> There are two schools of thought - both 'correct'. > > Method 1 - Source Record per Source Document > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > In this method, each BMD Certificate, Household Census, etc > has its own dedicated Source Record. > > Method 2 - Source Record per Source Type > --------------------------------------------------------- > In this method there is one Source Record for all Birth > Certificates, one for all Marriage Certificates, one for all > 1891 Census Then there must be >2 schools of thought because I use neither of those :-) Probably more accurately, I use a combination of those methods depending on the nature of the source. To me, a birth certificate is a single source: there is only one of that particular certificate, it's stored at a single repository (usually my house), there's no further referencing possible, and no further breakdown of data required. The 1891 census is also a single source: it's held by TNA in a single class and has further references to enable citation of particular pages and even rows. When I think I need to add a source I ask myself whether this is a single item or whether I need to direct the reader to a particular point in the data. I try to remember that the point of the source and citation is to enable others to follow me. I need to say to them: - go to this repository (name, address etc provided in the REPO) - look at this source (name of birth certificate, RG12, etc.) - look at this record (RG12/1234 f56 p78 s9) (the citation) In other words, I ask myself if this is a single item or a collection and how does it fit into the requirement above. Each birth certificate is unique and so is a source; each census is a collection. To me, having each page of a census as a source is the same as having each page of a book as a source: I'd find that unwieldy. Surely a book is a single source and pages cited from it are citations? Alan

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Alan E. White < family.historian@aewhite.me.uk> wrote: > > To me, having each page of a census as a source is the same as having each > page of a book as a source: I'd find that unwieldy. Surely a book is a > single source and pages cited from it are citations? > > Alan > I don't think there can be such a clear distinction. A birth certificate is just a copy of part of a page in a register book. A census household is equally just a copy of part of a page of a census book. So if you look at it like that there is very little difference between them. It is all down to personal preference as to how you view it. Ignoring the technical issues it really doesn't matter whether you consider a certificate to be a source or a citation, that is the decision of the user. Both methods are equally valid. However, sadly there are some technical reasons why it is sensible to put your data in the sources rather than in the citations (method 1). I transcribe every census household and this data is then recorded once in the Family Historian GEDCOM file using a source record. I link an image to this source. I then link a citation to each event referred to in the census (Census event, occupation, births, etc.). A typical census household of 6 people might therefore have 1 source, 1 image and perhaps10 citations. If instead I use 'method 2' then I'd need a copy of this transcription in each of these 10 citations, I'd link the image to each of these 10 citations. Therefore there is going to be a lot more duplicated data in the file. If I need to edit the transcription (perhaps I made a typing error), I need to edit it in 10 places. Data duplication is never a good thing. Also citations are much more hidden away in Family Historian: it is very straightforward to get a list of all the sources to find the one I want but there isn't such a convenient method to see my list of citations. Some of the issues with method 2 duplicated data can be mitigated by using a single shared note linked to each citation but they are still not so easily accessible as sources which can have titles, etc. I do use 'method 2' if, for example, I'm just recording a source of 'GRO Indexes' as this only leads to one citation (a birth, death, or marriage) without any screenshots or transcriptions. But as soon as I get a certificate then this becomes a 'method 1' source with all the various occupations, residence, etc. events linked to it via citations. Nick

Can we please not go through all this again? Jane has already pointed out a link to the last discussion, when we agreed to differ. Ian (Any errors in the above message are due entirely to the use of fat fingers on this Blackberry mini "keyboard") -----Original Message----- From: Nick Walker <nick@ancestralsources.com> Sender: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:58:50 To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Reply-To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Sources Vs Citations On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Alan E. White < family.historian@aewhite.me.uk> wrote: > > To me, having each page of a census as a source is the same as having each > page of a book as a source: I'd find that unwieldy. Surely a book is a > single source and pages cited from it are citations? > > Alan > I don't think there can be such a clear distinction. A birth certificate is just a copy of part of a page in a register book. A census household is equally just a copy of part of a page of a census book. So if you look at it like that there is very little difference between them. It is all down to personal preference as to how you view it. Ignoring the technical issues it really doesn't matter whether you consider a certificate to be a source or a citation, that is the decision of the user. Both methods are equally valid. However, sadly there are some technical reasons why it is sensible to put your data in the sources rather than in the citations (method 1). I transcribe every census household and this data is then recorded once in the Family Historian GEDCOM file using a source record. I link an image to this source. I then link a citation to each event referred to in the census (Census event, occupation, births, etc.). A typical census household of 6 people might therefore have 1 source, 1 image and perhaps10 citations. If instead I use 'method 2' then I'd need a copy of this transcription in each of these 10 citations, I'd link the image to each of these 10 citations. Therefore there is going to be a lot more duplicated data in the file. If I need to edit the transcription (perhaps I made a typing error), I need to edit it in 10 places. Data duplication is never a good thing. Also citations are much more hidden away in Family Historian: it is very straightforward to get a list of all the sources to find the one I want but there isn't such a convenient method to see my list of citations. Some of the issues with method 2 duplicated data can be mitigated by using a single shared note linked to each citation but they are still not so easily accessible as sources which can have titles, etc. I do use 'method 2' if, for example, I'm just recording a source of 'GRO Indexes' as this only leads to one citation (a birth, death, or marriage) without any screenshots or transcriptions. But as soon as I get a certificate then this becomes a 'method 1' source with all the various occupations, residence, etc. events linked to it via citations. Nick ------------------------------- 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