I enter the people with a warning and for events I use Speculation, I also use Family story <G> which has things like "My Grandmother always said..." Now my grandmother is running at 90% and the ones I have not proven are further back than I have gotten so far! <G>
Eliz On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:45 PM, James Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > (an aside to my Knight in shining armor thread) > > > I am trying to determine the best way to utilize Legacy (if at all) in > the uncertain situations - such as a family history claiming > Knighthood in the ancestry. > > Seems to me there some choices: > > - Enter the people - so they are not forgotten and/or are attached as > indicated so further leads/research/ideas/etc can be generated. This > is what I've been doing, but I get the impression I'm being cautioned > about continuing in this fashion. (Which is OK by me, I'm always open > to the pros/cons of my methodology so fire away.) By doing things > this way, one would likely make use of private/invisible individuals > as well as lower surety levels. These settings would be used to > suppress the information that has not been well proven thus far when > sharing publicly (reports, GEDCOMs, etc). However, all the > information, links, locations, relationship, etc are in the database > and can be studied along with everything that is more sure. At least > that has been my thinking so far. > > - Do not enter the people, but make TODOs for further research - I > think this is what is being offered as a better way to go. In this > mode, it seems to me, the data has been captured, but is not connected > and cannot really be studied in relation to everything else. Because > things are disconnected, there seems to be a risk of forgetting/losing > track of things in your research. The term 'forgetting' to me > indicating there is some level of mental capacity required for > maintaining the connections. I don't see the same issue using the > previous approach. Of course, there are probably ways of entering > TODOs to minimized this, but I think there is always this risk. I've > not gone this route, so don't know if this risk is too high or not, on > the surface it seems it could be. In this mode private and invisible > individuals and low surety ratings have little meaning that I can > think of. Perhaps the appeal of this approach is that it is thought > this database is more clean/pure? > > - Do not enter the people, do not make TODOs, and hope you can > remember all these hints/tips/leads next time you are at the library. > No one's suggesting this one, but I suppose it is an option. > > > Thoughts? > > > > -- > James Cook > GED Utils, Ancestry Utils > http://loosestacks.blogspot.com/ > > > > 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
