
Sent: 08 March 2020 12:07
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources vs. Citations

 

Thank you everyone for contributing.

@uhkh3tsccmz9 David
For census images I use Ancestral Sources to record the census year, census place, names ages occupations and places of birth for the people in the household. AS links the downloaded census image to those people. Switching back to FH, each person has the relevant census flag which in turn switches on the relevant census icon in diagrams. I have a routine that ensures that the census image shows in the property box media tab for all of the people concerned.

For images of baptisms, I name the downloaded image for example "1859 Frederick-Joe Bloggs & Sarah Smith". I link the image to the person baptised, recording the date and parish of the baptism. I assign a flag 'baptism image'. If there are images available of the baptism both from the parish register and from bishop's transcript and/or archdeacons transcript I download and link in all of those images. The flag switches on the relevant icon in diagrams.

@Mike
For a birth and death events, if the information was from a GRO index I use for example "Q3 1873" for the date and say "Sudbury registration district" for the place, but do not assign a flag or icon. If the information was from a birth or death certificate I record the exact date and place as in parish/county/country (if outside the UK), link in a photograph of the certificate, assign a flag 'birth certificate' or 'death certificate' that in turn switches on the appropriate icons in diagrams. I have a complete collection of BMD certificates 1837 onwards for my ancestors.

I use a text scheme that displays birth baptism marriage death and burial dates and places in diagrams. So viewing that information and the associated icons for each person I can see at a glance in diagrams what I have and have not discovered which in turn prompts me where to research next.


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Trevor Rix
 

@Mike

Explaining my method some more ...

In the Property Box I do not have the Sources section in view (have clicked the 'yellow scroll' button at the top), so never use that facility. I do not use sources and citations as such, but of course Ancestral Sources does create some automatically because I choose to use AS for census.

"So how do you show the census image in the Media tab of the Individual Property Box of each person?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. go back to Family Historian which is still open (Alt+Tab on your keyboard)

7. click Yes to reload the GEDCOM file that Ancestral Sources has amended

 

Link the source census image to the people concerned

8. Media

9. View All media

10. click Updated to bring the most recent images to the top of the list

11. select the image that you are working on

12. double click the image thumbnail

13 Links tab

14. double click the first person

15. Media tab in the Property box

16. Add media

17. Link To Existing Media Record

18. double click the first person (check that it is the correct image)

19. OK

20. tick the Exclude from Diagrams and Reports boxes

21. OK

Repeat steps 14 to 21 for the other people in the household

 

Select a person and create an Ancestor And Descendant diagram
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those steps are copied from the notes that I give to members of the U3A group (and individuals) that we have been teaching for years. I accept that those steps appear to be tedious, but I have not yet found a better method. When practiced it only takes seconds.

Why don’t you use Ancestral Sources for Birth, Baptism, Marriage, Death & Burial cases?
Because I choose not to. For each person I prefer to download the image > Property Box > Media tab > Add Media/Insert from file...', to link the image. Then, All tab > right click the Name > Set Flag > select the appropriate flag (which switches on the icon in diagrams).

Assuming you record the Occupation of people, how do you know where that came from?
I record census occupations in Ancestral Sources, so it is obvious when looking at the All tab which census they came from. (If I was starting again I would not record those census occupations, but as it is something I have always done I have continued).

I am well aware of the alternative method to trigger icons, but choose not to. I have a very large list of flags and icons.

Trevor


colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

Trevor, I wholeheartedly disagree with you, but will defend your right to do what you do if it’s good enough for you.

 

Myself, I use ESM-style citations so that I know exactly where something came from.  I do not obsess about italics and punctuation – but I do want to record exactly where my information came from and why I believe it’s sound (which includes assessing the reliability and completeness of the source I’ve used).

 

I doubt I will convince you, but bear with me for a while; it might give you food for thought, or at least explain why some people don’t follow your example.

 

This example is taken from a friend’s tree.

 

He has many ancestors in the village (small town) he grew up in going back 300 years.

 

He started his research at age 14 in 1960 (so has 60 years of work in his tree). He knelt on the floor in the vicar’s living room writing down in pencil in a lined notebook what his mother read out from the original parish registers. They were only interested at that point in the H surname (for an American cousin) so nothing else was transcribed. And there are several places where his record reads ‘too wet’ or ‘too burned’ (the PRs were even then not in good condition, although the vicar was happy to produce them, at least to the local organist and her son). His mother knew the local families and history well, so could interpret some entries that others would struggle with. I have images of his notebook (plus the original), but they wouldn’t be of any use to anyone else without meta-data (source-identifying information).  Let’s call these the “H transcripts” although they’re not publicly available.

 

Five years later an individual (J) in the same village transcribed all the extant parish registers onto index cards.  The number of readable records had decreased, plus J was not as familiar with local history so there are some laughable errors… and the index cards have vanished since (I’m lucky enough to have images), although there are genealogies that still refer to them (the “J cards”.) No public images (as far as I know) exist.

 

Five years later, another (unnamed) individual produced a spreadsheet from the J cards.  Some people cite this as the “J cards”. Some people cite this as the “J spreadsheet.”  There are clear discrepancies between this and the “H transcripts”, plus some more clear nonsense where transcription of transcription errors have crept in.  (A child recorded as her own mother?) You have to know the individual who holds the spreadsheet privately to get a copy. (I have one).

 

Halleluiah! The incumbent passed the PRs to the local Archive.  Which won’t produce them for inspection because they’ve deteriorated too much, but did let Ancestry image them.  Well, some pages. Even more pages than in the 60s weren’t fit to be imaged, so there are big gaps in what Ancestry has reproduced. Good luck if the George D you’re looking for shows up, assuming he’s one of 4 George D cousins born within a 5 year timeframe in the early 1800s with a father Joshua D… who were also all cousins. Most of them don’t show up on Ancestry... so just reproducing an image of the baptism of the one you’ve found is … hmmm.. I’ll say it: hopeful, and needs a load of caveats.

 

Ah, but there are Bishops’ Transcripts to cross-check against.  Yes, held in a different archives, and I have laboriously held every page of the originals flat as they were photographed.  Again not published. And also (as we all know) not frightfully consistent with the PRs… There are George Ds who appear in the PRs but not in the BTs and also 2 extra George Ds in the BTs who aren’t in the PRs.

 

In the case of 6 (maybe) George Ds:

 

None of them shows up in the ‘H transcripts’ (wrong surname).

4 turn up on the J cards, some of them with weird name variants.

2 turn up in the ‘J spreadsheet.

1 shows up in the Ancestry PR records.

6 show up in the BTs (one of whom is on Ancestry, and 3 more of whom are in the J spreadsheet, and 2 of whom spring unheralded out of the ground).

 

Ok.  Some questions:

  1. I only have one supposed ancestor with a publicly published image (the Ancestry one, which I know is wrong, by reference to other sources.)  I should disregard that source – would you attach it based on the image? Or look elsewhere first. And if you found the ’best source’ but it didn’t have an image, what would you do?
  2. I have images of things nobody else will ever see – should I attach them without commentary, when nobody else will be able to judge their accuracy?
  3. Distinguishing between all the George D’s has depended on sources that aren’t online – leases, wills, land tax records. How would you deal with these?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Trevor Rix
Sent: 08 March 2020 12:07
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources vs. Citations

 

Thank you everyone for contributing.

@uhkh3tsccmz9 David
For census images I use Ancestral Sources to record the census year, census place, names ages occupations and places of birth for the people in the household. AS links the downloaded census image to those people. Switching back to FH, each person has the relevant census flag which in turn switches on the relevant census icon in diagrams. I have a routine that ensures that the census image shows in the property box media tab for all of the people concerned.

For images of baptisms, I name the downloaded image for example "1859 Frederick-Joe Bloggs & Sarah Smith". I link the image to the person baptised, recording the date and parish of the baptism. I assign a flag 'baptism image'. If there are images available of the baptism both from the parish register and from bishop's transcript and/or archdeacons transcript I download and link in all of those images. The flag switches on the relevant icon in diagrams.

@Mike
For a birth and death events, if the information was from a GRO index I use for example "Q3 1873" for the date and say "Sudbury registration district" for the place, but do not assign a flag or icon. If the information was from a birth or death certificate I record the exact date and place as in parish/county/country (if outside the UK), link in a photograph of the certificate, assign a flag 'birth certificate' or 'death certificate' that in turn switches on the appropriate icons in diagrams. I have a complete collection of BMD certificates 1837 onwards for my ancestors.

I use a text scheme that displays birth baptism marriage death and burial dates and places in diagrams. So viewing that information and the associated icons for each person I can see at a glance in diagrams what I have and have not discovered which in turn prompts me where to research next.

"Can you easily corroborate from your images who their parents are?"
Yes, the linked in photographs of the certificates contain that information.

Yes, I intend handing on my research. Currently it will be digitally as in Family Historian projects that contain everything including the images. I have multiple copies on both physical media and in the cloud. My family are tech savvy so would easily understand the structure that I have described.

I see many topics and threads where people worry and fret about how to record sources and citations to conform with standards such as those promoted by Elizabeth Shown Mills. What I am saying is that such methods are now in my opinion old hat and unnecessary. Where source images are readily available people would do better to spend their time researching rather than spend hours/months/years trying to conform to those old standards.

@Jan
For the my reasons above I consider that the whole concept of standards in Evidence Explained are now out of date and waste oodles of time that would be better spent researching. Yes, the content of websites may change and the images may be moved or disappear, but I have downloaded my source images so those concerns are not relevant.

Trevor