>>>2. Shouldn't the default values for Surname and >Given be the >>>corresponding values from the People record >(rather than blank) when the >>>option to fill in the data from the previous >detail form is not requested? >>No. The whole point of having a surname and given >name field in the detail >>screen is to allow you to enter the person's name >as it's recorded in the >>record. You are transcribing a document into Clooz. >You should transcribe >>the document as it appears, misspellings or >alternate names included. > >Yes, of course, but most of the time the names are >at least close, so >changing the name from the People record to match >the directory listing >would require less typing than retyping from >scratch. That would be faster >for those of us who are hunt-and-peck typists. After you've entered the surname or given name once, Clooz "remembers" it. On subsequent entries you only have to type the first few letters and Clooz will automatically fill in the rest of the field with the closest matching name. In most cases this requires less typing for the hunt and peck typists. >>>5. If you find a person in successive instances of >the same directory, do >>>you create one source record for each year or just >one for the >>>series? If the latter, it would certainly be >handy to be able to build >>>each year's source record from a previously >entered record. >>I assume you mean successive years of the same >directory? Each directory >>merits its own record, including the source >information since there is >>different source information. I'll keep your >suggestion in mind. > >I was asking whether each year should have a >separate source (which I see >you say it should). Since each Directory record >bears a year field, isn't >that sufficient to show which year of an annual >directory was >consulted? Also, many years of the same directory >make a lot of sources to >scroll past. Each year's record should have a separate source. If you found John Doe in the 1951 and 1952 directories, you would create separate records because: (a) I don't think it's possible to enter the same person twice for the same record and (b) the sources for these two records *are* different. . . the 1952 directory was not published in 1951, was it? If so, the publisher was clairvoyant. Also, the publishing company and/or address may have changed, the title of the directory may have changed slightly (especially if it includes the year in its title), the library call numbers will be different. Several years from now it should be clear to another researcher where you got that information. Won't it confuse him or her if you record the 1951 and 1952 entries as both coming from the same directory (i.e., source)? Is it a pain to have several similar but slightly different source records? I suppose so. It all depends on how accurate you want to be. Researchers of the future will be grateful for your attention to detail. . . unless you have no plans to share your findings with others. >Maybe I'm missing a key point of Clooz theory here. >Should I be throwing >out the pages of pencil notes I take from city >directories at the library >after I transcribe them into Clooz, keeping only the >Clooz >transcriptions? This point is not as clear as the >case of an original >document or a photocopy of an original document, >where Clooz serves just as >the index. I would never throw away my research notes. While you can print out the reports as substitute versions of your notes, I still file the original behind it. The Clooz report may be easier to read at a glance because it is typed and formatted. This is especially true for documents containing difficult-to-read handwriting. It saves you from having to reanalyze the handwriting each time you pick up that document (even your own handwriting in hastily scrawled research notes). I use Clooz as an index program to help me organize and find documents, not to replace them. Not everyone transcribes the entire document into Clooz. Some users input basic information only and leave the analyzing of other details to a physical examination of each document. I prefer to transcribe as many of the fields as possible because I'm too lazy to dig out each individual document. I find it easier to consult a Clooz report. Kathy Bovenschen <[email protected]>