Comments on: RootsMagic 4 Citation Quality Gotcha #1 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/07/07/rootsmagic-4-citation-quality-gotcha-1/ genealogy, software, ideas, and innovation Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:35:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jack http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/07/07/rootsmagic-4-citation-quality-gotcha-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1674 Jack Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:33:59 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=747#comment-1674 Thanks for this discussion! I've "copied" it for studying. I was somewhat stunned by the amount of source work (reformatting, etc) that I had to complete after upgrade from RM3 to RM4. Jack Thanks for this discussion! I’ve “copied” it for studying. I was somewhat stunned by the amount of source work (reformatting, etc) that I had to complete after upgrade from RM3 to RM4.

Jack

]]> By: RootsMagic 4 Citation Quality Gotcha #2 | ThinkGenealogy http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/07/07/rootsmagic-4-citation-quality-gotcha-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1191 RootsMagic 4 Citation Quality Gotcha #2 | ThinkGenealogy Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:03:02 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=747#comment-1191 [...] gotcha #1 we looked at the issue of having the Source quality associated with the Source Details instead of [...] [...] gotcha #1 we looked at the issue of having the Source quality associated with the Source Details instead of [...]

]]> By: GeneJ http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/07/07/rootsmagic-4-citation-quality-gotcha-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1190 GeneJ Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:12:42 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=747#comment-1190 Hi Mark: If you "think" of sources in context, believe you'll regard RootsMagic's application differently. If a census transcription is used as a source for numerous citations, that entire source (for all of its ciations) can be considered a "derivative"; however, many sources, including some of our most treasured sources, are not so "pure." For example, Aunt Nellie's 1877 bible, into which she made what appear timely entries for her marriage and the births of all her children, their marriages, her spouse's death, etc., but she also recorded the dates of her parents' births? In that case, I hope you would agree, that the various RM "quality" ratings could only be applied at the citation level. In this digital age, a cemetery compilation can be developed from a mix of tombstone photographs, cemetery office records, annotated cemetery maps, obituaries, etc.--so that, again, various ratings seem only accurate at the citation level. I'm one of those who opts out of separate source and/or citation quality categorization. While there are other reasons why I opt out, rather than create categories about the source that are only available from the project file, I'd prefer family historians comment "in" the source or citation record, as appropriate. The benefit of including an evaluative notation "in" the source or citation is that correspondence to others then incorporates the evaluation about the source item (in the footnotes/endnotes and or source list, as appropriate). Some programs allow you to use "categorizations" to filter the sources/footnotes/endnotes--if those categorizations are applied at the source (rather than citation) level, the program would filter out what might otherwise be important evidence, right? --GJ Hi Mark:
If you “think” of sources in context, believe you’ll regard RootsMagic’s application differently.
If a census transcription is used as a source for numerous citations, that entire source (for all of its ciations) can be considered a “derivative”; however, many sources, including some of our most treasured sources, are not so “pure.” For example, Aunt Nellie’s 1877 bible, into which she made what appear timely entries for her marriage and the births of all her children, their marriages, her spouse’s death, etc., but she also recorded the dates of her parents’ births? In that case, I hope you would agree, that the various RM “quality” ratings could only be applied at the citation level.
In this digital age, a cemetery compilation can be developed from a mix of tombstone photographs, cemetery office records, annotated cemetery maps, obituaries, etc.–so that, again, various ratings seem only accurate at the citation level.
I’m one of those who opts out of separate source and/or citation quality categorization. While there are other reasons why I opt out, rather than create categories about the source that are only available from the project file, I’d prefer family historians comment “in” the source or citation record, as appropriate. The benefit of including an evaluative notation “in” the source or citation is that correspondence to others then incorporates the evaluation about the source item (in the footnotes/endnotes and or source list, as appropriate).
Some programs allow you to use “categorizations” to filter the sources/footnotes/endnotes–if those categorizations are applied at the source (rather than citation) level, the program would filter out what might otherwise be important evidence, right? –GJ

]]>