Re: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare?
I agree. The purpose of a citation/reference is to allow the reader to refer to the source material if they wish. How you get there is less important. The only difference between two different styles is that one may take you to the source more directly. But the aim, the objective, is the end point - not the journey. It seems to me that a lot of people like to play at being 'researchers' and love the procedures and forget the objective. The rule is that there are no rules. The only criteria is 'would the reader be able to find the source from the information I have given' If you are quoting a source and have not seen/accessed it yourself you yourself are taking the information you quote on trust, so have not researched it, but rather reported it. The beauty of Legacy is that its use can be so flexible. On 14/06/2010 22:30, Hugh Busey wrote: Scott, Rich, et al, IMHO you may be making more out of this than it warrants. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare?
There are TWO reasons for citing sources, not one. Yes, we want the source citation to be specific enough that we (or others) can find it again. But reason #2 is equally if not more important: to tell me how much weight to give to the evidence the source provides (and no, I'm not talking at all about Surety Level). Stated another way, by Mrs. Mills on p. 10 of EE, a citation also records the nature of that source so that the evidence can better be interpreted and the accuracy of our conclusions can be appraised. My desire for accurate and complete source citations written in a standardized manner has absolutely nothing to do with loving the procedures and forgetting the objective. To the contrary, using Legacy's EE style SourceWriter templates assists me tremendously in meeting my objective of compiling a complete and accurately interpreted history of my family. YMMV, of course! (your mileage may vary) Connie Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare?
I agree with Charles. I use the original creator of the document, if possible. In the future, many companies may compile a 'better' copy of the record, but it will always be the version of the US government document. I can still get the rolls at an archives/library if I want. Ancestry, on its part, is doing the reasonable business practice of incorporating its name into what it has created (index and copies), and installing its brand as an advertising tool. If you have to work at removing the reference, it is a task, but not impossible. I have made photocopies of records of US Census, at LDS libraries in 4 states (6 stakes). Some of them were not permanent, and returned after a few weeks. I use Salt Lake LDS and Ancestry as the repositories, because they are more likely to survive longer, assisting future generations. Rich in LA CA --- On Mon, 6/14/10, Charles Apple apple1...@embarqmail.com wrote: From: Charles Apple apple1...@embarqmail.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare? To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Date: Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:16 PM Scott, I am no expert by any means, however, my thoughts on this is as follows; 1) Original Source: United States, Selective Service System. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. 2) 1st Derivative: National Archives and Records Administration microfilm. M1509, 4,582 rolls. 3) 2nd Derivative: Family History Library microfilm. 4) 3rd Derivative: Ancestry.com. Personally, I think what we need to remember is 1. Where we got the information from, and 2) can the reader of our research follow our citations to the source that we found or used. Just my thoughts, I am sure other's may look at it differently. Charles -Original Message- From: Scott Hall [mailto:seh0...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:19 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare? Ah, the challenge deepens. Two questions, one exactly on point to the original e-mail, one slightly off point. 1. So as not to forget my original question -- how, in Legacy, do you cite nonpopulation schedules? 2. When Ancestry's original source is NARA, but the images are from FHL, what do you cite -- NARA or FHL? Here's my second Ancestry.com challenge: The WWI draft cards, per Ancestry: Source Citation: Registration Location: Ontario County, New York; Roll 1818611; Draft Board: 2. Ancestry.com. World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. Original data: United States, Selective Service System. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. M1509, 4,582 rolls. Imaged from Family History Library microfilm. Uh, wait...if I say citing NARA microfilm M1509, the roll is NOT 1818611. That's the FHL roll number. So, fill in the blank for the Mills' version of this citation: World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918, database and images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 June 2010), card for George William Fricke, serial no. 68, Local Draft Board 2, Ontario County, New York; citing ___ . I was going to follow the census and put NARA microfilm M1509, roll ___, but I'd have to hunt for the NARA roll number. The NARA has a list, but it won't help much, especially if the location stretches across many rolls. For my example it could be either roll NY355 or NY356. What's the general rule for citing middle men anyway? When Ancestry gets their information from FHL, who gets their information from NARA, who do you cite -- FHL or NARA? Continued thanks! Fun stuff! Scott On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Hugh Busey hbu...@gmail.com wrote: Scott, Rich, et al, IMHO you may be making more out of this than it warrants. The goal of sources is to get as close to the original event as possible. If Ancestry transcribed the census, you may use them as the source with a with a Surety of 2 - Probable Conclusion at best or perhaps a 1, depending on your confidence level in Ancestry. In my experience, Ancestry transcriptions rate a 1 or aren't even used. I always try to get a photocopy. If Ancestry posted either a scanned or photographically reproduced copy of the original page, and the originator was NARA, you should use NARA as the source. Period. In that case, Ancestry should appear as and only as the repository, not as the source, as they would have you do. Then the paper trail is clean and goes back to the NARA original. Like many others here, I have performed census transcriptions for the Mormons and know first hand how difficult it can be to read and how inaccurate the results can be. They mitigate that by having two
[LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare?
I have finally decided to start my subcription to Ancestry.com, but have hit a bit of a barrier out of the gate--my old friend, citations. Ancestry is very good at telling you exactly what the citation should be, but matching that to Evidence Explained--or the Source Writer template--seems a bit tricky at times. I'm working with the Federal census mortality schedules now. It appears that the mortality schedules on Ancestry come from a variety of NARA microfilms, depending on which state the information is coming from. It appears, unlike the Federal censuses for which each year cites a single microfilm reference (e.g. the 1860 census refers to M653), the source of the source here changes depending on the state. But I see no Legacy SourceWriter template. I also note that the Ancestry.com citation doesn't seem to match Mills, or Legacy. Take the 1860 population schedule. Legacy, modeling Mills, says the citation should look like this: 1860 U.S. census, Monroe County, New York population schedule; digital images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M653. But Ancestry says: Ancestry.com. *1860 United States Federal Census* [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009. Images reproduced by FamilySearch. Original data: 1860 U.S. census, population schedule. NARA microfilm publication M653, 1,438 rolls. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Citation junkies who use Ancestry, how do you reconcile this in your mind? Just two different systems? And, most importantly, how do you cite nonpopulation schedules given the absence of a template in Legacy? For example, I'm looking at an image of the 1860 Mortality Schedule for Lycoming County, PA. Ancestry lists: Citation #1: Ancestry.com. *U.S. Federal Census Mortality Schedules, 1850-1885* [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. A portion of this collection was indexed by Ancestry World Archives Project contributors. Original data citations: General: United States. *Federal Mortality Census Schedules, 1850-1880 (formerly in the custody of the Daughters of the American Revolution), and Related Indexes, 1850-1880.* T655, 30 rolls. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. For PA, it then lists: United States. *Non-Population Census Schedules for Pennsylvania, 1850-1880: Mortality*. M1838, 11 rolls. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. The particular record I'm looking at appears to have come from roll M1838, so I suppose that is the citation I should use. I'm not sure when the generic U.S. citation would apply? Perhaps some records are from T655 and others from M1838. I *think* the right citation (Mills style) is: 1860 U.S. census, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania mortality schedule; digital images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M1838. What do you think? And, again, most importantly how do you cite this in Legacy? Use the census template and overrride it? Something else? Thanks!! Scott Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare?
Something tells me this is going to be a long thread. Regarding Ancestry.com and census images or any other historical image. Have you noticed that Ancestry wants you to put their name in the citation regardless of who the actual repository of the record may be. For example, if you have a digital image of a census record, then in my opinion, the NARA is the source of the actual image. Some people may have a different point of view exclaiming but you got it using the Ancestry web site. Well, if you ordered a copy of the image directly from NARA, you wouldn't cite the US Postal Service as the source would you even though they were the ones that delivered it to your door. Brian in CA -Original Message- From: Scott Hall [mailto:seh0...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 11:56 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare? I have finally decided to start my subcription to Ancestry.com, but have hit a bit of a barrier out of the gate--my old friend, citations. Ancestry is very good at telling you exactly what the citation should be, but matching that to Evidence Explained--or the Source Writer template--seems a bit tricky at times. I'm working with the Federal census mortality schedules now. It appears that the mortality schedules on Ancestry come from a variety of NARA microfilms, depending on which state the information is coming from. It appears, unlike the Federal censuses for which each year cites a single microfilm reference (e.g. the 1860 census refers to M653), the source of the source here changes depending on the state. But I see no Legacy SourceWriter template. I also note that the Ancestry.com citation doesn't seem to match Mills, or Legacy. Take the 1860 population schedule. Legacy, modeling Mills, says the citation should look like this: 1860 U.S. census, Monroe County, New York population schedule; digital images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M653. But Ancestry says: Ancestry.com. *1860 United States Federal Census* [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009. Images reproduced by FamilySearch. Original data: 1860 U.S. census, population schedule. NARA microfilm publication M653, 1,438 rolls. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Citation junkies who use Ancestry, how do you reconcile this in your mind? Just two different systems? And, most importantly, how do you cite nonpopulation schedules given the absence of a template in Legacy? For example, I'm looking at an image of the 1860 Mortality Schedule for Lycoming County, PA. Ancestry lists: Citation #1: Ancestry.com. *U.S. Federal Census Mortality Schedules, 1850-1885* [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. A portion of this collection was indexed by Ancestry World Archives Project contributors. Original data citations: General: United States. *Federal Mortality Census Schedules, 1850-1880 (formerly in the custody of the Daughters of the American Revolution), and Related Indexes, 1850-1880.* T655, 30 rolls. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. For PA, it then lists: United States. *Non-Population Census Schedules for Pennsylvania, 1850-1880: Mortality*. M1838, 11 rolls. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. The particular record I'm looking at appears to have come from roll M1838, so I suppose that is the citation I should use. I'm not sure when the generic U.S. citation would apply? Perhaps some records are from T655 and others from M1838. I *think* the right citation (Mills style) is: 1860 U.S. census, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania mortality schedule; digital images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M1838. What do you think? And, again, most importantly how do you cite this in Legacy? Use the census template and overrride it? Something else? Thanks!! Scott Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare?
Scott, I agree. It is a citation nightmare. I have subscribed to Ancestry since 2002 and also used Legacy Family Tree since 2002, long before I ever heard of Evidence Explained or the Legacy SourceWriter, but, I was always annoyed at the way Ancestry.com is put in the first element of the source citations they provide. I consider Ancestry.com as a Repository. I certainly give credit for their indexing, which is frequently flawed, but I definitely distinguish between indexes and digital images. As you have shown, it is definitely challenging to try to go from Ancestry.com citations to the Legacy 7 source writer templates. I am tending to use the Basic format for citations. It also seems impossible to go from Legacy source writer template produced citations and put them in a Family Tree on Ancestry. Until recently, I mostly avoided the member trees on Ancestry. Currently I am building a small family tree on Ancestry, by entering names and dates that I already have recorded in Legacy for each individuals, and then within my Ancdestry tree, I click to have Ancestry search for historical sources, and then save the Ancestry source citation to the individual in the tree with a click. My plan is to export the tree from Ancestry and open it in Legacy and then compare with my original file, to see how this works. Pauline Scott Hall wrote: I have finally decided to start my subcription to Ancestry.com, but have hit a bit of a barrier out of the gate--my old friend, citations. Ancestry is very good at telling you exactly what the citation should be, but matching that to Evidence Explained--or the Source Writer template--seems a bit tricky at times. I'm working with the Federal census mortality schedules now. It appears that the mortality schedules on Ancestry come from a variety of NARA microfilms, depending on which state the information is coming from. It appears, unlike the Federal censuses for which each year cites a single microfilm reference (e.g. the 1860 census refers to M653), the source of the source here changes depending on the state. But I see no Legacy SourceWriter template. I also note that the Ancestry.com citation doesn't seem to match Mills, or Legacy. Take the 1860 population schedule. Legacy, modeling Mills, says the citation should look like this: 1860 U.S. census, Monroe County, New York population schedule; digital images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M653. But Ancestry says: Ancestry.com. *1860 United States Federal Census* [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009. Images reproduced by FamilySearch. Original data: 1860 U.S. census, population schedule. NARA microfilm publication M653, 1,438 rolls. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Citation junkies who use Ancestry, how do you reconcile this in your mind? Just two different systems? And, most importantly, how do you cite nonpopulation schedules given the absence of a template in Legacy? For example, I'm looking at an image of the 1860 Mortality Schedule for Lycoming County, PA. Ancestry lists: Citation #1: Ancestry.com. *U.S. Federal Census Mortality Schedules, 1850-1885* [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. A portion of this collection was indexed by Ancestry World Archives Project contributors. Original data citations: General: United States. *Federal Mortality Census Schedules, 1850-1880 (formerly in the custody of the Daughters of the American Revolution), and Related Indexes, 1850-1880.* T655, 30 rolls. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. For PA, it then lists: United States. *Non-Population Census Schedules for Pennsylvania, 1850-1880: Mortality*. M1838, 11 rolls. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. The particular record I'm looking at appears to have come from roll M1838, so I suppose that is the citation I should use. I'm not sure when the generic U.S. citation would apply? Perhaps some records are from T655 and others from M1838. I *think* the right citation (Mills style) is: 1860 U.S. census, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania mortality schedule; digital images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M1838. What do you think? And, again, most importantly how do you cite this in Legacy? Use the census template and overrride it? Something else? Thanks!! Scott Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To
Re: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare?
Scott, Rich, et al, IMHO you may be making more out of this than it warrants. The goal of sources is to get as close to the original event as possible. If Ancestry transcribed the census, you may use them as the source with a with a Surety of 2 - Probable Conclusion at best or perhaps a 1, depending on your confidence level in Ancestry. In my experience, Ancestry transcriptions rate a 1 or aren't even used. I always try to get a photocopy. If Ancestry posted either a scanned or photographically reproduced copy of the original page, and the originator was NARA, you should use NARA as the source. Period. In that case, Ancestry should appear as and only as the repository, not as the source, as they would have you do. Then the paper trail is clean and goes back to the NARA original. Like many others here, I have performed census transcriptions for the Mormons and know first hand how difficult it can be to read and how inaccurate the results can be. They mitigate that by having two independent transcribers work on the same census. In case of different results, a third party then judges what the results should be used. I've been doing this for a pretty long time and do not use Ancestry transcriptions. Final comment: census data was registered by human beings, so spelling may or may not be accurate. Some data, such as birth dates, occupation, parents place of origin, etc. was supplied by someone other than the subject. Use your judgment when assigning surety levels to census content, I may have 1's and 2's in the same census location and year; almost never a 3. I recognize this quality judgment is my own opinion but it's probably about as good as the census taker's. (g) Hugh W, Busey _ On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Scott Hall seh0...@gmail.com wrote: I have finally decided to start my subcription to Ancestry.com, but have hit a bit of a barrier out of the gate--my old friend, citations. Ancestry is very good at telling you exactly what the citation should be, but matching that to Evidence Explained--or the Source Writer template--seems a bit tricky at times. I'm working with the Federal census mortality schedules now. It appears that the mortality schedules on Ancestry come from a variety of NARA microfilms, depending on which state the information is coming from. It appears, unlike the Federal censuses for which each year cites a single microfilm reference (e.g. the 1860 census refers to M653), the source of the source here changes depending on the state. But I see no Legacy SourceWriter template. I also note that the Ancestry.com citation doesn't seem to match Mills, or Legacy. Take the 1860 population schedule. Legacy, modeling Mills, says the citation should look like this: 1860 U.S. census, Monroe County, New York population schedule; digital images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M653. But Ancestry says: Ancestry.com. *1860 United States Federal Census* [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009. Images reproduced by FamilySearch. Original data: 1860 U.S. census, population schedule. NARA microfilm publication M653, 1,438 rolls. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Citation junkies who use Ancestry, how do you reconcile this in your mind? Just two different systems? And, most importantly, how do you cite nonpopulation schedules given the absence of a template in Legacy? For example, I'm looking at an image of the 1860 Mortality Schedule for Lycoming County, PA. Ancestry lists: Citation #1: Ancestry.com. *U.S. Federal Census Mortality Schedules, 1850-1885* [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. A portion of this collection was indexed by Ancestry World Archives Project contributors. Original data citations: General: United States. *Federal Mortality Census Schedules, 1850-1880 (formerly in the custody of the Daughters of the American Revolution), and Related Indexes, 1850-1880.* T655, 30 rolls. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. For PA, it then lists: United States. *Non-Population Census Schedules for Pennsylvania, 1850-1880: Mortality*. M1838, 11 rolls. National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. The particular record I'm looking at appears to have come from roll M1838, so I suppose that is the citation I should use. I'm not sure when the generic U.S. citation would apply? Perhaps some records are from T655 and others from M1838. I *think* the right citation (Mills style) is: 1860 U.S. census, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania mortality schedule; digital images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M1838. What do you think? And, again, most importantly how do you cite
Re: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare?
Ah, the challenge deepens. Two questions, one exactly on point to the original e-mail, one slightly off point. 1. So as not to forget my original question -- how, in Legacy, do you cite nonpopulation schedules? 2. When Ancestry's original source is NARA, but the images are from FHL, what do you cite -- NARA or FHL? Here's my second Ancestry.com challenge: The WWI draft cards, per Ancestry: Source Citation: Registration Location: Ontario County, New York; Roll 1818611; Draft Board: 2. Ancestry.com. World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. Original data: United States, Selective Service System. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. M1509, 4,582 rolls. Imaged from Family History Library microfilm. Uh, wait...if I say citing NARA microfilm M1509, the roll is NOT 1818611. That's the FHL roll number. So, fill in the blank for the Mills' version of this citation: World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918, database and images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 June 2010), card for George William Fricke, serial no. 68, Local Draft Board 2, Ontario County, New York; citing ___ . I was going to follow the census and put NARA microfilm M1509, roll ___, but I'd have to hunt for the NARA roll number. The NARA has a list, but it won't help much, especially if the location stretches across many rolls. For my example it could be either roll NY355 or NY356. What's the general rule for citing middle men anyway? When Ancestry gets their information from FHL, who gets their information from NARA, who do you cite -- FHL or NARA? Continued thanks! Fun stuff! Scott On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Hugh Busey hbu...@gmail.com wrote: Scott, Rich, et al, IMHO you may be making more out of this than it warrants. The goal of sources is to get as close to the original event as possible. If Ancestry transcribed the census, you may use them as the source with a with a Surety of 2 - Probable Conclusion at best or perhaps a 1, depending on your confidence level in Ancestry. In my experience, Ancestry transcriptions rate a 1 or aren't even used. I always try to get a photocopy. If Ancestry posted either a scanned or photographically reproduced copy of the original page, and the originator was NARA, you should use NARA as the source. Period. In that case, Ancestry should appear as and only as the repository, not as the source, as they would have you do. Then the paper trail is clean and goes back to the NARA original. Like many others here, I have performed census transcriptions for the Mormons and know first hand how difficult it can be to read and how inaccurate the results can be. They mitigate that by having two independent transcribers work on the same census. In case of different results, a third party then judges what the results should be used. I've been doing this for a pretty long time and do not use Ancestry transcriptions. Final comment: census data was registered by human beings, so spelling may or may not be accurate. Some data, such as birth dates, occupation, parents place of origin, etc. was supplied by someone other than the subject. Use your judgment when assigning surety levels to census content, I may have 1's and 2's in the same census location and year; almost never a 3. I recognize this quality judgment is my own opinion but it's probably about as good as the census taker's. (g) Hugh W, Busey _ On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Scott Hall seh0...@gmail.com wrote: I have finally decided to start my subcription to Ancestry.com, but have hit a bit of a barrier out of the gate--my old friend, citations. Ancestry is very good at telling you exactly what the citation should be, but matching that to Evidence Explained--or the Source Writer template--seems a bit tricky at times. I'm working with the Federal census mortality schedules now. It appears that the mortality schedules on Ancestry come from a variety of NARA microfilms, depending on which state the information is coming from. It appears, unlike the Federal censuses for which each year cites a single microfilm reference (e.g. the 1860 census refers to M653), the source of the source here changes depending on the state. But I see no Legacy SourceWriter template. I also note that the Ancestry.com citation doesn't seem to match Mills, or Legacy. Take the 1860 population schedule. Legacy, modeling Mills, says the citation should look like this: 1860 U.S. census, Monroe County, New York population schedule; digital images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M653. But Ancestry says: Ancestry.com. *1860 United States Federal Census* [database
RE: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare?
Scott, I am no expert by any means, however, my thoughts on this is as follows; 1) Original Source: United States, Selective Service System. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. 2) 1st Derivative: National Archives and Records Administration microfilm. M1509, 4,582 rolls. 3) 2nd Derivative: Family History Library microfilm. 4) 3rd Derivative: Ancestry.com. Personally, I think what we need to remember is 1. Where we got the information from, and 2) can the reader of our research follow our citations to the source that we found or used. Just my thoughts, I am sure other's may look at it differently. Charles -Original Message- From: Scott Hall [mailto:seh0...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:19 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare? Ah, the challenge deepens. Two questions, one exactly on point to the original e-mail, one slightly off point. 1. So as not to forget my original question -- how, in Legacy, do you cite nonpopulation schedules? 2. When Ancestry's original source is NARA, but the images are from FHL, what do you cite -- NARA or FHL? Here's my second Ancestry.com challenge: The WWI draft cards, per Ancestry: Source Citation: Registration Location: Ontario County, New York; Roll 1818611; Draft Board: 2. Ancestry.com. World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. Original data: United States, Selective Service System. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration. M1509, 4,582 rolls. Imaged from Family History Library microfilm. Uh, wait...if I say citing NARA microfilm M1509, the roll is NOT 1818611. That's the FHL roll number. So, fill in the blank for the Mills' version of this citation: World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918, database and images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 June 2010), card for George William Fricke, serial no. 68, Local Draft Board 2, Ontario County, New York; citing ___ . I was going to follow the census and put NARA microfilm M1509, roll ___, but I'd have to hunt for the NARA roll number. The NARA has a list, but it won't help much, especially if the location stretches across many rolls. For my example it could be either roll NY355 or NY356. What's the general rule for citing middle men anyway? When Ancestry gets their information from FHL, who gets their information from NARA, who do you cite -- FHL or NARA? Continued thanks! Fun stuff! Scott On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Hugh Busey hbu...@gmail.com wrote: Scott, Rich, et al, IMHO you may be making more out of this than it warrants. The goal of sources is to get as close to the original event as possible. If Ancestry transcribed the census, you may use them as the source with a with a Surety of 2 - Probable Conclusion at best or perhaps a 1, depending on your confidence level in Ancestry. In my experience, Ancestry transcriptions rate a 1 or aren't even used. I always try to get a photocopy. If Ancestry posted either a scanned or photographically reproduced copy of the original page, and the originator was NARA, you should use NARA as the source. Period. In that case, Ancestry should appear as and only as the repository, not as the source, as they would have you do. Then the paper trail is clean and goes back to the NARA original. Like many others here, I have performed census transcriptions for the Mormons and know first hand how difficult it can be to read and how inaccurate the results can be. They mitigate that by having two independent transcribers work on the same census. In case of different results, a third party then judges what the results should be used. I've been doing this for a pretty long time and do not use Ancestry transcriptions. Final comment: census data was registered by human beings, so spelling may or may not be accurate. Some data, such as birth dates, occupation, parents place of origin, etc. was supplied by someone other than the subject. Use your judgment when assigning surety levels to census content, I may have 1's and 2's in the same census location and year; almost never a 3. I recognize this quality judgment is my own opinion but it's probably about as good as the census taker's. (g) Hugh W, Busey _ On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Scott Hall seh0...@gmail.com wrote: I have finally decided to start my subcription to Ancestry.com, but have hit a bit of a barrier out of the gate--my old friend, citations. Ancestry is very good at telling you exactly what the citation should be, but matching that to Evidence Explained--or the Source Writer template--seems a bit tricky at times. I'm working with the Federal census
