tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post3285556089844289455..comments2023-04-03T08:07:44.584-04:00Comments on Welcome to Genealogy By Ginger!: Am I an Evidence-Based Genealogist or Conclusion-Based Genealogist?Ginger Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-9364465164222259882013-05-11T15:57:51.127-04:002013-05-11T15:57:51.127-04:00Hi, Ginger! I finally posted about using your hybr...Hi, Ginger! I finally posted about using your hybrid evidence/conclusion method in my database. http://jennifergenealogy.blogspot.com/2013/05/changing-way-i-create-facts-in.htmlJennifer Sepulvadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01167830746219581066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-24003798444539951922012-03-11T22:13:07.462-04:002012-03-11T22:13:07.462-04:00Hi Nettie, thanks so much for commenting. I used t...Hi Nettie, thanks so much for commenting. I used to enter the entire citations within the Detailed Text of each citation AND within the fact's notes, or rather, within the person's notes. That way I could run my own sort of research report by just copying all the contents of the person notes into a word file and then not have to use footnotes either. However, I stopped adding the entire citation to the detailed text of the citation when I switched to RM because it would not run reports anymore with footnotes with such long citations that were imported from FTM 2009. (some kind of unfixed bug). But that is a good workaround to making a good and useful research log in RM. Otherwise, the Research Log is not useful without the name of the source being listed with the detailed text and fact information (without having to scroll down to the footnote). Thank you for sharing.Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-18603879431697258902012-03-11T16:00:21.368-04:002012-03-11T16:00:21.368-04:00All my sources are attached to persons in my Roots...All my sources are attached to persons in my RootsMagic v 5. I use the RM4/5 Research notes a lot. But I transfer them to a .rtf file in Word and take the time to put the citations with the Detailed Text, then I am looking at all the information in one place instead of up and down the page looking for the right footnote. Could use Excel with this instead of Word. <br /><br />Narrative Reports are my favorite part of this software. I create small family books for reunions using the Narrative Reports. Sentences need to be worded just right. But FO/RM has done the job for me since FO. Also I transfer the N R to a Word processing software, to fix it the way I want it to look.<br /><br />I also use one fact type like birth, with many sources attached. I created fact type 'alt Birth' as a trigger that tells me I need to look further as this is a different date and place which needs to be resolved.<br /><br />GEdcoms are an issue for me as many do not have sources attached. If there is no real valid information, I have added a fact 'suggested by' and the source is the Gedcom. Then if I find valid information, it still stays there with other valid sources.<br /><br />In one of the blogs, someone mentioned using GenQuiry at GenQuirydotcom. Am trying it to see if it will help. I use Excel a lot but not for resolving issues more for indexes. <br /><br />This has been an interesting topic... Thanks for sharingNettiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02876014147059072632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-88118573670685797042012-03-06T14:26:33.052-05:002012-03-06T14:26:33.052-05:00Caroline, oh I'm surprised you are using RM. I...Caroline, oh I'm surprised you are using RM. I thought you were using FTM. I had a huge problem with the FTM 2009 to RM transfer because I used to put all my notes in the detail text of my source citations. When I transferred over to RM and would run a report with footnotes at the end of each page, RM would crash. I think it has to do with the source citations being so long. So I have to re-write all of my source citations or not run a report with footnotes. Have you seen this problem? <br /><br />If I were to write this report in Word by hand, I would probably have long footnotes. But in order to "accommodate" the genealogy software like you said, I started putting my "notes" in the notes section of each fact instead of in my source citations. Sigh...so many "workarounds!"Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-90864979102967560912012-03-06T14:13:53.200-05:002012-03-06T14:13:53.200-05:00Ginger, I do the same practice. When I first migra...Ginger, I do the same practice. When I first migrated my database from FTM16 to RM3, I was appalled the first time I ran a narrative report. I'm still cleaning it up, person by person ~ very frustrating. [Even after migrating to RM4. I've held off on RM5. I want more features.] However, I don't think we should have to clean it up. What we found is what we found. The narrative report should be able to reflect that.<br /><br />This is why I advocate technology support researchers as they truly research. In other words, it should adapt to us, and not we adapt to it. And the next time I spend money to buy genealogy database software, the technology is going to support me and how I work. Why else buy it? I don't have relatives who want reports unfortunately. And? If someone wanted something, I'd probably try to figure out a way to get it to them digitally.<br /><br />It all depends on each person's research workflow.<br /><br />~CCarolinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440331516671118735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-54485183887909930532012-03-04T15:38:44.069-05:002012-03-04T15:38:44.069-05:00Hi Jennifer, thanks for clearing up about the alt ...Hi Jennifer, thanks for clearing up about the alt facts. I had some weird stuff import from FTM into RM as well but I don't remember ever seeing them show up in the fact list. I will have to go back and look through them and maybe compare to a blank database to see what the differences are. <br /><br />I am still playing with the reports and notes features of RM. Basically what I did was write up a report in Word on my own and then tried to find a way to make RM look just like my report. I did try to look at other softwares but found that they act pretty much the same. <br /><br />RM does have a nice research notes report function that could be very powerful but there was one part of it that I did not like at all. I can't remember what it was but I think it had to do with the fact that the source name was separated from the notes about the source (it's in the footnotes). That just seemed really dis-intuitive to me. <br /><br />Thanks for reading and commenting. Let us know what you decide to do or what works for you and why you did it because I love to see how other people do things. Like I said, I had previously just used Word documents, but now that I've done the Family Finder DNA test, it's nice to have a report I can run and send off quickly and easily!Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-54287547944094344012012-03-04T13:00:30.042-05:002012-03-04T13:00:30.042-05:00I used the alternate facts in RM4, but I am starti...I used the alternate facts in RM4, but I am starting to think that all the alternate facts (except the name) were facts that transferred over from my Legacy import. I used Legacy through Sep 2009 and then imported the file directly into RM4. That must be why all the alternate facts, other than alternate name, in my fact type list are called "Alt. Death," "Alt. Birth," etc., but yet the alternate name fact is actually called "Alternate name." I wondered why the word "alternate" was abbreviated on the other alternate facts, and now I know why. I guess my idea only works if you imported the alternate facts from another file or create your own alternate facts. <br /><br />In any event, I LOVE this blog post. I made a .pdf copy of it and saved it to my organization file. I think I am going to start employing the same methods once I get my source citations cleaned up. I really like the analysis that is done in the notes, and I also hate all those birth facts that show up in narrative reports. I think the method will work well with the new research log feature in RM5.Jennifer Sepulvadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01167830746219581066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-17151499597024689372012-03-03T17:23:34.946-05:002012-03-03T17:23:34.946-05:00Hi Jennifer, the only fact I found in my fact list...Hi Jennifer, the only fact I found in my fact list was Alt Name. Is the Alt Birth new to RM5? I'm still using RM4. Thanks.Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-86706489705416054922012-03-03T00:48:42.842-05:002012-03-03T00:48:42.842-05:00Hi, Ginger and Russ! Unless I am misunderstanding ...Hi, Ginger and Russ! Unless I am misunderstanding something, the way to turn off facts in RM5 is to go to Lists>Fact Type List, highlight the fact type (i.e. Alt. Birth) you want to exclude from the narrative, click on edit, and then uncheck "Narrative reports" under the section titled "Include when." Of course, it turns off the fact type for every single person for all narrative reports in the database, so if you want to include it on a later narrative report, you have to go back and check the box. I would prefer if there was an option to turn it off at the report level instead of at the fact type level. Then it could just be excluded from the current report instead of all future narrative reports for all people.Jennifer Sepulvadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01167830746219581066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-5973590799407327112012-03-02T15:35:54.023-05:002012-03-02T15:35:54.023-05:00Exactly, Ginger! Military rosters, for example, ar...Exactly, Ginger! Military rosters, for example, are so problematic if there are men sharing the same name. One roster - three Philip Mulkeys. I've never understood how one could assert which was the correct man without significantly more information.Susan Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02009218875010743399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-78010637269936719672012-03-02T14:34:29.025-05:002012-03-02T14:34:29.025-05:00Hi GeneJ, I also record negative evidence. This is...Hi GeneJ, I also record negative evidence. This is especially helpful when I interact with newly befriended researchers who ask me "Have you seen source X?" and I can tell them yes, and this was my analysis of it or stay away from that source because of Y...Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-55884747716655068512012-03-02T13:06:22.568-05:002012-03-02T13:06:22.568-05:00Sheryl, you are very welcome. Feel free to ask any...Sheryl, you are very welcome. Feel free to ask any questions or share your experiences as well!Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-8350730297040733692012-03-02T13:05:34.323-05:002012-03-02T13:05:34.323-05:00Hi Susan, that's exactly what I told Randy whe...Hi Susan, that's exactly what I told Randy when he asked should he have 12 entries in his database for Devier J. Smith. That no, I didn't believe he should have 12 entries in his genealogy database. I have lots of evidence about several Nathan Godwins from Sampson Co., NC, but because I don't know which piece goes with which Nathan, including my own ancestor, I have collected all of the evidence in an excel spreadsheet. That is what I use to compare and contrast. I only have them attached to a "Nathan Godwin." These pieces of evidence do not go into my genealogy software until I am sure they belong to my particular Nathan Godwin, ie, one document identifies a relationship in terms of naming his brother or children. Land deeds and grants are the only pieces of evidence beyond vital records (and vital records are not existent in this time and place) that I have been able to track and confidently place in my gen software. So my answer is this: I use a combination of both genealogy software and computer resources like MS Word and Excel to save, track, and work with my evidence.Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-84249594644709042412012-03-02T12:57:54.030-05:002012-03-02T12:57:54.030-05:00The mind boggles.
This is where I go back to Rus...The mind boggles. <br /><br />This is where I go back to Russ Worthington's earlier post about data entry. I don't enter data or records in the software unless I am clear it refers to a specific individual. Records suggesting different parents live in my Excel research log until they are analyzed/reconciled. My notes then refer to the other records and explain my decision not to use them - usually outlining the multiple John Does appearing in the records. <br /><br />The majority of my analysis is not done in the software but in Excel and Word. I find all the databases far too limited. I suppose that makes me evidence/record based but using the genealogy software to record conclusions.Susan Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02009218875010743399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-16675115587756840902012-03-02T12:34:46.782-05:002012-03-02T12:34:46.782-05:00This discussion is very useful to me, thanks to yo...This discussion is very useful to me, thanks to you all.Sherylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-27121697776503737042012-03-02T12:03:05.876-05:002012-03-02T12:03:05.876-05:00Thanks Susan, I like to have the evidence displaye...Thanks Susan, I like to have the evidence displayed both as sources to a single fact and in my general note section, that way if I do want to create a report on my own outside of my gen software, I can just copy and paste everything that is in my general note. Kind of like how you are doing it.Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-60507559329087800262012-03-02T12:01:35.240-05:002012-03-02T12:01:35.240-05:00Hi Russ, yeah, I think Randy mentioned this in his...Hi Russ, yeah, I think Randy mentioned this in his post that he could not figure out how to turn off the alternative facts in his reports. You can turn off the alternative name, but that's it.Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-91592801950013245732012-03-02T11:59:32.525-05:002012-03-02T11:59:32.525-05:00Hi Randy, yes, and I've only started adding fa...Hi Randy, yes, and I've only started adding fact notes more recently as well. Especially since they can be incorporated into the reports more seamlessless now.Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-564119825595828432012-03-02T11:54:24.838-05:002012-03-02T11:54:24.838-05:00@Susan Clark ... "At this point each source i...@Susan Clark ... "At this point each source is entered as a unique fact, producing awkward narratives similar to your first example."<br /> <br />It's not limited to narratives--how many of us want family groups sheets that report three different set of biological parents. Humm.. how do you generate a "genealogy" for someone with three different sets of biological parents? <br /><br />I call in the Frankenstein complex.GeneJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02627640410669978708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-50842421573466505932012-03-02T11:51:56.266-05:002012-03-02T11:51:56.266-05:00Hi Ginger,
Excellent presentation about requireme...Hi Ginger,<br /><br />Excellent presentation about requirements and your process. What I call my work around is not unlike yours (typically one event related to a series of working file citations).<br /><br />Dare me to want more or better! I create a record of negative and indirect evidence, and I record circumstantial evidence, too Like you, I record conflict notes, make proof summaries and/or arguments … .<br /><br />There is much to like about concepts in what some technologists refer to as "evidence-based" entry systems (I prefer the term record-based). For example, (1) The record based approach probably does encourage users to enter source information, … especially because/and (2) the related technologies will probably support record capture (we'll be able capture data about people, events and source in our software without filling out so many forms). <br /><br />Those systems, however, seem to develop lists of "data." I commented elsewhere that my research involves is more than capturing record-based data, ala, it's more than just "search and capture." This includes that I don't recognize every bit of data to be evidence and my working file should support me as I endeavor to sort out the good, the bad and the ugly. <br /><br />Thank you for your article. --GeneJ <br /><br />P.S. In addition to beginning genealogists, I hope the technologists listening will read this too.GeneJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02627640410669978708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-55043636511755005482012-03-02T11:24:35.667-05:002012-03-02T11:24:35.667-05:00Great post, Ginger!
I've only just started p...Great post, Ginger! <br /><br />I've only just started paying attention to the reporting side of my software. I've always used charts and written a narrative to go with them when sharing with relatives. But I'm sharing far more now that I'm blogging. It would be lovely to use the produced reports.<br /><br />At this point each source is entered as a unique fact, producing awkward narratives similar to your first example. My narratives/analyses are in the notes section. You've provided a great model for me to use in revising my data. And another task....Susan Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02009218875010743399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-65780232083100341252012-03-02T11:06:21.986-05:002012-03-02T11:06:21.986-05:00Ginger,
Great blog post. Welcome to the discussio...Ginger,<br /><br />Great blog post. Welcome to the discussion.<br /><br />I was a little concerned about the Narrative. Please know that Roots Magic is not my primary genealogy management software, but I did remember the Roots Magician make a comment about the Primary Fact.<br /><br />I did a little checking and saw a Note in the Help menu, that it only appears to be active in a Pedigree Chart.<br /><br />I could not find an option to use the Primary Fact in the Narrative reports.<br /><br />Thanks again.<br /><br />RussCousin Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326890362591254874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-81809818907012985712012-03-02T10:56:59.159-05:002012-03-02T10:56:59.159-05:00Hi Ginger,
Excellent examples and comments. What...Hi Ginger,<br /><br />Excellent examples and comments. What you do is pretty much what I have done over time in my database. It's been only the last few months, while i've been working with Russ Worthington, that I've even considered the evidence-based concept. However, I don't add as many Fact notes as you apparently do. <br /><br />Who knows what the next "really great" genealogy software will permit or require. Or the next GEDCOM standard. Our discussion now will help us deal with them when they become reality.Randy Seaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-21208729955119755352012-03-02T10:29:31.213-05:002012-03-02T10:29:31.213-05:00Thank you Diana, I think it's good that we are...Thank you Diana, I think it's good that we are sharing how we do things and people like Randy and I who are not afraid to show how we do things. The way I see it, the more examples, the better and the more informed we are.Ginger Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17453442334718861407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7077574950918175884.post-9913885069469248022012-03-02T09:51:44.966-05:002012-03-02T09:51:44.966-05:00What a great post! I think you've very clearl...What a great post! I think you've very clearly captured the issue and I also think beginning genealogist should read this - shows a wonderful way to not only evaluate what they are seeing, but also how to capture it in a meaningful way. Thanks!!Diana Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05954839264299339937noreply@blogger.com