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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill LaBarge To: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 12:45 PM Subject: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list Ira: I try to reference each piece of information that I enter into my database to the source from which it came. Many of the sources I use are very old church records and family bible entries, the dates of many of the events (births, marriages, deaths, etc.) from these sources differ. The criteria used to identify the Event date to be displayed on the Family Group Window appears to be the "latest date" in the Individual's Edit Window for the Event. A suggestion would be the "Sur" field entry - for example a SUR=3 would identify the event date as the most probable and therefore the date to be displayed on the Family Group Window and also any other window or report the displays a most probable date. Thanks for all you past help and interest. Bill LaBarge -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.230 / Virus Database: 262.6.3 - Release Date: 3/28/04

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

Right, I use it the same way, that is: - 0 for not certain, no prove at all - 1 information from other persons/ websites - 2 good reliable information but no proof - 3 have (seen) the proof myself (photocopy of original) This works absolutely fine. In general I still have to work on those events who do not yet have a certainty level of "3" . Let's keep it like that pls. Regards, Ted Voordouw ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens E. (Mik) Brammer" <brammer@ddf.dk> To: <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:10 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 >