Such a Census Return would be cited four times: By whole record for relationship to head; By Birth Event for birthplace; By Census Event for age; By Occupation Attribute for occupation; And each Citation has a separate assessment for that particular data. Regards, Mike Tate Sent from my Hudl Paul via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: >Though largely agreeing with Colin Thompson, I have no use at all for the >GEDCOM "quality" measures - they conflate a whole series of assessments into >a single "citation" measure. > >Firstly, one should be able to grade individual *sources*. > >Secondly, each citation (for one event) may cover a number of detail items >(e.g. in a census return relationship to Head, age, birthplace, occupation), >some of which are more trustworthy than others. > >As with risk assessments, a full picture has to take account of every level. > >In general we don't do genealogy assessment that way. It's almost always >much more subjective, so why make a rod for our backs? > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Though largely agreeing with Colin Thompson, I have no use at all for the GEDCOM "quality" measures - they conflate a whole series of assessments into a single "citation" measure. Firstly, one should be able to grade individual *sources*. Secondly, each citation (for one event) may cover a number of detail items (e.g. in a census return relationship to Head, age, birthplace, occupation), some of which are more trustworthy than others. As with risk assessments, a full picture has to take account of every level. In general we don't do genealogy assessment that way. It's almost always much more subjective, so why make a rod for our backs?

Here are some more thoughts about recording birth dates. Perhaps most of the time, you will have several "data points" that imply birth year - for example one (or probably more) census age, possibly age at marriage, even age at death. In the absence of a definite DoB (usually from birth certificate), the "real" date will likely have an uncertainty of *at least* a year. This is because census age reporting is notoriously variable, and even age at death may well not be accurate. (Incidentally, it is not unknown for claimed birth dates on a certificate to be in error - deliberately or not.) My own approach is to choose a birth year that best fits the available data and qualify it with "App(roximate)". Note that the Family Historian Property Box Event display is very handy here in highlighting which event ages are "out of bounds". Note also that I try to avoid a birth date range expression like "Between x And y" because FH cannot then do its date calculations! I don't know how widely this is understood, but apparently FH treats "1870" or "c.1870" as "1 Jan 1870" for calculation purposes. Similarly "Feb 1870" would be taken as "1 Feb 1870" and "Q3 1870" as "1 Jul 1870". The important things are to be consistent about your method of recording birth date *and* to include reported age in your source citations (so others can form their own opinion). Just a couple of extra comments. There is not *usually*, in my opinion, much point in trying to estimate birth date to better than a year (some life event ages may be inconsistent). However, with a birth registration index you may be able to narrow that down to a specific quarter (e.g. Q3 1870). In that case I would choose the birth date as "c. Aug 1870". Note that I chose *middle* month of the period on the basis that the actual *registration* date would be at most about one month in error. And in all but exceptional cases the actual birth date would not have been more than a week or two different from that. Happy Christmas, All P.S. I did not mention the other two GEDCOM date qualifiers "Calculated" and "Estimated". This is not the place to resurrect discussion about the differences from "Approximate". Suffice to say I get by perfectly well without them. except in some very special cases.

I like to use the GEDCOM qualifiers to remind myself of the nature of the approximated birth year. I use "calculated" when the date has been generated by a calculation (back-calculated from a year in a census record). I use "estimated" when I have made some guess of my own (and record the reasoning in a research note). The real challenge comes when forms such as the US WWI and WWII Draft Registrations, which have both a date of birth and an age on them, are not consistent with each other! In those cases, I've found that the day and month are often accurate, but the year of birth has been reported wrongly or calculated from the age. One of the people in my database has a WWII reg card that put his birth in 1892, and as far as I've been able to tell, he was baptized in 1890! All of the records with dates agree that he was born in July, and those that do have a day recorded agree on the day, but the year is all over the place. Jan Murphy On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Paul via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Here are some more thoughts about recording birth dates. > > Perhaps most of the time, you will have several "data points" that imply > birth year - for example one (or probably more) census age, possibly age at > marriage, even age at death. > > In the absence of a definite DoB (usually from birth certificate), the > "real" date will likely have an uncertainty of *at least* a year. > > This is because census age reporting is notoriously variable, and even age > at death may well not be accurate. > > (Incidentally, it is not unknown for claimed birth dates on a certificate > to > be in error - deliberately or not.) > > My own approach is to choose a birth year that best fits the available data > and qualify it with "App(roximate)". > > Note that the Family Historian Property Box Event display is very handy > here > in highlighting which event ages are "out of bounds". > > Note also that I try to avoid a birth date range expression like "Between x > And y" because FH cannot then do its date calculations! > > I don't know how widely this is understood, but apparently FH treats "1870" > or "c.1870" as "1 Jan 1870" for calculation purposes. > > Similarly "Feb 1870" would be taken as "1 Feb 1870" and "Q3 1870" as "1 Jul > 1870". > > The important things are to be consistent about your method of recording > birth date *and* to include reported age in your source citations (so > others > can form their own opinion). > > Just a couple of extra comments. > > There is not *usually*, in my opinion, much point in trying to estimate > birth date to better than a year (some life event ages may be > inconsistent). > > However, with a birth registration index you may be able to narrow that > down > to a specific quarter (e.g. Q3 1870). > > In that case I would choose the birth date as "c. Aug 1870". > > Note that I chose *middle* month of the period on the basis that the actual > *registration* date would be at most about one month in error. > > And in all but exceptional cases the actual birth date would not have been > more than a week or two different from that. > > Happy Christmas, All > > > > P.S. I did not mention the other two GEDCOM date qualifiers "Calculated" > and > "Estimated". > > This is not the place to resurrect discussion about the differences from > "Approximate". > > Suffice to say I get by perfectly well without them. except in some very > special cases. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Since the birth year is not actually on the British Census forms but is /calculated /by the likes of Find My Past, if someone is listed as say 61 on the 1861 census and FMP has listed the birth year as 1800, surely you enter the date of birth as "1800 cal"? David

Hi Victor Yes £469 is expensive but It is a lot cheaper than a new iphone! The new Lumia 960 phones have an innovative feature called ‘continuum’ that allows you to connect the phone to a screen and keyboard and mouse and you can then run new windows 10 universal apps on the larger screen. However, as I said this doesn’t allow the of traditional desktop software like FH. One of the main reasons for this is that the phone doesn’t use Intel architecture chipsets which is what old-style desktop software requires. Merry Christmas! Nick From: Victor [mailto:victor@markham.me.uk] Sent: 24 December 2015 20:30 To: Nick Walker (Ancestral Sources) <Nick@ancestralsources.com>; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [FHU] FH on a Windows phone Microsoft have sent me details of a new windows phone which I have checked it costs £469! That is more than some laptops. I won't bother about buying this but wonder if FH will work on this new phone it is Microsoft 960 or something like that _____ From: Nick Walker via <mailto:family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: ‎24/‎12/‎2015 20:08 To: 'G BATCHELOR' <mailto:overbrae@btinternet.com> ; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com <mailto:family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] FH on a Windows phone No unfortunately not. Windows phones don't run traditional Windows desktop applications. The Windows 10 upgrade to Windows phone 8 will allow many of the same 'universal apps' that run on Windows 10 to also run on the mobile version but this won't include desktop applications. Best wishes Nick -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com <mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com> [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of G BATCHELOR via Sent: 24 December 2015 17:35 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com <mailto:family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: [FHU] FH on a Windows phone Is it possible to run FH using a Windows smartphone?Thanks,Gill

Microsoft have sent me details of a new windows phone which I have checked it costs £469! That is more than some laptops. I won't bother about buying this but wonder if FH will work on this new phone it is Microsoft 960 or something like that -----Original Message----- From: "Nick Walker via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: ‎24/‎12/‎2015 20:08 To: "'G BATCHELOR'" <overbrae@btinternet.com>; "family-historian-users@rootsweb.com" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] FH on a Windows phone No unfortunately not. Windows phones don't run traditional Windows desktop applications. The Windows 10 upgrade to Windows phone 8 will allow many of the same 'universal apps' that run on Windows 10 to also run on the mobile version but this won't include desktop applications. Best wishes Nick -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of G BATCHELOR via Sent: 24 December 2015 17:35 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] FH on a Windows phone Is it possible to run FH using a Windows smartphone?Thanks,Gill ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

No unfortunately not. Windows phones don't run traditional Windows desktop applications. The Windows 10 upgrade to Windows phone 8 will allow many of the same 'universal apps' that run on Windows 10 to also run on the mobile version but this won't include desktop applications. Best wishes Nick -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of G BATCHELOR via Sent: 24 December 2015 17:35 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] FH on a Windows phone Is it possible to run FH using a Windows smartphone?Thanks,Gill ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Joan I always put 'Circa 1830' unless I get a more accurate date from another scource. If I have an inkling of a date I put 'Say 1830' Regards Paul Taylor On 22/12/2015 4:45 PM, Joan Stevens via wrote: > If one has an ancestor, say, shown in the 1881 census as aged 51 do > people enter his/her estimated birth year as 1830 or 1829 in the absence > of any other evidence? The census takes place on 3 April and there is > approximately a 75% chance that he/she was born in 1829 and a 25% chance > that he/she was born in 1830. I suspect most people estimate the birth > year as 1830. > > Joan > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Yay David for your contribution to this topic and your suggestion re: enhancing FH. Sent from Gayle's iPhone > On 24 Dec 2015, at 6:00 PM, family-historian-users-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Evidence (ancestry@faulder.org.uk) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:52:11 +0000 > From: "ancestry@faulder.org.uk" <ancestry@faulder.org.uk> > Subject: [FHU] Evidence > To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <567AA70B.1000601@faulder.org.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > I have attempted to follow the postings about Primary/Secondary Evidence > and wonder whether we are getting distracted from what we really need to > know - the reliability of the data. > > The fact that FH source assessment offers the following options only > clouds the issue: > > * Unreliable > * Questionable > * Secondary Evidence > * Primary Evidence > > A source can be primary and unreliable! > > From an historical perspective I was taught that primary refers to > "first capture" and that it is usually a good idea to try and get back > to the first capture. > > So in reading about the First World War (UK perspective), the unit > war diaries (WO95 at the UK National Archives) are "primary". They > are written - usually by the Unit Intelligence Officer or by his > clerk and then initialled by the IO - usually within a day of the > events described. Front-line unit diaries are often hand-written. > They describe what the IO /thought happened/. He would have been > close to the action. > > Unit Histories - or the Extensive Official Histories - are usually > secondary being based on a collation of primary sources after the > event. The Author was probably not there, but is still describing > what /he thought happened/ - with hindsight and the benefit of other > sources - but also subject to group think and unconscious (even > conscious) bias. > > Which of the two is most reliable - likely to record /what actually > happened/? > > So in a genealogical context, > > * the primary evidence of birth is probably the entry in the birth > register signed by the informant (usually a parent) - but I think in > the UK there are mid-wives (or other NHS) records that are more a > "first capture". > * the primary evidence of marriage is the entry in the marriage > register signed by the couple and their witnesses > * the primary evidence of death is probably the medical certificate > certifying death the entry in the death register (signed by the > informant) might be considered secondary because the registrar will > only prepare an entry on production of the medical certificate by > the informant. > > So whilst a date and place of birth on a death certificate is useful, it > is probably good practice to try to get back to the birth certificate as > /we would expect it to be more reliable/. (My father was born in > Hampstead - per birth certificate; the registrar for his death > certificate said this had to be recorded as Camden! I think I reported > his date of birth correctly.) > > Perhaps we should look to see FH split the "source assessment" - which > is actually a "source assessment" in the context of a "fact" - into two: > > * Unreliable > * Questionable > * Believed reliable > * [user defined?] > > and > > * Secondary Evidence > * Primary Evidence > > David > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS list administrator, send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS mailing list, send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 10, Issue 289 > *******************************************************

Is it possible to run FH using a Windows smartphone?Thanks,Gill

I've been following the discussion regarding the 'quality' of evidence with interest. At the end of the day it is the users decision how to use the levels of assessment, if at all. However, Family Historian follows the GedCom Standard (much more closely than other Genealogy programs that I have used) and that definition states the levels of quality as follows - 0 =Unreliable evidence or estimated data 1 =Questionable reliability of evidence (interviews, census, oral genealogies, or potential for bias for example, an autobiography) 2 =Secondary evidence, data officially recorded sometime after event 3 =Direct and primary evidence used, or by dominance of the evidence You will see that the definition is not 'black and white' but requires a degree of judgement. At the end of the day, the quality of the source citation is a matter of probability. I cannot think of a historic document that can be considered as guaranteed 100% accurate. If you intend to share or publish your research then it makes sense to stick with the GedCom standard.

I usually put "btw April 1829 and April 1830" as sometimes it's useful to line up census ranges with ranges from other sources. My exception is that where people are getting quite old, the chance of the range being accurate gets slim, so "abt 1829" would be more suitable. Adrian > On 22/12/2015 4:45 PM, Joan Stevens via wrote: > > If one has an ancestor, say, shown in the 1881 census as aged 51 do > > people enter his/her estimated birth year as 1830 or 1829 in the absence > > of any other evidence? >

I simply put it as 1830 app this converts to c.1830 on FH. Ages on census are unreliable Victor On 22/12/2015 4:45 PM, Joan Stevens via wrote: > If one has an ancestor, say, shown in the 1881 census as aged 51 do > people enter his/her estimated birth year as 1830 or 1829 in the absence > of any other evidence? The census takes place on 3 April and there is > approximately a 75% chance that he/she was born in 1829 and a 25% chance > that he/she was born in 1830. I suspect most people estimate the birth > year as 1830. > > Joan > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have attempted to follow the postings about Primary/Secondary Evidence and wonder whether we are getting distracted from what we really need to know - the reliability of the data. The fact that FH source assessment offers the following options only clouds the issue: * Unreliable * Questionable * Secondary Evidence * Primary Evidence A source can be primary and unreliable! From an historical perspective I was taught that primary refers to "first capture" and that it is usually a good idea to try and get back to the first capture. So in reading about the First World War (UK perspective), the unit war diaries (WO95 at the UK National Archives) are "primary". They are written - usually by the Unit Intelligence Officer or by his clerk and then initialled by the IO - usually within a day of the events described. Front-line unit diaries are often hand-written. They describe what the IO /thought happened/. He would have been close to the action. Unit Histories - or the Extensive Official Histories - are usually secondary being based on a collation of primary sources after the event. The Author was probably not there, but is still describing what /he thought happened/ - with hindsight and the benefit of other sources - but also subject to group think and unconscious (even conscious) bias. Which of the two is most reliable - likely to record /what actually happened/? So in a genealogical context, * the primary evidence of birth is probably the entry in the birth register signed by the informant (usually a parent) - but I think in the UK there are mid-wives (or other NHS) records that are more a "first capture". * the primary evidence of marriage is the entry in the marriage register signed by the couple and their witnesses * the primary evidence of death is probably the medical certificate certifying death the entry in the death register (signed by the informant) might be considered secondary because the registrar will only prepare an entry on production of the medical certificate by the informant. So whilst a date and place of birth on a death certificate is useful, it is probably good practice to try to get back to the birth certificate as /we would expect it to be more reliable/. (My father was born in Hampstead - per birth certificate; the registrar for his death certificate said this had to be recorded as Camden! I think I reported his date of birth correctly.) Perhaps we should look to see FH split the "source assessment" - which is actually a "source assessment" in the context of a "fact" - into two: * Unreliable * Questionable * Believed reliable * [user defined?] and * Secondary Evidence * Primary Evidence David

On 22 Dec 2015 7:23 PM, Victor Markham via wrote: > Sorry I will have to disagree with you here. Let's not argue but agree > to disagree! Agreed :-) I am also aware that there can be minor differences between how the GRO records an event and how the relevant LRO records it. After all, the GRO just gets a transcription from the LRO. Also, there can be differences in the information the LRO retains and how it presents that to the researcher. Again, a transcription is sometimes involved. The best certificates (IMHO) are those that include a photocopy from the registers. Which gets us nicely back on topic. Should transcriptions be considered as primary evidence? -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

On 22 December 2015 at 18:42, D C Banks via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > ... It is not the data which is being described as Primary etc., it is the > Source of that data that is described so. We seem to be getting hung up on > the data which is misleading. ... > > I still contend, I'm afraid, that for family historians, it is the data (as extracted from the source for a *specific* issue) that should be regarded as primary or secondary. If it were the source **as a whole** that were Primary or Secondary, then the "rating" would be on the source record. FamilySearch went to great trouble to put the "rating" against just the data for a particular event. If they meant the same rating to apply across the source as a whole, then they'd have put it on the source record. As it is, we *can* say that a date of death on a death certificate provides primary evidence for the date of death while the age provides secondary (and indirect, if you want to go that way) evidence for the person's birth date. A mix on one source record. But all this is secondary (no pun intended for once) to trying to decide on a case by case basis whether we can trust the evidence - the primary / secondary, original / derivative, direct / indirect (or negative?) angles are just rough-cut suggestions about "trustability". And I think we actually all agree on that. PS - I have a feeling that, when I looked in Wikipedia, it said that academic historians class documents *as a whole* as primary / secondary / tertiary. Unlike (most) family historians. Adrian

Thank you everyone for the 31 messages! What a wonderful set-up this is! Dennis

I would also add that just because you have a box to fill in it doesn't mean you have to do so. I've never bothered to use those assessment fields. If there's any conflicting evidence I prefer to add my reasoning to the note field for the event in question. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of D C Banks via Sent: 22 December 2015 18:42 To: 'Mike Fry'; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence Hi all, interesting discussion about the data held within the Source and whether or not it is Primary, Secondary etc. Looking at the FH help it states 'Assessment (of how reliable the source is)' and goes on to say about the 'where within' tab 'which part of the source the relevant data is to be found'. It is not the data which is being described as Primary etc., it is the Source of that data that is described so. We seem to be getting hung up on the data which is misleading. Every document I know of in the genealogical research is a mixture of fact, part-fact, nearly fact and absolute fiction. As I said before, we can deduce 9 different birth years from census images, one from a death certificate, maybe if you're lucky one from the baptism record etc. The documents can all be Primary in their own right, it is just the data that is suspect. Don't shoot the messenger (the document)! David

Hi all, interesting discussion about the data held within the Source and whether or not it is Primary, Secondary etc. Looking at the FH help it states 'Assessment (of how reliable the source is)' and goes on to say about the 'where within' tab 'which part of the source the relevant data is to be found'. It is not the data which is being described as Primary etc., it is the Source of that data that is described so. We seem to be getting hung up on the data which is misleading. Every document I know of in the genealogical research is a mixture of fact, part-fact, nearly fact and absolute fiction. As I said before, we can deduce 9 different birth years from census images, one from a death certificate, maybe if you're lucky one from the baptism record etc. The documents can all be Primary in their own right, it is just the data that is suspect. Don't shoot the messenger (the document)! David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mike Fry via Sent: 22 December 2015 18:03 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence On 22 Dec 2015 7:23 PM, Victor Markham via wrote: > Sorry I will have to disagree with you here. Let's not argue but agree > to disagree! Agreed :-) I am also aware that there can be minor differences between how the GRO records an event and how the relevant LRO records it. After all, the GRO just gets a transcription from the LRO. Also, there can be differences in the information the LRO retains and how it presents that to the researcher. Again, a transcription is sometimes involved. The best certificates (IMHO) are those that include a photocopy from the registers. Which gets us nicely back on topic. Should transcriptions be considered as primary evidence? -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message