How best to signal that a Person-file is "reliable"?

[Gordon Watson]

Please excuse; thinking out loud:

Keeping in mind my needs [e.g., file-sharing, and almost certainly a future upload to the web]: What might be the best way to indicate to myself, AND signal to others, that "this person's data is reliable".

IMO, it would be best if the indicator was always visible in Reunion's (standard) "People" Side-bar AND ALSO travelled in a GEDCOM. So:

I could (say) add + after the forename, then I'd have: "WATSON, Stephen + (ca1717-1763); but that inconveniently changes the sorting order.

I've used (in the past) a Flag = Audited; or could allocate a source; say: "Source 5 = 5-star data". But they're not optimal because they would not appear the standard "People" Side-bar.

What would be really nice (for me) is an added "box" after the forename that could be coded for all sorts of purposes ... without changing the standard sorting order. "Prefix title" and "Suffix title" are neat, but the sorting order is changed.

Reasons for my question:

A. The absence of such an indicator would guide me to persons (in my file) whose data might benefit from another audit.

B. I'd like to signal which Person-file is reliable (especially on sites like Ancestry.com) so that collaborators knew where to focus future research.

C. Collaborators could help me in the same way.

As I said; just thinking out loud.

PS: It's clear from the number of completed fields, and the related sources, which files are "reliable" -- but I'd like to bring that conclusion to a convenient, more readily observable, surface.

[Michael Talibard]

Re: How best to signal that a Person-file is "reliable"?

Gordon - could you make it clearer what you mean by 'reliable'? I rarely enter anything I regard as unreliable; if ever I do, I put in words such as "not sure of this". And on the other hand, it sometimes happens, of course, that information entered without such proviso (because not then doubted) turns out to be inaccurate.

[theKiwi]

Re: How best to signal that a Person-file is "reliable"?

There is a GEDCOM tag QUAY which can be used to indicate "Quality" of a source.

QUAY {QUALITY_OF_DATA} An assessment of the certainty of the evidence to support the conclusion drawn from evidence. Values: [0|1|2|3]

You can add this tag to your Sources if you wish to use it.

Roger

[Gordon Watson]

Re: How best to signal that a Person-file is "reliable"?

Gordon - could you make it clearer what you mean by 'reliable'? I rarely enter anything I regard as unreliable; if ever I do, I put in words such as "not sure of this". And on the other hand, it sometimes happens, of course, that information entered without such proviso (because not then doubted) turns out to be inaccurate.

Michael - My "not sures" are represented by ?, ??, ???. But just like your phrase ("not sure of this"), these notations are 'hidden' within the Person-file. So my "reliable files" are those that have no "?" AND have well-sourced data elsewhere. (In my old family -- for example -- statements re "who fathered who", marriage dates and related birth dates may be very helpful: but they are also too often "mistaken".)

It's clear from the number of completed fields, and the related sources, which files are "reliable" -- so I'm seeking to bring that conclusion to a convenient, more readily observable, surface: and transmit such info to my collaborators. HTH.

[Gordon Watson]

Re: How best to signal that a Person-file is "reliable"?

There is a GEDCOM tag QUAY which can be used to indicate "Quality" of a source. [...] You can add this tag to your Sources if you wish to use it. Roger

Thanks indeed Roger; good info. But note that I'm seeking a TAG that is readily evident in the standard Reunion "People" Sidebar; AND to collaborators, regardless of their system. Would QUAY do that?

My current inclination is to add a 'plus' (+) to the forenames. It's readily visible; and "Findable", and thus readily "Markable/Unmarkable" with related benefits.

BUT! SOS! If/when I change my mind: I'm not sure that it's readily removable en-masse? On that score, I wonder if I'm missing something?

PS: For completeness here. If I give up on my "immediate visibility" and "readily transmissible" desires (and use Flags), the wonderful "People Sidebar -> List window" works perfectly! (As is to be expected with Reunion, of course.)

[Roberta]

Re: How best to signal that a Person-file is "reliable"?

I enter all names with mixed upper/lower case. Once I have substantial hard evidence from multiple sources that the person is the spouse/parent/child/actual right person (i.e. a copy of a birth/death/marriage certificate, census records, DNA etc.) I change just the last name to all upper case. That way, I can instantly see where I need to look for evidence next.

[Jan Powell]

Re: How best to signal that a Person-file is "reliable"?

I enter all names with mixed upper/lower case. Once I have substantial hard evidence from multiple sources that the person is the spouse/parent/child/actual right person (i.e. a copy of a birth/death/marriage certificate, census records, DNA etc.) I change just the last name to all upper case. That way, I can instantly see where I need to look for evidence next.

Hi Roberta
Sound genealogical practice holds that all surnames be in UPPER CASE with forenames in Initial Capitals. This is so that names that could be either forenames or last names are not confused (eg from my tree, Pearson GEORGE, where GEORGE is actually the surname). May I politely suggest that you make a flag for those whose hard evidence needs finding and use upper case for all last names? Alternatively you could make a source "unverified information" (as I have). Either way it is easy to search for those who need verified evidence. No doubt others with have other methods, too.

[Blaise A. Darveaux]

Re: How best to signal that a Person-file is "reliable"?

I do not agree with putting surnames in all caps. As for my name, my birth certificate says Darveaux, not DARVEAUX. I strive for accuracy and recording what is actually in the document, not what I think it should be based on "sound genealogical practice." Sometimes the practice if all cap surnames confuses the issue, such as multi-part names like van der Hoog. If names like that are given in all caps, information about how the name is actually spelled is lost, not passed on as it should be by accurate recording.

[Dennis J. Cunniff]

Re: How best to signal that a Person-file is "reliable"?

Sometimes the practice if all cap surnames confuses the issue, such as multi-part names like van der Hoog. If names like that are given in all caps, information about how the name is actually spelled is lost, not passed on as it should be by accurate recording.

Other examples of names in which information is lost by placing them in all-caps would be: MacArthur vs. Macarthur, MacLeod vs. Macleod, MacMillan vs. Macmillan, Dupont vs. DuPont, de La Rochefoucauld, etc.