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
