From: Joel P. <joe...@gm...> - 2008-08-03 00:54:22
|
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 08:46 -0500, Steve Randall wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:09:50 -0400 > Thomas Weichmann <to...@ad...> wrote: > > > Hi Martin, > > > > This has actually been discussed a long time ago here on the list. The former > > (several years ago) default was married. I believe that I actually brought > > it to the attention of the developers that it is a huge assumption, in any > > century, to guess that anyone who has had children together is married. As > > you suggested, it is not a good idea to make any assumptions without the > > data. > > Defaults are not about making assumptions; they are about saving data > entry time. This default wastes time. Therefore it is wrong. It is as > simple as that. I would contend that this default wastes time only for those who know that the mother and father are married, or are comfortable making that assumption. For those of us who assume "unknown" in the absence of a source, this default saves the time of correcting each one. Perhaps what we need is a survey of people who assume marriage (or have marriage sources ready) vs. those that assume "unknown". Maybe other genealogy programs could be a guide. - Joel |