Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing, lumping and splitting
Hi Janis, Well you may be wrong two times a day, but like a broken clock, you could be right two times a day as well. I had thought that this thread had just about run it's course, but I still had found myself profoundly THINKING about how to redo my sources as well. After all, we want to make sure that what we leave behind is meaningful to the genealogists (and don't forget the family historians) of the future. So, I find myself thinking very hard about this, in fact overthinking the whole thing! But what it always comes down to is what makes the most sense to you here and now is what is most important. If you can't find that piece of paper, or know which web site you found that information, then no one in the future can (a voice inside my head says think of the children!). So, IMHO it's a good idea to revisit our sources every once in a while and make sure it makes sense. But careful not to burn yourself out. So there's my two cents.. It helps to just type all this out. Tim - Original Message From: Janis Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:44:53 AM Subject: [LegacyUG] sourcing, lumping and splitting Understanding that some people are tired of this thread, I contend that it is one of the most important issues with which we deal. It is on-topic, because we have to figure out how to handle these issues in this software. I am presently overhauling all of my sources. I have, to my shame (“you don’t know til you know,” as they say), found web sources cited, with no record of the url . (I have had quite a time finding some of them.) I had one source that just said “Howell County Cemetery Book.” I knew, of course, what that meant – Howell County, Missouri, is one of my primary arena’s of research – but that source citation would not be at all meaningful to someone else who was trying to find my sources. It didn’t even specify a state. I also found in my database, Master Sources that cited a book, when I remember that I actually accessed digital images of the book on a website, say newspaperarchives.com. We must always write the source to reflect where we actually viewed the source – and not cite only the original materials which we have never viewed. It is important that we understand and utilize the elements of the source citation – not so it will be “pretty” enough or “rigid” enough to meet some standard; but because those are the very elements that will allow you to find your own source again, or to allow someone else to find it. I am amazed at my own lack of understanding, in my earlier work, of the fact that these sources are very like the load-bearing walls of our work. Without them, the work is not as meaningful., because it cannot be relied upon. One could almost make a case for the fact that without succinct, explicit, and well-thought-out source citations, the work has no meaning. These are clearly individual decisions. It’s hard to think through a source. I have found myself trying it several ways, becoming frustrated, longing for definitive answers, and sometimes leaving it for later because I just don’t want to think that hard right now. It is a matter of critical thinking. Read the first two chapters of the new Elizabeth Shown Mills book. Really read them. Remember that big piece of our job is to THINK. And even after you have written a shining example of the perfect source citation, you still have to THINK and evaluate the meaning of the evidence. My two cents, given from my own experience, and offered with the clear understanding that I am wrong at least twice - every day! Janis 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 Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ 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] sourcing, lumping and splitting
I have to admit that I stopped reading these posts long ago, as I was tired of the thread. But today I discovered one of the best reasons for people to do splitting of sources, rather than lumping (which is my favorite way of doing it). This may have been already raised, and if so, I apologize fully. I am editing a book I plan to publish soon. I am still working just on the PDF print outs, rather than the RTF file which I will do when I am done with entering Legacy data. I am doing a Descendants Book. I have started editing the sources. Well, what a pain in the butt! I have to go back and figure out where I've used source number 112, for example, so that I can edit EACH instance where I attached it. Only one source was I able to edit from the Master list, and what a relief that was, as that saved me hundreds of citations. And when I did that Master Source edit, and it asked, do you want to apply these changes to All occurences of this source (or do you want it to be new), and I was able to say, YES- to ALL! I thought h - so that is what everyone has been talking about - splitting vs lumping! Granted I'd still have to edit some of them (adding page numbers, etc., which are the details), but boy, I suddenly understood one of the best reasons to do splitting!! Regards, Susan Daily On 9/26/07, Janis Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Understanding that some people are tired of this thread, I contend that it is one of the most important issues with which we deal. It is on-topic, because we have to figure out how to handle these issues in this software. [snip] 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] sourcing, lumping and splitting
Hi Susan: Yeah, I'm a splitter that (99% of the time) records my Source Detail within the Publication Facts. It was a mistake I made when I first started sourcing, but a mistake I decided to continue. When printing a report, the finished product looks pretty much the same as the sources that I had properly created (by using the Source Detail window). But most importantly (for me), when I make an error (and I ALWAYS do), it is MUCH easier to correct only one Master Source instead of all the dozens of Source Details connected to it. Rob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Daily Sent: September 27, 2007 4:38 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing, lumping and splitting I have to admit that I stopped reading these posts long ago, as I was tired of the thread. But today I discovered one of the best reasons for people to do splitting of sources, rather than lumping (which is my favorite way of doing it). This may have been already raised, and if so, I apologize fully. I am editing a book I plan to publish soon. I am still working just on the PDF print outs, rather than the RTF file which I will do when I am done with entering Legacy data. I am doing a Descendants Book. I have started editing the sources. Well, what a pain in the butt! I have to go back and figure out where I've used source number 112, for example, so that I can edit EACH instance where I attached it. Only one source was I able to edit from the Master list, and what a relief that was, as that saved me hundreds of citations. And when I did that Master Source edit, and it asked, do you want to apply these changes to All occurences of this source (or do you want it to be new), and I was able to say, YES- to ALL! I thought h - so that is what everyone has been talking about - splitting vs lumping! Granted I'd still have to edit some of them (adding page numbers, etc., which are the details), but boy, I suddenly understood one of the best reasons to do splitting!! Regards, Susan Daily On 9/26/07, Janis Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Understanding that some people are tired of this thread, I contend that it is one of the most important issues with which we deal. It is on-topic, because we have to figure out how to handle these issues in this software. [snip] Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] sourcing, lumping and splitting
My sentiments exactly! Janis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Daily Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:38 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing, lumping and splitting I have to admit that I stopped reading these posts long ago, as I was tired of the thread. But today I discovered one of the best reasons for people to do splitting of sources, rather than lumping (which is my favorite way of doing it). This may have been already raised, and if so, I apologize fully. I am editing a book I plan to publish soon. I am still working just on the PDF print outs, rather than the RTF file which I will do when I am done with entering Legacy data. I am doing a Descendants Book. I have started editing the sources. Well, what a pain in the butt! I have to go back and figure out where I've used source number 112, for example 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] sourcing, lumping and splitting
Well being mostly a lumper - Source details can be edited using the Search and Replace dialogue. We do need some better search facilities for finding source detail but I think it's coming in Legacy 7. The advantages of lumping is that you have more printing flexibility. You can choose to print with or without source details. For my family, I now mostly produce reports without source details as most of them are not that interested. If they are, they can always ask for more source detail. For one report of just two generations, this is a difference between 2 pages of source citations and 11 pages - this despite the fact I'm careful to use the Source Clipboard so a particular Source detail is identical in every use and only prints once. Cathy At 04:37 AM 28/09/2007, you wrote: I have to admit that I stopped reading these posts long ago, as I was tired of the thread. But today I discovered one of the best reasons for people to do splitting of sources, rather than lumping (which is my favorite way of doing it). This may have been already raised, and if so, I apologize fully. I am editing a book I plan to publish soon. I am still working just on the PDF print outs, rather than the RTF file which I will do when I am done with entering Legacy data. I am doing a Descendants Book. I have started editing the sources. Well, what a pain in the butt! I have to go back and figure out where I've used source number 112, for example, so that I can edit EACH instance where I attached it. Only one source was I able to edit from the Master list, and what a relief that was, as that saved me hundreds of citations. And when I did that Master Source edit, and it asked, do you want to apply these changes to All occurences of this source (or do you want it to be new), and I was able to say, YES- to ALL! I thought h - so that is what everyone has been talking about - splitting vs lumping! Granted I'd still have to edit some of them (adding page numbers, etc., which are the details), but boy, I suddenly understood one of the best reasons to do splitting!! Regards, Susan Daily 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
