// Jeremy wrote: // Thanks to everyone who replied. I now have a better idea of Sources/Citations. I think I will probably use a mixture of Methods 1 and 2, I think that it would be easier to locate the info I might need that way - I accept that this will produce a multitude of Sources, rather than few sources with lots of // citations! On further experimentation, I definitely want a number of sources as I would want to just call up the image direct from the citation, not having to go through the 'all' tab. This is a classic case of tail wagging the dog: a slightly deficient interface hampering users doing it the "right way". A real shame someone invented the terms "Method 1" and "Method 2" the "wrong" way around. Relationally speaking, Method 1 is "non-normal". I won't justify that any more than to say if books followed this practice then the references would list every cited volume as many times as it was referred to (just with different page numbers for each). Paul

I can't agree with that diagnosis. Firstly books are cited every time with a different page number. They're just not cited in full. The deficiency in this aspect is FH's lack of a bibliography. Use of a bibliography in other software seems to lead to the concept of a Master Source, which may match the content of a Method 2 Source Record in FH. My problem with a Master Source is that any real world definition of it seems to also define Source. FH has to live with the data structure imposed to it by GEDCOM. In that structure, Method 2 results in considerable duplication of content between citations - anathema to those of us with IT experience because of the issues involved which alteration of the contents. The duplication gets worse if you record "proof" of identity relating to a source in the citation. In software like FTM or online Ancestry trees, I would agree that Method 2 is more usual. But they use a different data structure without citation content duplication, it seems. Incidentally, I'd also point out that books tend to be single subject, unlike a parish register, which is much closer to a multi part journal, where each part does have its own citation. In the end, it's up to the user but it's vital that they understand the implications of things like amending citations and storing proofs of identify in multiple places.

Hello Adrian Mounts soapbox I have been in 'IT' for 35 years and anathema is the very word I have been looking for. I have spent countless hours convincing people NOT to hold the same data in more than one place. Whilst we are all using FH (and any other software) for family history we should accept the principles of the software system and how it handles data collection. After all, that's all family history is at it's lowest level, a database. This does not mean you have to abandon the foibles, sheer nonsense, duplication, untruths, misleading transcriptions etc etc. which all go to make genealogy 'fun'. Additionally, how many times do you see the term 'ibid' in a book - every occurrence of ibid = many Citations, one Source. Regarding GEDCOM, the Citation/Source conforms to the basic principles so on this point it is correct how they are handled. It is the users that are choosing to 'mishandle' by duplicating data. Dismounts soapbox Happy New Year to everyone, David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce via Sent: 03 January 2016 08:31 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com; Paul Subject: Re: [FHU] References I can't agree with that diagnosis. Firstly books are cited every time with a different page number. They're just not cited in full. The deficiency in this aspect is FH's lack of a bibliography. Use of a bibliography in other software seems to lead to the concept of a Master Source, which may match the content of a Method 2 Source Record in FH. My problem with a Master Source is that any real world definition of it seems to also define Source. FH has to live with the data structure imposed to it by GEDCOM. In that structure, Method 2 results in considerable duplication of content between citations - anathema to those of us with IT experience because of the issues involved which alteration of the contents. The duplication gets worse if you record "proof" of identity relating to a source in the citation. In software like FTM or online Ancestry trees, I would agree that Method 2 is more usual. But they use a different data structure without citation content duplication, it seems. Incidentally, I'd also point out that books tend to be single subject, unlike a parish register, which is much closer to a multi part journal, where each part does have its own citation. In the end, it's up to the user but it's vital that they understand the implications of things like amending citations and storing proofs of identify in multiple places. ------------------------------- 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