Comments on: A Better Way to Cite Online Sources–Reprise

Comments on: A Better Way to Cite Online Sources–Reprise http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2011/02/10/a-better-way-to-cite-online-sourcesreprise/ genealogy, software, ideas, and innovation Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:16:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Mark Tucker http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2011/02/10/a-better-way-to-cite-online-sourcesreprise/comment-page-1/#comment-2892 Mark Tucker Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:23:06 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2011/02/10/a-better-way-to-cite-online-sourcesreprise/#comment-2892 Stan, I can tell that you are very frustrated. So are many other people. Some are frustrated that when they started doing research nobody told them they needed to cite sources. Now they have a lot of information but no citations. Others are frustrated because their online sources don't include citations that follow Evidence Explained and they are stuck with the provided citations or need to manually edit them. I think citing sources is very important for you and others that will benefit from your work. I have no quick fixes at the moment. I am torn as to what I should recommend. Are the citations "good enough" for you to find the sources again? If you think so, maybe spend your time researching and analyzing instead and hope that Ancestry improves their citations in the future. Stan,

I can tell that you are very frustrated. So are many other people.

Some are frustrated that when they started doing research nobody told them they needed to cite sources. Now they have a lot of information but no citations.
Others are frustrated because their online sources don’t include citations that follow Evidence Explained and they are stuck with the provided citations or need to manually edit them.

I think citing sources is very important for you and others that will benefit from your work. I have no quick fixes at the moment. I am torn as to what I should recommend. Are the citations “good enough” for you to find the sources again? If you think so, maybe spend your time researching and analyzing instead and hope that Ancestry improves their citations in the future.

]]> By: Stan Armstrong http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2011/02/10/a-better-way-to-cite-online-sourcesreprise/comment-page-1/#comment-2891 Stan Armstrong Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:50:12 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2011/02/10/a-better-way-to-cite-online-sourcesreprise/#comment-2891 I just came across your video, Mark, via a 'citation' from someone on a RootsMagic forum. I am using RM4 on a family tree of about 1000 names that I started about three years ago and took up again this January. Most of my research to date has been through online sources, notably Ancestry, FamilySearch, and a database provided by the Counsel of Bah-Rhin, Alsace, France. My original research was done using Ancestry.com online. I have FTM 2011 now, but I am doing my work in RM4. I have kept my subscription to Ancestry.com. I really want to source all of my data, but, good grief, it is so complex. I have a copy of Evidence Explained out of our local library. I have read much material on sourcing from RM help files and forums, but the prospect of sourcing all of my entries is intimidating. Let me give one example. I have many entries with multiple census links for different facts. When I downloaded my Ancestry.com work as a GEDCOM, freeform citations to the Ancestry.com references came along. OK, I can live with those. The RM folks recommend against trying to convert them to appropriate templates. But what about my current research? One of the reasons I continue to pay Ancestry is for access to their complete collection of census images. The WebSearch feature of RM4 gives me convenient access to those images, but I don't see how to get citation information into RM4 short of manually copying it. Maybe I should maintain a catchall online Ancestry.com tree into which I could stick all of my persons of interest without attempting to construct a proper tree. Then I could download that bogus tree's GEDCOM, open it in RM4, and do a manual merge. Oh yes, I would also need to capture the relevant census images and download them. Then I would need to associate each source citation with its corresponding image. ARRRGH! There has to be a better way. Until the genealogical messiah comes and sets our little world aright, does anyone have some half-measures that lighten the load? I just came across your video, Mark, via a ‘citation’ from someone on a RootsMagic forum. I am using RM4 on a family tree of about 1000 names that I started about three years ago and took up again this January. Most of my research to date has been through online sources, notably Ancestry, FamilySearch, and a database provided by the Counsel of Bah-Rhin, Alsace, France. My original research was done using Ancestry.com online. I have FTM 2011 now, but I am doing my work in RM4. I have kept my subscription to Ancestry.com.

I really want to source all of my data, but, good grief, it is so complex. I have a copy of Evidence Explained out of our local library. I have read much material on sourcing from RM help files and forums, but the prospect of sourcing all of my entries is intimidating. Let me give one example. I have many entries with multiple census links for different facts. When I downloaded my Ancestry.com work as a GEDCOM, freeform citations to the Ancestry.com references came along. OK, I can live with those. The RM folks recommend against trying to convert them to appropriate templates. But what about my current research? One of the reasons I continue to pay Ancestry is for access to their complete collection of census images. The WebSearch feature of RM4 gives me convenient access to those images, but I don’t see how to get citation information into RM4 short of manually copying it. Maybe I should maintain a catchall online Ancestry.com tree into which I could stick all of my persons of interest without attempting to construct a proper tree. Then I could download that bogus tree’s GEDCOM, open it in RM4, and do a manual merge. Oh yes, I would also need to capture the relevant census images and download them. Then I would need to associate each source citation with its corresponding image.

ARRRGH! There has to be a better way. Until the genealogical messiah comes and sets our little world aright, does anyone have some half-measures that lighten the load?

]]> By: Michelle Goodrum http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2011/02/10/a-better-way-to-cite-online-sourcesreprise/comment-page-1/#comment-2784 Michelle Goodrum Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:36:22 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2011/02/10/a-better-way-to-cite-online-sourcesreprise/#comment-2784 I remember the original discussion in interviews you gave. I'm glad you have resurrected this topic as it's just as pertinent now and maybe even more so after the recent Roots Tech conference. Looking forward to hearing more. I remember the original discussion in interviews you gave. I’m glad you have resurrected this topic as it’s just as pertinent now and maybe even more so after the recent Roots Tech conference.

Looking forward to hearing more.

]]> By: Denies Levenick http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2011/02/10/a-better-way-to-cite-online-sourcesreprise/comment-page-1/#comment-2737 Denies Levenick Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:22:46 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2011/02/10/a-better-way-to-cite-online-sourcesreprise/#comment-2737 Mark, Please do write more about our citation needs! This is exactly the input that developers need to hear. I can't remember if I participated in your survey, but I am very interested in the results. As a former high school English teacher, I am well acquainted with the difficulties in propeer source citation. For many students... And I suspect many genealogists... The process seems complicated and confusing. ESM style IS complicated, but then, so are the forms of sources we consult. One good thing that has come out is the interest and "fuss" over citation style... It shows that family historians are accepting the need to cite at all. I'm looking forward to reading more on this subject on your blog. Mark, Please do write more about our citation needs! This is exactly the input that developers need to hear. I can’t remember if I participated in your survey, but I am very interested in the results.

As a former high school English teacher, I am well acquainted with the difficulties in propeer source citation. For many students… And I suspect many genealogists… The process seems complicated and confusing. ESM style IS complicated, but then, so are the forms of sources we consult. One good thing that has come out is the interest and “fuss” over citation style… It shows that family historians are accepting the need to cite at all.

I’m looking forward to reading more on this subject on your blog.

]]>