The idea would not be difficult to implement. As far as the meaning of the number: 0 least certain on a scale to 3 most certain. This field actually gets exported to GEDCOM QUAY which is a "standard" and as I understand the standard all other programs would interpret as stated. Thus where one person said they use 1 to indicate primary, 2 as secondary source, etc. I think that most other users/programs would misinterpret such information and read the 3 as being the most reliable data. Ira ------------------------------------------------ Mr. Ira J. Lund Cumberland Family Software E-mail: ira.lund@cf-software.com Web: http://www.cf-software.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens E. (Mik) Brammer" <brammer@ddf.dk> To: <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:10 AM Subject: SV: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > Rosemary, > In the User Manual for CFT for Windows, ver. 1.00, Ira writes on page 85: > "Sure Fields. You may enter a number from 0 to 3 in this field. ... If you > are absolutely certain of the information, enter a 3. If you are totally > uncertain, enter a 0. All sure fields default to 0 when an individual is > first added." > I have used it that way ever since - quite happily. > Jens Brammer, Denmark > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Rosemary (by way of "George W. Durman" <GeorgeWDurman@comcast.net>) > [mailto:rjorg@tbaytel.net] > Sendt: 29. marts 2004 00:22 > Til: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com > Emne: Re: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > > > > Although I like this idea, I think we would need to all use the same scale > for defining our sources. It sounds like you use the scale from 0 - 3 as 0 > being unsure and 3 being the most sure. I wonder how many of us use 0 for > no proof or unsure but allow 1 to represent primary sources and 2 for > secondary sources and 3 for tertiary sources. Actually even if Ira doesn't > make the change suggested, I would be interested in knowing how everyone > else codes their data. What are most of us doing? > Rosemary

Thanks folks for everyone's feedback. I too have my data organized this way and as a very early user of the original DOS program I likely saw it in the first manual like Jen quoted and set it up that way. I must confess though that over the past year I have been wondering if I had misinterpreted the coding system and maybe I should take all my data and start to recode it to be 1 for primary and 2 for secondary etc. I didn't do it yet because the thought of it was so daunting but it has bugged me all year. Now I am happy as a clam again and don't need to worry about painstakingly changing every one of my codes. Thanks for everyone's input and I really appreciate your comments Ira that this is the agreed upon standard. When I first started out with this hobby I didn't know my butt from my elbow and have just tried to figure things out as I went so I am never really sure if I am doing things absolutely according to standards. Now that I have about fourteen years invested! in this work it is more and more important to me that it is of good quality and worthy of the time invested. I lament my lax standards & inexperience of the early years but I guess that most people must be in the same boat too. Thanks for the reassurance. Rosemary ----- Original Message ----- From: Ira J Lund To: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list The idea would not be difficult to implement. As far as the meaning of the number: 0 least certain on a scale to 3 most certain. This field actually gets exported to GEDCOM QUAY which is a "standard" and as I understand the standard all other programs would interpret as stated. Thus where one person said they use 1 to indicate primary, 2 as secondary source, etc. I think that most other users/programs would misinterpret such information and read the 3 as being the most reliable data. Ira ------------------------------------------------ Mr. Ira J. Lund Cumberland Family Software E-mail: ira.lund@cf-software.com Web: http://www.cf-software.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens E. (Mik) Brammer" <brammer@ddf.dk> To: <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:10 AM Subject: SV: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > Rosemary, > In the User Manual for CFT for Windows, ver. 1.00, Ira writes on page 85: > "Sure Fields. You may enter a number from 0 to 3 in this field. ... If you > are absolutely certain of the information, enter a 3. If you are totally > uncertain, enter a 0. All sure fields default to 0 when an individual is > first added." > I have used it that way ever since - quite happily. > Jens Brammer, Denmark > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Rosemary (by way of "George W. Durman" <GeorgeWDurman@comcast.net>) > [mailto:rjorg@tbaytel.net] > Sendt: 29. marts 2004 00:22 > Til: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com > Emne: Re: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > > > > Although I like this idea, I think we would need to all use the same scale > for defining our sources. It sounds like you use the scale from 0 - 3 as 0 > being unsure and 3 being the most sure. I wonder how many of us use 0 for > no proof or unsure but allow 1 to represent primary sources and 2 for > secondary sources and 3 for tertiary sources. Actually even if Ira doesn't > make the change suggested, I would be interested in knowing how everyone > else codes their data. What are most of us doing? > Rosemary ==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== You can contact the List Manager at: CFT-WIN-admin@rootsweb.com ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

At 3/29/04 07:19 AM Monday, Ira J Lund wrote: *********START OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT********* >The idea would not be difficult to implement. > >As far as the meaning of the number: 0 least certain on a scale to 3 most >certain. This field actually gets exported to GEDCOM QUAY which is a >"standard" and as I understand the standard all other programs would >interpret as stated. Thus where one person said they use 1 to indicate >primary, 2 as secondary source, etc. I think that most other >users/programs would misinterpret such information and read the 3 as being >the most reliable data. > >Ira >(snip) **********END OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT*********** I absolutely agree with Ira. He must keep such fields compatible with other genealogy programs, especially when they have been "universally accepted" as a standard. If those using the field for 1=primary, 2=secondary, and 3=tertiary, export a GEDCOM to be imported into someone else's program, which is NOT CFT-WIN, then the information in that field will certainly be misinterpreted. And, vice-versa. I don't think we need to mess with that field and make it represent something it was not intended for. Better to either add a note as to the type of source, or to have another CFT-standard field; of course, the latter would cause more work for Ira and wouldn't get imported into other programs anyway. Regards, George -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.230 / Virus Database: 262.6.4 - Release Date: 3/29/04