As I learn more about PGV features there seems to be intrinsically linked the concepts of 'best practises/standards', albeit moreso for genealogy than the programme.
ie adding a source to a record.
not adding anything you don't have a source for
etc
Has there been a discussion about this?
Would you 'veteran genies' consider gathering your thoughts here (and direct me/us to the PGV way of doing things too) please or alternatively post urls of such?
Quartz
There is always a SOUR for every fact you wish to enter, as otherwise the fact could/would not exist. Sometimes the source may not be of high quality, researched, supported or verifiable, but needless to say - unless you simply pull facts/events from the air - there is a source. Usually another person's GEDCOM is not a valid source as its not primary. Ideally, you'd find the SOUR they used and note it as the primary, supportive SOUR material. Its for this reason that there are levels of rating for SOUR too.
Some sourcing may be event driven: baptism, bar mitzvah, obit, birth of a child, census, etc. These may result in more generalized dates and places, educated guesses, like probably, Butler Co, Kentucky, USA if they were born within a month or so of a census taken in that location, or ABT MAY 1900 if listed in the 1900 census as 1/12 of age. Still, this is a source and should be quoted. Later, you may find additional materials which support or dispute this assumption. If a relative is entering data on their immediate family branch, then SOUR should be something like "Personal Knowledge, Mary Elizabeth Jones (I12345)" and perhaps even a broader elaboration, like : "sister to John" if the information was on John Jones (I12344).
Regardless of the quality, make a notation of the source of your events/facts, even if it is unsubstantiated there. You'll regret later not noting your SOUR for the information.
-stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The concept of SOUR makes sense to me, but I have only just found out about that option. I had been entering bits and pieces into the NOTES instead and not known how to set up and use sources etc. (Actually am still trying to wrap my head around how to do it properly in PGV but its not as if there isn't information there - just a matter of understanding what it is saying).
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I'm just going to pop in briefly on this one to say the source function in PGV is quite wide open and flexible. The main point I would throw out is there is imho more than one "right" ways to use it. That said I believe the primary consideration is to be consistent once you've determined how you're going to use it.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
As others have said, there are *always* sources. How else did the information get into your head?
<<If a relative is entering data on their immediate family branch, then SOUR should
be something like "Personal Knowledge, Mary Elizabeth Jones (I12345)" >>
I have a whole set of sources called
Family tree of John Black
Family tree of Mary White
Family tree of Peter Green
etc.
I use these for all the "personal knowledge of..." facts, and also for unsourced trees that are frequently published on line.
Another "catch-all" source is "Web page", where I put the URL in the citation field.
One of my ongoing/background genealogy tasks is to look at all facts with these sources, and try to find the original/primary source for it.
I also use sources for FACTS/EVENTS, rather than for INDI/FAM. Although the gedcom format (and hence PGV) lets you attach a source to an INDI, it is rarely a good idea. Even if the source provided all the information you know about an INDI, you may subsequently get a new fact, and then how would you know that the original source does not support this new fact?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
"PGV follows the GEDCOM standards for storing sources and citations to those sources and as such, there is quite a rigid way in which the data is entered. However, if you are in a hurry, it is always better to add a short note (in the Note field) to a piece of information then add the "formal" source data later, than to skip it entirely in a hope to do it at a later date. "
Read about source and source citations, and then experiment a little with your own data to see a model that would work best for you.
Good luck (and please share your experience)
-Marek
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
As I learn more about PGV features there seems to be intrinsically linked the concepts of 'best practises/standards', albeit moreso for genealogy than the programme.
ie adding a source to a record.
not adding anything you don't have a source for
etc
Has there been a discussion about this?
Would you 'veteran genies' consider gathering your thoughts here (and direct me/us to the PGV way of doing things too) please or alternatively post urls of such?
So for the example above the links to and about the PGV way of doing things may be:
SOURCING
http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=Evaluating_Evidence_Article
http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/galleries/Ref_Researching/gstechnology.pdf
http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/galleries/Ref_Researching/gssharing.pdf
RECORDING
http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=Proper_use_of_sources
http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=Adding_a_Source
http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=SOURCE_RECORD
http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=Show_Sources
http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=Automatically_Expand_Sources
http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=SOURCE_CITATION
Phew...thats a lot of little bits!
Quartz
There is always a SOUR for every fact you wish to enter, as otherwise the fact could/would not exist. Sometimes the source may not be of high quality, researched, supported or verifiable, but needless to say - unless you simply pull facts/events from the air - there is a source. Usually another person's GEDCOM is not a valid source as its not primary. Ideally, you'd find the SOUR they used and note it as the primary, supportive SOUR material. Its for this reason that there are levels of rating for SOUR too.
Some sourcing may be event driven: baptism, bar mitzvah, obit, birth of a child, census, etc. These may result in more generalized dates and places, educated guesses, like probably, Butler Co, Kentucky, USA if they were born within a month or so of a census taken in that location, or ABT MAY 1900 if listed in the 1900 census as 1/12 of age. Still, this is a source and should be quoted. Later, you may find additional materials which support or dispute this assumption. If a relative is entering data on their immediate family branch, then SOUR should be something like "Personal Knowledge, Mary Elizabeth Jones (I12345)" and perhaps even a broader elaboration, like : "sister to John" if the information was on John Jones (I12344).
Regardless of the quality, make a notation of the source of your events/facts, even if it is unsubstantiated there. You'll regret later not noting your SOUR for the information.
-stephen
Thanks for the initial feedback Stephen.
The concept of SOUR makes sense to me, but I have only just found out about that option. I had been entering bits and pieces into the NOTES instead and not known how to set up and use sources etc. (Actually am still trying to wrap my head around how to do it properly in PGV but its not as if there isn't information there - just a matter of understanding what it is saying).
I'm just going to pop in briefly on this one to say the source function in PGV is quite wide open and flexible. The main point I would throw out is there is imho more than one "right" ways to use it. That said I believe the primary consideration is to be consistent once you've determined how you're going to use it.
As others have said, there are *always* sources. How else did the information get into your head?
<<If a relative is entering data on their immediate family branch, then SOUR should
be something like "Personal Knowledge, Mary Elizabeth Jones (I12345)" >>
I have a whole set of sources called
Family tree of John Black
Family tree of Mary White
Family tree of Peter Green
etc.
I use these for all the "personal knowledge of..." facts, and also for unsourced trees that are frequently published on line.
Another "catch-all" source is "Web page", where I put the URL in the citation field.
One of my ongoing/background genealogy tasks is to look at all facts with these sources, and try to find the original/primary source for it.
I also use sources for FACTS/EVENTS, rather than for INDI/FAM. Although the gedcom format (and hence PGV) lets you attach a source to an INDI, it is rarely a good idea. Even if the source provided all the information you know about an INDI, you may subsequently get a new fact, and then how would you know that the original source does not support this new fact?
Quartz,
You are on the right track - just read the articles..
The two you quote from the Wiki:
http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=Evaluating_Evidence_Article
http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=Proper_use_of_sources
should give you a good introduction to the topic. Sources in GEDCOM are not structured, and it is someties difficult to enter them in cases which intuitively call for some or other hierarchy. The most important thing is to always add source! Quoting from the Wiki:
"PGV follows the GEDCOM standards for storing sources and citations to those sources and as such, there is quite a rigid way in which the data is entered. However, if you are in a hurry, it is always better to add a short note (in the Note field) to a piece of information then add the "formal" source data later, than to skip it entirely in a hope to do it at a later date. "
Read about source and source citations, and then experiment a little with your own data to see a model that would work best for you.
Good luck (and please share your experience)
-Marek
> or ABT MAY 1900 if listed in the 1900 census as 1/12 of age
Actually, in the 1900 (US) census, the month of birth is explicit.