Hi everyone,
Thank you all for your responses. I guess folk are divided as to split or
lump. I think there does seem to be a problem with editing the detail
source (en bloc) as people have obviously experienced.
Gail's idea of "having identical citation details entered only once, and
then creating multiple links to different people (instead of having to
create multiple entries of the same detail each time it is needed)" seems
very sensible to me, and I guess it would save on hard drive space too.
It was perhaps the comment by Shirley "I don't lump census sources either.
I have over 26,000 people in my data base, and hundreds, perhaps thousands
of census records. I don't find the length of the list to be unmanageable"
that convinces me that splitting sources is the way it will work better for
me. The size of my database is only a fraction of the size of Shirley's - I
can't ever imagine me having the time to research so many folk - Shirley
must be very dedicated, as I know many of you are.
There is obviously a concern about 'citations' in report and as Ward
suggests, we will only know the final result of this when the problems have
been sorted.
Thanks once more for your posts and your patience.
Best wishes
David
*****************************************************
David S Brookes
Musical Director, The Brewood Singers
www.brewoodsingers.co.uk
Organist & Choirmaster, Polesworth Abbey
www.polesworthabbey.co.uk
*****************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of music-line
Sent: 07 November 2008 10:05
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
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
