Unique endnotes

[Allen C. 0]

I want to revisit a topic I ran here a couple of months ago that I now understand better. When trying to figure out how I wanted to list my sources I thought it made sense to have each unique source only cited one time and not use hundreds of ibids since many sources such as Bible records are repeatedly cited. I thought it made sense to have exponents in the text refer to the unique endnote whenever that source appeared. Apparently 3 of the top ranked genealogy softwares all agree and do the report citations that way by default. (Roots Magic, Legacy and Family Historian) I am again raising this issue because the programmers look here to get ideas about future changes.

 

The problem I have with TMG is that although they provide a unique endnotes feature, it is very confusing and not attractive because the report may show the same exponent cited more than once for the same tag. It would be nice if the program would recognize that it has alreadycited the same source in the same tag (perhaps proof of lineage to mother and father from same source). Also it would be nice if it could arrange them in numerical order.

 

Terry Riegel raised an interesting point in the previous discussion concerning the fact that the reports don't anywhere show proof of lineage citations in a way that is understood. I would like to find a way to solve this problem if it means creating a custom report. Generally when I correspond with family contacts I send a report showing how they connect to the tree one generation at a time. In each paragraph I mention the person, their vital dates and who they married, that persons parents and their vital dates, whatever background info I have and then a statement of their issue with the next paragraph beginning with someone of their issue as the subject of the next generation. It seems that a statement that "John Smith and Mary Doe had issue: James Smith(Citation), Frances Smith (Citation)" would be an appropriate way to achieve the proof of lineage problem.

 

I have avoided using the name citations and prefer to discuss things like name variations in a general discussion. What I want to achieve is a clearly cited book where the reader knows what the citation refers to. I have a large project with a lot of citations and I think the way it is available to be presented is not clear and is not attractive. Three top competitors all seem to agree and do a better job. I am still not satisfied that the lineage proof citations are clear in any of the programs. Can TMG solve this? Does anyone else think this is important? I have a lot of time invested in TMG and don't want to switch to another program, but I think they are getting behind the competition.

[Terry Reigel 0]

The problem I have with TMG is that although they provide a unique endnotes feature, it is very confusing and not attractive because the report may show the same exponent cited more than once for the same tag.

As I recall, I asked you before how the other programs you mention cite the relationship sources. If they don't, you can replicate their result by turning off relationship citations in TMG.

It would be nice if the program would recognize that it has alreadycited the same source in the same tag (perhaps proof of lineage to mother and father from same source).

If it did, how would you know what the citation was for? Name, linkage to father, linkage to mother, any two of these, or all three?

Terry Riegel raised an interesting point in the previous discussion concerning the fact that the reports don't anywhere show proof of lineage citations in a way that is understood. I would like to find a way to solve this problem if it means creating a custom report. Generally when I correspond with family contacts I send a report showing how they connect to the tree one generation at a time. In each paragraph I mention the person, their vital dates and who they married, that persons parents and their vital dates, whatever background info I have and then a statement of their issue with the next paragraph beginning with someone of their issue as the subject of the next generation. It seems that a statement that "John Smith and Mary Doe had issue: James Smith(Citation), Frances Smith (Citation)" would be an appropriate way to achieve the proof of lineage problem.

How does that help? Sounds to me like the citation is for the name rather than the relationship, or would you handle name citations some other way so the difference is clear?

Three top competitors all seem to agree and do a better job.

How do you see they are doing a better job?

I am still not satisfied that the lineage proof citations are clear in any of the programs. Can TMG solve this? Does anyone else think this is important?

I think it's important. My suggestion is to add a specific statement that the subject is the "son/daughter of... (cite) and ... (cite)" and place the citations for lineage there. So far that's not been implimented in TMG itself, thought Second Site does it.

[Allen C. 0]

As I recall, I asked you before how the other programs you mention cite the relationship sources. If they don't, you can replicate their result by turning off relationship citations in TMG.

 

AC-I don't think they do it clearly either.

 

If it did, how would you know what the citation was for? Name, linkage to father, linkage to mother, any two of these, or all three?

 

AC-I believe that it is probably going to be overkill trying to distinguish among all the possible variations in a large project. I think that a source that supports the lineage as presented in any way can be cited and if further discussion is warranted then it could be put into a memo. The reader can examine the source if they wish to further evaluate the assumptions.

 

How does that help? Sounds to me like the citation is for the name rather than the relationship, or would you handle name citations some other way so the difference is clear?

 

AC-Perhaps so.

 

How do you see they are doing a better job?

 

AC-Mainly the lack of repetition of exponent numbers and properly ordering them in sequence.

 

I think it's important. My suggestion is to add a specific statement that the subject is the "son/daughter of... (cite) and ... (cite)" and place the citations for lineage there. So far that's not been implimented in TMG itself, thought Second Site does it.

 

AC-I'm not familiar with Second Site. This sounds workable but can or will TMG do it?

 

AC-I am trying to strike a balance between citing sufficiently but not excessively as I have a large project and endless citations are a problem. If you look at most lineage society applications there are lines for dates of birth, marriage and death and proof of descent. That's what is most important.

[Allen C. 0]

How does that help? Sounds to me like the citation is for the name rather than the relationship, or would you handle name citations some other way so the difference is clear?

 

AC-I meant to reply to the name issue. I have avoided citing the source of names separately unless there are significant variations. I feel that a relationship by definition names two persons so a relationship source is the source for the name. If a number of variations occur (especially aliases!) I may make a note of it and cite it there, but not otherwise. This is part of my attempt to stramline the number of sources neccesary.

 

I would like to cite the lineage either in a statement of the issue of the parents or in an introductory comment about the subject, that that person is the son of father (citation) and mother (citation) as you suggest. That sounds like the least ambiguous.

 

It seems that a tag could be developed with the relationship and memos attached that could be used for further discussion with embedded citations if needed. What I'd like to see is TMG do this rather than me have to add custom tags to every subject in my project.

[Terry Reigel 0]

I believe that it is probably going to be overkill trying to distinguish among all the possible variations in a large project. I think that a source that supports the lineage as presented in any way can be cited and if further discussion is warranted then it could be put into a memo.

I'm afraid I totally disagree - unless you cite the source of the lineage conclusion it doesn't seem to me that you have a genealogy at all - all you have is a series of information about unlinked persons. To me, citations belong in the source notes, not in the narrative itself.

Mainly the lack of repetition of exponent numbers ...

That's easy - turn off relationship citations and you have the same (non-genealogy) report you can get in other programs.

...and properly ordering them in sequence.

Seems to me that TMG does "properly" order the citations - in the order you specify by sorting them in the tag entry screen. This allows you to place the citations in a logical order, for example the primary citations first, followed by supporting citations, then contridictory citations, and perhaps by a summary note. To me, this is much more important that arbitarily placing them in the order they happen to occur in any given report.

I'm not familiar with Second Site. This sounds workable but can or will TMG do it?

Second Site is a website generation program that works with TMG data files. The generated "site" can either be posted on a website or copies to CDs and distributed to people. The resulting document, being a website, read with an ordinary web browser, it has the advange of links that can take the reader to any person, no matter how distantly related, or not even related.

I have avoided citing the source of names separately unless there are significant variations.

But how does the reader know that?

I feel that a relationship by definition names two persons so a relationship source is the source for the name.

That's not my experience. When working backward, as is the usual experience in genealogy, there are many sources of a person's name that give no hint of his or her parentage. I find marriage, death, census, and many other records that give information about the name a person actually used, but don't ususally mention the parents at all.

I would like to cite the lineage either in a statement of the issue of the parents or in an introductory comment about the subject, that that person is the son of father (citation) and mother (citation) as you suggest. That sounds like the least ambiguous.

I agree.

It seems that a tag could be developed with the relationship and memos attached that could be used for further discussion with embedded citations if needed. What I'd like to see is TMG do this rather than me have to add custom tags to every subject in my project.

There is such a tag already - the parent/child relationship tag, which has provisions for citing sources. The problem in my view is that it doesn't currently provide output in a format that the reader can understand. That's why I have suggested that TMG offer an option to use the same feature that Second Site uses - a statement in the narrative of the parents with the citations from the Parent/child tag that already exists. I agree that adding the same information again in in order to get it into reports is not a good plan.

[Allen C. 0]

I'm afraid I totally disagree - unless you cite the source of the lineage conclusion it doesn't seem to me that you have a genealogy at all - all you have is a series of information about unlinked persons. To me, citations belong in the source notes, not in the narrative itself.

 

AC-What I mean is if I have several sources that all point to my conclusion, say 4 obituaries from relatives that indicate a relationship to the father and 3 obituaries that indicate the relationship to the mother, and one census record that indicates a relationship to both parents and another census record that indicates just one parent and a Bible record that indicates my conclusion and correspondence also, I don't feel that I need to separate the obits that only indicate the mother from the ones that only indicate the father. You can go on and on about how obits lump step children, adopted children and natural children all as children, and I don't think that a laborious discussion adds to the conclusion. All of the above sources support my conclusion. For obits a citation detail discussing who was named as brothers and sisters, etc. could be placed.

 

 

 

Seems to me that TMG does "properly" order the citations - in the order you specify by sorting them in the tag entry screen. This allows you to place the citations in a logical order, for example the primary citations first, followed by supporting citations, then contridictory citations, and perhaps by a summary note. To me, this is much more important that arbitarily placing them in the order they happen to occur in any given report.

 

AC-If the significance of the order is difficult for me to figure out then I doubt my readers will be able to follow it either.

 

 

That's not my experience. When working backward, as is the usual experience in genealogy, there are many sources of a person's name that give no hint of his or her parentage. I find marriage, death, census, and many other records that give information about the name a person actually used, but don't ususally mention the parents at all.

 

AC-Without a relationship all those records are about unrelated people. Once a relationship has been defined then those records become evidence and are usually treated in different tags, not the name definition. I prefer to not belabor the point that the name is found spelled differently or used a middle name here and just a first name there, unless there is a significant discrepancy or an alias that warrants explanation.

 

 

 

There is such a tag already - the parent/child relationship tag, which has provisions for citing sources. The problem in my view is that it doesn't currently provide output in a format that the reader can understand. That's why I have suggested that TMG offer an option to use the same feature that Second Site uses - a statement in the narrative of the parents with the citations from the Parent/child tag that already exists. I agree that adding the same information again in in order to get it into reports is not a good plan.

 

AC-I am not trying to be obtuse, but you do agree that TMG needs to improve the way relationship proof is reported which is probably the single most important thing in the whole project. My query stems from the fact that I am getting close to the composition stage after years of research and I want to settle upon a style of writing that conveys as much well documented information as I can without going overboard and becoming burdonsome to the reader and wasting valuable space in a large book. This is a debate I contantly have with myself.

[Alison 0]

I think it's important. My suggestion is to add a specific statement that the subject is the "son/daughter of... (cite) and ... (cite)" and place the citations for lineage there. So far that's not been implimented in TMG itself, thought Second Site does it.

 

On somewhat of a tangent I think this would be a very nice feature to have in TMG, so I though I would at my "me too".

 

Personally, I think the bigger problem with unique citations is that they will not work with spilt cd's. I'm sure this is much more difficult to program, and can be done by the user after the fact in a word processor, but it would be nice if I didn't have to. (What can I say I'm a lumper )