Pat Hickin wrote: [snip] > that instead of a letter you culd use a number system: e.g., > 0=no sources; 1 = extremely poor citations, 3=mediocre > sourcing; 4= fair sourcing, 5=good sourcing, etc. [snip]
Thing is, what I consider a gold-plated good source, others wave off as a poor source. Then too, the very definition of "Source" has changed significantly since 1970. Back then it was "where did I find this"; now it's more "how official is this" combined with "how true is it." And in conclusion, there's a non-trivial difference between "good source" and "good sourcing". Unfortunately, the two seem to muddled together in most conversations/threads. A good source can survive an extremely poor citation; a poor source cannot be improved by an excellent citation. Cheryl Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
