Meticulous? You must never have seen my desk
Janis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:12 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive
Janis, what difference does it make how he's indexed if you record such
meticulous records of where he can be found on the actual census?
Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
From: "Janis Gilmore"
I, too, keep track of these instances of indexing in
L PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Penny
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11:56 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
Janis,
I personally agree with there being no need to reference where I saw a
census image. That being said, I do remar
2008 3:20:AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
Janis Gilmore wrote:
>
> The “accessed” date can be important only because the website that you
> viewed can change.
>
> In the interest of precision, dating your acce
Janis,
I personally agree with there being no need to reference where I saw a
census image. That being said, I do remark on any really unusable (imo)
images. For instance, I might say in the comments section of the source
detail (I lump by State/County/Year for U.S. census), "As of Feb. 2007
ion on one of my favorite topics.
Janis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Cunningham
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 7:47 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian
Lightfoot
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:18 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
I'm not completely sold on the idea that given an identical sourc
As one who has typed more than my share of Masters' theses and graduate
papers, I would like to point out that a lot of Elizabeth Mills'
citations come straight out of instructions for scholarly papers --
e.g., the MLA style sheet. It is good stuff, but I am not sure it needs
to be adhered to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian
Lightfoot
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:18 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
I'm not completely sold on the idea that giv
e: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
From: "Janis Gilmore"
I do agree with Elizabeth that a more streamlined form for sourcing is
appropriate in many situations. I disagree, however, that those who have
chosen to conform to what has become the de facto standard
Geoff Rasmussen wrote:
Bob,
There's actually a tool called The Wayback Machine that will display the
content of websites as of a certain date. See our Legacy News article about
it at
http://legacynews.typepad.com/legacy_news/2006/08/locating_lost_w.html.
While this won't work for databases, it w
I cannot agree with this - but I can agree to disagree. :-)
Janis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 10:20 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7
f Janis
Gilmore
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:35 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
John and Randolph,
But the purpose of a citation is to clearly state what your source was. If
your source for the digital image was Anc
yUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
They also have absolutely no way of requesting that the website
reset itself to some arbitrary date in the past that you are specifying
so that they can see exactly what you saw.
Legacy User Group
From: "Janis Gilmore"
I do agree with Elizabeth that a more streamlined form for sourcing is
appropriate in many situations. I disagree, however, that those who have
chosen to conform to what has become the de facto standard (Mills) are
"snooty." Most are just working hard toward publishing in o
Janis Gilmore wrote:
The “accessed” date can be important only because the website that you
viewed can change.
In the interest of precision, dating your access of the database can
help a future researcher to understand that what you saw may not be
what he/she is looking at.
I've got to di
@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
1860 US Census would seem a reasonable Master source. If you are using this
county a lot, it might be worth adding this to the master. The Ancestry bit
is not even a primary source and is unlikely to exist in
curring
elements in the Master Source.)
Janis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Richardson
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 10:59 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7
TECTED] On Behalf Of Randolph
Clark
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:09 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
This seems like an excellent way to have all show up. Two quick questions:
1. Is it a big deal that the date acc
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of
Elizabeth
Richardson
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:24 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
<mailto:LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com>
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive versio
> > impact of the misplaced period, as opposed to using a comma.
> >
> > That was probably not totally clear. Somewhat complicated subject, and I
> > flew from the east coast to the west coast today, and am more or less on
> > my
> > last leg
> >
> > Janis
>
and am more or less on
> my
> last leg....
>
> Janis
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
> Richardson
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:24 AM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject:
Elizabeth,
I laughed out loud at your comment on the snooty genealogist of the future.
I too like to make my work as accurate as possible, and to cite my sources
so that someone else will be able to duplicate my work, but I don't care to
make it so complicated that people's eyes will glaze ove
; Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 02:27:52 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
>
> Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>
>> But how the elements "line up" in reports
Jenny M Benson wrote:
>
> But how the elements "line up" in reports has nothing to do with what we
> enter, it has only to do how with how the programmers have arranged the
> output for the various "boxes" we fill in.
>
Jenny,
I understand when you say that the programmers can arrange the "boxes"
Sorry if wordwrap screws up the lines of my examples. Maybe I should
have added a space before and after the underscores like this.
Source List Entry:
Iowa. Marion County. __ 1850 U.S. census, __ population schedule. __
Digital images. __ Ancestry.com.[in italics] __
http://www.ancestry.com : __
From: "Janis Gilmore"
1. 1860 U.S. census, Dickson County, Tennessee, population schedule,
Middle Division, Danielsville (post office), p. 42 (penned top right),
dwelling 290, family 290, R. Walker household; digital image,
_Ancestry.com_
(http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 27 Aug 2007); cit
east coast to the west coast today, and am more or less on my
last leg
Janis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Richardson
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:24 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] So
From: "Janis Gilmore"
The issue that I have . . . . whether the new program will offer improved
sourcing capabilities which would eliminate the need for work-arounds. At
present, I either have to split every source, or through convoluted means
produce a nearly perfect source from the master so
east coast to the west coast today, and am more or less on my
last leg
Janis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Richardson
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 3:24 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] So
yUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
I was under the impression that use of the new Version 7 source
templates would produce outputs that were arranged in the order that
comply with Mills' newest book on citations Evidence Explained. Using
the
pson
- Original Message -
From: "Penny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
> Thanks for your reply, Elizabeth.
>
> But, of course, that's the point: I **do** wa
lmore
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Penny
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:23 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
Thanks for your reply, Elizabeth.
But, of course, that&
I use www.onelook.com when I see words and acronymns with which I am
unfamiliar. It incorporates a wide variety of specialty dictionaries,
depending upon the term searched. The result for aiui was "as I
understand it". These dictionary sites are free, so sometimes it's
necessary to scroll pa
AIUI=As I Understand It.
- Original Message
From: Wayne Martell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2008 10:46:00 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
"AIUI, v7 will simply (possibly) mak
"AIUI, v7 will simply (possibly) make it easier "
What does AIUI mean?
___
Wayne Martell
Victoria, BC, Canada
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@lega
From: "Kevin McMillan"
I was under the impression that use of the new Version 7 source
templates would produce outputs that were arranged in the order that
comply with Mills' newest book on citations Evidence Explained. Using
the source citation system in version 6, I am currently unable to t
Kevin McMillan wrote
Using the source citation system in version 6, I am currently unable to
to get the elements to line up in the proper order. I have tried
various methods of entering the sources without success. It is my
desire to get source outputs that are as close to EE as possible. Du
I was under the impression that use of the new Version 7 source
templates would produce outputs that were arranged in the order that
comply with Mills' newest book on citations Evidence Explained. Using
the source citation system in version 6, I am currently unable to to
get the elements to line u
Thank you, Elizabeth! You have voiced my sentiments about the entire matter
exactly. It's as if I had written your post myself. I expect we'll all be
quite pleased when v7 finally reaches our hard-drives and I anxiously await
the day.
In the meantime, having been given reason to believe you
ny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2008 3:23:27 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
Thanks for your reply, Elizabeth.
But, of course, that's the point: I **do** want both the sources I enter
no
genealogy!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Georgia
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 3:12 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
I attended the Sacramento Root Cellar
I attended the Sacramento Root Cellar seminar a week ago and we got a
tiny preview of the Source Writer and how it works. The best I can
remember, when you are beginning to site a source, you choose what
kind (vital, book, census, etc) and a box appears appropriate to that
source. You still h
y" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources and the elusive version 7 again.
Thanks for your reply, Elizabeth.
But, of course, that's the point: I **do** want both the sources I enter
now in v6 and the ones I'l
Thanks for your reply, Elizabeth.
But, of course, that's the point: I **do** want both the sources I enter
now in v6 and the ones I'll enter in v7 to be formatted identically. Sorry,
if I wasn't clear enough earlier. I was not talking about "conformity" to
the standard of what all should be
Hello Penny,
I too have been thinking along these lines. Thanks for asking the question.
Debbie Freeman
Penny wrote,
I have a question which may actually not be answerable, but I'm asking it
anyway. (and yes, I know sources have been done-to-death on LUG,
but sources/citations are where the rub
Penny wrote:
In your opinion, is it possible to enter sources in Legacy v6 in such a way
as to create the least amount of problems when we switch to v7? In
otherwords, is there any advice on how to enter sources **now** in such a
way as to ensure the greatest conformity between these currentl
I have a question which may actually not be answerable, but I'm asking it
anyway. (and yes, I know sources have been done-to-death on LUG, but
sources/citations are where the rubber-meets-the-road in genealogy, aren't
they!?)
Without asking that anyone who's had the privilege of actually previe
48 matches
Mail list logo
