Kirsten, May I expand on my previous post, with particular respect to censuses. I do use all the sources I find somewhere; censuses I use only as sources and do not have Census Events but I attach them as sources to other Events. Whilst I may only use one or two censuses as a Source for a Birth Date, I have a Residence Event and an Occupation Event (I only include paid occupations) for each person for each census year even if the detail has not changed.
When I first started if the detail hadn't changed I did not include the detail and source, but this became confusing as I could not then tell whether I had found the census or not. It was especially confusing for people who, for example, never moved because it look as though they had disappeared or died. I know others may include an Age Source for every census, and that's fine - it's just that I don't, and as I have said before, for me the Mills Sourcing system contains too much detail, so I use my own minimalist version ie. I leave most boxes empty :-)! I am far from being prescriptive, or even recommending my way of working, simply saying that this is how I do it, just that it works for me and suits my needs. Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________ *New* Tutorial: Add Location Pins to Google Earth http://www.fergys.co.uk Includes the family tree for Alan J Grimshaw And the Fergusons of N.W. England ____________________________________________________ Kirsten Bowman wrote: > Scott: > > I would include every census listing for an individual. Because I > transcribe the full family group as enumerated, this gives a picture > of the family structure as well as their residence at any given time. > And I'd also include birth, death, and marriage records even if they > corroborate data from other sources. In general, I add a source > citation for just about everything. Where I draw the line is with > something like city directories that might simply repeat the same > information year after year. I also minimize source citations for > relatively recent family members (usually post-1920) since I'm after > older family history and the newer stuff would never be posted > anyway. It isn't necessary (or wise, in my opinion) to delete one > source citation just because you found another that gives more > detailed information. > > If you have a special consideration like Ron's website situation, for > example, or relatives with a short attention span, that's a different > matter. In such cases you'd have to gear your work to your audience. > My database is a record of my research rather than a coffee table > book, so I record it all. > > Kirsten > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Hall [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [LegacyUG] A sourcing question -- how many to include? > > > A search of the archives pulled some threads on this topic, but from a > few years back, so I thought revisiting it would be OK. > > I'm still trying to figure out the best way to record multiple sources > that provide a single piece of information. There seem to be three > key considerations: > 1. Whether each source corroborates or conflicts with the other > sources > 2. The surety level of the source (e.g. primary v. secondary) > 3. Keeping track of your research history (identifying that you've > researched a source) > > There must be a balance between these considerations. > > For example, let's say your only record of a particular ancestor is > the U.S. census, and appeared in all censuses from 1850–1880. Let's > also assume that the each census accurately shows his age in intervals > of 10 (in other words, the censuses corroborate each other). Because > you have no other record of his birthdate, you can calculate the range > based on his age. If, in 1850, he was 25, you know he must have been > born between 2 Jun 1824 and 1 Jun 1825, given the census date of June > 1. As implied above, the 1860, 70, and 80 censuses list his age as > 35, 45, and 55, respectively, all calculating to the same birth range. > Do you list all four censuses as sources? > > Now, let's add the 1900 census to our example, which again > corroborates the earlier censuses, listing your ancestor at age 75 and > providing the month and year of birth, say August 1824. I assume > you'd replace the birth range with the month and year provided by the > 1900 census, but what do you do with the other censuses as sources? > Do you leave them (and if so, how do you indicate that they are only > corroborating, as none support August 1824, just the range)? Do you > remove them entirely (and if so, how do you note that you have, in > fact, researched them)? > > Let's add another piece of information to our example—a death > certificate. Although the census is a fairly reputable source, its > likely lower on the surety scale than an official death certificate. > Let's say the death certificate again corroborates the censuses, > listing your ancestors birthdate as 15 August 1824. Again, you update > the field and cite the certificate, but what you do with the censuses > as sources? > > Lastly, let's twist the scenario slightly—let's say the death > certificate does NOT provide you ancestor's date of birth, but rather > only the date of and age at death. If he died on 5 September 1901 at > age 77 years, 0 months, and 21 days, you could alculate the birth date > as 15 August 1824. But proper protocal demands that you prefix this > date with "Cal." to show that the date was calculated. Now what do > you do with the censuses as sources? > > We could continue the example with other records that corroborrate or > conflict, such as obituaries, cemetery indexes, tombstones, etc. All > have varying levels of surety. You want to know that you reviewed > each source, so as not to duplicate your work, but do you want a > catalog of every source you've ever looked at? If not, how do you > balance keeping track of what you've reviewed, having sufficient > sources such that the conclusion can be reasonably supported, and > keeping your data file neat and organized and your reports crisp and > not burdened with excessive redundancy? > > Scott 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
