What to Do with Dodgy Info.

[Michael Talibard]

What should one do with the results of other people's research, if it is not well sourced and documented, not up to one's own standards, but might be useful?

Policy A: store it away in the form in which it arrived

[rclrocco]

Re: What to Do with Dodgy Info.

Hi Michael.. and greetings from not too far away.

Here's what I do. Each potentially dodgy imported set of data, email, people etc is imported into a separate file in Reunion, and kept as a separate file until I verify it. It can then be linked in the usual way. I do it that way because that is what I used to do in my pre computer days. It then gives me the chance to look at the data in different ways, or perhaps email it to others if we want to chat about something. Not to include it in any way would preclude that.

Its tempting not to include data until you can verify it all, but often this will mean you miss one bit of information which MAY be correct. I have several six generation trees in my database for example but I am uncertain about how the oldest ancestor links to my tree. Often I have had a relation convinced that they are related to so and so but who can't verify the link when you quiz them about it. For me, those tree branches stay unlinked and away from my main Reunion file until a link is categorically proven. And how one does that could start another thread on its own.

More of a challenge is receiving many pages of data from someone who states that they have all the BMD Certificates etc, with which they have verified their data, but until you've seen these yourself, how can you say its verified and add it to a Reunion database of your own?

I also draw manual trees, left to right descendant charts, from the supplied data and keep these at A3 size in a ring binder of Islands" or unlinked trees, so that I have an easy way of seeing how generations and dates match up to what I believe is my correct. Without drawn trees or charts , I quickly lose track of where I am. Treeview in R10 is really helpful for this and I often use the iPad version for this too if I'm away from home.



Completely agree about the amount of rubbish "out there". Sadly, many people will believe something just because they see it on the net or in some romanticised version of part of a family tree or place. Or worse, because they want to believe some link for reasons of pride or some such.

I've always been dubious about putting any part of my family history online. I could do so but even with the parts of my family which I have verified, I choose not to because I am always finding out new details and making changes, and fundamentally because I regard the information as fairly personal.

[rclrocco]

Re: What to Do with Dodgy Info.

Looks like only you and I get dodgy info to deal with Michael

[ttl]

Re: What to Do with Dodgy Info.

I used to keep an "everything" file for fun and for research leads, and a "verified" file that had stuff transferred from the everything file as I developed my own sourcing for the data.

I'm finding myself to be more inclined to spend time in the everything file, just being sure to note the sourcing while there. I don't use a dedicated method for highlighting the questionable areas, although it occurs to me that if one feels this is important, one might create a red square for a graphic and include it as the preferred picture for dodgy folks along with other kinds of notations such as flags.

[genealogist.lily]

Re: What to Do with Dodgy Info.

I used to keep an "everything" file for fun and for research leads, and a "verified" file that had stuff transferred from the everything file as I developed my own sourcing for the data.
I'm finding myself to be more inclined to spend time in the everything file, just being sure to note the sourcing while there. I don't use a dedicated method for highlighting the questionable areas, although it occurs to me that if one feels this is important, one might create a red square for a graphic and include it as the preferred picture for dodgy folks along with other kinds of notations such as flags.

I created a field which I call "Post-It" - it is, in effect, a post-it note for me. I never release or print the information in Post-It - because it is "dodgy" and needs to be proven - but it's there on the screen for me. I can refer to it, ignore it and leave it there for years to come. I can add a source number, or just include where I found it. I can save photos in my photo file or data in the documents file - and include the names/numbers of those items in the Post-It field until such time as I want to link them

[Roberta]

Re: What to Do with Dodgy Info. WISH LIST!

I only have one file, with verified and dodgy data. I would love to see a box at the end of each data field where I could indicate 1 for primary evidence (such as a birth date on a birth certificate), 2 for secondary evidence (such as a birth date on a death certificate), 3 for hearsay (such as a birth date published in a book of family history) and 4 for unverified (such as a birth date in a family tree on the web or and IGI file), assumed, etc. that would appear on the family page. They could be colored dots or flags Green (go) for 1, Blue for 2, yellow (caution) for 3 and red (stop) for 4. That way, I could tell at a glance w/o looking at the events page or facts page if I had more work to do on a particular aspect of that family.

[Susan Freas Rogers]

Re: What to Do with Dodgy Info.

At this point, dodgy info is in my one family file. My present method for identifying a record as dodgy is as follows:

I created a new Source Type, called "Unsourced." I have four of these so far, and when I' select my Sources panel, and I sort on the top columns by Type, these four Unsourced "sources" group together (after Periodicals and before Vital Records). The third column in the panel, "Data", shows where I got the unsourced data for each:
-- Ancestry.com
-- FamilySearch.com Ancestral File
-- FamilyTree (the new one, now available on FamilySearch.org)
-- STREEPER-L Archives at Rootsweb.ancestry.com. This one includes all the data about the person who posted it there, when, URL, etc.

Now that FamilySearch has merged their Ancestral File data into FamilyTree, I suppose my second one above will go away. But the point is, I'm identifying the source as actually being Unsourced, and then just recording where (Ancestry, a website, etc.) I found the data that didn't cite a genuine, traceable source. I'm sure I'll be adding more Unsourced "sources" in the future, and I probably haven't even captured all the ones I need so far.

One of the above is my source #78, where I found so much that I've memorized the number and so can recognize immediately, on a Person card, that it's unsourced data. (I link it to their Name, so when the number displays in Family View as superscript next to the person's name, I don't have to go look for it anywhere else.) I suppose I could re-number them sequentially without too much effort, making it easier to remember that these are "unsourced sources," but for now, this is good enough. Too bad we can't create our own Source Numbers, such as U1, U2, U3, U4, etc., that would always fall to the bottom of the Source Number list and be immediately recognizable in Family View as an Unsourced "source." (There's an item for the Wish List.)

Though I haven't tried it yet, I suppose my current method will allow me to create a chart or web upload that will EXCLUDE all records that have Source numbers that are of the Unsourced type. Any solution that Leister could create for us to easily identify dodgy info will have to allow the easy exclusion of people who exist in the file only by virtue of their possible links to us, not because we actually claim them as ancestors.

Thank you to our British friends for the word "dodgy," I love it. :-)

[Michael Talibard]

Re: What to Do with Dodgy Info.

At this point, dodgy info is in my one family file. My present method for identifying a record as dodgy is as follows: I created a new Source Type, called "Unsourced."

What a good idea! I shall try that now. Thank you.

[Bob Goode]

Re: What to Do with Dodgy Info.

Originally Posted by Susan Freas Rogers
At this point, dodgy info is in my one family file. My present method for identifying a record as dodgy is as follows: I created a new Source Type, called "Unsourced."

What a good idea! I shall try that now. Thank you.

Yes, this is a nice way to indicate that an entry is "dodgy" info. I have a notes field titled "possibilities." I also have a flag designation for suspect info. I do think I will also use a source type as Unsourced.

This past week I found two new ways to use Reunion and I have been using Reunion for years. ReunionTalk rocks.

[Gato]

Re: What to Do with Dodgy Info.

At this point, dodgy info is in my one family file. My present method for identifying a record as dodgy is as follows:

I created a new Source Type, called "Unsourced." I have four of these so far, and when I' select my Sources panel, and I sort on the top columns by Type, these four Unsourced "sources" group together (after Periodicals and before Vital Records). The third column in the panel, "Data", shows where I got the unsourced data for each:
-- Ancestry.com
-- FamilySearch.com Ancestral File
-- FamilyTree (the new one, now available on FamilySearch.org)
-- STREEPER-L Archives at Rootsweb.ancestry.com. This one includes all the data about the person who posted it there, when, URL, etc.

Now that FamilySearch has merged their Ancestral File data into FamilyTree, I suppose my second one above will go away. But the point is, I'm identifying the source as actually being Unsourced, and then just recording where (Ancestry, a website, etc.) I found the data that didn't cite a genuine, traceable source. I'm sure I'll be adding more Unsourced "sources" in the future, and I probably haven't even captured all the ones I need so far.

One of the above is my source #78, where I found so much that I've memorized the number and so can recognize immediately, on a Person card, that it's unsourced data. (I link it to their Name, so when the number displays in Family View as superscript next to the person's name, I don't have to go look for it anywhere else.) I suppose I could re-number them sequentially without too much effort, making it easier to remember that these are "unsourced sources," but for now, this is good enough. Too bad we can't create our own Source Numbers, such as U1, U2, U3, U4, etc., that would always fall to the bottom of the Source Number list and be immediately recognizable in Family View as an Unsourced "source." (There's an item for the Wish List.)

Though I haven't tried it yet, I suppose my current method will allow me to create a chart or web upload that will EXCLUDE all records that have Source numbers that are of the Unsourced type. Any solution that Leister could create for us to easily identify dodgy info will have to allow the easy exclusion of people who exist in the file only by virtue of their possible links to us, not because we actually claim them as ancestors.

Thank you to our British friends for the word "dodgy," I love it. :-)

Hello Michael, Susan, et al,

You have raised one of the most interesting subjects in the detective work of genealogy: the reliability of sources. Source reliability often comes in many shades of grey, rather than black or white.

IMHO the best way to begin to approach this is from a standard scholarly research viewpoint, which requires that information be substantiated by primary and secondary sources.

If you think like this, you will soon understand – if you don't already – that even primary sources may include "dodgy" information. Death certificates, for instance, are primary sources, but often contain inaccurate information provided posthumously by informants.

So how to reduce (you will never eliminate) "dodginess"? The ideal may be compared with triangulation: a technique of deriving a navigational fix, or finding submerged submarines, from three or more different bearings. The more non-self-referencing primary sources you can find for any information, the more reliable that information should be.

Even potentially dodgy sources – a genealogy with no source documentation, for example, or an IGI entry – are best recorded in Reunion as sources, with everything known about their authorship. The nature and number of sources then speak for themselves about reliability and "non-dodginess". Reunion research notes can be used to record work on lines of inquiry, reasons for doubt or confidence in information, and need for further research.

The Harvard Guide to Using Sources at http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do...tabgroup106846 is a good guide to general scholarly and academic principles of using sources.

Hertfordshire Genealogy has a good discussion of "Sources and Reliability" in the genealogical context at http://www.hertfordshire-genealogy.c...52-sources.htm

Eliminating dodgy information from genealogy is almost unattainable, but pursuit of that ideal is among the most fun of this hobby.

Have fun!

Gato