Another hypothetical

[singhals]

Over a period of time back around 1990, a third cousin responded to a query I
had posted by sending me a spreadsheet grid of a cemetery in which our mutual
ancestral relatives were buried. This is cited in my sources as
"[hisname][date] Private Communication".

He has now posted the same info at Find-a-Grave. The F-A-G info includes
persons who have died since our correspondence. I've copied that data into my
file and sourced it as "findagrave.com"

I have also found some of it at the state's death-record site, and that is
sourced as "[state] on-line deaths"

In sharing this information in the future, though, do I pass on all three
sources?

Cheryl

singhals <sing...@erols.com>

[Joe Makowiec]

> Cheryl Singals


Sure. The more the merrier.

If I have a death certificate, cemetery record and cemetery survey for the
same person, I'll cite all three. If one contains only partial information -
say a gravestone which lists only a year - I'll indicate that in the notes.

Caveat: this gets problematic if you cite multiple sources, all of which
depend on the same original source material. But if the sources are truly
independent, it will help verify your conclusions.


--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

Joe Makowiec <mako...@invalid.invalid>

[Wes Groleau]

> Cheryl Singhals


Clearly, the best source is the state site, so that should be cited when
possible.

Second, although FindaGrave shouldn't be considered reliable, at least it
is more accessible than someone else's "private correspondence."


--
Wes Groleau

Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>


I now show one source - the most reliable. I do try to improve sources but I
only show one. At the same time I would not edit all my old multiple sources
merely to be consistent with my current method. Time can be better spent.

I think most genies would say the more sources the better. I don't agree but
that doesn't make them wrong - or me either. If it is a quality source
quantity doesn't matter. And I have no desire to lengthen printouts with
inconsequential material.

If 6 siblings tell you a fact about a parent, theirs was probably a single
source. What purpose is served by showing all 6 as sources? Multiple
official sources require different consideration.

If a person relates a fact found in an official document the person, not the
document, is my source. When and if I personally see the document it, not the
person, is my source.

I'm sure equal opposing arguments can be made. But I'll give odds that you
make your own decisions.

Hugh

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Ea...@bellsouth.net>

[Lisa Lepore]

> Over a period of time back around 1990, a third cousin responded to a query
> I had posted by sending me a spreadsheet grid of a cemetery in which our
> mutual ancestral relatives were buried. This is cited in my sources as
> "[hisname][date] Private Communication".
>
> He has now posted the same info at Find-a-Grave. The F-A-G info includes
> persons who have died since our correspondence. I've copied that data into
> my file and sourced it as "findagrave.com"
>
> I have also found some of it at the state's death-record site, and that is
> sourced as "[state] on-line deaths"
>
> In sharing this information in the future, though, do I pass on all three
> sources?
>
> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>

Yes, I think you should pass along all sources.

The purpose of citing the location of the sources is so that someone can
verify your information if they want to do that, and to show how you arrived
at your conclusions.

You started with private correspondence, then your sources show you checked
this data further. Although the findagrave secondary information, and
provided by the same person, if there are photos there that provides more
proof. Also, someone may want to contact this cousin for more information.

The findagrave would also be helpful for someone who couldn't travel, or if
the submitter could no longer be contacted.

The records at the state's death-record site show that the previous
information was actually recorded on an official document somewhere that you
checked out, so it lends authenticity to your research. It also tells the
reader the location of such records.

All the sources together show your research process.

My 2 cents,
Lisa

Lisa Lepore <lle...@comcast.net>

[Keith Nuttle]

> > Over a period of time back around 1990, a third cousin responded to a query I
> > had posted by sending me a spreadsheet grid of a cemetery in which our mutual
> > ancestral relatives were buried. This is cited in my sources as
> > "[hisname][date] Private Communication".
> >
> > He has now posted the same info at Find-a-Grave. The F-A-G info includes
> > persons who have died since our correspondence. I've copied that data into my
> > file and sourced it as "findagrave.com"
> >
> > I have also found some of it at the state's death-record site, and that is
> > sourced as "[state] on-line deaths"
> >
> > In sharing this information in the future, though, do I pass on all three
> > sources?
> >
> > Cheryl Singhals
>
> Clearly, the best source is the state site, so that should be cited when
> possible.
>
> Second, although FindaGrave shouldn't be considered reliable, at least it
> is more accessible than someone else's "private correspondence."
>

> Wes Groleau


Find a grave information post with out a photo, is good information but should
be trusted as much as any online tree, maybe a little more, if it may be based
on old cemetery records,

A find a grave information with tomb stone information should be as good as
any other information taken from a tombstone whether you photographed it or
not.

Keith Nuttle <Keith_...@sbcglobal.net>

[Wes Groleau]

> A find a grave information with tomb stone information should be as good as
> any other information taken from a tombstone whether you photographed it or
> not.
>
> Keith Nuttle

Unfortunately, more than half of the things put in the "Gravestone
transcription" box on FG are NOT from the stone, and most of the rest are not
accurate transcriptions.

And I have personally examined dozens of stones to find that the dates have
been entered incorrectly.

In two of the cemeteries I've visited, most of the entries were uploaded by a
single person, one of them apparently by retyping (without proof-reading) from
some record (not from stones), and the other by uploading some file from a
genealogical society that included NO birthdates, the cause of death, and a
long useless disclaimer that is identical on every entry and reaches the
character length limit mid-sentence.

--
Wes Groleau

A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>

[Keith Nuttle]

> > A find a grave information with tomb stone information should be as good as
> > any other information taken from a tombstone whether you photographed it or
> > not.
> >
> > Keith Nuttle
>
> Unfortunately, more than half of the things put in the "Gravestone
> transcription" box on FG are NOT from the stone, and most of the rest are not
> accurate transcriptions.
>
> And I have personally examined dozens of stones to find that the dates have
> been entered incorrectly.
>
> In two of the cemeteries I've visited, most of the entries were uploaded by a
> single person, one of them apparently by retyping (without proof-reading) from
> some record (not from stones), and the other by uploading some file from a
> genealogical society that included NO birthdates, the cause of death, and a
> long useless disclaimer that is identical on every entry and reaches the
> character length limit mid-sentence.
>

> Wes Groleau


I was referring to tombstone pictures from find a grave. As you say
transcribed information, where ever it is from, should be questioned.

I have found differences in the cemetery records and the information on
tombstones. Some time I thing there is no "correct" information, and for any
date or any other piece of information, you have to find enough documentation
to create an "average" with "Standard deviation" to determine it precision.

Keith Nuttle <Keith_...@sbcglobal.net>

[Lisa Lepore]

> > A find a grave information with tomb stone information should be as
> > good as any other information taken from a tombstone whether you
> > photographed it or not.
> >
> > Keith Nuttle
>

> Unfortunately, more than half of the things put in the "Gravestone
> transcription" box on FG are NOT from the stone, and most of the rest are not
> accurate transcriptions.
>
> And I have personally examined dozens of stones to find that the dates have
> been entered incorrectly.
>
> In two of the cemeteries I've visited, most of the entries were uploaded by a
> single person, one of them apparently by retyping (without proof-reading) from
> some record (not from stones), and the other by uploading some file from a
> genealogical society that included NO birthdates, the cause of death, and a
> long useless disclaimer that is identical on every entry and reaches the
> character length limit mid-sentence.
>
> Wes Groleau

Yes, it's good to point out there can be transcription errors, just like any
other transcribed data, but hopefully there will be a photograph of the stone
at findagrave.

At the least, the information is there so a person can follow up, and for that
reason, I think findagrave is a good resource.

I'm sorry you have had a bad experience with transcription accuracy - I have
not seen that yet.

Again, like any other data, it needs to be verified.

Lisa
lle...@comcast.net

[Wes Groleau]

On 09-23-2012 12:30, Wes Groleau wrote:

> Unfortunately, more than half of the things .... etc.


Interestingly, I actually posted this a long time ago.
Eternal-September must have had some sort of weird glitch.


--
Wes Groleau

“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity.
But I'm not so sure about the universe.”
— Albert Einstein

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>

[Wes Groleau]

> reason, I think findagrave is a good resource.
>
> I'm sorry you have had a bad experience with transcription accuracy - I have
> not seen that yet.
>
> Again, like any other data, it needs to be verified.
>

> Lisa Lepore


Findagrave is a very goood resource.
But like anything of its type, not to be trusted.


--
Wes Groleau

Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>

[singhals]

> > reason, I think findagrave is a good resource.
> >
> > I'm sorry you have had a bad experience with transcription accuracy - I have
> > not seen that yet.
> >
> > Again, like any other data, it needs to be verified.
> >

> > Lisa Lepore
>
> Findagrave is a very goood resource.
> But like anything of its type, not to be trusted.
>

> Wes Groleau


Now that we all of us have agreed that F-a-G is a good resource (i.e.,
better'n nothing) -- where do we stand on the matter of how many of the
collected sources I should pass on?
All?
The Best?
The Most Accessible?
The Oldest?

Cheryl

singhals <sing...@erols.com>

[Bob Melson]

> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>


Since any conclusions you've drawn were likely based on your analysis of ALL
the sources, I'd say pass 'em all on with, maybe, some indication of which you
found most useful/reliable/what-have-you. You want the person receiving the
information to be able to duplicate your results (arrive at the same
conclusion) or to show you where you went off the tracks, right?

Just sayin'

Sneaky Ol' Bob

--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Bob Melson <amia...@mypacks.net>

[Lisa Lepore]

> > > reason, I think findagrave is a good resource.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry you have had a bad experience with transcription accuracy
> > > - I have not seen that yet.
> > >
> > > Again, like any other data, it needs to be verified.
> > >

> > > Lisa Lepore
> >
> > Findagrave is a very goood resource.
> > But like anything of its type, not to be trusted.
> >
> > Wes Groleau
>
> Now that we all of us have agreed that F-a-G is a good resource (i.e.,
> better'n nothing) -- where do we stand on the matter of how many of the
> collected sources I should pass on?
> All?
> The Best?
> The Most Accessible?
> The Oldest?
>
> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>

I answered this one a while ago - hope you saw it - All of them.

Lisa