Which brings me back to my original question. What is the underlying thought
process that makes LUGers group by type rather than by name or location? And
to insert here, I do have my US Census records grouped by type because they
truly have no location other than in the source detail attached to each
census event, and none apply to any one family but is available to use as a
source for all families living at the time. But my original source, "The
Thompson and Given Families" is groupd with other sources for "Thompson",
rather than as a group which you might call "Book". (And not grouped as
Given, nor Stewart, nor Ferguson, nor Pennsylvania, nor Ohio, nor any of the
other surnames or locations contained therein.)
Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirsten Bowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:39 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source titling question
Of course it is, but I would rather group books by their title. It's a
case
of "to each her own."
Kirsten
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Elizabeth Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:18 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source titling question
New England is not a location?
Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirsten Bowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:50 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Source titling question
Elizabeth:
Grouping by location is a fine way to handle certain records. Most
people
handle census records just that way and many others group vital records
by
location.
As Angela pointed out, grouping by family is problematic when you run
into
an extended family in a census. And what do you do if you're lucky
enough
to find records for several of your lines in Cutter's 1915 _New England
Families_, for example? (I have 23 different lines in that handy book.)
Of
course it would be ideal to go to the original records, but what if you
just
can't because they no longer exist or are not available to the public?
Would you create 23 separate master sources--one for each surname?
You can certainly group by family if you like. Legacy is flexible enough
to
make later changes relatively easy. I've grouped and regrouped more than
a
couple of times myself.
Kirsten
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Elizabeth Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 2:23 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source titling question
OK, why do we care that a particular *type* of source is listed with its
like? Why wouldn't we prefer the sources be grouped by location, or by
family?
e.g.
OHIO - death records
FERGUSON - Our Ferguson Family
Elizabeth
researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
