Surety of sources for a fact


Edward Sneithe
 


I started  with my genealogy about 40 years ago first using paper then in a computer word processor and then moving on to software solutions for genealogy. I switched to The Master Genealogist about 1993 staying with them until late 2014 when support for the development platform was cropped by Microsoft and Wholly Genes decided to end its run.

In TMG I was able to rate the value of sources and citations in a very granular way. For each fact I could Rate each source for that fact across five categories. Principal 1, principal 2, date, place, and memo or note as FH would see it. The rating followed the GEDCOM standard of using values of 0 to 3. In practice I would rate a source for a fact across these five categories. So for source 1 I may give the date a value of 2 while source 2 may generate a value of 3. 3 being a rock solid value. TMG would then allow me to customize the display of facts to show these 5 categories. It would also show the highest value for these categories based on my sources. I could then look at the facts and quickly see what facts were rock solid and which pieces needed work.

I have run into several birth registers (the source the state would use to create a birth certificate) where it was registered before the parents named the child so that the record would show “Baby” or “Infant” for the first name. This record could not be used to justify a first name for the child. Another record, perhaps a baptismal record, could show the child’s first name. By using the surety value I could then show all the facts about the birth as rock solid which would show on the list of facts for a person. Very useful feature for research and seeing what I needed to work on, etc.

Switching to Rootsmagic in 2014, after correcting many items that were not directly translatable to RM, I found that I lost much of the granularity of rating facts based on my source material. I could use Elizabeth Shown Mills approach to describe how a particular source related to a particular fact and I could then add the proof as proven, dis proven or disputed losing the granularity of TMG.

Coming over to FH it seems that I have taken another step backward on this issue being able to set a flag for Private, Preferred, Tentative or Rejected.  I don’t seem to be able to rate how each source relates to a fact like I could in TMG.

In FH is there a way to be more granular in my rating of sources and facts so that I can use this as a way to focus my research?


colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Edward Sneithe via groups.io
Sent: 17 January 2022 18:41
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Surety of sources for a fact

 

 

I started  with my genealogy about 40 years ago first using paper then in a computer word processor and then moving on to software solutions for genealogy. I switched to The Master Genealogist about 1993 staying with them until late 2014 when support for the development platform was cropped by Microsoft and Wholly Genes decided to end its run.

In TMG I was able to rate the value of sources and citations in a very granular way. For each fact I could Rate each source for that fact across five categories. Principal 1, principal 2, date, place, and memo or note as FH would see it. The rating followed the GEDCOM standard of using values of 0 to 3. In practice I would rate a source for a fact across these five categories. So for source 1 I may give the date a value of 2 while source 2 may generate a value of 3. 3 being a rock solid value. TMG would then allow me to customize the display of facts to show these 5 categories. It would also show the highest value for these categories based on my sources. I could then look at the facts and quickly see what facts were rock solid and which pieces needed work.

I have run into several birth registers (the source the state would use to create a birth certificate) where it was registered before the parents named the child so that the record would show “Baby” or “Infant” for the first name. This record could not be used to justify a first name for the child. Another record, perhaps a baptismal record, could show the child’s first name. By using the surety value I could then show all the facts about the birth as rock solid which would show on the list of facts for a person. Very useful feature for research and seeing what I needed to work on, etc.

Switching to Rootsmagic in 2014, after correcting many items that were not directly translatable to RM, I found that I lost much of the granularity of rating facts based on my source material. I could use Elizabeth Shown Mills approach to describe how a particular source related to a particular fact and I could then add the proof as proven, dis proven or disputed losing the granularity of TMG.

Coming over to FH it seems that I have taken another step backward on this issue being able to set a flag for Private, Preferred, Tentative or Rejected.  I don’t seem to be able to rate how each source relates to a fact like I could in TMG.

In FH is there a way to be more granular in my rating of sources and facts so that I can use this as a way to focus my research?


Mike Tate
 

Even if FH V6 every Citation has an Assessment setting exactly as defined in GEDCOM with four options.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of colevalleygirl@...
Sent: 17 January 2022 19:53
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Surety of sources for a fact

 

Are you using FH7? If so, see this section of the help: https://www.family-historian.co.uk/help/fh7/hh_goto.htm?hh_start.htm#citationassessmentdialog.html

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Edward Sneithe via groups.io
Sent: 17 January 2022 18:41
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Surety of sources for a fact

 

 

I started  with my genealogy about 40 years ago first using paper then in a computer word processor and then moving on to software solutions for genealogy. I switched to The Master Genealogist about 1993 staying with them until late 2014 when support for the development platform was cropped by Microsoft and Wholly Genes decided to end its run.

In TMG I was able to rate the value of sources and citations in a very granular way. For each fact I could Rate each source for that fact across five categories. Principal 1, principal 2, date, place, and memo or note as FH would see it. The rating followed the GEDCOM standard of using values of 0 to 3. In practice I would rate a source for a fact across these five categories. So for source 1 I may give the date a value of 2 while source 2 may generate a value of 3. 3 being a rock solid value. TMG would then allow me to customize the display of facts to show these 5 categories. It would also show the highest value for these categories based on my sources. I could then look at the facts and quickly see what facts were rock solid and which pieces needed work.

I have run into several birth registers (the source the state would use to create a birth certificate) where it was registered before the parents named the child so that the record would show “Baby” or “Infant” for the first name. This record could not be used to justify a first name for the child. Another record, perhaps a baptismal record, could show the child’s first name. By using the surety value I could then show all the facts about the birth as rock solid which would show on the list of facts for a person. Very useful feature for research and seeing what I needed to work on, etc.

Switching to Rootsmagic in 2014, after correcting many items that were not directly translatable to RM, I found that I lost much of the granularity of rating facts based on my source material. I could use Elizabeth Shown Mills approach to describe how a particular source related to a particular fact and I could then add the proof as proven, dis proven or disputed losing the granularity of TMG.

Coming over to FH it seems that I have taken another step backward on this issue being able to set a flag for Private, Preferred, Tentative or Rejected.  I don’t seem to be able to rate how each source relates to a fact like I could in TMG.

In FH is there a way to be more granular in my rating of sources and facts so that I can use this as a way to focus my research?


Edward Sneithe
 

Thank you everyone,

I am using FH7. I don't see anywhere that I can say a fact is proven. It seems to be by default?. The values associated with evidence such as direct, indirect, primary, secondary, etc. I can only see if I open the citation itself?

Also in case of  birth where the given name was not available yet I should classify the entire record as ?

FH7 still does not seem to have the granularity that TMG did and therefore my ability to assess the data that I have is also more difficult to ascertain.

On Monday, January 17, 2022, 02:58:52 PM EST, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:


Even if FH V6 every Citation has an Assessment setting exactly as defined in GEDCOM with four options.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of colevalleygirl@...
Sent: 17 January 2022 19:53
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Surety of sources for a fact

 

Are you using FH7? If so, see this section of the help: https://www.family-historian.co.uk/help/fh7/hh_goto.htm?hh_start.htm#citationassessmentdialog.html

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Edward Sneithe via groups.io
Sent: 17 January 2022 18:41
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Surety of sources for a fact

 

 

I started  with my genealogy about 40 years ago first using paper then in a computer word processor and then moving on to software solutions for genealogy. I switched to The Master Genealogist about 1993 staying with them until late 2014 when support for the development platform was cropped by Microsoft and Wholly Genes decided to end its run.

In TMG I was able to rate the value of sources and citations in a very granular way. For each fact I could Rate each source for that fact across five categories. Principal 1, principal 2, date, place, and memo or note as FH would see it. The rating followed the GEDCOM standard of using values of 0 to 3. In practice I would rate a source for a fact across these five categories. So for source 1 I may give the date a value of 2 while source 2 may generate a value of 3. 3 being a rock solid value. TMG would then allow me to customize the display of facts to show these 5 categories. It would also show the highest value for these categories based on my sources. I could then look at the facts and quickly see what facts were rock solid and which pieces needed work.

I have run into several birth registers (the source the state would use to create a birth certificate) where it was registered before the parents named the child so that the record would show “Baby” or “Infant” for the first name. This record could not be used to justify a first name for the child. Another record, perhaps a baptismal record, could show the child’s first name. By using the surety value I could then show all the facts about the birth as rock solid which would show on the list of facts for a person. Very useful feature for research and seeing what I needed to work on, etc.

Switching to Rootsmagic in 2014, after correcting many items that were not directly translatable to RM, I found that I lost much of the granularity of rating facts based on my source material. I could use Elizabeth Shown Mills approach to describe how a particular source related to a particular fact and I could then add the proof as proven, dis proven or disputed losing the granularity of TMG.

Coming over to FH it seems that I have taken another step backward on this issue being able to set a flag for Private, Preferred, Tentative or Rejected.  I don’t seem to be able to rate how each source relates to a fact like I could in TMG.

In FH is there a way to be more granular in my rating of sources and facts so that I can use this as a way to focus my research?


colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

Some people might say a fact is never proven... there’s always the chance that a new piece of information comes along to upend your belief.  Which may be why GEDCOM doesn’t define any way of marking a Fact as Proven.  You do have Fact Flags as I think Mike T mentioned earlier.  (Preferred, Rejected, Tentative or Private). You could mark the facts you don’t feel are ‘proven’ as Tentative.

 

In the case of the birth where the name is not available at registration, you only have evidence for the birth date/place/parents etc. Wouldn’t you cite a source for the name against the Name, not the birth fact?

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Edward Sneithe via groups.io
Sent: 18 January 2022 18:12
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Surety of sources for a fact

 

Thank you everyone,

 

I am using FH7. I don't see anywhere that I can say a fact is proven. It seems to be by default?. The values associated with evidence such as direct, indirect, primary, secondary, etc. I can only see if I open the citation itself?

 

Also in case of  birth where the given name was not available yet I should classify the entire record as ?

 

FH7 still does not seem to have the granularity that TMG did and therefore my ability to assess the data that I have is also more difficult to ascertain.

 

On Monday, January 17, 2022, 02:58:52 PM EST, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:

 

 

Even if FH V6 every Citation has an Assessment setting exactly as defined in GEDCOM with four options.


Edward Sneithe
 

Yes I would  cite both the name and the birth event. The fact that the given name might be in question is obscure.

I can work with FH way of doing things and I have not seen anyone else having a different approach.

TMG came from a forensic background so value of evidence was very import hence the granularity and I rather liked that level of detail. However TMG is at least 8 years out of date at this point so not a real option.

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022, 01:27:52 PM EST, colevalleygirl@... <colevalleygirl@...> wrote:


Some people might say a fact is never proven... there’s always the chance that a new piece of information comes along to upend your belief.  Which may be why GEDCOM doesn’t define any way of marking a Fact as Proven.  You do have Fact Flags as I think Mike T mentioned earlier.  (Preferred, Rejected, Tentative or Private). You could mark the facts you don’t feel are ‘proven’ as Tentative.

 

In the case of the birth where the name is not available at registration, you only have evidence for the birth date/place/parents etc. Wouldn’t you cite a source for the name against the Name, not the birth fact?

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Edward Sneithe via groups.io
Sent: 18 January 2022 18:12
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Surety of sources for a fact

 

Thank you everyone,

 

I am using FH7. I don't see anywhere that I can say a fact is proven. It seems to be by default?. The values associated with evidence such as direct, indirect, primary, secondary, etc. I can only see if I open the citation itself?

 

Also in case of  birth where the given name was not available yet I should classify the entire record as ?

 

FH7 still does not seem to have the granularity that TMG did and therefore my ability to assess the data that I have is also more difficult to ascertain.

 

On Monday, January 17, 2022, 02:58:52 PM EST, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:

 

 

Even if FH V6 every Citation has an Assessment setting exactly as defined in GEDCOM with four options.