Colin,
Trevor said earlier in this thread:
For over 18 years using FH, all of my Birth, Baptism, Marriage, Banns, Death, Burial and Census etc images are linked to the Individuals concerned.
.
Maybe the 'full horror' comment (made in jest) was a little over the line, but it perfectly expressed what I think of Trevor's approach (once Mike Tate clarified that I'd misunderstood what Trevor was doing).
My example was that whatever level of experience the person had, his standards were fine for him.
If electrician Fred turns up at your house and says "yep, I can rewire it but I'll follow my own standards... nobody else does it this way, but I prefer it" would you argue that their 'standards' are as good as anybody else's and tell them to go ahead? And would you say to a youngster looking for an apprenticeship: follow Fred's lead!
Genealogy is for most people a hobby, not a matter of life and death, and Trevor using his own methods does nobody any harm
until he starts to suggest that others follow them.
When the Society of Genealogist, Strathclyde University, Bristol University, the Open University, Dundee University, Aberystwyth University, the Institute of Heraldic and Genealogical Studies, the Board of Certification for Genealogists, Pharos Tutors, a variety of books on the subject, and very many genealogy user groups all recommend recording information about Sources other than just an image, and linking each Source to the Facts that it supports, Trevor is very much out on a limb, and a limb on to which less experienced genealogists shouldn't follow him.
It's possible that Trevor's method is more than just linking images for common source types to the Individual concerned, but he never tells us the detail.
He may have ways of recording sources that don't exist as images (e.g. DNA or voice recordings or transcriptions of documents that existed 40 years ago but vanished in a hour clearance).
He may have ways of recording the reliability of a source ("this census might be her but I'm really not sure").
He may have ways of documenting where an image came from and what he's allowed to do with it.
He may have ways of recording sources when the image is illegible.
He may have ways of indicating the significance of a Source attached to an individual if it doesn't mention the individual at all -- e.g. a census record for an individual's brother and mother where the individual isn't present (but the address is where the Individual gave birth two months later).
Perhaps he uses the Note field in the Media record? Or copious Notes against Facts? Maybe he uses Source records for somethings and not others? Just attaching images to an individual doesn't address any of the scenarios above, and in 18 years he must have encountered them...
