On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:01:49 +0100, "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote: > >"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >news:47b4f909.49688648@newsgroups.bellsouth.net... >> >> The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. > >We've had people trying to impose the US NGS rules on us before... >It wasn't very popular. To say the least. >Lesley Robertson I don't disagree EXCEPT popularity does not seem to me to be the only criterion for standardization. Frankly I think it discourages it. We may not all need to be on the same page but, if I use your data, seems like I should know what page you are on. Hugh

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:47b59ac2.5874016@newsgroups.bellsouth.net... > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:01:49 +0100, "Lesley Robertson" > <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote: > >> >>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >>news:47b4f909.49688648@newsgroups.bellsouth.net... >>> >>> The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. >> >>We've had people trying to impose the US NGS rules on us before... >>It wasn't very popular. To say the least. >>Lesley Robertson > > I don't disagree EXCEPT popularity does not seem to me to be the only > criterion for standardization. Frankly I think it discourages it. If people don't like it, they won't use it. > > We may not all need to be on the same page but, if I use your data, > seems like I should know what page you are on. True. There's a simple answer - whatever one does, and however they do it, quote the sources in a form that lets other people find them to check them if they want to. Assume that anything not quoting sources is not reliable. You can impose a set of standards on a set of professionals, but most people are doing this as a hobby - you can't force them to do anything they don't want as you have no sanction if they don't comply. Lesley Robertson