David: It doesn't sound like you're doing anything wrong in correcting a typo in source details. It can be a tricky process for lumpers who include the detail text and does teach careful proofreading before beginning to attach a source to multiple records.
When it comes to lumping vs splitting, I think a great deal depends on how you intend to use your data and the size of your database. With just over 7,000 individual records I have slightly over 300 sources. If I split the census listings at the address or household level as you suggest, this could increase to thousands of master sources. By being very careful about naming conventions, the list would still maintain order and would, as you say, be relatively manageable. Problems would only occur when producing any sort of material that includes those sources, whether it be a website, book, multi-generational report, gedcom, bibliography, etc. In those cases the source list would be overwhelming. Considering the current problem with source repetition in v.7 it's difficult to see the ramifications but hopefully that will be corrected at some point. The core issue is, What do you intend to do with your database and how will that product be impacted by either lumping or splitting? Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of music-line Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:05 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source 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 ***************************************************** 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