I was wondering about how others are creating source references to "small" changes.
If i.e. a random person has some information about i.e. an individual, do you then:
* just add that information
* create a source with information about that random person and link that newly created source to the information
* do something else
Some times while I browse the net, I might find additional information about an individual and would like to be able to quickly add that info. It would be nice if I could just add an URL as a source reference, but I guess there is some higher meaning since that isn't possible?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Each person that provides me with information gets a source called
"Family tree of John Doe"
Where someone has provided a gedcom, this may be thousands of references. Where a single individual has corrected information about themself, then it may have only one.
For data found "on the web", I have a source called "Web Page", and I use the URL as the citation. This works well, as PGV turns the URL into a link.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Greg's ideas are right on. Any and all information should (in a perfect world) be sourced. In particular anything that is considered tertiary evidence (not primary like the actual record, secondary like a book that used and sourced primary records), where a person is quoting other individuals must be sourced because that information is usually very hard to find again later. I have standardized the title for the source to always start with "Web Site:" then the title of the page or website. (I use "Letter: " or "Book: " and other standard titles also) Because pages on the web change or are removed I try to do a screen capture and retain the .jpg file from the capture as a media item on the source. I also add a repository for the page/site that includes the website address and owner information so I can keep in contact with the information owner if I have questions or need to revisit the page to see if they have more information at another date. As a librarian and a knowledge management professional I believe that good sourcing is very important for future scholars who may want to review my work. Here is a simple example of what I am talking about :
0 @S109@ SOUR
1 TITL Web Site: (Title of website)
1 REPO @REPO1@
0 @REPO1@ REPO
1 NAME (name of person or organization that owns the data)
1 WWW http://.....
Like I said, in a perfect world I would do this for everything and try real hard to do that. I can't tell you the number of times I whack myself in the head when I look at a piece of information that I did not source very well and later find some peice of information that is contrary to that detail and I can't remember where it came from or how reliable it was. In the old days before using computers to store the information I was not so good, but today I find keeping the information much easier so I do!!
Ken
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I applaud every attempt at sourcing of information in historical and genealogical documents. I for instance do not include any information in my published work that is not itself "sourced" in some manor.
Tom's idea of using NOTE field is a simple and quick way to document on the fly, but I would personally use SOUR records for my permanent documentation. This is because SOUR records have some important attributes: 1) They can be shared. If you have several pieces of information from the same source, the source record can be shared, thus reducing error and increasing entry time. 2) In reports, SOUR records can be turned into footnotes, which are more common ways of displaying source information in reports. 3) When sharing this information primarily in GEDCOM files but also in other formats, the SOUR record has a better chance of getting shared and not dropped or lost. Some software does a poor job of importing NOTE fields and NOTE fields have a tendency to be unformatted, therefore they don't lend themselves to display or completeness.
This is just my opinion, and again I'm always happy to see any form of sourcing rather than no sourcing at all.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Just a small point.
A "Shared Note" (or linked note) CAN be shared (If you would rather not use a source)
There is also some "hidden" code in PGV which will allow you to "format in a tabular fashion" any shared note with safety also.
If you need details of the formatting text parameters, please send me an offline note to webman@windmillway.f2s.com.
(I included these formatting parameters in PGV in preparation for a Census Transcription module I have been working on.
Brian
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Your point is correct about shared notes. These type of notes are great and I do use them for some of the things your module will work toward re. shared census data. this would also hold true for other potential shared data like PLAC . Having the ability to make a table with a note or text has multiple uses. I would use this a lot in my SOUR records for TEXT information regarding census and other information.
I'm from the old school of GEDCOM. So NOTE fields still don't do it well enough for me regarding source information. But then again that is me :-)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
In no way did I wish to detract from the absolute necessity of a source for any event/item.
(Even if it is just "Telephone conversations with Granny Smith in 2006" .. this still counts as far as I am concerned.)
The problem sometimes is trying to define a "SOUR" without having one for every piece of info … Not good)
Perhaps (in the future) some prompting from PGV is in order when entering events ??
I think we are in accord, all the same.
Brian
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Yes we are in agreement about the need. My biggest concern is that individuals get (without hurting feelings) lazy and use anything or nothing to source information. In my school of thought their is nothing wrong with having an SOUR for every piece of information (provided that it is informative). From a database and call efficiency standpoint that is a different thing and should be considered. So that, for instance, one source record should be created for the birth date when it its of high quality and any other source for that fact can be boiled down to another SOUR just for documentation.
SQL calls can go way up when too many foreign keys exist, so I can see reducing the SOUR records for a fact or event. And with that said maybe information like hair color or height could go without a SOUR record and a NOTE would be better (shared or otherwise). I just know from my years of Database Design that normalization is our friend, but then again SQL DB Engines can turn that into a not so friendly friend!!
:-)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks for the input on this subject - it's always great to get new ideas from other users :).
As it has already been said then in a perfect world every information would have a source reference, but oh the horror. If I had to create a new source everytime I change i little bit of information on an individual. I fear that the source list would get rather obsolete, because it would become crowded with "Web site"-sources.
I haven't used repositories at all so I guess I will go Greg's suggestion of creating a general "Web site" source and then use source citations to the URL.
Thank you all for your input :).
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Two of my most common sources are @S1@ "Personal Interview" and @S2@ "Family member provided information about someone else". If I speak with a distant cousin and the tell me information about their entire extended family, I just use my S2 and type "Info From: Person's Name" in the Citation Details field and the date of the conversation in the "Date of Entry in Original Source" field. This way I'm not bogging down my sources table with tons of sources, and all the necessary data is there. I'll make sure that the individual or family record of the person I spoke with has their phone number, email address, and mailing address in case I need to contact them again in the future.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Nothing "wrong" with having a SOUR for every datum, if the DB can support having X sets of Y identical sources, where X & Y are very large numbers. For example, in my DB, one census page might be source for 15 births, two marriages, three occupations, a residence, and an alternate name.
And I would not put a SOUR for every change. If I am fairly confident of a fact, I pick one or more good sources and leave it at that. If a new source contradicts what I had before, I can add the new detail and its sourc, or I can decide one of them is wrong, nd leave it and its source out.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi
I was wondering about how others are creating source references to "small" changes.
If i.e. a random person has some information about i.e. an individual, do you then:
* just add that information
* create a source with information about that random person and link that newly created source to the information
* do something else
Some times while I browse the net, I might find additional information about an individual and would like to be able to quickly add that info. It would be nice if I could just add an URL as a source reference, but I guess there is some higher meaning since that isn't possible?
Each person that provides me with information gets a source called
"Family tree of John Doe"
Where someone has provided a gedcom, this may be thousands of references. Where a single individual has corrected information about themself, then it may have only one.
For data found "on the web", I have a source called "Web Page", and I use the URL as the citation. This works well, as PGV turns the URL into a link.
Greg's ideas are right on. Any and all information should (in a perfect world) be sourced. In particular anything that is considered tertiary evidence (not primary like the actual record, secondary like a book that used and sourced primary records), where a person is quoting other individuals must be sourced because that information is usually very hard to find again later. I have standardized the title for the source to always start with "Web Site:" then the title of the page or website. (I use "Letter: " or "Book: " and other standard titles also) Because pages on the web change or are removed I try to do a screen capture and retain the .jpg file from the capture as a media item on the source. I also add a repository for the page/site that includes the website address and owner information so I can keep in contact with the information owner if I have questions or need to revisit the page to see if they have more information at another date. As a librarian and a knowledge management professional I believe that good sourcing is very important for future scholars who may want to review my work. Here is a simple example of what I am talking about :
Like I said, in a perfect world I would do this for everything and try real hard to do that. I can't tell you the number of times I whack myself in the head when I look at a piece of information that I did not source very well and later find some peice of information that is contrary to that detail and I can't remember where it came from or how reliable it was. In the old days before using computers to store the information I was not so good, but today I find keeping the information much easier so I do!!
Ken
OR
If you're not interested in using the REPO record you could use the:
Which works well for quick updates.
I have more than a few:
I applaud every attempt at sourcing of information in historical and genealogical documents. I for instance do not include any information in my published work that is not itself "sourced" in some manor.
Tom's idea of using NOTE field is a simple and quick way to document on the fly, but I would personally use SOUR records for my permanent documentation. This is because SOUR records have some important attributes: 1) They can be shared. If you have several pieces of information from the same source, the source record can be shared, thus reducing error and increasing entry time. 2) In reports, SOUR records can be turned into footnotes, which are more common ways of displaying source information in reports. 3) When sharing this information primarily in GEDCOM files but also in other formats, the SOUR record has a better chance of getting shared and not dropped or lost. Some software does a poor job of importing NOTE fields and NOTE fields have a tendency to be unformatted, therefore they don't lend themselves to display or completeness.
This is just my opinion, and again I'm always happy to see any form of sourcing rather than no sourcing at all.
Ken,
Just a small point.
A "Shared Note" (or linked note) CAN be shared (If you would rather not use a source)
There is also some "hidden" code in PGV which will allow you to "format in a tabular fashion" any shared note with safety also.
If you need details of the formatting text parameters, please send me an offline note to webman@windmillway.f2s.com.
(I included these formatting parameters in PGV in preparation for a Census Transcription module I have been working on.
Brian
Brian,
Your point is correct about shared notes. These type of notes are great and I do use them for some of the things your module will work toward re. shared census data. this would also hold true for other potential shared data like PLAC . Having the ability to make a table with a note or text has multiple uses. I would use this a lot in my SOUR records for TEXT information regarding census and other information.
I'm from the old school of GEDCOM. So NOTE fields still don't do it well enough for me regarding source information. But then again that is me :-)
Ken,
In no way did I wish to detract from the absolute necessity of a source for any event/item.
(Even if it is just "Telephone conversations with Granny Smith in 2006" .. this still counts as far as I am concerned.)
The problem sometimes is trying to define a "SOUR" without having one for every piece of info … Not good)
Perhaps (in the future) some prompting from PGV is in order when entering events ??
I think we are in accord, all the same.
Brian
Brain,
Yes we are in agreement about the need. My biggest concern is that individuals get (without hurting feelings) lazy and use anything or nothing to source information. In my school of thought their is nothing wrong with having an SOUR for every piece of information (provided that it is informative). From a database and call efficiency standpoint that is a different thing and should be considered. So that, for instance, one source record should be created for the birth date when it its of high quality and any other source for that fact can be boiled down to another SOUR just for documentation.
SQL calls can go way up when too many foreign keys exist, so I can see reducing the SOUR records for a fact or event. And with that said maybe information like hair color or height could go without a SOUR record and a NOTE would be better (shared or otherwise). I just know from my years of Database Design that normalization is our friend, but then again SQL DB Engines can turn that into a not so friendly friend!!
:-)
Thanks for the input on this subject - it's always great to get new ideas from other users :).
As it has already been said then in a perfect world every information would have a source reference, but oh the horror. If I had to create a new source everytime I change i little bit of information on an individual. I fear that the source list would get rather obsolete, because it would become crowded with "Web site"-sources.
I haven't used repositories at all so I guess I will go Greg's suggestion of creating a general "Web site" source and then use source citations to the URL.
Thank you all for your input :).
Two of my most common sources are @S1@ "Personal Interview" and @S2@ "Family member provided information about someone else". If I speak with a distant cousin and the tell me information about their entire extended family, I just use my S2 and type "Info From: Person's Name" in the Citation Details field and the date of the conversation in the "Date of Entry in Original Source" field. This way I'm not bogging down my sources table with tons of sources, and all the necessary data is there. I'll make sure that the individual or family record of the person I spoke with has their phone number, email address, and mailing address in case I need to contact them again in the future.
Nothing "wrong" with having a SOUR for every datum, if the DB can support having X sets of Y identical sources, where X & Y are very large numbers. For example, in my DB, one census page might be source for 15 births, two marriages, three occupations, a residence, and an alternate name.
And I would not put a SOUR for every change. If I am fairly confident of a fact, I pick one or more good sources and leave it at that. If a new source contradicts what I had before, I can add the new detail and its sourc, or I can decide one of them is wrong, nd leave it and its source out.