* Source Citation Methods 1 & 2

[tatewise]

This question is a continuation from thread Default Media Report (12376).

I have to ask, but are you also unaware of Source Citations?
It is often better to attach Fact related Media to a Source record, and then cite that Source record from its asociated Facts.

[NickiP]

Unless I'm missing a trick, if I link the media to the Source Record associated with the event, it doesn't show against the related individual when you select "View Media linked to" and therefore won't show up in a Media Report for that individual?

[tatewise]

Try it and you will see it does show up, because one of the tick options in Media > View Media Linked to <Individual> is Associated Sources and Source Citations.

One big advantage of Source Records is where you have multiple Media for one Source.
They can all be linked to the Source Record Multimedia tab just once.
Then the Source is cited by each Fact just once.

Whereas with Media linked directly to Facts, each Fact must be laboriously linked to each Media record.

Furthermore, in Reports the Source is directly associated with the specific Facts by a cross-reference superscipt, and the Media is closely aligned with the Source.

Whereas, as you know Media linked directly to Facts is only vaguely associated in Reports.

[NickiP]

I tried it last night linked to a Source Record and it didn't show up when I ran "View Media Linked to" and a Media Report. I'll try it again.

Its only really a pain with multiple links for Census and I've decided to use Method 2 in Ancestral Sources for Census (I need to input all the Census events anyway on all trees as haven't done this previously as I've never particularly liked the layout in Reports) so the media link and source citations are created automatically. I'm having to manually create Source Citations anyway for each individual for other Event types. Most other media I've so far found only has a single or at most two links, or it does the way I'm using it.

Ancestors/Descendants Reports I'm unlikely to include the media because I'm more interested in the details and it just expands the reports too much. Even if I wanted them to show in these types of reports, using the caption facility shows what they relate to anyway and the events are linked to their respective source citations so using it this way round isn't that much of an issue as far as I can see.

[tatewise]

I would advise you reconsider using Method 1 for Census Events as of all the event types these benefit most from Method 1 for the following reasons:

• Census Media images can be linked to Source Record, and often there are two or more images per household where they cross pages.
• Census Transcript can be held in Text From Source, and often have many discrepancies from more formal documented names, dates & places that may need explanation in Notes.
• Census Reference Id can be held in Publication Info.

If you use Method 2 where will you store all that data?
If you say in the Citation then that leads to massive duplication, with a copy for every Individual with that Census Event.

[NickiP]

Isn't it really swings and roundabouts when it comes to Sources with either Method? If I used Method 1, I end up with a lot of Source Records relating to Census, but if I use Method 2 I have one Source Record for each Census year and country, eg. 1851 UK Census, but a lot of citations connected to them. As I have never, and still do not like, the fact that to include occupation data in Census Facts in Family Historian involves more than one Fact for each individual, I'm keeping the information from Census to a minimum, namely age and where they resided. The Source Citation for each person links to the single Census year Source Record and yes does include the Census Reference within the "Where within source". Having not bothered to enter Census Facts on the trees previously for the reasons I have already mentioned, my sole purpose in doing so is to be able to link a copy of the census image to the individuals for "auditing purposes" (namely I know I have a copy as for many of my trees the data was collected prior to the records being made available online and I previously only had a paper copy which I don't wish to keep because of storage space issues) and also I can use the Source citations to confirm where the details have originated. If I decide to expand the Census data kept in the "tree" for each household, I am more likely to use a local note for each individual and enter details relating to each Census year they appear. It may not be the best way of doing it, but I much prefer using notes in Reports as I prefer the way they appear, for reasons mentioned previously.

In using Source Records for Parish Register entries I have a similar issue to using them for Census data. Many of my ancestors originated in London, particularly in the East End, and as some of these parishes are very large, many of the registers cover only a small number of years. As such if I was to use the Source Record method, it would mean a separate Source Record for each Register which then becomes unwieldy to use. At least with using a single Source Record for each parish, I can simply create a citation with the details of the particular Register in the "Where within source" which is much easier to use. I accept that if the birth date is mentioned in the baptism that will involve a separate citation, but as I suspect they only contribute a small amount to the overal size of the file, I don't really see it is that big an issue. In any case, if you use a Source Record for each register, there will still be a Source citation created for each Fact linked to that register.

At the end of the day, it really is down to individual preference and how you wish to present and retain your data.

[tatewise]

I don't quite follow the logic about numbers of records and links for Census events.
Let us consider 100 Census returns across say 10 years with say an average of 4 people per household.

With Method 2 there are 10 Source records, 100+ Media records, 400 Source Citations, 400+ Media Fact links, and some data is duplicated in the Citations/Notes of the people per household. (910+ records & links)

With Method 1 there are 100 Source records, 100+ Media records, 400 Source Citations, 100+ Media Source links, and no duplication of data. (700+ records & links)
I.e. 210 less than Method 2.

[NickWalker]

I often see people referring to the large number of sources that Method 1 produces as though it is a problem but I see that as a strength because the data is all openly available. You've entered all that data so why don't you want to see it? If the Sources tab wasn't then we wouldn't see all those sources and it wouldn't look so overwhelming. If there was a similar tab for Citations so people could see the many thousands of citations in their file then this would look far more intimidating. With 'method 2' the data is all there in the citations but scattered across your file and far more difficult to get to and edit.

[NickiP]

You've entered all that data so why don't you want to see it?

Why do I particularly want to see the source data? The date I'm really interested in is the Facts/Events as they pertain to the life of the individual. All the source data shows is where this is from and its not something that is needed to be viewed that often, in any case its not that difficult to find if using Method 2 is it?

If the Sources tab wasn't then we wouldn't see all those sources and it wouldn't look so overwhelming. If there was a similar tab for Citations so people could see the many thousands of citations in their file then this would look far more intimidating.

The issue is not that seeing so many Source Records is overwhelming, its the fact it is far easier to have a single Source Record for say a parish or a census year so when selecting it to create a citation to a Fact, you don't have to filter out a lot of other Source Records to find the one associated with the register/census reference you are interested in. In any case, you can always hide the Sources tab if you wanted to anyway.

With 'method 2' the data is all there in the citations but scattered across your file and far more difficult to get to and edit.

How is it difficult to find and edit, you click on the Fact against the individual and click on the Show Sources button, it then shows you the citation source?

[NickWalker]

Why do I particularly want to see the source data? The date I'm really interested in is the Facts/Events as they pertain to the life of the individual. All the source data shows is where this is from and its not something that is needed to be viewed that often, in any case its not that difficult to find if using Method 2 is it?

Yes that's the point I'm making, with method 1 you don't need to worry about all the sources but they are there if you need them. With method 2 you are constantly having to go back to your sources to add new citations. I was addressing the comment you made about method 1 creating a lot of sources and saying "so what?".

The issue is not that seeing so many Source Records is overwhelming, its the fact it is far easier to have a single Source Record for say a parish or a census year so when selecting it to create a citation to a Fact, you don't have to filter out a lot of other Source Records to find the one associated with the register/census reference you are interested in.

But with method 1 you're not having to 'filter out a lot of source records' to add a citation to a fact because you're just creating a new source.

How is it difficult to find and edit, you click on the Fact against the individual and click on the Show Sources button, it then shows you the citation source?

If, for example, we wanted to add an additional multimedia image for a census household of 10 people (e.g. to add a second page we'd accidentally missed off, or to correct a typo in a reference number), or we were editing the transcription of the census (I appreciate you probably don't include a transcription but there are many sources out there where you won't have an image and a transcription is all you've got) then method 1 users only need to do this in one place - easy to find the source because the title describes the household. A method 2 user would have to go to each of the 10 people and edit the 10 citations one by one. Also how do they find those 10 people - the 'glue' linking the household together is the reference number and how easy is it to find all the citations with reference number 'XYZ/123' and edit them? That's what I mean about them being more difficult to access. Using Method 1 for census records means that if I am looking at an individual in Family Historian who has a census fact and want to see who else was with them at the time I can with a couple of clicks view the source and see the people attached to it. With method 2 this is far more difficult. (And yes you may be able to view the multimedia instead but that takes longer, and then you might e.g. see a 'Fred Smith' in that image and have to remind yourself which Fred Smith that was and find them or it might be unclear and difficult to read).

Ultimately this is your choice, you can choose to use method 2 of course and on a day-to-day basis it probably won't cause you much extra work. I think what Mike and I are trying to do is make sure you understand that there are advantages to method 1 that outweigh the disadvantages and so they're not 'swings and roundabouts'.

I'll also make the case for including a transcription of a source. Personally through using Ancestral Sources all my 1000+ census household sources have transcriptions of the census record. This means that, at a glance, I can see who was there and other details recorded without having to spend time trying to reinterpret the multimedia image which may have struggled to read years before. The image is there if I need it of course. The method 1 census source connects the household together in your file.

I hope this helps.

Nick

[tatewise]

Nicola asked:
How is it difficult to find and edit, you click on the Fact against the individual and click on the Show Sources button, it then shows you the citation source?

Yes, but if there are say 6 Individuals in one Census Household, then you have to find all 6 Census Facts and edit the Citation for each one in the same way. With Method 2 it is particularly difficult to find those 6 members of the same Census Household. If that regime is not carefully followed, then the Citation/Note details for the 6 Individuals will not be synchronised.

[brianlummis]

May I ask another question relating to this subject as a newbie to FH, having been with TMG for nearly 20 years?

When I first started, Method 2 was the logical way in TMG to record and cite sources as there was no problem in the citation being attached to anyone enumerated in the relative census. Like many others using the UK version of TMG the source was Census followed by the relative year eg Census1841 and the citation was the census reference. As an aside, I have to admit that when I first started recording the census reference, it was not the full version that we now use, as getting the information from a fiche you only needed to know the first 3 parts, so my citations are incomplete.

I now have nearly 1,000 census entries, none of which have media attached, as again this was not possible when I first started and I relied on personal transcriptions, and more recently images, printed out so I have a sizeable paper trail.

I understand that there would be no harm in mixing Method 1 and Method 2, so I could record any new information using Method 1 with the appropriate media. However, I would like to know if anyone has gone down that road and what the advantages and disadvantages are. Also would it be possible with a Plugin to convert all my imported entries from TMG into a Method 1 system and over time attach the relative media?

[tatewise]

What several users have done is switch to Method 1 using ancestralsources:index|> Ancestral Sources, and then over time re-enter the old details using the same process, which also links the Media image. They often find that reviewing the Census data anew brings new insights.

Eventually, the Method 2 Sources can be deleted.

Whether a Plugin could help depends on what details exist that uniquely link Census Household Individuals together in order for a Method 1 Census Source to be created and cited by those Individuals.

[jimlad68]

I am also ex TMG and am fully converted to Method 1 sources. Witnesses seemed to be the standard option in TMG and although I think FH method 1 type sources were possible in TMG, I never thought to use them, it was only when I looked at the documentation for FH Ancestral Sources it "clicked" with me. A head banging on the desk moment! So now I am doing just as Tatewise says others have done (see 12:11 above).

We just have to accept that this is always a work in progress with a mix of methods that need tidying up, accepting that some changes can be automated with gedcom editing or plugins (like place parts), but sometimes a gradual "redoing" is the best option.

[brianlummis]

Many thanks Mike and Jim for your response. I think that I will take on the suggestion to convert to Method 1 but as I expect that to be a slow process, I will give myself a target of end of 2015!! At the same time I will reduce my paper files by attaching images and as I have already tested out Ancestral Sources, I can see that this may well improve my original data entry.

Brian

[johnmorrisoniom]

I came to FH via Generations 6 to FH3. The route was quite steep, and nowhere near as easy as it is now. I had all this time stuck rigidly to method 2 recording, then realised that my project size was getting very big.
I switched to method 1 about 18 months ago, and find it much easier to use, once I got my head around it. I still use method 2 where no image is involved, but I have found that revisiting my data to convert to method 1 has had numerous incidences of"How on earth did I manage to miss that the lodger is related".
I still have a long way to go (over 44000 individuals) and I already have over 4000 census images. I also now have over 15 years experience at hunting down the elusive facts that link in the nieces and nephews that I couldn't find before.
It might take me another 3-4 years to finally finish switching over to method 1, but the journey will have been well worth it.

[deckie49]

Obviously, there are differing opinions. I think the truth is neither method is superior to the other. Family Historian should be flexible enough to accomodate both methods equally by simply allowing a reference number at the citation level.

[tatewise]

You are correct that out of context neither method is superior to the other, but depending on your Source Citation objectives one may be more appropriate.

FH and AS both support Method 1 and Method 2, that are only conventional names used as convenient abbreviations for the two styles. They have no meaning whatsoever to FH, and no magic numbers are needed, as all the features for both styles are available. It is simply a matter of which combinatioin of features is used.

In practice both methods, and some variants of them, are employed often in the same database for different types of Sources, and that is what glossary:sources#sources_and_citations_-_how_to_use_them|> Sources and Citations - how to use them says.

If the objective is to record a full transcript (Text From Source) with supporting linked media (Source Media tab) and adhere to the database paradigm of holding only one copy of the data (Source Record), then Method 1 is more appropriate. The alternative of Method 2 requires the same transcript text and Media link to be repeated in each Citation, and usually needs a Where within Source too. The transcript text could be put in a shared Note Record, but then the Note link must be repeated in each Citation. Thus the transcript Note and the Media are in different places. This style is more difficult to update if new details need to be added, especially if there are many identical Citations.

On the other hand, if the Source is something like a UK BMD Index that needs no transcript nor media, and often has only one Citation per specific Index, then Method 2 is superior. The Source Record simply identifies the entire Index, and each Citation records the specific Index in Where within Source.

[deckie49]

Absolutely! Yes, I agree. Both methods are equally appropriate depending on the type of source used. And, as I see it, this begs the question why Family Historian does not equally accomodate the use of both methods. Or, perhaps it does and I am missing something?

[tatewise]

What makes you say that FH "does not equally accommodate the use of both methods"?
You say you must be missing something, but you don't explain what.
As I said in my last posting "FH and AS both support Method 1 and Method 2" and variants of them too, as explained in glossary:sources#sources_and_citations_-_how_to_use_them|> Sources and Citations - how to use them. If you experiment with AS using both methods on the Family Historian Sample Project you will see how both are supported in various ways depending on the options you choose in AS.