From: Michael T. <mic...@gm...> - 2013-02-09 11:31:06
|
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Martin Steer <mar...@ma...> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 02:14:45PM +0000, paul womack wrote: >>As I get more into genology, I have come to realise >>that my initial approach to "locations" was not adequate. I understand the feeling. I still have the bruise on my forehead from beating it on the wall. :) As others have aleady pointed out, I, not knowing if it is "right" or "best", use the information as a hirearchy. In my locations are things like "USA" and "USA, Ohio" and "USA, Ohio, Cleaveland", etc. When I get more information about someone, I narrow down their location by changning the location they're associated with by usually adding it to the location information along with a source note that tells me why I changed from "USA" to "USA, Ohio" -- << MCT >> Michael C Tiernan. http://www.linkedin.com/in/mtiernan Non Impediti Ratione Cogatationis |