> > > I'm new to the list so I might be repeating something that has > > > already been done, or this is the wrong list for, but I would love > > > to share good sites for researching genealogy. > > > > > > My favorite research site to get gedcom files is at: > > > > > > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi > > > > > > Newest discovery for Civil war information: > > > > > > http://dlxs.richmond.edu/d/ddr/ > > > > > > It is the Richmond newspaper that published throughout the Civil War > > > and has a searchable data base and reproductions of the actual > > > pages. > > > > > > Is anyone interested?? > > > > > > "Paulette Smith" <[email protected]> > > > > Most GEDCOM files from RootsWeb are next to worthless as they have > > either no sources or the only sources are other gedcoms (which > > usually have no sources). > > > > RootsWeb would do the world a favor if it deleted every Gedcom with > > no sources or other gedcoms for sources. What would be left would > > at least serve as a somewhat usable cluefinder to actual sourced > > information. > > > > It would also serve to discourage name collectors and focus on > > actual genealogical research. > > > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Ahem? (g) > > Some of us believe that an event place of Washington D.C., USA > should be a sufficient clue to the probability that the fact (birth, > marriage or death) can be documented by using the relevant vital > records from Washington DC. > > And then too some of us prefer to say "Sources on request". > > It would be a mistake to _assume_ that an unstated source is > also non-existent. > > Cheryl I make the assumption that since it appears on the web that there is a source; however weak that source may be. The problem is that it is unstated. Even a "Sources on Request" would be an improvement over nothing at all. If not sources at least a biblography would give a person a clue of the type of sources. "[email protected]" <[email protected]>