Family Historian User Group

Having discovered the you tube videos for Ancestral sources I have now improved how I source information.

I was previously creating my census entries and putting Ancestry.com as the repository. I have now correctly created a National Archive repository. Is anyone aware of a plug in or other quicker way of batch selecting sources to change the repository otherwise I will have to go down the list changing them all individually in the sources data window.

Many thanks in advance for any advice.

Susan

ID:6846

I don't have a plugin, but this is the sort of job plugins were designed for. How ever if you don't use the Ancestry repository for anything else you could simply merge the new Repository with the Ancestry one.

If that won't work for you. I don't think a one off plugin would be too bad to write.

The problem with a Plugin is identifying the criteria for  which Repositories need changing.
You would still probably have to go down the Sources and select each one to change whilst running the Plugin.

If as Jane says, you simply want to replace every 'Ancestry.com' Repository with a 'National Archive' Repository, then just change every field, including the Name, in the existing 'Ancestry.com' Repository.
There is then only one Repository Record to change.

Personally, if I obtained the Source Documents from Ancestry.com, then I would nominate Ancestry as the Repository, and likewise, for FindMyPast.
If I know that the Documents are in several places, then I have a multiple Repository, such as National Archive & Ancestry.com.
I would usually also have separate National Archive and Ancestry.com Repositories, so the multiple Repository Note would cross-refer to the separate ones, rather than duplicate the contact Address, Phone, etc.

tatewise said:

Personally, if I obtained the Source Documents from Ancestry.com, then I would nominate Ancestry as the Repository, and likewise, for FindMyPast.
If I know that the Documents are in several places, then I have a multiple Repository, such as National Archive & Ancestry.com.

Personally I regard websites like Ancestry and Findmypast as the publisher of the information, so I enter them in the the 'Publication Information' field for the Source. I regard the Repository as the place where the original document is kept (e.g. National Archives, or a County Record Office).

A piece of paper can only be in one place, so it can't have 'multiple' repositories. 

For things like censuses I don't usually bother to enter anything in the Repository or Publication fields once I have the image of the census page, but for things like parish records or employment records I do, because it might not be obvious where to start looking if I wanted to find them again.

The great thing about FH is that there are so many ways of doing things.  The important point is to decide on your own approach and then use it consistently.

Many thanks for all your replies, Lorna you have suggested exactly what I plan to do with regard to Ancestry/FreeCen etc being the publisher and the National Archive as the repository.

In the end I worked down all 200+ entries and changed them one at a time.

I am now doing the same with parish records altering the repository to the county records office.

I have loads of pre Ancestral Sources vague sources to redo but I'm determined to make sure everything is correctly recorded and sourced before I do any more research.

Thank goodness for all the Family Historian and Ancestral Sources you tube videos I'm taking my research to a new dimension. The more you learn about the software the greater it becomes

LornaCraig wrote:

tatewise said:

Personally, if I obtained the Source Documents from Ancestry.com, then I would nominate Ancestry as the Repository, and likewise, for FindMyPast.
If I know that the Documents are in several places, then I have a multiple Repository, such as National Archive & Ancestry.com.

Personally I regard websites like Ancestry and Findmypast as the publisher of the information, so I enter them in the the 'Publication Information' field for the Source. I regard the Repository as the place where the original document is kept (e.g. National Archives, or a County Record Office).

A piece of paper can only be in one place, so it can't have 'multiple' repositories. 

For things like censuses I don't usually bother to enter anything in the Repository or Publication fields once I have the image of the census page, but for things like parish records or employment records I do, because it might not be obvious where to start looking if I wanted to find them again.

The great thing about FH is that there are so many ways of doing things.  The important point is to decide on your own approach and then use it consistently.

Revisiting an older thread here.

Lorna's way of doing things seems completely backwards from the way I understand publishers vs. repositories.

Let's say I compile a directory of all the members of FHUG (at least, all who want to be included) with their usernames, geographic locations, version of FH used, and email addresses. I am the author because I compiled the information. If Mike Tate cleans up my draft and makes it into an ePub, he is the publisher. If Jane makes it available in the Knowledge Base, then the KB is the Repository.

You can absolutely have more than one repository for some items -- if the item in question is a book or a file which can be copied (as opposed to the original manuscript from which the book was created) then there can be many libraries around the world, each with their own copy of the book. The only case for which you have "one piece of paper, one repository" are for one-of-a-kind items like original manuscripts.

When I access the Devon Parish Records via Find My Past, I am not looking at the original records -- I am looking at a digital copy of the original records, a derivative work. These derivative copies can be hosted at any number of repositories, depending on the licensing agreements for who can provide access to them.

If a microfilm has been made by the LDS Church, and Ancestry is making the images available by arrangement with FamilySearch.org, in no way is Ancestry the publisher of that work. The LDS Church is the publisher, and both FamilySearch.org and Ancestry are repositories.

Sorry to be pedantic here, but I'm cleaning up sources created from an Ancestry-downloaded GEDCOM, and I've discovered that the way Ancestry and I deal with sources is not the same, so I'm feeling a bit cranky.

You can absolutely have more than one repository for some items -- if the item in question is a book or a file which can be copied (as opposed to the original manuscript from which the book was created) then there can be many libraries around the world, each with their own copy of the book. The only case for which you have "one piece of paper, one repository" are for one-of-a-kind items like original manuscripts.

Yes, I was indeed talking about one-of-a-kind items like original manuscripts. In the case of a widely available book I would not record a repository at all, for the reasons you state. It is sufficient to record the publication details.

When I access the Devon Parish Records via Find My Past, I am not looking at the original records -- I am looking at a digital copy of the original records, a derivative work.

Exactly. So what you are recording as the repository is the location of the digital copy, not the repository of the original manuscript. I regard the provision of the digital copy as a means of publication: it is, literally, a means of making the information public. If I want to examine the original manuscript myself (for example if the copy is faint or blurred) I need to know where that original manuscript is. As a point of interest where, if at all, do you record the repository of the original manuscript?

I think we will have to ‘agree to differ’ on this point. We all have our own ways of doing things, and the important thing is too be consistent in our own methods.

Elizabeth Shown Mills' advice is to cite what you actually use. If what I am using is a digital image that is served to me by Ancestry, then Ancestry.com (or sometimes Ancestry.co.uk) is the repository. The website is the means by which I examine the digital image.

If you are citing Ancestry's database as a source, then they are also the publisher of that collection of digital images.

But if I'm citing these images as my source, this is what I've actually used. I haven't yet followed the trail all the way back to the original paper records -- and in some cases, it's impossible to do so, since the originals no longer exist.

I record the author and location of the original records, where extant, in a source note. Thus my citation for the image copies Devon Parish records is for Find My Past. I have not been to the Devon Record Office (or the Plymouth and West Devon Record Office) to examine the hardcopy registers and it would be misleading to say that I had.

Elizabeth Shown Mills in "Evidence Explained" says on page 58 "a web site is not a repository" ... She does see it as an important element in the citation. The issue is how to reconcile the fields in FHn (or any other database structure) with getting the information that we have found recorded consistently. So here my thoughts (so far)...

The repository is the place where the original is, not necessarily the agent that has made the information available. So thinking Devon Parish records with LDS ... The LDS are surely the publisher... The original record is either (yes still) with the parish or in the place they have been deposited for safekeeping (the Devon Records Office for the Diocese of Exeter's Church of England records). However I would note the fact that I got the information via Ancestry from the LDS. It might mean that for the parish record I will put in "no repository recorded" ... But there is an audit trail to follow

If I have a book then I note the repository as "own library", but if I accessed it in a library I put that.

What if I send a letter... The original will be with the recipient or their archive, so that could be cited as repository... But I probably have a paper or digital copy. In the latter case which is the norm, as with emails, I note "held as computer record only" (even if I print it out and put in family file) and I will also transcribe or copy the relevant content into FHn.

One thing tho is that whilst we all aim for high standards and good practice, it's often over-facing for beginners, or people not used to researching, in what is now an increasingly academic discipline. So unless one intends to publish (and don't get me on that issue as the recipient of a recent "how not to do it" family history where the sources are unfollow-able) the important thing is that you, and whoever might have access to your information, can go back, maybe years later, and know where you found that information.

Another fascinating discussion. I almost didn't read this because I don't use Repositories but I am glad I did. Just a few comments from a UK bias.

1. Websites - I'll be honest virtually all my information comes from websites. However, I now download a digital copy of everything I use and I am going back to complete the job and download the images I used before. A website is transitory. Referring to web information is a bit like saying I copied this off the back of a number 9 bus, but it's gone now.

2. Original Archives - TNA, LMA various county archives. More likely to still be around in twenty years time but who knows where the actual archives might end up. Also how do I know that an original is, for example, in the National Archive unless I go along there and look at it and even then how do I know that it is an original document?

3. Original certificates (or most probably Certified Copies) - I have an Birth Certificate where the informant, the mother, gave a 'false' name (and I have ample evidence to prove that). On the other hand perhaps that was the name she decided she preferred to her given name at that time, and she did continue to use it later, so to her it was her name. So what do we do - I recorded both of course and made it clear where I had found each variation.

4. Historical evidence. Let's now forget that the crucial element of history is, and please excuse the gender bias, his story. We rely on an informant to tell the truth but if we knew that everybody was telling the truth on official documents we wouldn't need Courts of Law - just ask any witness to make a written statement and take their statement as the truth.

I think our duty - if that is the correct word - is to state where we obtained the information that we are using and, if you wish, repeat the hearsay about where an original document is kept. Does it matter which fields in a source form we use as long as all the information we have is recorded. The advantage of having your own image copies is that when you pass on your file they can go with it. At least until your image format is deprecated.

Does anybody remember the BBC Domesday Project? Let me remind you

In 1986 the BBC launched an ambitious project to record a snapshot of everyday life across the UK for future generations. A million volunteers took part

In 2011 the BBC published the survey online and for six months invited updates to the photographs and text to celebrate the 25th anniversary.
Shortly afterwards the website was added to The National Archives’ UK Government Web Archive.
If you are reading this via UK Government Web Archive, then the original Domesday search function and contact form will not work. This is a consequence of the archiving process.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/domesday BBC's Domesday Reloaded Website -

David

David

Have a look at the "evidence explained" quick lesson 17 on web site https://www.evidenceexplained.com/conte ... rocess-map . It expands the evidence-analysis-process grid in the front of the actual book and is particularly relevant to your point 4.

I find the book quite heavy going (got a relatively cheap 2nd hand copy) but the above blog which I only discovered recently (possibly a reference in a post on FHUG) is interesting reading. Aimed at professionals writing reports and academics, and inevitably American biased, the book is still worth the effort in my view, and the blog has sample pages and examples/discussions. It's much broader than how we hold info on dbases .. Apologies if you know all this!

[Never forgotten my former boss being stunned when I said I was interested in "herstory". We had both studied history many moons before for our degrees, but not practitioners, and he said he had not ever hoisted that on board despite promoting in all senses women in the workplace - one which is still struggling with allowing women into its highest offices]

SL

Thanks for the reference SL. An interesting read.

It strikes me that our preconceptions step in when reading. Now we would assume that the newspaper statement was talking about people from Egypt and France but in 1850, when political correctness was an alien concept, I think it is possible that a reader would have interpreted the statement as Gypsies from France.

The analysis, however, did not appear to make any presumptions and that in itself is good. I think that is one of the most difficult problems with interpreting evidence - going in with an open mind. It is so easy to make a conjecture and then dig out the evidence in favour and ignore the evidence against.

Although I have always been fascinated by history, particularly social history, I am not a historian and I cannot see myself making that amount of effort to prove something when in the end you cannot be certain that you have drawn a correct conclusion. That does not stop me admiring those that do.

David

SunnyLady wrote:Elizabeth Shown Mills in "Evidence Explained" says on page 58 "a web site is not a repository"

She begins to by saying "Most websites are the equivalent of a book." and cites websites created by individuals. This description works well if you are considering sites such as US GenWeb sites or Rootsweb, or the now-defunct sites on GeoCities, where people publish cemetery or census inventories or indexes to parish records. I would also place in this category websites created by users of Family Historian.

After that, she goes on to say "Conceptually, the repository is the Internet or the World Wide Web."

I disagree with this because it does not correspond to the equivalent real-world usage.

Common sense tells us that a Repository is an institution like the Allen County Public Library or the National Records and Archives Administration (NARA) or the National Archives at Kew. It is a destination we go to which gives us access to records.

The United States, or England, or whatever location the repository is found in, is not the repository, nor is the highway system one takes to get there a repository.

The Internet, or the World Wide Web, is the electronic means by which we reach the chosen destination. It is the electronic equivalent of the highway system. The physical servers are the equivalent of the building which houses the library. The entity we sign into in order to access the digital collections is the equivalent of a library. Thus Ancestry.com is a repository, as is FamilySearch.org, FindMyPast.com, etc.

Much as it pains me to disagree with Mills, I say there should be a distinction made between a website that you or I might make in order to publish our own research (which is a single publication), or a Genealogy Society's website, where many society members might make works available, and the big commercial sites like Ancestry.com, which is more like a library containing many such works.

Note also that the Quicksheet for Citing Ancestry.com Databases and Images (1st Rev ed. 2010) distinguishes in the Basic Format section between Databases that are created by Ancestry and Images of Manuscript Collections.

She also says "For Ancestry products imaged from a published book or film, you should not cite the book or film directly, without identifying it as Ancestry's edition. Online providers often enhance images and otherwise alter the products."

I submit that what we have here is a failure of vocabulary because the same words (publisher and repository) are being pressed into service in multiple contexts. The corporation Ancestry is both the publisher (in the sense of having produced a reprint edition of an earlier work) and the repository (in my sense of "this is where I went to find the reprint edition"). We also need to be able to record the original publication and where it can be found. My book cataloging database allows me to record both the information about the copy of the book I have in hand AND the original publication data of the work; if I have a Dover facsimile edition of a book that was originally published in 1912, the programmer has given me the fields to record the data about the edition I have in hand, and the original book which it reprints. Family Historian does not, thus we have to cram in the information any which way. So I blame the LDS.

Edited to add: having skimmed the GEDCOM 5.5.1 Standard, I see that the standard makes heavy reference to sources as individual books or documents, and repositories as being the individuals holding the documents (for privately held documents or libraries (books). The complication of Google Books or Ancestry.com or any other online source holding image copies of these physical-world items is not addressed at all. I don't know if this was ever addressed in the BetterGEDCOM project. It would be interesting to hear what FHISO has to say about it.

I agree that the language is not helpful. Its also noticeable in some of the example sheets, which Mills gives in her book and on the web site, that she does not use the word "repository".

For me the issue is as much about who is going to see what I record, and can the trail be followed, as it is about getting the academic criteria right (important but nonetheless mind-blowing for newbies). If in doubt, record all that one can (I take snipsof transcripts and include what Ancestry says in their citation so I have a record somewhere).

I do not agree with splitting the kind of web site. Your post says and generally we talk about things being "published on the web" so for me all web sites are publishers (as agents to get the information out there) - I do not distinguish between the commercial sites and the personal sites. Having said that I make sure I note where I saw the item ( and date when I saw it - internet items have a habit of migrating or changing their name). As you say Mills makes an important point - an image published on any of these sites could be degraded, amended etc. We can't for example see when using census images the colour (if any) of some of the marks or amendments, or those subtle clues that do not photocopy etc but if one saw the original one would get a feel. The image may be 100% accurate but as we have not seen the original we cannot know. This applies to any web site whosoever publishes it to the web

So to construct the citation one needs to record in as full as possible terms
(a) where one saw the information; and then
(b) if that source says where they got the information from , record that as well (though as Mills points out that may not be accurate, but its the best we can do). Hopefully that way someone, who may or may not have access to the web site I saw the image on, can then have at least half a chance of finding the original or a web site with an image.. OR
(c) if there is no (b) then one says that;
(d) THEN for the database decide how YOU are going to put it in the dbase, which as you say may mean "cram in the information any which way"! But try and be consistent...
(e) You may then ,after all that, need to work out, if you need to, how you will report the information in any printouts etc

If I was going to produce a bibliography for a formal piece of written work then I would do the necessary audit, checking, etc. Most of us are not going in that direction but if we are then Mills gives us the tools/guidance ... and one needs to check out her latest thinking, even after her 2012 book, on her site/blog/forum - even ask her a question!!

LDS or/and FHISO are probably now in an impossible position given the myriad of non compliant FH programmnes, but at least we do have a basic GEDCOM format which can be shared (even if imperfectly in finer detail)

SL