David, You have accurately described a problem with editing the Details in a Source record. I still am a lumper and rather than do it on a geographical basis, as yourself, I lump using where I got the information from and the year eg. all censuses from Ancestry are lumped together for each year. I lump largely because I do not wish to have a long list of sources on my web pages/reports, not because of taking up memory. I also skimp on what I put in the Source Detail in order to minimise the possiblity of error.
Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________________________ *New* Insert Pictures Into your Web Pages - Blogs http://www.fergys.co.uk View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ _____________________________________________________________________ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com > Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source > Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:04:32 +0000 > > Hi everyone, > > It will be much later on in the weekend before I am able to read the replies > to this, but hear goes (again). I have really tried to look back in the > archives to read the long thread on 'lumping and splitting' but it is no > longer there. > > When Legacy 7 was released with the new sourcewriter tool, I made two > decisions. Firstly, that I would convert my sources to the 'new system' and > secondly to try and lump my sources together, taking the advice in Evidence > Explained on page 259: > > "Most researchers find that the Source List is not the place to list census > entries by household or personal name. That level of detail in a Source List > soon makes the list unmanageable." > > I am generally very pleased with the new sourcewriter, but have got myself > in a real mess with lumping sources together. I just wondered how others > were managing with this and if I am doing something drastically wrong. I am > in the process of splitting all my sources once more, coming to the > conclusion that I am certainly not one of those 'Most researchers'. > > Example: If I lump together all my Staffordshire census details for 1901, I > may have 10 different addresses. Let's say, there are 5 people living at > each address - that's 50 people (some which may have duplicate names). I > have been very careful in transcribing all the census information and have > attached all the .jpg files with the digital copies of the census to the > detail source. I have carefully used the clipboard to copy the census > details linked to the appropriate 'events'. I may have cited the 'detail > source' for one person often three or more times - to link to occupation, > address, name/alt.name, birth etc. All is going fine, and I finish the job. > The next day I notice I have made a transcription error in transcribing the > details from the census at one location and need to put it right. > > If I go the Master source list and find all the people linked to the Master > source, I get 50 people. Firstly I have to locate which 5 people were > living at the particular address where I want to make the correction. > Having done that I have to go to each individuals record and either make the > alteration (often 3 or more times for each person, as I have cited the > census for address, alt.name, occupation etc) or make the alteration once > and use the clipboard. Even if I use the clipboard I have to alter it for > each individual person because the ID of the person changes with each > different person that lived at that address. > > I don't know if people have followed this so far, but it seems rather a > complicated process. So much easier is it to use a separate Master source > for each individual address and to add the transcription and .jpg files to > the master source. Then if you find an error, one alteration and click the > button that says alter all master sources (or words to that effect) and the > job is done. I can hear people say, because the templates have been set up > in a particular way you still need to use the 'Detail Source' to input some > of the information (I would actually prefer to have this information as part > of the master source), but as far as I can see, the less information you put > in the 'Detail Source' the better - the less you need to alter if you find > an error. > > I can't see the problem in having a long Master Source list. My computer > can deal with it, and providing you are careful and consistent in the way > you name Master sources I can't see the problem. Or perhaps I'm missing > something.......... > > Best wishes > > David > > ***************************************************** > David S Brookes > Musical Director, The Brewood Singers > www.brewoodsingers.co.uk > Organist & Choirmaster, Polesworth Abbey > www.polesworthabbey.co.uk > ***************************************************** > _________________________________________________________________ See the most popular videos on the web http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/ Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
