I have researched the archives and pondered this issue. Should photos have sources---------are photos themselves a source. I believe the answer to both is yes,
It does not appear Legacy programmers think assigning a source to a photo is approporate----at least I've not found a means to assign a source to a photo. I have many of photos inscribed on the back with names, places, dates---of course a practice we should all promote. In most instances I know where the photos originated, Aunt Irene's collection, Uncle Joe's collection, etc. In some instances the names on identical photos differ as do dates. It would be useful to source this information so others too will know from where the photos came. It bothers me I continued using Aunt Irene's inscriptions as fact only to later learn she had the names reversed. I suppose source-like informaiton could appear in the photo description area---not nearly as useful as an official source entry. Opinions? Why shouldn't photos be sourced? As for photos themselves being a source. I believe the concenus is certainly. A photo of a tombstone for example serves as a source for dates and names. Gary 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
