RE: [LegacyUG] How to Represent a "Best Fit" Ancestor
Paula, That is far from a stupid question, and is one which I have often asked myself. Like yourself, I am sure I have used it in both ways, as an assessment of the strength of the reporting, or of the evidence itself. So I suppose my answer would be that it is an assessment as to the overall likelihood of the evidence being correct, relevant and appropriate. A rather vague definition but, as far as I can see the best we've got! Ron Ferguson _ Tutorials: Programme of adding videos commenced 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/ _ > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:51:10 -0700 > From: paula.ryb...@sbcglobal.net > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] How to Represent a "Best Fit" Ancestor > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > > > So, at the risk of asking a stupid question... The surety level is a rating > of how well you think the source document supports the data? Not a rating of > how accurate you think the source document is. Like: I'm positive this census > listing proves my grandfather is the son of these people, but I'm only > reasonably sure the age of my grandfather in the listing was enumerated OR > I'm pretty sure the birth place of my grandfather's father is enumerated > incorrectly...? The census IS the census... surety=4, but some data on it is > inaccurate, while others are accurate but don't for sure prove my > relationship...? Just wondering out loud, because I think I have used the > surety level in different ways at different times. (eek!) > Please DO feel free to point me to someplace that explains this field's use, > since I probably have not read it. ;) > Thanks, > --Paula > > --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Jenny M Benson wrote: > >> Connie Sheets wrote >>> Personally, I think it is a very bad idea to link >> people in your database until you have obtained solid direct >> evidence of a relationship, or you have completed a >> "reasonably exhaustive search" so that you can construct a >> proof argument using indirect evidence. (It's more >> complicated than that, but that is the basic guideline I >> use). >> >> Surely this is where the Surety Level field of Source >> Citations comes in? >> >> If you evidence is largely circumstantial, use a 0 or 1 >> rating; if you think it is somewhat stronger then use a 2. >> >> Exactly what level is used rather depends on personal >> evaluation of the Source - what might be considered level 4 >> proof by one person might only be rated 3 by another. >> Some people, probably you Connie, would not link anyone in >> their family file unless the evidence rated at least a 3. >> >> Personally, I would enter everyone in who I had "an >> interest" but not link anyone where the evidence rated 0. >> >> Other people looking at my data can not only see my sources >> and judge their value for themselves, but can also see how >> much confidence I had in them - that is, when I remember to >> adjust that field! >> -- Jenny M Benson > _ With Windows Live, you can organise, edit, and share your photos. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/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
RE: [LegacyUG] How to Represent a "Best Fit" Ancestor
Jenny, I actually agree with both yourself and Connie. In my first comment on this thread I said that I would quite likely leave them unlinked, as per Connie's method, but obviously whether I would or not does depend on the strength of the evidence. It is, of course, a matter of judgement when one does decide to link two people, and like yourself I would set the surety levely to an appropriate level. Ron Ferguson _ Tutorials: Programme of adding videos commenced 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/ _ > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:02:11 +0100 > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com > From: ge...@cedarbank.me.uk > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] How to Represent a "Best Fit" Ancestor > > Connie Sheets wrote >>Personally, I think it is a very bad idea to link people in your >>database until you have obtained solid direct evidence of a >>relationship, or you have completed a "reasonably exhaustive search" so >>that you can construct a proof argument using indirect evidence. (It's >>more complicated than that, but that is the basic guideline I use). > > Surely this is where the Surety Level field of Source Citations comes > in? > > If you evidence is largely circumstantial, use a 0 or 1 rating; if you > think it is somewhat stronger then use a 2. > > Exactly what level is used rather depends on personal evaluation of the > Source - what might be considered level 4 proof by one person might only > be rated 3 by another. Some people, probably you Connie, would not link > anyone in their family file unless the evidence rated at least a 3. > > Personally, I would enter everyone in who I had "an interest" but not > link anyone where the evidence rated 0. > > Other people looking at my data can not only see my sources and judge > their value for themselves, but can also see how much confidence I had > in them - that is, when I remember to adjust that field! > -- > Jenny M Benson > _ Get the best of MSN on your mobile http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/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
[LegacyUG] Repository of Photos and other items
I want the end notes to reflect that I have copies of Vital Record Documents (i.e. Birth Certificate), books that I own which I am citing as a source, photos of grave markers that I am citing as a source, etc. The rationale is so the reader knows I have the actual document and also that they can obtain a copy from me as well as from the original repository. For some, I am the only repository (i.e. a photo of a grave marker). In this case I am considering listing me as the repository. Does anyone have an opinion or suggestion? For others, a library or government agency is the actual repository plus I have a copy. However, I can't use 2 repositories. Does anyone have an idea for where to note that I have a copy? I tried putting it in the "Comments" box for the source and checking to print it on reports every time, but the "Comment Box" information only prints the first instance and not the second time it is listed in the end notes so it looks like I don't have a copy of any document citing the second entry even though it's the exact same source entry. I hope this isn't too confusing. Does anyone else note in the source citation that they have a copy of the document or book in their possession? Cathy Vallevieni Orange County, CA 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
RE: [LegacyUG] How to Represent a "Best Fit" Ancestor
Jenny, Surety level does not fit all situations. My tentative conclusion is that the Donald who married "A" is the same Donald who was the son of "B" and "C". There is no marriage record since marriage records were not kept in this particular parish for a number of decades. Even if one existed, the groom's parents were not included in marriage records at that time. It is a matter of weighing other evidence - have I accounted for all of the other Donalds of approximately the right age? Did Donald and the bride grow up in nearby locations? Any clues from the naming of children? Etc. Russ -Original Message- From: k...@legacyfamilytree.com [mailto:k...@legacyfamilytree.com] On Behalf Of Jenny M Benson Sent: July 8, 2009 4:02 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] How to Represent a "Best Fit" Ancestor Connie Sheets wrote >Personally, I think it is a very bad idea to link people in your >database until you have obtained solid direct evidence of a >relationship, or you have completed a "reasonably exhaustive search" so >that you can construct a proof argument using indirect evidence. (It's >more complicated than that, but that is the basic guideline I use). Surely this is where the Surety Level field of Source Citations comes in? If you evidence is largely circumstantial, use a 0 or 1 rating; if you think it is somewhat stronger then use a 2. Exactly what level is used rather depends on personal evaluation of the Source - what might be considered level 4 proof by one person might only be rated 3 by another. Some people, probably you Connie, would not link anyone in their family file unless the evidence rated at least a 3. Personally, I would enter everyone in who I had "an interest" but not link anyone where the evidence rated 0. Other people looking at my data can not only see my sources and judge their value for themselves, but can also see how much confidence I had in them - that is, when I remember to adjust that field! -- Jenny M Benson 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
Re: [LegacyUG] How to Represent a "Best Fit" Ancestor
So, at the risk of asking a stupid question... The surety level is a rating of how well you think the source document supports the data? Not a rating of how accurate you think the source document is. Like: I'm positive this census listing proves my grandfather is the son of these people, but I'm only reasonably sure the age of my grandfather in the listing was enumerated OR I'm pretty sure the birth place of my grandfather's father is enumerated incorrectly...? The census IS the census... surety=4, but some data on it is inaccurate, while others are accurate but don't for sure prove my relationship...? Just wondering out loud, because I think I have used the surety level in different ways at different times. (eek!) Please DO feel free to point me to someplace that explains this field's use, since I probably have not read it. ;) Thanks, --Paula --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Jenny M Benson wrote: > Connie Sheets wrote > > Personally, I think it is a very bad idea to link > people in your database until you have obtained solid direct > evidence of a relationship, or you have completed a > "reasonably exhaustive search" so that you can construct a > proof argument using indirect evidence. (It's more > complicated than that, but that is the basic guideline I > use). > > Surely this is where the Surety Level field of Source > Citations comes in? > > If you evidence is largely circumstantial, use a 0 or 1 > rating; if you think it is somewhat stronger then use a 2. > > Exactly what level is used rather depends on personal > evaluation of the Source - what might be considered level 4 > proof by one person might only be rated 3 by another. > Some people, probably you Connie, would not link anyone in > their family file unless the evidence rated at least a 3. > > Personally, I would enter everyone in who I had "an > interest" but not link anyone where the evidence rated 0. > > Other people looking at my data can not only see my sources > and judge their value for themselves, but can also see how > much confidence I had in them - that is, when I remember to > adjust that field! > -- Jenny M Benson 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
Re: [LegacyUG] How to Represent a "Best Fit" Ancestor
Connie Sheets wrote Personally, I think it is a very bad idea to link people in your database until you have obtained solid direct evidence of a relationship, or you have completed a "reasonably exhaustive search" so that you can construct a proof argument using indirect evidence. (It's more complicated than that, but that is the basic guideline I use). Surely this is where the Surety Level field of Source Citations comes in? If you evidence is largely circumstantial, use a 0 or 1 rating; if you think it is somewhat stronger then use a 2. Exactly what level is used rather depends on personal evaluation of the Source - what might be considered level 4 proof by one person might only be rated 3 by another. Some people, probably you Connie, would not link anyone in their family file unless the evidence rated at least a 3. Personally, I would enter everyone in who I had "an interest" but not link anyone where the evidence rated 0. Other people looking at my data can not only see my sources and judge their value for themselves, but can also see how much confidence I had in them - that is, when I remember to adjust that field! -- Jenny M Benson 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
RE: [LegacyUG] How to Represent a "Best Fit" Ancestor
Personally, I think it is a very bad idea to link people in your database until you have obtained solid direct evidence of a relationship, or you have completed a "reasonably exhaustive search" so that you can construct a proof argument using indirect evidence. (It's more complicated than that, but that is the basic guideline I use). Until that time, I enter research targets into the database, with all the supporting documentation I have, but I do not link them. For example, right now, my ancestor, who we'll call Jane Doe, shows in my database with no parents and no siblings. But there is a note to see the records of Tatum Doe, Bennett Doe, and Jesse Doe for additional information. Connie 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
[LegacyUG] Sources Not Printing On To-Do List/Research Log
I have not been able to keep up with reading the list the last couple of months, so my apologies if this has been discussed recently. I checked the archives and found only one reference: Back in January, Jennifer Trahan asked for verification that others were experiencing difficulty with Sources not printing on To Do List/Research Log Reports. The only response was why would anyone want to do that? Well, I would like to do that, as I've just discovered it will simplify greatly my process for keeping a Research Log and noting negative results. However, I'm experiencing the same problem Jennifer did: I've attached the source (deed index) I consulted to the To Do List task, noted in Results that I did not find the individual in the index, and would like to have a printed Research Log. The footnote for the source (the specific deed index) is listed as footnote 1 but the citation itself is completely blank. I'm assuming this is a bug I need to report, or is there something I'm just not seeing to correct this? I'm using the most recent 3/09 update. Connie 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Linking files in Picture Gallery
Hi Dede, They are JPEG files and doing what you suggested retrieved all my lost files, thanks for that useful hint. Ron - Original Message - From: "Dede Holden" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Linking files in Picture Gallery Ron, Are you adding them as pictures under Source Detail (or even as the Master Source)? And when you add them, are you adding them as Pictures or Files? And, are they saved as jpg or tiff or some other picture file, OR are they saved as pdf or doc files? I've just recently had to redo several links, because they were pdf files that I accidentally added as pictures, rather than files. You might want to run this report - Options, Customize, Locations, Test All Multimedia paths. This will give you a report of any missing links. You can then check each file individually to determine why you are not able to see them. Hope this helps. Dede Holden On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Ron And June Weeks wrote: Hi, I have created many links to census pages in the picture gallery using 'files'. When clicking on these links, it displays the information in Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, so far, so good. What I then did was to run msconfig to find out why my computer was taking so long to boot up. I disabled all the startup items that I thought was unnecessary for what I needed. Then going back into Legacy, I found the link to my census pages were disabled, so I re-enabled all the start-up items. I still cannot view the census pages!! Can knowledgeable person advise me so I can couple them back up? Please. Ron Weeks 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Linking files in Picture Gallery
Ron, Are you adding them as pictures under Source Detail (or even as the Master Source)? And when you add them, are you adding them as Pictures or Files? And, are they saved as jpg or tiff or some other picture file, OR are they saved as pdf or doc files? I've just recently had to redo several links, because they were pdf files that I accidentally added as pictures, rather than files. You might want to run this report - Options, Customize, Locations, Test All Multimedia paths. This will give you a report of any missing links. You can then check each file individually to determine why you are not able to see them. Hope this helps. Dede Holden On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Ron And June Weeks wrote: > > Hi, > I have created many links to census pages in the picture gallery using > 'files'. When clicking on these links, it displays the information in > Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, so far, so good. What I then did was to run > msconfig to find out why my computer was taking so long to boot up. I > disabled all the startup items that I thought was unnecessary for what I > needed. > Then going back into Legacy, I found the link to my census pages were > disabled, so I re-enabled all the start-up items. > I still cannot view the census pages!! > Can knowledgeable person advise me so I can couple them back up? Please. > Ron Weeks 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Files saving automatically
Kim Austin wrote I just lost information that I entered in Legacy 7. I entered some impute into my database and than clicked file, open new file. I checked on some information and than closed the new file. I than came back to the original file and all the new information that I entered earlier was gone. OOPS I never had a problem before doing this, so my question is: Is this a bug or did I just goofed up? I'm afraid I can't give you a satisfactory answer to your question, but am just letting you know that your e-mail was received by the group. I very much doubt it is a bug, but not sure what you can have done wrong. -- Jenny M Benson 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
