I have recently begun replacing my extensive sourcing notes with direct sources attached to the record fields. This will allow the sources to be more easily transferred and understood when my tree is uploaded to genealogy sites, as well as enabling sources to appear on reports.
But I have a few questions about how you handle a few sourcing challenges. First, how do you handle sources that a) disagree or b) have incorrect information (such as typos)? My thought is that if I know that one source is correct, I'll link that source, and only include a note regarding the other in the Research Notes. This way the source is recorded, but it's identified as incorrect. Only the correct source(s) will appear on reports. Second, how do you handle it when a source only provides PART of the information in the field (e.g. only the birthdate but not the place). When the complete picture is sewn together from multiple sources, its challenge to reference it (again so it appears properly on reports). Two options, perhaps: 1) Record the actual information found in the notes. While the linked source may appear to support all the information, the notes will clarify that it's only partial. However, this may not be obvious on a report 2) Append the detail source with a note that clarifies the information (for example, "(birth date only)". This seems the more thorough approach. Third, how do you handle detail sourcing when data appears in a single source multiple times (for example a genealogical book of a region that contains multiple intermarried families)? This is especially true when the information within the book doesn't agree. Here's what I've been thinking: Rather than clutter up the source link with every instance the data is found within the text, I record the page where the most complete data is found and ignore the remaining pages. If the data disagrees with itself, I either a) link to the correct page and note the incorrect data, or b) make no links and record both sets of data in the research notes. Lastly, how do you handle derivative sources? By this I mean texts of data that use earlier publications as their source. It seems redundant to source them at all if its known that the data is just pulled from an earlier publication that you've already sourced. Yes, you could link it and append the source with "citing ...." but if you've already linked the original source, what's the point? In this case, I feel like I should only link any additional information found in the newer publication. Thanks Scott
-- LegacyUserGroup mailing list LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com To manage your subscription and unsubscribe http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
