Hi Carol To be honest, I have no idea no what the programming ramifications would be. From my limited knowledge of computing, presumably a related table in the database which, as I suggested, would link to the name, event, circumstance or whatever rather than the source. But maybe this is not possible and, unless anyone has any other ideas, I suspect that the bottom line is for me to use either the event's notes field or the relevant individual's research notes for what I had in mind.
Nick --- On Fri, 26/2/10, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Credibility analysis of evidence To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 26 February, 2010, 21:13 Hi Nick, Please explain how you would add the pop-up’s to Legacy? <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Is the data’s source an Original or a Derivative? <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Was the information provided by a Primary of Secondary informant? <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Does the information represent Direct or Indirect evidence of the date, name, place, event or circumstance in question? Carol From: Nick Ingham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 6:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Credibility analysis of evidence Thanks Kirsten. A good point. There is of course no substitute for looking at the source itself and, to that extent, I completely agree that our primary focus must be to provide comprehensive source citations so that anyone reading our research can find that source. Nevertheless (and I think this point is made by Geoff in one of the Legacy training videos), even though we may not be researching professionally, our goal is surely to assemble, and perhaps share with others, a reconstructed family history that is as close to the truth as possible. With this in mind, I take your point that any research analysis exercise carries the danger of being subjective. Indeed, in reply to my original query, Jenny made the point that "Verified" might mean different things to different people, and I suspect the same can be said when it comes to assigning a “Surety Level” value to each citation of a source. Because of this, I don’t tend to use either of those features myself. One of Elizabeth Shown Mills’ most important points – if I have understood her teachings correctly – is the need for an objective, standardised means by which all researchers, regardless of their experience, can record the quality of the information they record in their software program. I am not a programmer, but it seems to me that a ‘pop up screen’ with 3 checkbox choices each time we enter a piece of information from a source would do the trick:- Is the data’s source an Original or a Derivative? Was the information provided by a Primary of Secondary informant? Does the information represent Direct or Indirect evidence of the date, name, place, event or circumstance in question? This would need to be attached to the individual piece of data, not the source. I assume I am correct in thinking that, for the moment at least, any such analysis has to be entered into the individual’s ‘Research Notes’ screen? But it would be marvellous if there is a way in which Legacy’s already comprehensive reporting features could be extended to the type of objective data analysis recommended by ESM i.e. if there is any means of incorporating the 3 questions somehow. Just a thought if anyone might have any other ideas? Regards, Nick --- On Fri, 26/2/10, Kirsten Bowman <[email protected]> wrote: From: Kirsten Bowman <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Credibility analysis of evidence To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 26 February, 2010, 7:55 Nick: Also keep in mind that _Evidence Explained_ was written for a fairly broad audience including professional genealogists and history writers. Some aspects of the book could be considered overkill for the family history researcher working at a hobbyist level while a professional genealogist, for example, is under an obligation to include an evaluation of the evidence for his/her clients. Further, your analysis may often be subjective and others might view it differently. If you notice something particularly unusual about your source, that should certainly be noted. But if you include a complete source citation then others can, and should, evaluate the evidence for themselves. Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: Nick Ingham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Credibility analysis of evidence Many thanks to Ron, Jenny, Charles and Carol for your responses and suggestions, which I will take on board. Nick --- On Thu, 25/2/10, Nick Ingham <[email protected]> wrote: From: Nick Ingham <[email protected]> Subject: [LegacyUG] Credibility analysis of evidence To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, 25 February, 2010, 12:26 As a relatively new user of Legacy, I am finding the source writer system to be a great tool. I have been studying the brilliant ‘Evidence Explained’ by Elizabeth Shown Mills and, in accordance with Ms Mills’ suggestions, I would like to be able to attach a short ‘credibility analysis’ each time I extract a particular piece of information from my sources – basically to identify:- (i) whether the data’s source is an original or derivative, (ii) whether the information itself is from a primary or secondary informant, and (iii) whether that information is represents direct or indirect evidence of the date, name, place, event or circumstance I am trying to prove. It strikes me that this sort of analysis really ought to be attached to the specific data somehow, each time I extract a piece of information from the source, but I am not sure how to do so. I would appreciate any guidance members of the list might be able to provide as to how, and where, this type of analysis is best entered in Legacy. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ 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 after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2708 - Release Date: 02/24/10 19:34:00 Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ 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 after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
