Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth, It depends upon how I'm using the report as to whether I need to edit it. For my own use, or to share with certain cousins, no. If/when I finally get around to applying for certification or submitting an article for consideration for publication, then yes, I will have to do considerable editing. Connie --- On Tue, 12/9/08, Elizabeth Richardson wrote: Connie - do you have a need to edit the report? The citations do print as footnotes if your output is to pdf. - Original Message - From: Connie Sheets clshee...@yahoo.com To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 4:25 PM Elizabeth M. wrote: 2. Work on the word-processing capability, so we don't have to import into other software to create readable biographies, adequate discussions of problems, and proper punctuation--after which we still have the problem of stuffing the genie back into the bottle. I am happy to say I've finally figured out how to get Legacy to almost do what I think it should in the word processing department. As a former skeptic of the Events fields (preferring Notes, but then with the problem of inadequate citation to multiple sources for multiple facts), I discovered (with a little help from this list) the [Notes] [Sources] coding structure for Events. It is easy with this structure to come close to the the free-flowing narrative of word processing. Now, if only the marriage information would print where it should in a narrative report, and footnotes could be exported where they belong (at the bottom of the page, not at the end of the narrative), it would require much less clean-up in a word processor... Connie *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Just one thing about the letter template in Legacy. It assumes that the 'holder' of the letter is the recipient, which of course need not necessarily be the case - but then I suppose one should use the 'historical' letter template. The default also refers to the holder of the letter by surname only, even in the initial 'Footnote/Endnote Citation'. I have not had need to use the 'historical letter' template, but thought I would just have a look (half way through writing this email). Guess what! For subsequent citations it displays full names as the default! Un-hunh. But I have a long-standing practice in this regard, David. I'll discuss the theory behind citations--with users or the programmers--but the programmers' applications of that theory are their own. (Of course, that practice backfires against me when users of this-or-that program, who don't have Evidence! or EE, assume that what the applications do is what Evidence! or EE says. :) Just a little issue here, about the analogy - sometimes it is what *they* want to paint rather than how it will necessarily impact on their audience. ... The music of John Cage, no doubt was composed with the principles of the art, but is not necessarily understood or appreciated by many people. And then, there's Mozart, who[se philosophy was:] I cannot say it will be popular, but don't really care much one way or the other. To quote a well known, but old song, I did it my way! For sure, the analogy still holds. Genealogy, like all the arts, have those who live by Mozart and Frank Sinatra's mantra: I gotta be me! Each of us decide whether we want our work to be understood or appreciated by others or whether we are doing this just for our own gratification. We may cuss the my way folks, when it's our own families they publish on, but none of us would want to forfeit our right to choose our own standards! Elizabeth *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
, I think one has to look at the media in which one is making the presentation. Perhaps ideally this shouldn't matter, but it does, and I would contend that web pages are much more a visual form than a book. I also find that there is nothing worse than a web page full of written detail, and I am as guilty as anybody as simply not reading it! In which case a collection of full citations at the bottom of an individual's web page is unlikely to be read at all. Gee, isn't it fascinating, the infinite variety in the ways human beings assess every situation? :) I feel that my potential cousin has not developed a sufficient standard of proof for his analysis to be acceptable. The problem is created because in that area there are numerous people of approximately the same age with the same first name (Thomas) who married an Ann. The classic problem. Additionally this makes the assumption that my Thomas married, and not all of the pre-marital deaths have been eliminated at this stage. And classic mistakes, especially the latter--which is why the first tenet of the Genealogical Proof Standard calls for reasonably exhaustive research. As far as I am concerned it is still work in progress. It sounds like you've made wise decision! Elizabeth -- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG Hendersonville, Tennessee, USA *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
David wrote: This is specifically to do with the 'Letter' template, but may well be applicable to other templates. If you fill in the field boxes 'correctly', at the end of the Footnote/Endnote Citation, the information could read: privately held by Brookes and the Subsequent Citation could read Brookes to Brookes, 11 Mar 2008. Apart from the issue that I hate being referred to by my surname, there are many Brookes surnames in my database, therefore the clarity one hopes to achieve by being consistent with sources has straight away been compromised. To override the source citation would mean it would no longer conform to the 'suggested standard format'. David, IMO all rules are meant to be broken, or at least bent -- but only if we understand why the rule exists and when it is best to follow it. If we bend a rule at the wrong time or in the wrong way, it will come back and slap us--or sneakily undermine us for the rest of our work, without us realizing why we keep hitting that proverbial brick wall. The convention of using only surnames to identify letter writers in subsequent (short-form) citations is part and parcel of the convention that when we cite authors, we use only surnames to identify them in subsequent citations. Dropping the first name and using only the last is one of the standard ways that the short-form citation is created. However, common sense also has to be applied. If you have two authors or letter-writers named Jones whom you are citing, then--obviously--your subsequent citation has to distinguish which Jones you are referring to in this particular citation. The common-sense approach, which is also the standard, is to use the writer's full name in the short cite. There is nothing wrong with doing that. It all goes back to what I wrote in an earlier post, quoting from EE 2.1 about citation being an art, not a science. Good artists learn the principles of art--form, texture, shape, color, etc.--then adapt those principles as needed to capture the essence of whatever they want to paint. Good researchers learn the principles of citation and then adapt those to fit the quirks of each record or each situation. Of course, there are genealogists who actually prefer rigid formats they can follow without deviating one jot or tittle. Then they can be oh-so-confident that they are being perfect, without having to worry about it (or without actually having to waste time learning those principles :). And, at the other end of the spectrum, others want no rules at all, thinking I'm intelligent and have common sense, so of course I'll do what's needed. But, then, as their experience deepens and broadens, they come to realize that their earlier assumptions as to what was needed didn't cover a lot of things they now wish they had known to include. Been there. Done that. All of it! For most of us, it's part of the metamorphosis we go through as we explore more new materials, more cultures, and more regions. So, David, go right ahead and use full names for all your letter writers, and if anyone says Tsk! Tsk!, then quote Ralph Waldo Emerson (instead of Winston Churchill): A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Elizabeth -- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG Hendersonville, TN *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Ron wrote: It would seem to be that our different reasons for publishing (in whatever form) lead to different conclusions as to what standard of sourcing is appropriate for the published output. This inevitably poses the question as to what should be stored in our respected sources. A decision has to be made at the outset because one cannot pick and choose what to exclude or include when compiling a report. The answer, for me the bare bones, whereas for yourself (I think) a full citation. One could run two databases with differing 'quality' of sources, but not for me, thank you. Ron, you describe the situation well. Some of us are, by nature, minimalists and others are explainers. Obviously, I'm an explainer. As such, I'd ask: what's the harm in it? Too many totally wrong genealogical assertions, unfortunately, exist because someone did not understand a barebones citation, guessed wrong about what it meant, and then put their wrong guess into circulation as a fact. (My mama raised me on the old cliché: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. :) From another perspective: if we strip down our working citations to the barebones that we might eventually publish, we are also stripping away our own ability to evaluate exactly what we have--especially after the recollection of that entire source has gone cold. Even an attached page image doesn't tell us all we need, because looking at one page from a census or one document from a collection is the same as isolating one person out of a photograph and stripping away the whole context of the picture, no? For the last year I have been involved in a discussion with someone as to whether we share the same nth grandfather. He has approached the family from the female side and myself from the male side. We are both agreed the the grandfather married a woman called Ann, but which Ann? By a process of elimination he arrived at an Ann who married my grandfather, and to be fair he has checked and doubled checked but cannot find a marriage that is an 'exact' fit and he may well be correct, probably is, but that does not meet my standard of proof, As a result I will not publish the result. Here in the U.S., when one feels they have developed a good case for an identity--although no document specifically states the connection--the next step is to develop a proof argument that follows the tenets of the Genealogical Proof Standard and then submit the essay to a peer-reviewed genealogical journal such as NGSQ. Has your long-distance cousin developed such a proof argument? Elizabeth - Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Hi everyone, Firstly, before I start, please understand that in relation to many who are members of the LUG, I spend much less time on family history and secondly, my area of expertise definitely lies elsewhere. I have not followed this thread fully, but have been delighted to read a couple of recent posts by Elizabeth Shown Mills. I agree entirely that we should have a standard method of citing sources (at least in theory!). The opening section of Evidence Explained includes some very sound advice which can and should be applied to the areas of research in most disciplines. I know I have mentioned some of the points below before, but would value Elizabeth's input. This is specifically to do with the 'Letter' template, but may well be applicable to other templates. If you fill in the field boxes 'correctly', at the end of the Footnote/Endnote Citation, the information could read: privately held by Brookes and the Subsequent Citation could read Brookes to Brookes, 11 Mar 2008. Apart from the issue that I hate being referred to by my surname, there are many Brookes surnames in my database, therefore the clarity one hopes to achieve by being consistent with sources has straight away been compromised. To override the source citation would mean it would no longer conform to the 'suggested standard format'. I remember reading a light-hearted book, that professed to help people pass exams, where it suggested that in desperation, the writer might even make a statement up and attribute it to, for example, someone like Churchill. By using, just the surname, firstly one is not telling the reader that it is specifically Winston Churchill, and secondly, it would be difficult to prove - because he said so much, nobody would be able to deny that he ever made the remark just attributed to him. Surely a similar vagueness is achieved by just using the surname in our family histories. I know there are occasions when surnames are used as a form of identification/protocol, but my argument is that, while we are questioning the standard way we record sources and how those sources are cited, we ought to question whether this should be acceptable. The way Legacy is set up encourages me to split sources up into very small units. This has implications for the way sources are cited. In Legacy the master source is attached to the individual but the detailed source is copied. This means that any alteration to a master source is done once only, but individuals who are using the same detailed source have to be first of all located, and then altered separately. I know there is a clipboard to help, but, for me, this is sometimes a bit fiddly and occasionally has not worked correctly. As a consequence, I have a census source for each individual address - that way I can easily locate individual living at the same address, by view list, and if necessary make the appropriate alterations. If the software was set up in a different way (i.e. by attaching the same detail sources rather than copying them), I would be more inclined to lump sources together in the way Elizabeth Shone Mills suggests (into year and county, for the U.K). As it is, because of the software I go against what Elizabeth says on pg 259 of 'Evidence Explained', that 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. For me, it makes it unmanageable for me to lump households together in Legacy. The implication that a source for a census should be on a year/county 'level' and that a source for a letter (or as it was, for an email) should be on an individual letter 'level' to me seems somewhat unequal. Under these terms, a single source for a census might be shared by a hundred people or more, but a letter might only be a source for one individual. Having each letters or email as an individual source would generate just as much of a problem for some as lots of census sources. We have discussed this many times before on the LUG, but how we use the software has an implication for how our sources are cited. It's easy for me - my database is small and probably always will be, my aim being to find out more detail about how my ancestors lived rather that adding hundreds of names that mean little to me - I would not have the time to research thousands of people in detail (and I know some of you do), but at least I will be able to leave my children a little knowledge about their ancestors and how they lived. If we are to adhere to or to create a standard for citing sources, does it automatically follow that we should adopt a standard method for inputting information into the software which we choose? I we did this the software would automatically generate our citations in the correct and acceptable way, which will presumably allow others to find the information once more. Or perhaps we all get too hung up on these things?
RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth, At last I have found the time to consider your thoughts, and there is little difference between our points of view. When I first replied I was looking from the point of view of website publishing, in a form which would hopefully assist others in their own research rather than as a research treatise. In this context I do not believe in spoon-feeding the visitor, indeed, I am less than sure that this would be beneficial to him/her in the long run. I entirely agree with your comments regarding the standards of proof being the same irrespective of whether the work is for one's own use or publication, and it would have been better, and more accurate, had I written EG. so others might find them rather than using ie.. The latter does imply that that is the only or main reason for sourcing, and that is not my belief. I take your point on bare bones citations, but that is not what I do for my personal records - eg. I attach census images to the census Source Details, but do not publish these. In any case, the publication of British census images, without a license, is a breach of crown copyright. For my own work I do much as you suggest in your subsequent paragraphs, but this work I store in my ToDos. These cannot be sourced directly but I do include full source details. For the last year I have been involved in a discussion with someone as to whether we share the same nth grandfather. He has approached the family from the female side and myself from the male side. We are both agreed the the grandfather married a woman called Ann, but which Ann? By a process of elimination he arrived at an Ann who married my grandfather, and to be fair he has checked and doubled checked but cannot find a marriage that is an 'exact' fit and he may well be correct, probably is, but that does not meet my standard of proof, As a result I will not publish the result. That is not to say I haven't got things wrong though, and my favourite character is a relation who was a daughter, then a grand-daughter to the same mother (only after her father died though, ah, ie. her grandfather), whose birth name was totally different, and who had a few children before marrying. I am still sure there is also another (female) child I have yet to find! That scenario changed several times before the current position was determined - I hesitate to say before I got it right! It would seem to be that our different reasons for publishing (in whatever form) lead to different conclusions as to what standard of sourcing is appropriate for the published output. This inevitably poses the question as to what should be stored in our respected sources. A decision has to be made at the outset because one cannot pick and choose what to exclude or include when compiling a report. The answer, for me the bare bones, whereas for yourself (I think) a full citation. One could run two databases with differing 'quality' of sources, but not for me, thank you. I hope that I have made it clear that wrt standards we probably have few differences, maybe not the same approach, mais c'est la vie. I freely confess that I have not read your books, and my main problem lies not with what I believe to be their contents, but with the dogmatic way in which some people insist that the standards *must* be applied to all sourcing within our databases rather than as research standards. I was reasonably sure that was not your intention, and I am grateful that you have clarified your position. And, hopefully, that you feel I have clarified mine. Geoff and his team, as you say, have done a great job in programming the source templates to meet your recommendations, and we are each free to include or exclude fields (or even use them in a manner not foreseen), to suit our own objectives. IMO it was never going to be possible for the templates to cover all eventualities, but there is plenty there for us to find something which can be adapted by the user. Which is exactly why I am proceeding very slowly in changing from the old style. The tortoise did beat the hare after all. Ron Ferguson _ *New Tutorial* Publish your Web Pages - Blogs 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/ _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:15:47 -0600 Ron, This is the follow up message I promised. Side diversions came along in the meanwhile. (Someone actually presented me with real dead people to think about, instead of dull, dry theory :). You wrote: one day I would love to debate with you the extent to which the detail of standardisation
RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth, At last I have found the time to consider your thoughts, and there is little difference between our points of view. When I first replied I was looking from the point of view of website publishing, in a form which would hopefully assist others in their own research rather than as a research treatise. In this context I do not believe in spoon-feeding the visitor, indeed, I am less than sure that this would be beneficial to him/her in the long run. I entirely agree with your comments regarding the standards of proof being the same irrespective of whether the work is for one's own use or publication, and it would have been better, and more accurate, had I written EG. so others might find them rather than using ie.. The latter does imply that that is the only or main reason for sourcing, and that is not my belief. I take your point on bare bones citations, but that is not what I do for my personal records - eg. I attach census images to the census Source Details, but do not publish these. In any case, the publication of British census images, without a license, is a breach of crown copyright. For my own work I do much as you suggest in your subsequent paragraphs, but this work I store in my ToDos. These cannot be sourced directly but I do include full source details. For the last year I have been involved in a discussion with someone as to whether we share the same nth grandfather. He has approached the family from the female side and myself from the male side. We are both agreed the the grandfather married a woman called Ann, but which Ann? By a process of elimination he arrived at an Ann who married my grandfather, and to be fair he has checked and doubled checked but cannot find a marriage that is an 'exact' fit and he may well be correct, probably is, but that does not meet my standard of proof, As a result I will not publish the result. That is not to say I haven't got things wrong though, and my favourite character is a relation who was a daughter, then a grand-daughter to the same mother (only after her father died though, ah, ie. her grandfather), whose birth name was totally different, and who had a few children before marrying. I am still sure there is also another (female) child I have yet to find! That scenario changed several times before the current position was determined - I hesitate to say before I got it right! It would seem to be that our different reasons for publishing (in whatever form) lead to different conclusions as to what standard of sourcing is appropriate for the published output. This inevitably poses the question as to what should be stored in our respected sources. A decision has to be made at the outset because one cannot pick and choose what to exclude or include when compiling a report. The answer, for me the bare bones, whereas for yourself (I think) a full citation. One could run two databases with differing 'quality' of sources, but not for me, thank you. I hope that I have made it clear that wrt standards we probably have few differences, maybe not the same approach, mais c'est la vie. I freely confess that I have not read your books, and my main problem lies not with what I believe to be their contents, but with the dogmatic way in which some people insist that the standards *must* be applied to all sourcing within our databases rather than as research standards. I was reasonably sure that was not your intention, and I am grateful that you have clarified your position. And, hopefully, that you feel I have clarified mine. Geoff and his team, as you say, have done a great job in programming the source templates to meet your recommendations, and we are each free to include or exclude fields (or even use them in a manner not foreseen), to suit our own objectives. IMO it was never going to be possible for the templates to cover all eventualities, but there is plenty there for us to find something which can be adapted by the user. Which is exactly why I am proceeding very slowly in changing from the old style. The tortoise did beat the hare after all. Ron Ferguson _ *New Tutorial* Publish your Web Pages - Blogs 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/ _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:15:47 -0600 Ron, This is the follow up message I promised. Side diversions came along in the meanwhile. (Someone actually presented me with real dead people to think about, instead of dull, dry theory :). You wrote: one day I would love to debate with you the extent to which the detail of standardisation
Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Kirsten, I used that example because of a discussion in this group within the last 2 weeks. The discussion centered on whether you would use the book from a certain publisher that you (the poster, I don't recall who that was) found in a library or whether you would use a different citation because you found a copy of that same book on Google. There was an assertion that ESM showed differences in the citation. I must admit that I don't have Evidence Explained so I can't look it up. I did purchase Evidence! when it was released many years ago. I don't know just now where that copy might be. I find the basic source system in Legacy to be just exactly what I need. Wynther, you seem to think that serious genealogists who go to great lengths to pigeon-hole the formatting of sources are somehow superior to just family historians who are just as interested in well-founded research and good communication of that information. I beg to differ, but I doubt anything I might have to say on the subject would dissuade you from your nose-bleed perch. Elizabeth researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson - Original Message - From: Kirsten Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 10:47 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Elizabeth (Richardson): I don't think there *is* a different standard for citing a published book in a brick and mortar library and the same book that's digitized online. For my own convenience I do note the website or library where I found it, but I don't believe that that information is part of a standard citation. There *would* be a difference, however, if the online version happened to be a transcription rather than digitized images--then it's a whole different ballgame. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Elizabeth Richardson Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 5:08 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Perhaps the standards should be changed. They are convoluted and are difficult to understand and follow. For example, a different standard entries for a book that is in a brick and mortar library from the standard for the same book in an online library has no basis in logic and is therefore ridiculous on its face. Keep in mind, too, that few genealogists are professionals and will not be publishing. For those who do publish, the publishers' audience is not the same as those for publications of others types of research. The standard should always be to make certain citations are easily understood by the audience, as that is the essence of communication. Elizabeth Richardson researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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 *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth R. wrote: I used that example because ... There was an assertion that ESM showed differences in the citation. . . . I must admit that I don't have Evidence Explained so I can't look it up. Elizabeth, I smiled at this one. You'd never believe how many times my jaw has dropped off my face at things I've read in one forum or another saying ESM asserts One dear soul (who uses different software) wrote quite a discourse on how he had used Thistlebottoms's published _Book of Marriages_ (names changed to protect the guilty), in which he had found 500 marriage records on his family, and why he had no intention of following ESM's dictates on how to cite marriage records. According to her, the list was told, he had to create a separate Master Source Entry for each of those 500 marriage records in Thistlebottom. Instead, he had decided to do the logical, simple, thing and create one Master Source Entry for Thistlebottom's book and then cite the specific page number each time he mentioned a marriage from it. Gee, how could ESM have made such a simple thing so complicated? After a few exchanges with others on the list, he admitted he had never read ESM's little _Evidence!_ . However, others had told him what it said. (What he clearly missed, of course, was the point that he was not dealing with 500 original marriage certificates inherited from umpteen branches of his family--and even if he had, he could have handled them all with one Master Source Entry for a family collection. In fact, he was not even dealing with 500 marriage records. He was dealing with one book that simply had 500 information statements he was interested in.) And then there's a well-known genealogist in the western states whose lectures and handouts for the past half-dozen years (including those still posted online) inform his audiences and readers that _Evidence!_ insists each time a census is used for a different household, one has to create a different Master Source Entry. Sighh. As with all things genealogical, trusting hearsay and derivative sources without checking the original is a good way to be led astray. Even if the abstract we get is correct insofar as the limited detail that is passed on, the details that are omitted from the abstract can make a tremendous difference in our interpretation and use of that evidence. Elizabeth *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Ward wrote: I would like Millennia to carefully think through the rules for abbreviating source details in footnotes, ... Of course, the solution could also enable user options for more or less aggressive abbreviation rules. And that is the best of all worlds--when software gives us the ability to meet the fullest needs and the flexibility to adapt. And my genealogy experience? Eleven years. :-) Gee, that's about the age I was when I started g. Elizabeth *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Ron, This is the follow up message I promised. Side diversions came along in the meanwhile. (Someone actually presented me with real dead people to think about, instead of dull, dry theory :). You wrote: one day I would love to debate with you the extent to which the detail of standardisation is necessary. Maybe we'll bump into each other sometime - a Legacy Cruise, hmmm. [Yeah, that would be nice.] I know I will never write a book, and my publishing interests are of the website variey and I have, in my own view, always provided clear sources; In the same vein, Elizabeth Richardson also wrote: Keep in mind, too, that few genealogists are professionals and will not be publishing. For those who do publish, the publishers' audience is not the same as those for publications of others types of research. And, more succinctly, you wrote that citations ii) must be reproducible ie. others must be able to find them. iii) must lead to the conclusions derived. Here, my world view of documentation seems to take a different tack--three of them in fact: 1. Whether we publish or whether we don't is immaterial to our identification of our sources. 2. Whether we produce work just for our family or for a journal is immaterial to our identification of sources. 3. The most basic reason for identifying our sources is not so others can find them. Rather, we do it for ourselves--to keep ourselves straight and to provide ourselves all the details that can affect the credibility of the evidence we draw from each source. Re points 1 and 2: IMO, there are no difference in standards or in our research needs, depending upon whether we publish or are just doing research for our own families. We all want and need to do the most reliable work possible for the families we love. Re point 3: If, for example, we view source citation as telling others where to look, then it would work just fine to say Podunk Quarterly 3:27 (a style some journals still use). But after our recollection of that source grows cold and our problem remains unsolved and we come back to reread our notes again in a desperate hope that we can squeeze some other clues from them, what does Podunk Quarterly 3:27 tell us about the nature and validity of the information we got from that source. When we have conflicting information from different sources, how does a barebones citation like that help us decide which source would be the more reliable? When most genealogists use a census search engine at Ancestry, Heritage Quest, Family Search, or ScotlandsPeople and don't find their person, most will just note that they consulted the census and he wasn't there. If someone suggests that they should also identify which online version they consulted, some will argue quite vociferously that it would be overkill to go into a long citation of Ancestry, HQ, FS or SP. After all, the census is the census. But, then, we would not have used the census, would we? We'd have just used the search engine; and all search engines aren't created equal. Even if we had used that site's images and read every image ourselves, it can make a difference whether we used a company that enhanced the image--sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Most of us belong to different subscription sites as different times, depending upon our budgets and which site has more materials for what we're mainly working on at that time. Regardless of the site, when the source is available at others, it's tempting to assume there's no need to cite which subscription site because, after all, we used the actual image. We looked at the actual pension record. Then later we learn that Site A, to which we sometimes belong and sometimes not, had only selected images from those pension files, while Site B, to which we sometimes belong and sometimes not, has far more images for most files. If our notes don't tell us which site we used, then how do we know whether our file for that pension is complete? A million examples could be given, but the bottom line is the same: all sources are not created equal, all editions of a book are not created equal, and all image reproductions are not created equal. If we try to persuade ourselves that these details don't matter, then one of two things will happen: (a) We end up getting stuck because we did not record enough information about the source to let us see where our problems are. Or (b) we end up having to waste time and money going back and redoing more thoroughly what we tried to take a shortcut on. As for the role of publication--and whether Legacy went into overkill by offering so many templates to choose from--much of the concern in messages to this forum over the past few months seems to focus on that concept of we aren't doing this for publication. I would counter that there's a basic misunderstanding here. Models and suggestions in EE (and Legacy) aren't models for *publication.* For publication, most journals and publishing houses
Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth M - I cannot tell you what a breath of fresh air this post is to me. Much of my frustration with my understanding of EE has to do with the handling of census records. The simplicity I seek is to be able to have one, and one only, 1900 US census source (which I have done in spite of my belief that you assert otherwise). I say this because my research, as you have undoubtedly noted from my tag line, is a descendancy project. My grandfather was the youngest of 42 grandchildren (of the 9th child of the focus couple), 31 of whom lived to produce offspring. He was a great-grandchild of the couple that is the focus of my research - I haven't stopped to count the number of their great-grandchildren. The families are found in most western states and usually more than one county within those states. I can see no reason to have the multiples of 1900 census sources this number of people would require should I have a Master Source for even each county where these families lived. By 1930 the number of families has grown geometrically, as would the number of sources required if I were to split them by county. Your caveat regarding different repositories is noted. At this point in time I rely exclusively on Ancestry for these census records. Yes, I wish the index to be better, and sometimes I have to be creative to locate a family, but it is not the index that is the source, rather the online image of the census. Some earlier work was done in SLC or at NARA and I have paper copies, and a few families were found with Heritage Quest's 1870 images, but in most instances I have since gone online to retrieve the digital image, so am able to accurately cite only Ancestry. I think the strict construction I observed in Evidence! has been my source of rebellion. The software I had at the time made it difficult to emulate that construction, so I recorded as much information as I needed (or thought I needed), and worried less about format than content. The Legacy basic source system - so far - has enabled me to write well-formatted sources, but I freely admit that some of that early stuff lacks enough information to come up to par. In all aspects, it is a work in progress. Elizabeth researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:44 AM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Elizabeth R. wrote: I used that example because ... There was an assertion that ESM showed differences in the citation. . . . I must admit that I don't have Evidence Explained so I can't look it up. Elizabeth, I smiled at this one. You'd never believe how many times my jaw has dropped off my face at things I've read in one forum or another saying ESM asserts One dear soul (who uses different software) wrote quite a discourse on how he had used Thistlebottoms's published _Book of Marriages_ (names changed to protect the guilty), in which he had found 500 marriage records on his family, and why he had no intention of following ESM's dictates on how to cite marriage records. According to her, the list was told, he had to create a separate Master Source Entry for each of those 500 marriage records in Thistlebottom. Instead, he had decided to do the logical, simple, thing and create one Master Source Entry for Thistlebottom's book and then cite the specific page number each time he mentioned a marriage from it. Gee, how could ESM have made such a simple thing so complicated? After a few exchanges with others on the list, he admitted he had never read ESM's little _Evidence!_ . However, others had told him what it said. (What he clearly missed, of course, was the point that he was not dealing with 500 original marriage certificates inherited from umpteen branches of his family--and even if he had, he could have handled them all with one Master Source Entry for a family collection. In fact, he was not even dealing with 500 marriage records. He was dealing with one book that simply had 500 information statements he was interested in.) And then there's a well-known genealogist in the western states whose lectures and handouts for the past half-dozen years (including those still posted online) inform his audiences and readers that _Evidence!_ insists each time a census is used for a different household, one has to create a different Master Source Entry. Sighh. As with all things genealogical, trusting hearsay and derivative sources without checking the original is a good way to be led astray. Even if the abstract we get is correct insofar as the limited detail that is passed on, the details that are omitted from the abstract can make a tremendous difference in our interpretation and use of that evidence. Elizabeth *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt
Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
I thoroughly enjoyed the philosophical discussions that resulted from this thread. Now back to observations about how the current Legacy implementation is behaving and should behave. BTW, I discovered that when I change the footnote option for Descendant Narrative Reports from footnotes on each page to endnotes at the end, then the behavior is the same as for Family Group Sheets: no subsequent citations at all, just repeated full citations. Before I forward this to Legacy Support, does anyone have a suggestion for the desired program logic for omitting certain source _detail_ fields for subsequent citations of the master source? Here is my suggestion, which may or may not be practical to implement: - If all detail fields are identical to those in a previous footnote (save for noise things like extra blanks), then use the short form. This can still lead to an ambiguous short form footnote, if there had been 2 or more long form footnotes that differed only in the fields to be omitted. I think this is OK, but I don't know what one should do with this case even in the manual publishing world. Note that there is no dependence on knowing whether or not the duplicate citation had resulted from using the source clipboard. Ward - Original Message - From: Ward Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Connie, I had had trouble figuring this out in the past, but gave up due to the bugs. I just experimented with the new version. Here are the results. Note that both the master text and the detail text can be abbreviated for the subsequent citations, as viewed on the Source Detail panels. Family Group Sheet: Each footnote is the full citation text -- no 'subsequent' citations -- as you described. I assume that this is a bug. Descendant Narrative Report (I am using individual footnotes, displayed on each page.): - The first footnote of the master source has the full text for both the master portion and the detail portion. - All other footnotes of the master source show the subsequent citation form. I.e., they have the same source 'fields' omitted from the master portion and from the detail portion. This is also a problem! If the detail information in a field that gets removed is different from the first citation, it will never be seen. Example below. I'm not sure what the solution is though. I have written about this before. How should Legacy figure out that a citation qualifies a subsequent, for the detail portion? Should it compare the text of all the detail fields for an exact character by character match with every previous footnote from the same master? Example: As you will see, for this particular source type (Grave Markers, Rural), one master field and 2 detail fields will be omitted from the subsequent citation. The 3 detail fields begin with the person's name. If only I could be permitted to use bolding and underlining. :-) Source Data #1 : Footnote/Endnote Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio; High Street, behind Methodist Church), Joseph T. Walker marker, Personally read, 2008. Subsequent Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio), Joseph T. Walker marker. Source Data #2: Footnote/Endnote Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio; High Street, behind Methodist Church), Joseph T. Walker marker, This is a test of a subsequent citation., 2008. Subsequent Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio), Joseph T. Walker marker. Source Data #3: Footnote/Endnote Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio; High Street, behind Methodist Church), Margaret S. Walker marker, Personally read, 2008. Subsequent Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio), Margaret S. Walker marker. Results: The master field text 'behind Methodist Church' is only shown on the very first footnote for this master source. This is fine. The detail text in the middle field of #2 and #3 is never seen. The first footnote (for this master) in the report happens to be the full citation from #1. The second footnote is the subsequent from #2. The third is the subsequent from #3. Desired Output: The second and third footnotes should show all the detail since it is not identical to any earlier citation. Even that rule is not very clear. What if there is another citation of the Joseph T. Walker marker and the rest of the detail matches one of the above 2 details? If the 'subsequent' form is used in the footnote, the reader won't know what to assume for the missing fields. I think that 'lumpers' who rely heavily on the detail text will have a lot of trouble with this. Ward - Original Message - From: Connie Sheets [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008
RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth: I believe that discussion was based on a misinterpretation. I do have _EE_ and it's pretty clear on citation of published books. In fact, I believe I responded to that thread, but the discussion (and misinterpretation) continued. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Elizabeth Richardson Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:34 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Kirsten, I used that example because of a discussion in this group within the last 2 weeks. The discussion centered on whether you would use the book from a certain publisher that you (the poster, I don't recall who that was) found in a library or whether you would use a different citation because you found a copy of that same book on Google. There was an assertion that ESM showed differences in the citation. I must admit that I don't have Evidence Explained so I can't look it up. I did purchase Evidence! when it was released many years ago. I don't know just now where that copy might be. I find the basic source system in Legacy to be just exactly what I need. Wynther, you seem to think that serious genealogists who go to great lengths to pigeon-hole the formatting of sources are somehow superior to just family historians who are just as interested in well-founded research and good communication of that information. I beg to differ, but I doubt anything I might have to say on the subject would dissuade you from your nose-bleed perch. Elizabeth researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson - Original Message - From: Kirsten Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 10:47 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Elizabeth (Richardson): I don't think there *is* a different standard for citing a published book in a brick and mortar library and the same book that's digitized online. For my own convenience I do note the website or library where I found it, but I don't believe that that information is part of a standard citation. There *would* be a difference, however, if the online version happened to be a transcription rather than digitized images--then it's a whole different ballgame. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Elizabeth Richardson Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 5:08 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Perhaps the standards should be changed. They are convoluted and are difficult to understand and follow. For example, a different standard entries for a book that is in a brick and mortar library from the standard for the same book in an online library has no basis in logic and is therefore ridiculous on its face. Keep in mind, too, that few genealogists are professionals and will not be publishing. For those who do publish, the publishers' audience is not the same as those for publications of others types of research. The standard should always be to make certain citations are easily understood by the audience, as that is the essence of communication. Elizabeth Richardson researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Thanks, Kirsten. Subsequent posts from ESM herself have been very enlightening! It would seem that misinterpretation and confusion abound. Elizabeth researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson - Original Message - From: Kirsten Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:49 AM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Elizabeth: I believe that discussion was based on a misinterpretation. I do have _EE_ and it's pretty clear on citation of published books. In fact, I believe I responded to that thread, but the discussion (and misinterpretation) continued. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Elizabeth Richardson Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:34 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Kirsten, I used that example because of a discussion in this group within the last 2 weeks. The discussion centered on whether you would use the book from a certain publisher that you (the poster, I don't recall who that was) found in a library or whether you would use a different citation because you found a copy of that same book on Google. There was an assertion that ESM showed differences in the citation. I must admit that I don't have Evidence Explained so I can't look it up. I did purchase Evidence! when it was released many years ago. I don't know just now where that copy might be. I find the basic source system in Legacy to be just exactly what I need. Wynther, you seem to think that serious genealogists who go to great lengths to pigeon-hole the formatting of sources are somehow superior to just family historians who are just as interested in well-founded research and good communication of that information. I beg to differ, but I doubt anything I might have to say on the subject would dissuade you from your nose-bleed perch. Elizabeth researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson - Original Message - From: Kirsten Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 10:47 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Elizabeth (Richardson): I don't think there *is* a different standard for citing a published book in a brick and mortar library and the same book that's digitized online. For my own convenience I do note the website or library where I found it, but I don't believe that that information is part of a standard citation. There *would* be a difference, however, if the online version happened to be a transcription rather than digitized images--then it's a whole different ballgame. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Elizabeth Richardson Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 5:08 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Perhaps the standards should be changed. They are convoluted and are difficult to understand and follow. For example, a different standard entries for a book that is in a brick and mortar library from the standard for the same book in an online library has no basis in logic and is therefore ridiculous on its face. Keep in mind, too, that few genealogists are professionals and will not be publishing. For those who do publish, the publishers' audience is not the same as those for publications of others types of research. The standard should always be to make certain citations are easily understood by the audience, as that is the essence of communication. Elizabeth Richardson researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth: Agreed on both counts. The first pass through _EE_ can leave you dizzy just from the sheer number of variables, and Legacy's source templates are designed to try and accommodate all of those. I think where we sometimes go wrong is in trying to fill in *all* the template fields and forgetting that not every field is applicable to every situation. As you've said several times before, it finally boils down to a matter of common sense. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Elizabeth Richardson Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:05 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Thanks, Kirsten. Subsequent posts from ESM herself have been very enlightening! It would seem that misinterpretation and confusion abound. Elizabeth researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson - Original Message - From: Kirsten Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:49 AM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Elizabeth: I believe that discussion was based on a misinterpretation. I do have _EE_ and it's pretty clear on citation of published books. In fact, I believe I responded to that thread, but the discussion (and misinterpretation) continued. Kirsten *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Ward Walker wrote: Before I forward this to Legacy Support, does anyone have a suggestion for the desired program logic for omitting certain source _detail_ fields for subsequent citations of the master source? Here is my suggestion, which may or may not be practical to implement: - If all detail fields are identical to those in a previous footnote (save for noise things like extra blanks), then use the short form. This can still lead to an ambiguous short form footnote, if there had been 2 or more long form footnotes that differed only in the fields to be omitted. I think this is OK, but I don't know what one should do with this case even in the manual publishing world. Ward, thanks for confirming in your earlier post that (at least part of) the problem I was seeing does seem to be a bug. I have not had time to thoroughly consider the many responses on this thread (I never thought my post would bring ESM out of the woodwork), nor the needs of the extreme lumpers (I'm probably middle of the road), but my first thought is that if the detail is identical, regardless of ones citation style, the short form (subsequent citation) format should be used. But my point is that even if the detail is different, the short form of the Master Source should always have priority and be used after the first citation. I don't understand how that would affect lumpers negatively. I also don't understand why there would be a need to short form the detail, but if there is then there should be a check box which allows us to always include entire detail in subsequent citations. However, as I've worked with more templates today, it seems that Legacy has been programmed to combine a short form of the Master Source and a short form for the Details into some kind of strange hybrid, although I have yet to figure out what pattern if any there is to this process. In the meantime, if I want my reports (once the bugs are fixed) to read like they should regarding subsequent citations, it looks as though my only option is to ignore the subsequent citation format for the Master Source and make sure I create overrides for each and every detail Connie Sheets *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Connie, For the fields of the master source, there is no problem or ambiguity when the short form gets used. The master never changes from citation to citation. Your only bug is that the short form (subsequent citation) is being used in some reports and not in others. It should be used consistently, whether the footnotes are by page or all together at the end. And the short version of the master fields should be used regardless of whether or not a short version of the detail fields is valid. (Or at least I would think. I haven't tried this conclusion out on a really complex, intertwined type of source.) For the fields of the detail source, you make a valid suggestion. To paraphrase, the standard rule could be to always display the short form of the detail fields (on any subsequent citation of the master source) unless a user checkbox is checked on the individual source detail citation panel. Or maybe vice versa: always display all the detail, unless the checkbox is checked. This would certainly be simpler for the programmers than would my suggestion. Hope I am adding clarity rather than confusion. :-) Ward - Original Message - From: Connie Sheets [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Ward Walker wrote: Before I forward this to Legacy Support, does anyone have a suggestion for the desired program logic for omitting certain source _detail_ fields for subsequent citations of the master source? Here is my suggestion, which may or may not be practical to implement: - If all detail fields are identical to those in a previous footnote (save for noise things like extra blanks), then use the short form. This can still lead to an ambiguous short form footnote, if there had been 2 or more long form footnotes that differed only in the fields to be omitted. I think this is OK, but I don't know what one should do with this case even in the manual publishing world. Ward, thanks for confirming in your earlier post that (at least part of) the problem I was seeing does seem to be a bug. I have not had time to thoroughly consider the many responses on this thread (I never thought my post would bring ESM out of the woodwork), nor the needs of the extreme lumpers (I'm probably middle of the road), but my first thought is that if the detail is identical, regardless of ones citation style, the short form (subsequent citation) format should be used. But my point is that even if the detail is different, the short form of the Master Source should always have priority and be used after the first citation. I don't understand how that would affect lumpers negatively. I also don't understand why there would be a need to short form the detail, but if there is then there should be a check box which allows us to always include entire detail in subsequent citations. However, as I've worked with more templates today, it seems that Legacy has been programmed to combine a short form of the Master Source and a short form for the Details into some kind of strange hybrid, although I have yet to figure out what pattern if any there is to this process. In the meantime, if I want my reports (once the bugs are fixed) to read like they should regarding subsequent citations, it looks as though my only option is to ignore the subsequent citation format for the Master Source and make sure I create overrides for each and every detail Connie Sheets *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth R. wrote: I cannot tell you what a breath of fresh air this post is to me. Much of my frustration with my understanding of EE has to do with the handling of census records. Elizabeth, I wish you had posed this question to me earlier. As I mentioned in one or another message yesterday, it's nigh onto impossible for me to answer each individual inquiry that comes into my mailbox, but I do answer all the related questions posed on two other open forums, APG-L and TGF-L, because a question that's asked in a group situation usually helps many people at once. (Incidentally, no one has to be a professional genealogist to subscribe to these and probably most of the subscribers are lurkers who aren't professionals; they're just there to learn.) I think the strict construction I observed in Evidence! has been my source of rebellion. The software I had at the time made it difficult to emulate that construction, This has been a problem for all of us. For most of the past three decades, software was the tail that wagged the dog, where source citation was concerned. The software has been an incredible boon to genealogy and the organization of all our research and findings; but in order to do citations that met standards, we had to move our reports into word-processing software and manually edit. Once done, then, we could not put the genie back into the bottle. Fortunately our software, like our hobby and our field, has greatly matured. Now, where documentation is concerned, most programs are truly becoming tools that actually enable us to meet standards--which means the proper balance to the dog-and-tail act is very much in sight. It's not a painless process for any of us, but we're getting there fast now. Of course, what we'll need next is for all our software to 1. Let us document our ancestor charts, as we do our group sheets; 2. Work on the word-processing capability, so we don't have to import into other software to create readable biographies, adequate discussions of problems, and proper punctuation--after which we still have the problem of stuffing the genie back into the bottle. so I recorded as much information as I needed (or thought I needed), and worried less about format than content. The Legacy basic source system - so far - has enabled me to write well-formatted sources, but I freely admit that some of that early stuff lacks enough information to come up to par. Ah, yes. We've all been there and done that, and most of us still have files left over from those days! Elizabeth - Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth, I have been out all day today, so have yet to really appreciate your previous post, but will reply tomorrow. However, we are beginning to part company here, your points: 1) I take it that you are referring to sources being included in charts such as the Ancestor Chart. I have no strong feelings about the *option* being available, but it is something I would consider to be inappropriate and would never use. 2) Here we differ, maybe because I am primarily interested in web publishing where it is considered normal to either amend the coding directly, or utilise other software. Indeed, for a multi-tree site it is inevitable, and for eg. Legacy to cover all the options the program would become simply too big. I see no reason, therefore, for the program to include the bells and whistles of a word processor or or even a desktop publisher, and this is well within my definition of program bloat. I believe that these functions are best designed and programmed by those who specialise in the fields, anything else is likely to be second rate. Millennia could co-operate in providing source code to a specialist in this field with the objective of publishing a stand-alone program which could directly read our Legacy data and sold separately, as they have done with other programs. But, please, please not in the basic program. Ron Ferguson _ *New Tutorial* Publish your Web Pages - Blogs 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/ _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:04:30 -0600 Elizabeth R. wrote: I cannot tell you what a breath of fresh air this post is to me. Much of my frustration with my understanding of EE has to do with the handling of census records. Elizabeth, I wish you had posed this question to me earlier. As I mentioned in one or another message yesterday, it's nigh onto impossible for me to answer each individual inquiry that comes into my mailbox, but I do answer all the related questions posed on two other open forums, APG-L and TGF-L, because a question that's asked in a group situation usually helps many people at once. (Incidentally, no one has to be a professional genealogist to subscribe to these and probably most of the subscribers are lurkers who aren't professionals; they're just there to learn.) I think the strict construction I observed in Evidence! has been my source of rebellion. The software I had at the time made it difficult to emulate that construction, This has been a problem for all of us. For most of the past three decades, software was the tail that wagged the dog, where source citation was concerned. The software has been an incredible boon to genealogy and the organization of all our research and findings; but in order to do citations that met standards, we had to move our reports into word-processing software and manually edit. Once done, then, we could not put the genie back into the bottle. Fortunately our software, like our hobby and our field, has greatly matured. Now, where documentation is concerned, most programs are truly becoming tools that actually enable us to meet standards--which means the proper balance to the dog-and-tail act is very much in sight. It's not a painless process for any of us, but we're getting there fast now. Of course, what we'll need next is for all our software to 1. Let us document our ancestor charts, as we do our group sheets; 2. Work on the word-processing capability, so we don't have to import into other software to create readable biographies, adequate discussions of problems, and proper punctuation--after which we still have the problem of stuffing the genie back into the bottle. so I recorded as much information as I needed (or thought I needed), and worried less about format than content. The Legacy basic source system - so far - has enabled me to write well-formatted sources, but I freely admit that some of that early stuff lacks enough information to come up to par. Ah, yes. We've all been there and done that, and most of us still have files left over from those days! Elizabeth - Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG _ Are you a PC? Upload your PC story and show the world http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465942/direct/01/ *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages
RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Ron wrote: However, we are beginning to part company here, your points: That's fine. If two people think exactly alike, something's wrong :). 1) I take it that you are referring to sources being included in charts such as the Ancestor Chart. I have no strong feelings about the *option* being available, but it is something I would consider to be inappropriate and would never use. No source notes would appear on the charts. As once done by the now-defunct Roots program and currently done by one other program, what's done is to place a discreet little superscript source note after each date or place on a chart and then have an attached source-notes page. It's the same principle as writing anything using endnotes. The notes don't get in the way of the text, but the notes are appended to provide support for each assertion. (Incidentally, this is also illustrated in Appendix 2 of _Evidence!_--which means endless inquiries from users wanting to know what software I used to create that documented ancestor chart.) We recognize the need to cite the source of each assertion on a family group sheet. So where's the logic in circulating ancestor charts that provide no whiff of a clue as to where all those names, dates, and places come from? 2) Here we differ, ...[fior] Legacy to cover all the options the program would become simply too big. snip Millennia could co-operate in providing source code to a specialist in this field with the objective of publishing a stand-alone program which could directly read our Legacy data and sold separately, as they have done with other programs. But, please, please not in the basic program. You make an excellent suggestion, Ron. Elizabeth --- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth M. wrote: 2. Work on the word-processing capability, so we don't have to import into other software to create readable biographies, adequate discussions of problems, and proper punctuation--after which we still have the problem of stuffing the genie back into the bottle. I am happy to say I've finally figured out how to get Legacy to almost do what I think it should in the word processing department. As a former skeptic of the Events fields (preferring Notes, but then with the problem of inadequate citation to multiple sources for multiple facts), I discovered (with a little help from this list) the [Notes] [Sources] coding structure for Events. It is easy with this structure to come close to the the free-flowing narrative of word processing. Now, if only the marriage information would print where it should in a narrative report, and footnotes could be exported where they belong (at the bottom of the page, not at the end of the narrative), it would require much less clean-up in a word processor... Connie *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
I fully agree! Just as one shouldn't try to paint the Mona Lisa with a chain saw, neither should one try to sculpt a David with a paint brush. Perhaps what is really needed is a third party full bodied, fully customizable, user friendly report generator --- On Tue, 12/9/08, ronald ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see no reason, therefore, for the program to include the bells and whistles of a word processor or or even a desktop publisher, and this is well within my definition of program bloat. I believe that these functions are best designed and programmed by those who specialise in the fields, anything else is likely to be second rate. Millennia could co-operate in providing source code to a specialist in this field with the objective of publishing a stand-alone program which could directly read our Legacy data and sold separately, as they have done with other programs. But, please, please not in the basic program. Ron Ferguson *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Wynther wrote: Just as one shouldn't try to paint the Mona Lisa with a chain saw, neither should one try to sculpt a David with a paint brush. Gee, that's what a lot of people said, back in the technological dark ages, when rumors began about a preposterous idea of a relational database narratives g So, lots of relational databases now produce narrative. It's just narrative that makes most people groan and few people want to read it. If the big thinkers of two decades ago figured out a way to make a relational database produce written text, I have all the confidence in the world that they're smart enough to eventually make that good prose possible. As for size, well, my first computer had 64 K of memory and wrote very little more than that on a 8 floppy. Today, we can hold a few gigabites on a thumb drive. That gives me a lot of optimism that our brilliant software developers can figure out a way to handle the word processing size problem also. Perhaps what is really needed is a third party full bodied, fully customizable, user friendly report generator That could be feasible--provided it lets the polished genie go back in the bottle, so we don't have to spend days and days reediting, shuffling data around, and otherwise generating what's needed every time a new copy of a descendant narrative is printed or sent to someone from an ongoing database. Optimistically, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Connie, I had had trouble figuring this out in the past, but gave up due to the bugs. I just experimented with the new version. Here are the results. Note that both the master text and the detail text can be abbreviated for the subsequent citations, as viewed on the Source Detail panels. Family Group Sheet: Each footnote is the full citation text -- no 'subsequent' citations -- as you described. I assume that this is a bug. Descendant Narrative Report (I am using individual footnotes, displayed on each page.): - The first footnote of the master source has the full text for both the master portion and the detail portion. - All other footnotes of the master source show the subsequent citation form. I.e., they have the same source 'fields' omitted from the master portion and from the detail portion. This is also a problem! If the detail information in a field that gets removed is different from the first citation, it will never be seen. Example below. I'm not sure what the solution is though. I have written about this before. How should Legacy figure out that a citation qualifies a subsequent, for the detail portion? Should it compare the text of all the detail fields for an exact character by character match with every previous footnote from the same master? Example: As you will see, for this particular source type (Grave Markers, Rural), one master field and 2 detail fields will be omitted from the subsequent citation. The 3 detail fields begin with the person's name. If only I could be permitted to use bolding and underlining. :-) Source Data #1 : Footnote/Endnote Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio; High Street, behind Methodist Church), Joseph T. Walker marker, Personally read, 2008. Subsequent Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio), Joseph T. Walker marker. Source Data #2: Footnote/Endnote Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio; High Street, behind Methodist Church), Joseph T. Walker marker, This is a test of a subsequent citation., 2008. Subsequent Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio), Joseph T. Walker marker. Source Data #3: Footnote/Endnote Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio; High Street, behind Methodist Church), Margaret S. Walker marker, Personally read, 2008. Subsequent Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio), Margaret S. Walker marker. Results: The master field text 'behind Methodist Church' is only shown on the very first footnote for this master source. This is fine. The detail text in the middle field of #2 and #3 is never seen. The first footnote (for this master) in the report happens to be the full citation from #1. The second footnote is the subsequent from #2. The third is the subsequent from #3. Desired Output: The second and third footnotes should show all the detail since it is not identical to any earlier citation. Even that rule is not very clear. What if there is another citation of the Joseph T. Walker marker and the rest of the detail matches one of the above 2 details? If the 'subsequent' form is used in the footnote, the reader won't know what to assume for the missing fields. I think that 'lumpers' who rely heavily on the detail text will have a lot of trouble with this. Ward - Original Message - From: Connie Sheets [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:37 AM Subject: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Using 7.0.0.76 My apologies if this has already been asked/answered, but I could not find exactly what I'm looking for in the archives. I am trying to figure out why the Master Source Subsequent Citation does not print as it is shown onscreen when there are multiple citations in a report (in this case the Family Group Sheet) to the same master source, but with different details for each citation. Is there a checkbox I've overlooked that I need to tick, is this a bug, or am I misunderstanding the standard practice for subsequent citations? Example: The Master Source shows onscreen for the Footnote/Endnote as: Illinois Secretary of State, Illinois Statewide Marriage Index, 1763-1900, database(http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/archives/marriage.html). The Master Source shows onscreen for the Subsequent Citation as: Illinois Secretary of State, Illinois Statewide Marriage Index, 1763-1900. The first citation to this master source on a Family Group Sheet prints (as it should): Illinois Secretary of State, Illinois Statewide Marriage Index, 1763-1900,database(http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/archives/marriag e.html : accessed 4 Oct 2008), entry for William Holland - Jane Corvin; citing Tazewell Co. Marriages, Vol 00A, p. 12. The next citation (in my opinion) should read: Illinois Secretary of State, Illinois Statewide
RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Ward, You wrote: I think that 'lumpers' who rely heavily on the detail text will have a lot of trouble with this. We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs Mills has a lot to answer for!! Ron Ferguson _ *New Tutorial* Publish your Web Pages - Blogs 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/ _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:23:18 -0500 Connie, I had had trouble figuring this out in the past, but gave up due to the bugs. I just experimented with the new version. Here are the results. Note that both the master text and the detail text can be abbreviated for the subsequent citations, as viewed on the Source Detail panels. Family Group Sheet: Each footnote is the full citation text -- no 'subsequent' citations -- as you described. I assume that this is a bug. Descendant Narrative Report (I am using individual footnotes, displayed on each page.): - The first footnote of the master source has the full text for both the master portion and the detail portion. - All other footnotes of the master source show the subsequent citation form. I.e., they have the same source 'fields' omitted from the master portion and from the detail portion. This is also a problem! If the detail information in a field that gets removed is different from the first citation, it will never be seen. Example below. I'm not sure what the solution is though. I have written about this before. How should Legacy figure out that a citation qualifies a subsequent, for the detail portion? Should it compare the text of all the detail fields for an exact character by character match with every previous footnote from the same master? Example: As you will see, for this particular source type (Grave Markers, Rural), one master field and 2 detail fields will be omitted from the subsequent citation. The 3 detail fields begin with the person's name. If only I could be permitted to use bolding and underlining. :-) Source Data #1 : Footnote/Endnote Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio; High Street, behind Methodist Church), Joseph T. Walker marker, Personally read, 2008. Subsequent Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio), Joseph T. Walker marker. Source Data #2: Footnote/Endnote Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio; High Street, behind Methodist Church), Joseph T. Walker marker, This is a test of a subsequent citation., 2008. Subsequent Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio), Joseph T. Walker marker. Source Data #3: Footnote/Endnote Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio; High Street, behind Methodist Church), Margaret S. Walker marker, Personally read, 2008. Subsequent Citation: Highland Cemetery in Mt. Pleasant (Jefferson, Ohio), Margaret S. Walker marker. Results: The master field text 'behind Methodist Church' is only shown on the very first footnote for this master source. This is fine. The detail text in the middle field of #2 and #3 is never seen. The first footnote (for this master) in the report happens to be the full citation from #1. The second footnote is the subsequent from #2. The third is the subsequent from #3. Desired Output: The second and third footnotes should show all the detail since it is not identical to any earlier citation. Even that rule is not very clear. What if there is another citation of the Joseph T. Walker marker and the rest of the detail matches one of the above 2 details? If the 'subsequent' form is used in the footnote, the reader won't know what to assume for the missing fields. Ward - Original Message - From: Connie Sheets To: Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:37 AM Subject: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Using 7.0.0.76 My apologies if this has already been asked/answered, but I could not find exactly what I'm looking for in the archives. I am trying to figure out why the Master Source Subsequent Citation does not print as it is shown onscreen when there are multiple citations in a report (in this case the Family Group Sheet) to the same master source, but with different details for each citation. Is there a checkbox I've overlooked that I need to tick, is this a bug, or am I misunderstanding the standard practice for subsequent citations? Example: The Master Source shows onscreen for the Footnote/Endnote
RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs Mills has a lot to answer for!! Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. g However, I doubt that this will be one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and splitters. The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other realities to live with: 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, although it would be illogical to assume that everyone will automatically perceive all those reasons. Most of us learn their value the hard way--whether that be through time-consuming study or costly mistakes. 2. Computers and software are tools to help us perform our tasks--whatever those tasks may be--according to the standards that exist for each task. 3. If we believe that standards should change to fit every piece of software, then we're arguing for a morass in which there are no standards at all. Some studies have shown that most genealogists today have been doing genealogy for less than a dozen years. Even so, there are many who well remember the state of affairs in the early-to-mid 80s, when genealogical software allowed us no way to cite sources at all--no way, no place, no how. When we begged the designers for some way to do this, they, too, had trouble understanding those standards for writing and documentation we spoke of. Many a time, at one conference or another, they smiled at me so tolerantly before they tsked: Now, Elizabeth. Nobody cares about documentation--nobody but a few 'professionals' like you. (They even had this cute little way of saying professionals that made it sound like a 13-letter dirty word--apparently oblivious to the fact that even genealogists who help others with their research have private lives in which they research their own families.) Today, we are blessed that brilliant developers such as Geoff, and his counterparts at several other major genealogical software firms, not only realize why standards for research and documentation exist, but also are putting immense effort into figuring out how to make their programs produce those standards. Like all of us, their efforts are still a work in progress. Candid discussions in forums such as this, in which users share their experiences in using those tools, helps them greatly. Debating the intricacies of citation, the differences between sources, the ways both effect our analysis of evidence and the reliability of our data--these, too, help us toward our common goal: To find our forebears, separate them from other same name individuals, reconstruct their lives, and assemble them into families whose collective experiences ultimately make ourselves and our world more understandable. Elizabeth - Elizabeth Shown Mills (Whose ancestors have led her on a merry chase through every state east of the Mississippi, half of those to the west, and virtually every country west of Russia) *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Ms. Mills' succinct and practical statement about the practicality of stringent standards for sourcing is most welcome. I continue to pull for Legacy to become the academic software of choice for genealogists; it has much to recommend it. I drifted to Legacy (as I have often said) more or less by accident, from TMG. There are things I still miss about TMG, but the superior graphic interface of Legacy was enough to keep me here. Improved sourcing capabilities with 7.0 pretty further confirmed my choice. I do understand that not everyone feels as I do. I am more than happy to live and let live. Legacy still offers the old style sourcing. But my personal testimony (can you tell that I was raised a Baptist?) is that my research, and my output of that research, has been immeasurably improved and informed by a striving to apply academic standards in the past two years. The work that went before I tend to view as work to be done over. (Note the word striving. As my husband is fond of saying, I know what I am: not there yet!) Janis On 12/7/08 6:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs Mills has a lot to answer for!! Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. g However, I doubt that this will be one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and splitters. The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other realities to live with: 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, although it would be illogical to assume that everyone will automatically perceive all those reasons. Most of us learn their value the hard way--whether that be through time-consuming study or costly mistakes. 2. Computers and software are tools to help us perform our tasks--whatever those tasks may be--according to the standards that exist for each task. 3. If we believe that standards should change to fit every piece of software, then we're arguing for a morass in which there are no standards at all. Some studies have shown that most genealogists today have been doing genealogy for less than a dozen years. Even so, there are many who well remember the state of affairs in the early-to-mid 80s, when genealogical software allowed us no way to cite sources at all--no way, no place, no how. When we begged the designers for some way to do this, they, too, had trouble understanding those standards for writing and documentation we spoke of. Many a time, at one conference or another, they smiled at me so tolerantly before they tsked: Now, Elizabeth. Nobody cares about documentation--nobody but a few 'professionals' like you. (They even had this cute little way of saying professionals that made it sound like a 13-letter dirty word--apparently oblivious to the fact that even genealogists who help others with their research have private lives in which they research their own families.) Today, we are blessed that brilliant developers such as Geoff, and his counterparts at several other major genealogical software firms, not only realize why standards for research and documentation exist, but also are putting immense effort into figuring out how to make their programs produce those standards. Like all of us, their efforts are still a work in progress. Candid discussions in forums such as this, in which users share their experiences in using those tools, helps them greatly. Debating the intricacies of citation, the differences between sources, the ways both effect our analysis of evidence and the reliability of our data--these, too, help us toward our common goal: To find our forebears, separate them from other same name individuals, reconstruct their lives, and assemble them into families whose collective experiences ultimately make ourselves and our world more understandable. Elizabeth - Elizabeth Shown Mills (Whose ancestors have led her on a merry chase through every state east of the Mississippi, half of those to the west, and virtually every country west of Russia) *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** Legacy User Group guidelines:
Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
I wish I had thought to add to my previous post that Ron is clearly a Legacy guru. Regardless of our differences of opinion regarding sourcing, he is the go-to guy for anything about Legacy. Janis On 12/7/08 6:46 PM, Janis L Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ms. Mills' succinct and practical statement about the practicality of stringent standards for sourcing is most welcome. I continue to pull for Legacy to become the academic software of choice for genealogists; it has much to recommend it. I drifted to Legacy (as I have often said) more or less by accident, from TMG. There are things I still miss about TMG, but the superior graphic interface of Legacy was enough to keep me here. Improved sourcing capabilities with 7.0 pretty further confirmed my choice. I do understand that not everyone feels as I do. I am more than happy to live and let live. Legacy still offers the old style sourcing. But my personal testimony (can you tell that I was raised a Baptist?) is that my research, and my output of that research, has been immeasurably improved and informed by a striving to apply academic standards in the past two years. The work that went before I tend to view as work to be done over. (Note the word striving. As my husband is fond of saying, I know what I am: not there yet!) Janis On 12/7/08 6:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs Mills has a lot to answer for!! Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. g However, I doubt that this will be one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and splitters. The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other realities to live with: 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, although it would be illogical to assume that everyone will automatically perceive all those reasons. Most of us learn their value the hard way--whether that be through time-consuming study or costly mistakes. 2. Computers and software are tools to help us perform our tasks--whatever those tasks may be--according to the standards that exist for each task. 3. If we believe that standards should change to fit every piece of software, then we're arguing for a morass in which there are no standards at all. Some studies have shown that most genealogists today have been doing genealogy for less than a dozen years. Even so, there are many who well remember the state of affairs in the early-to-mid 80s, when genealogical software allowed us no way to cite sources at all--no way, no place, no how. When we begged the designers for some way to do this, they, too, had trouble understanding those standards for writing and documentation we spoke of. Many a time, at one conference or another, they smiled at me so tolerantly before they tsked: Now, Elizabeth. Nobody cares about documentation--nobody but a few 'professionals' like you. (They even had this cute little way of saying professionals that made it sound like a 13-letter dirty word--apparently oblivious to the fact that even genealogists who help others with their research have private lives in which they research their own families.) Today, we are blessed that brilliant developers such as Geoff, and his counterparts at several other major genealogical software firms, not only realize why standards for research and documentation exist, but also are putting immense effort into figuring out how to make their programs produce those standards. Like all of us, their efforts are still a work in progress. Candid discussions in forums such as this, in which users share their experiences in using those tools, helps them greatly. Debating the intricacies of citation, the differences between sources, the ways both effect our analysis of evidence and the reliability of our data--these, too, help us toward our common goal: To find our forebears, separate them from other same name individuals, reconstruct their lives, and assemble them into families whose collective experiences ultimately make ourselves and our world more understandable. Elizabeth - Elizabeth Shown Mills (Whose ancestors have led her on a merry chase through every
Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Wow. I didn't expect that. Thank you Elizabeth, for contributing to our Legacy discussion! Personally, I like the using the templates, and I like conforming to standards when it is not too painful to do so. I also like abbreviating footnotes whenever possible. I don't like half-baked software solutions. (I am a recently-retired computer scientist.) I would like Millennia to carefully think through the rules for abbreviating source details in footnotes, carefully explain the rules in the Help, and implement a solution that does not lose data (in the report). If necessary, this solution just might have to error on the side of less abbreviating than we would do in a manually prepared document. Of course, the solution could also enable user options for more or less aggressive abbreviation rules. And my genealogy experience? Eleven years. :-) Ward - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 6:19 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs Mills has a lot to answer for!! Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. g However, I doubt that this will be one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and splitters. The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other realities to live with: 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, although it would be illogical to assume that everyone will automatically perceive all those reasons. Most of us learn their value the hard way--whether that be through time-consuming study or costly mistakes. 2. Computers and software are tools to help us perform our tasks--whatever those tasks may be--according to the standards that exist for each task. 3. If we believe that standards should change to fit every piece of software, then we're arguing for a morass in which there are no standards at all. Some studies have shown that most genealogists today have been doing genealogy for less than a dozen years. Even so, there are many who well remember the state of affairs in the early-to-mid 80s, when genealogical software allowed us no way to cite sources at all--no way, no place, no how. When we begged the designers for some way to do this, they, too, had trouble understanding those standards for writing and documentation we spoke of. Many a time, at one conference or another, they smiled at me so tolerantly before they tsked: Now, Elizabeth. Nobody cares about documentation--nobody but a few 'professionals' like you. (They even had this cute little way of saying professionals that made it sound like a 13-letter dirty word--apparently oblivious to the fact that even genealogists who help others with their research have private lives in which they research their own families.) Today, we are blessed that brilliant developers such as Geoff, and his counterparts at several other major genealogical software firms, not only realize why standards for research and documentation exist, but also are putting immense effort into figuring out how to make their programs produce those standards. Like all of us, their efforts are still a work in progress. Candid discussions in forums such as this, in which users share their experiences in using those tools, helps them greatly. Debating the intricacies of citation, the differences between sources, the ways both effect our analysis of evidence and the reliability of our data--these, too, help us toward our common goal: To find our forebears, separate them from other same name individuals, reconstruct their lives, and assemble them into families whose collective experiences ultimately make ourselves and our world more understandable. Elizabeth - Elizabeth Shown Mills (Whose ancestors have led her on a merry chase through every state east of the Mississippi, half of those to the west, and virtually every country west of Russia) *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup
Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Perhaps the standards should be changed. They are convoluted and are difficult to understand and follow. For example, a different standard entries for a book that is in a brick and mortar library from the standard for the same book in an online library has no basis in logic and is therefore ridiculous on its face. Keep in mind, too, that few genealogists are professionals and will not be publishing. For those who do publish, the publishers' audience is not the same as those for publications of others types of research. The standard should always be to make certain citations are easily understood by the audience, as that is the essence of communication. Elizabeth Richardson researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 2:19 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs Mills has a lot to answer for!! Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. g However, I doubt that this will be one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and splitters. The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other realities to live with: 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, although it would be illogical to assume that everyone will automatically perceive all those reasons. Most of us learn their value the hard way--whether that be through time-consuming study or costly mistakes. 2. Computers and software are tools to help us perform our tasks--whatever those tasks may be--according to the standards that exist for each task. 3. If we believe that standards should change to fit every piece of software, then we're arguing for a morass in which there are no standards at all. Some studies have shown that most genealogists today have been doing genealogy for less than a dozen years. Even so, there are many who well remember the state of affairs in the early-to-mid 80s, when genealogical software allowed us no way to cite sources at all--no way, no place, no how. When we begged the designers for some way to do this, they, too, had trouble understanding those standards for writing and documentation we spoke of. Many a time, at one conference or another, they smiled at me so tolerantly before they tsked: Now, Elizabeth. Nobody cares about documentation--nobody but a few 'professionals' like you. (They even had this cute little way of saying professionals that made it sound like a 13-letter dirty word--apparently oblivious to the fact that even genealogists who help others with their research have private lives in which they research their own families.) Today, we are blessed that brilliant developers such as Geoff, and his counterparts at several other major genealogical software firms, not only realize why standards for research and documentation exist, but also are putting immense effort into figuring out how to make their programs produce those standards. Like all of us, their efforts are still a work in progress. Candid discussions in forums such as this, in which users share their experiences in using those tools, helps them greatly. Debating the intricacies of citation, the differences between sources, the ways both effect our analysis of evidence and the reliability of our data--these, too, help us toward our common goal: To find our forebears, separate them from other same name individuals, reconstruct their lives, and assemble them into families whose collective experiences ultimately make ourselves and our world more understandable. Elizabeth - Elizabeth Shown Mills (Whose ancestors have led her on a merry chase through every state east of the Mississippi, half of those to the west, and virtually every country west of Russia) *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Thank-you for the sublime articulation. We're not used to people who even know how to spell. g - JL JLog - simple computer technology for genealogists http://www.jgen.ws/jlog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. g However, I doubt that this will be one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and splitters. The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other realities to live with: 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, although it would be illogical to assume that everyone will automatically perceive all those reasons. Most of us learn their value the hard way--whether that be through time-consuming study or costly mistakes. 2. Computers and software are tools to help us perform our tasks--whatever those tasks may be--according to the standards that exist for each task. 3. If we believe that standards should change to fit every piece of software, then we're arguing for a morass in which there are no standards at all. Some studies have shown that most genealogists today have been doing genealogy for less than a dozen years. Even so, there are many who well remember the state of affairs in the early-to-mid 80s, when genealogical software allowed us no way to cite sources at all--no way, no place, no how. When we begged the designers for some way to do this, they, too, had trouble understanding those standards for writing and documentation we spoke of. Many a time, at one conference or another, they smiled at me so tolerantly before they tsked: Now, Elizabeth. Nobody cares about documentation--nobody but a few 'professionals' like you. (They even had this cute little way of saying professionals that made it sound like a 13-letter dirty word--apparently oblivious to the fact that even genealogists who help others with their research have private lives in which they research their own families.) Today, we are blessed that brilliant developers such as Geoff, and his counterparts at several other major genealogical software firms, not only realize why standards for research and documentation exist, but also are putting immense effort into figuring out how to make their programs produce those standards. Like all of us, their efforts are still a work in progress. Candid discussions in forums such as this, in which users share their experiences in using those tools, helps them greatly. Debating the intricacies of citation, the differences between sources, the ways both effect our analysis of evidence and the reliability of our data--these, too, help us toward our common goal: To find our forebears, separate them from other same name individuals, reconstruct their lives, and assemble them into families whose collective experiences ultimately make ourselves and our world more understandable. Elizabeth - Elizabeth Shown Mills (Whose ancestors have led her on a merry chase through every state east of the Mississippi, half of those to the west, and virtually every country west of Russia) *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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 *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth, Thank you for your comments, which are much appreciated. Initially, may I make it clear that I am well aware of the need for accurate sourcing, or at least as accurately as possible and I am also aware that there is, at least as yet, no such thing as absolute proof. I should add that I spent most of my working life in the sciences, chemistry/physics and computer programming to a lesser extent. Given the necessary mathematical background, during which I was educated in the days of Euclidean Geometry, I guess I am reasonably familiar with the presentation of proof. I expect you are aware that in GB there is no standardised method of sourcing, and no doubt we could debate for a long time as to whether this is a good or bad thing, but I have always been clear on three things: i) The recording of sources must be clear. ii) They must be reproducible ie. others must be able to find them. iii) They must lead to the conclusions derived. Taking the points which you raise: 1) I do not disagree with what you say here, although one day I would love to debate with you the extent to which the detail of standardisation is necessary. Maybe we'll bump into each other sometime - a Legacy Cruise, hmmm. 2) Agreed 3) I would not dream of making such a proposition, especially since computers can only tell the difference between a one and a zero! I know I will never write a book, and my publishing interests are of the website variey and I have, in my own view, always provided clear sources; Numerous people have contacted me after tracing the data through the information which I published - so I know it works for some ;-). I am sure that some of the problems of sourcing are due to differing interpretations of the definition of a Source and an Event. We see it in the posts to this group. Take censuses for example, I regard them as a Source for information relating to individuals eg their name, age, residence at that time, place of birth, occupation etc., whereas others consider them to be Events. Obviously the method sourcing will be quite different. In the former case the census will source the detail in the census, and be linked to residence events etc., whilst in the latter presumably the government will source the census (not doing this way I haven't thought it through in any detail). These differences do, however mean that there are different requirements in detail (I am not referring to the Legacy Source Detail here) and these are manifested, at least in part, by the needs of splitters and lumpers, of which I am but one. For these reasons it is doubtful if there is a wholly satisfactory and universal way of sourcing. Even in the sciences there is a multitude of ways of presenting a conclusion. Finally, I concur with your comments regarding the software developers at Legacy and elsewhere. At the end of the day it is the users who test their efforts to destruction, as anybody who has done any programming will know. One of the major difficulties is that most(?) of the testers probably have had some hands-on experience of developing programs of some sort, and consequently have a sort of set way of thinking which can easily lead to something obvious being missed! Then the inevitable Why was this never picked up?. Ron Ferguson _ *New Tutorial* Publish your Web Pages - Blogs 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/ _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:19:00 -0600 We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs Mills has a lot to answer for!! Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. However, I doubt that this will be one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and splitters. The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other realities to live with: 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, although
Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
In other words... dumb it down; the same solution that has led to the collapse of the american education system. Standards are standards because they do *not* change. One either tries to meet standards or one doesn't. Those who try to meet the standards are called serious genealogists, those who don't are called hobby family historians. I am sick unto death of the I want it all but I want it easy school of thought. --- On Mon, 12/8/08, Elizabeth Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Elizabeth Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 1:08 AM Perhaps the standards should be changed. They are convoluted and are difficult to understand and follow. For example, a different standard entries for a book that is in a brick and mortar library from the standard for the same book in an online library has no basis in logic and is therefore ridiculous on its face. Keep in mind, too, that few genealogists are professionals and will not be publishing. For those who do publish, the publishers' audience is not the same as those for publications of others types of research. The standard should always be to make certain citations are easily understood by the audience, as that is the essence of communication. Elizabeth Richardson researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 2:19 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs Mills has a lot to answer for!! Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. g However, I doubt that this will be one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and splitters. The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other realities to live with: 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, although it would be illogical to assume that everyone will automatically perceive all those reasons. Most of us learn their value the hard way--whether that be through time-consuming study or costly mistakes. 2. Computers and software are tools to help us perform our tasks--whatever those tasks may be--according to the standards that exist for each task. 3. If we believe that standards should change to fit every piece of software, then we're arguing for a morass in which there are no standards at all. Some studies have shown that most genealogists today have been doing genealogy for less than a dozen years. Even so, there are many who well remember the state of affairs in the early-to-mid 80s, when genealogical software allowed us no way to cite sources at all--no way, no place, no how. When we begged the designers for some way to do this, they, too, had trouble understanding those standards for writing and documentation we spoke of. Many a time, at one conference or another, they smiled at me so tolerantly before they tsked: Now, Elizabeth. Nobody cares about documentation--nobody but a few 'professionals' like you. (They even had this cute little way of saying professionals that made it sound like a 13-letter dirty word--apparently oblivious to the fact that even genealogists who help others with their research have private lives in which they research their own families.) Today, we are blessed that brilliant developers such as Geoff, and his counterparts at several other major genealogical software firms, not only realize why standards for research and documentation exist, but also are putting immense effort into figuring out how to make their programs produce those standards. Like all of us, their efforts are still a work in progress. Candid discussions in forums such as this, in which users share their experiences in using those tools, helps them greatly. Debating the intricacies of citation, the differences between sources, the ways both effect our analysis of evidence and the reliability of our data--these, too, help us toward
Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
You have so completely misunderstood my position on this subject. Ms Mills position seems to be that software will tell us how to write citations. That is dumbing it down. People ought to be able to think this stuff through. Name of document, author of document, enough additional information so that the next person can look at it too. Do you really need 5 screens of drop down menus to record this? Absolutely not! Each of us needs to be consistent in how we write sources because in that consistency is good communication. But beyond that, keep it as simple, though clear, as possible. Elizabeth researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson - Original Message - From: Wynthner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue In other words... dumb it down; the same solution that has led to the collapse of the american education system. Standards are standards because they do *not* change. One either tries to meet standards or one doesn't. Those who try to meet the standards are called serious genealogists, those who don't are called hobby family historians. I am sick unto death of the I want it all but I want it easy school of thought. --- On Mon, 12/8/08, Elizabeth Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Elizabeth Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 1:08 AM Perhaps the standards should be changed. They are convoluted and are difficult to understand and follow. For example, a different standard entries for a book that is in a brick and mortar library from the standard for the same book in an online library has no basis in logic and is therefore ridiculous on its face. Keep in mind, too, that few genealogists are professionals and will not be publishing. For those who do publish, the publishers' audience is not the same as those for publications of others types of research. The standard should always be to make certain citations are easily understood by the audience, as that is the essence of communication. Elizabeth Richardson researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 2:19 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs Mills has a lot to answer for!! Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. g However, I doubt that this will be one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and splitters. The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other realities to live with: 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, although it would be illogical to assume that everyone will automatically perceive all those reasons. Most of us learn their value the hard way--whether that be through time-consuming study or costly mistakes. 2. Computers and software are tools to help us perform our tasks--whatever those tasks may be--according to the standards that exist for each task. 3. If we believe that standards should change to fit every piece of software, then we're arguing for a morass in which there are no standards at all. Some studies have shown that most genealogists today have been doing genealogy for less than a dozen years. Even so, there are many who well remember the state of affairs in the early-to-mid 80s, when genealogical software allowed us no way to cite sources at all--no way, no place, no how. When we begged the designers for some way to do this, they, too, had trouble understanding those standards for writing and documentation we spoke of. Many a time, at one conference or another, they smiled at me so tolerantly before they tsked: Now, Elizabeth. Nobody cares about documentation--nobody but a few 'professionals' like you. (They even had this cute little way of saying professionals that made it sound like a 13-letter dirty word--apparently oblivious to the fact that even genealogists who help others
RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Thanks, Ron, for your insight--virtually all of which I agree with. We obviously share a set of core values. As always, though, the devil in the details. One of the fascinating things about genealogy--and one of its strengths, IMO--is the extent to which its practitioners are drawn from so many other fields. Taken together, the diversity of experience and expertise greatly enriches our field. But, of course, that diversity causes us problems. Professionals who write and do research, in whatever field, learn the needs and practices of that field, including citation practices. As a result, many who come into genealogy are dismayed to realize that scientific style citations or MLA style, or legal style, or any of the others from other fields, aren't considered standard in genealogy--simply because they can't handle all our resources. Genealogists with a background in history do tend to have an easier learning curve, documentation-wise, simply because genealogists and historians work with the same sources. At least they do so long as they stay within the confines of their previous bailiwicks in history. But when their family research takes them into new types of sources, they often find that familiar habits no longer fit the new materials. Definitely when they move into new geographic areas, they have international and cultural differences to content with--in both records and practices. That's all part of the learning curve (and the fun :). Against this backdrop, I'll respond specifically to several of your observations: I expect you are aware that in GB there is no standardised method of sourcing, Ah, yes. I learned that lesson exceedingly well between January and June 1987. I'll relate the story, because it makes a clear point, I think, about the direction in which our field is headed. In January '87, as the incoming editor of the _National Genealogical Society Quarterly,_ I inherited a manuscript that my predecessor had accepted. The author was a highly revered, internationally known, English genealogist. (Names aren't mentioned here to protect the guilty.) The topic was the English roots of a seventeenth-century Virginia colonist. The paper was about twenty pages long. All text. Nary a footnote. Note that I just said the paper had already been accepted by my predecessor, so we obviously can't say that American standards were all that great in January '87. g My predecessor had accepted the paper solely because of the reputation of the English genealogist. My predecessor's background, I've been told, was the State Department, where reputations carried a lot of weight. However, my background was history and I was all too aware of the disrespect American genealogy had earned among historians for 100 years--totally because of our haphazard standards. As NGSQ's new editor, I set the same standards for the journal that I had to meet in publishing within the field of history: most specifically, acceptable documentation for every assertion. Ah, how quickly I was instructed by our English writer in the differences between American and British documentation practices! *He* was a renowned authority. His expertise was solid. His judgment was accepted everywhere. And I was both an upstart and an imbecile for questioning his sources. Eventually, I persuaded him to humor our disrespectful American ways. After some weeks, I was informed that he had wasted six hours adding the eleven notes he now submitted for his twenty pages, and he intended to waste no more time. He and the Jamestowne Society, I was informed, expected NGSQ to publish his manuscript precisely as it was. Indeed, before that British-American confrontation ended, both he and the Jamestowne Society expected NGS to get itself a new editor. Unfortunately for international relations, NGS didn't; and NGSQ did not publish the paper. The salient point here is this: when you say in GB there is no standardized method of sourcing, I would smile and add the word yet between is and no, because I'm looking at the wonderful progress that *has* been made in British documentation practices since 1987. You--and this list--are proof of that. I do, in fact, credit our genealogical software, not NGSQ, with creating that progress. Sure, NGSQ has, in my totally biased view, made a significant impact on all areas of genealogical research and analysis here in the U.S. But the software programmers who have recognized that standards are just as important in research as they are in programming are the ones who are reaching the millions of newcomers to genealogy worldwide. It's also their forums, such as this, in which all researchers who understand why sound evidence is important are conveying that message to the newcomers. They, and all of you, are truly educating our field. i) The recording of sources must be clear. ii) They must be reproducible ie. others must be able to find them. iii) They must lead to the conclusions derived. All these points are correct, of
RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth Richardson wrote: People ought to be able to think this stuff through. Name of document, author of document, enough additional information so that the next person can look at it too. Do you really need 5 screens of drop down menus to record this? Absolutely not! ... keep it simple, though clear... Elizabeth, I totally understand your sentiment here. When I use software and I'm faced with five screens of drop-down menus, my tolerance gets tested, too. Still, the problem with the keep it simple concept in genealogy is that the records we use *aren't* simple--unless we're simply citing a plain ol' book. Worse, all the sources we use absolutely defy everybody's efforts to make them simple. There are an infinite variety of types out there. The essentials for one type often are not the same for the next type. If we work primarily in a specific set of resources, simplifying those seems doable. If we work primarily in a specific region, we develop for ourselves what seems to be a simple of principles. But the wider net we cast for records, as our experience and needs and families expand, the more we are absolutely smackgobbed by how UNsimple it all becomes. Let me give you a bit of perspective here, from the experience that went into EE--across 10 years of trying to reduce thousands of variants into as few patterns as possible. EE has twelve chapters that center upon source types (the other two chapters, at the beginning, cover fundamental principles). Starting with Chapter 3, Archives and Artifacts, I worked my way through several dozen types of archival materials and artifacts owned by families, trying to take the long-established principles and tailor them into a basic structure that would work with everything. Eventually, I came up with a few basic patterns that did work for all. Then I started Chapter 4, Business and Institutional Records, addressing all the different types that genealogists had asked for help on across the past decade. Who. That was a rude awakening. The few basic patterns that worked for Archives and Artifacts couldn't handle many of the business and institutional records. That meant Chapter 3 had to be worked through totally again, to create patterns that would work for both categories of records. Then came Chapter 5, Cemetery Records. [EMAIL PROTECTED]*()_+! The same thing happened again. For cemeteries, we have other needs. So, back to the drawing board it was, for Chapters 3, 4, and 5. That process repeated itself almost full time for three years, as I worked through the records of local courts, who organized their materials differently from state-level and national courts, who organized their materials differently from those in England or Australia. Through census records, which was another wild set of variants depending upon whether one cited U.S. federal population returns or state-level censuses in different types of custody or U.S. Native American tribal censuses which are accessed in a totally different way from the population returns. And then through licenses, and registrations, and rolls of all types in all sorts of arrangements in all sorts of places, and vital records, and plain-vanilla publications vs. legal works that are cited differently vs. published government documents which have an entirely different set of parameters. And then there's all those considerations about whether we are using Ancestry images vs. databases--so critical to our analysis of the data we are using. And whether we use this set of microfilm that did selective filming as compared to that set of microfilm that's covers all the record set--even though the two carry the same title. Or whether we use so-and-so's CD that seems to offer the same as the website of similar name but one's a transcript and one's abbreviated abstracts. c c c! Was all this necessary? Obviously, I think so--based on the circumstances that led to it. In 1979, I did an article on source citation for the _Genealogical Helper,_ covering about a dozen types of basic sources, following Turabian which most history grad students get to know quite well. The late Richard Lackey felt that little article didn't suffice and that much more explanation was needed; so he did a wee book that was still about 10 time longer and offered a dozen and a half source categories, with explanations. Then he promptly died and left U.S. researchers for 15 years saying Help! I'm using this source that isn't in _Cite Your Sources!_ How do I cite *this*? The result in 1997, was my little _Evidence!_ with 103 source types, all neatly laid out in clean grids with no caveats about nitpicking differences to bog anybody down. Just about as simple a format as possible to satisfy the demand. Some people groaned at the idea of 103 different ways to cite sources. Others then spent 10 years writing me, calling me, and posting messages on hundreds of forums saying, Help! I'm using this source that isn't in _Evidence!_ So how do I
RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
Elizabeth (Richardson): I don't think there *is* a different standard for citing a published book in a brick and mortar library and the same book that's digitized online. For my own convenience I do note the website or library where I found it, but I don't believe that that information is part of a standard citation. There *would* be a difference, however, if the online version happened to be a transcription rather than digitized images--then it's a whole different ballgame. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Elizabeth Richardson Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 5:08 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Perhaps the standards should be changed. They are convoluted and are difficult to understand and follow. For example, a different standard entries for a book that is in a brick and mortar library from the standard for the same book in an online library has no basis in logic and is therefore ridiculous on its face. Keep in mind, too, that few genealogists are professionals and will not be publishing. For those who do publish, the publishers' audience is not the same as those for publications of others types of research. The standard should always be to make certain citations are easily understood by the audience, as that is the essence of communication. Elizabeth Richardson researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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
