* Sheer number of sources!

[dklbrooks]

Using AS and Auto source citation, or even manually for all the information I am coming across,
generates sources on an industrial scale.
How many sources would be used for a typical tree?

[Jane]

If you are a "splitter" Method 1, then thousands would not be unusual, of course it depends on the size of your tree.

Even if you use Method 2, you end up with thousands of citations, each of which has more information than method 1 citations.

[Gowermick]

As Jane said, many, many thousands. I have 16000+ in my tree, and with every individual fact needing a source/citation, and even if I only have one each of census, birth, marriage,death, baptism and burial fact for each person, I’d need at least 96000 source/citations.
Happily FH handles them very smoothly and efficiently

[arthurk]

I've no doubt FH can cope very well with a large number of Method 1 (split) sources, but I still hesitate to convert my Method 2 (lumped) sources, largely because of the amount of repetition it would create in reports.

This is a screenshot of the sources in an Individual Summary Report for a chap I have recently been working on, where I have used Method 2.

thomasstow.jpg (42.87 KiB) Viewed 11887 times

You will see that all nine citations are taken from the same source - Kildwick Parish Registers. (I could arguably have used the BTs as a source too, but apart from being a bit clearer in places, they added no extra information.) This source is defined once, with Ibid. for subsequent citations. As I understand it, the Method 1 alternative would involve a lot of repetition in the names of the sources, which to my mind is far less elegant.

In my example, citations 2 to 7 are all attached to the same fact (Residence 1708-1719). On occasions, with other people, I have sometimes combined the citations into one, so here this might give something like:
Baptism entries for Stow children: Sarah 16 Mar 1711/12, William 15 Nov 1713, Mary 27 Dec 1716, Thomas 27 Sep 1719 (Burials either follow on or go in a second citation)
The single-event citations will still be needed elsewhere - this tactic is simply intended to shorten the list of citations for certain facts, and to reduce the repetition in reports.

What I wonder is, can Method 1 sourcing match any of this for conciseness, elegance and lack of repetition?

[jbtapscott]

I think it largely comes down to personal choice and what "works" for you.

In my case, I mostly use Method 1 - I record the Source Title as (say), "Smith, Rosie - 1845 Baptism record" and would record the name of the Parish registers as the Repository, assuming I had not found the parish registry on, say, FMP. If this was the case, I would record FMP as the Repository and the name of the Parish Register would be in the Publication Information field on the Source record. On my website, I largely show the Source Title and the Publication Information thus reducing the repetition - thus "Smith, Rosie - 1845 Baptism record (Devon Baptisms)".

I also frequently attach to the Source record, a copy of the source Media (e.g. a jpg file with a copy of the baptism certificate / record).

[tatewise]

As has been said, it is a matter of personal choice, but one could equally say "Sheer number of Facts!" or "Sheer number of Citations!" or "Sheer number of Media!". It is what computers and FH are good at ~ handling large numbers of things.

Unless I am mistaken, arthurk has disabled many of the tick options in the Report > Options > Sources tab.
The top three options immediately under Show Source Citations are probably ticked.
Other than those, it looks like only Title and Where within Source are ticked.
With those settings my Method 1 list of Sources looks much like the Method 2 example earlier:

Method 1 Source Titles

SourcesList.png (13.42 KiB) Viewed 11863 times

As has been discussed elsewhere, the advantage of Method 1 is that Text From Source transcripts and Media images are recorded once and each Citation contains nothing except perhaps an Assessment and Entry Date.
Whereas, with Method 2 each Citation of the same source details must repeat them in the Text From Source and Where within Source fields, and if Media are required they must be repeatedly attached to every Citation.

If a Method 1 Source is cited many times in any Report then it usually appears only once in the Sources list.
With Method 2 Source Citations it is essential to have identical Citation fields for every ticked Report > Options > Sources tab Source Citation Information to Include setting, otherwise the Citations will get repeated.

For examples of Method 1 Source Citations see the Family Historian Sample Project where the majority are Method 1.

[LornaCraig]

I... would record the name of the Parish registers as the Repository, assuming I had not found the parish registry on, say, FMP. If this was the case, I would record FMP as the Repository and the name of the Parish Register would be in the Publication Information field on the Source record.

Just to illustrate how many ways there are of doing things, I regard the page in the Parish register as the Source, the building where that register is physically housed (for example a County Records Office) as the Repository and the website where I found the image of the page as the Publication Information (because the website is, literally, making it public).

So I have thousands of Sources but only a few dozen Repositories. No Source can be in more than one Repository but it could have several Publishers if the image can be found on more than one website.

But whatever method you use, the one thing you don't need to worry about is the sheer number of Sources.

[StevieSteve]

A follow-up question could be: when does having a huge number of sources slow you down?

With the way I work, I can think of one example:

Say I have a source for a GRO death index entry and I subsequently buy the cert. I will enter the cert details via AS creating a second source. I prefer to merge the two sources which does tend to mean looking through the list of sources to find the one to merge.

Even so , I'd be surprised if it got close to taking 30 seconds.

[tatewise]

Stevie, why search through Source records at all?
You know exactly whose Death event cites both the new Death Certificate and the old GRO Death Index.
So for that Individual, just select that Citation of the GRO Death Index and click Go To Source Record blue arrow.
Assuming you already have the Property Box open for that Individual it should take no more than a few seconds.
Note its Record Id and with the Record Id of the Death Certificate it is easy to select both Source records by various methods.

[StevieSteve]

I could be wrong, Mike, but that sounds a bit V6 to me

[dklbrooks]

Some good ideas came out of that question - I am grateful. Good to know that FH will be able to handle the load when I get all the sources in. I DO appreciate the automation of AS and even auto source citation, but I wonder if others also think like me, that so much automation loses the personal touch? I don't just DO all the siblings at a given generation in one go. I like to "work" on one line at a time and "get to know" the family through time. It could be months between visits to that particular ancestor, and when I return it is usually because I find a DNA match, and like to track from the common match to the present DNA testee. Slowly and manually, so that I appreciate the link!

On another topic, see my posting on Repetitive Place and Date in Narrative Reports (15826).

[tatewise]

Stevie, I have described the FH V6 button Go To Source Record as a blue arrow, but in FH V5 it is exactly the same except that the button is >> as shown in glossary:sources#linking_to_sources_via_a_citation|> Linking to sources via a citation where it talks about "the Go To Source >> button or blue arrow in V6 or later".

[arthurk]

Unless I am mistaken, arthurk has disabled many of the tick options in the Report > Options > Sources tab.
The top three options immediately under Show Source Citations are probably ticked.
Other than those, it looks like only Title and Where within Source are ticked.
With those settings my Method 1 list of Sources looks much like the Method 2 example earlier:
SourcesList.png

You are a bit mistaken, Mike. This is my ISR Options > Sources tab:

akisrsettings.jpg (70.74 KiB) Viewed 11704 times

The apparently minimal appearance of the Sources in the report is as much as anything a reflection of many fields being blank, and there being currently no images in my database. Where I have "(BT image is clearer)", this is in the Citation Notes.

[tatewise]

OK, sorry, I had assumed that as you were quite specific about how you used Source Citations that you would have made more use of the available fields. However, blank fields or unticked options lead to the same concise Sources list.

The main point is that I don't believe their is much difference in the "conciseness, elegance and lack of repetition" of the Sources list between Method 1 and Method 2.
The other attributes of the two Methods are far more important regarding database conciseness, elegance and lack of repetition. Many users employ both Method 1 and Method 2 depending on those database objectives, but the Sources list in Reports is not significantly different.

[tatewise]

I have given this topic a little more analytical thought.

For Method 1 sources, there will be a distinct Source for each source document, and its Title is listed in the Report Sources list.
For Method 2 sources, there will be a distinct Citation Where within Source field for each source document, and that is listed in the Report Sources list.

So the number of entries in the Report Sources list will match the number of source documents, regardless of whether Method 1 or Method 2 or a mixture of both is employed. Thus the amount of 'repetition' is identical.

Also the apparent 'conciseness' of the posted Report Sources lists is more to do with the Report > Options > Sources tab settings &/or lack of use of database fields than whether Method 1 or Method 2 or a mixture of both is employed.

[arthurk]

Thanks for your further thoughts on this, Mike. Logically you are of course correct that each document needs to be quoted, and in theory the number of items in the source list will correspond to the number of documents. However...

Method 2 sourcing allows for the use of Ibid., which reduces the amount of repetition.

Also, I outlined above a tactic for reducing the number of citations:

In my example, citations 2 to 7 are all attached to the same fact (Residence 1708-1719). On occasions, with other people, I have sometimes combined the citations into one, so here this might give something like:
Baptism entries for Stow children: Sarah 16 Mar 1711/12, William 15 Nov 1713, Mary 27 Dec 1716, Thomas 27 Sep 1719 (Burials either follow on or go in a second citation)
The single-event citations will still be needed elsewhere - this tactic is simply intended to shorten the list of citations for certain facts, and to reduce the repetition in reports.

Using this tactic, I could possibly reduce the source list on that report from 9 to just 3 or 4 items with no loss of clarity, something that would be impossible with Method 1 sourcing.

It does make me wonder whether in situations like this, where there are multiple register entries supporting a fact, even strict Method 1 sourcers might be better served with an occasional Method 2 source/citation, something like this:

Source: Kildwick Parish Registers
Citation - Where within Source: Stow family entries 1708-1719 (or perhaps "1708-1719 passim")
Citation - Text from Source (or Notes): details of entries

Images of the register would complicate this, I admit. I don't currently have any in my database, but would be interested to know if anyone can come up with a good way to attach them to something like this.

[tatewise]

The use of Ibid. is a necessity not an advantage with Method 2 to avoid repeating the 'lumped' Source Title.
It actually adds the repetitive Ibid. prefix that is unnecessary with 'splitter' Method 1, because each Source Title is unique.
Compare your Sources list with my Sources list that does NOT have any repetitive Ibid. prefixes.

Yes, with Method 2 you could shorten the Sources list in some circumstances, but at the expense of making the Citation itself longer. Which alternative is more "concise & elegant" is a matter of opinion.
You say "The single-event citations will still be needed elsewhere".
That sounds error prone, because no longer can you simply copy Citations for one document from Fact to Fact, but must edit some of them just to reduce the size of the Sources list.
Method 2 demands that the same Where within Source (and sometimes other data) must be repeated in each Citation of the same document. For many users that repetition is untenable and avoided by using Method 1, even if it may mean a slightly longer Sources list in Reports.

It is wrong to think that there are dedicated Method 1 versus Method 2 users.
There are Method 1 and Method 2 source styles, and most users employ both where appropriate.

The primary criteria for using Method 1 instead of Method 2 is where a Text From Source transcript and Media image is required for each document to avoid excessive repetition in each Citation.
That leads nicely to your last points.
The "Citation - Text from Source (or Notes): details of entries" must be repeated in each Citation of the document.
Similar, if you want to attach Media Images of the register, they must be attached repeatedly to each Citation.
You are keen to avoid repetition in Sources lists, so I am bemused why you like so much repetition in Citations, which is potentially much more significant.

[arthurk]

The use of Ibid. is a necessity not an advantage with Method 2 to avoid repeating the 'lumped' Source Title.
It actually adds the repetitive Ibid. prefix that is unnecessary with 'splitter' Method 1, because each Source Title is unique.
Compare your Sources list with my Sources list that does NOT have any repetitive Ibid. prefixes.

No, but using Method 1, each source (for the example I gave) would include the phrase "Kildwick Parish Registers", and many of those would continue with something like "Baptism of...". Isn't that rather repetitive?

Yes, with Method 2 you could shorten the Sources list in some circumstances, but at the expense of making the Citation itself longer. Which alternative is more "concise & elegant" is a matter of opinion.
You say "The single-event citations will still be needed elsewhere".
That sounds error prone, because no longer can you simply copy Citations for one document from Fact to Fact, but must edit some of them just to reduce the size of the Sources list.

I don't invariably combine citations, really only on an ad hoc basis if the list looks very long. And I would only do it after the individual citations had been applied, so the copy and paste issue doesn't arise.

Method 2 demands that the same Where within Source (and sometimes other data) must be repeated in each Citation of the same document.

For many users that repetition is untenable and avoided by using Method 1, even if it may mean a slightly longer Sources list in Reports.

I'm not sure why you say it's untenable when it works perfectly well. Can you give an example of how or where that might be the case?

The primary criteria for using Method 1 instead of Method 2 is where a Text From Source transcript and Media image is required for each document to avoid excessive repetition in each Citation.

Fair enough, though it's at least arguable that with parish registers, the Document is the register itself rather than any particular entry. Otherwise, if you're treating each entry as a quasi-document, logic suggests that the register could be the Repository - and that's not a path I wish to take.

That leads nicely to your last points.
The "Citation - Text from Source (or Notes): details of entries" must be repeated in each Citation of the document.
Similar, if you want to attach Media Images of the register, they must be attached repeatedly to each Citation.
You are keen to avoid repetition in Sources lists, so I am bemused why you like so much repetition in Citations, which is potentially much more significant.

I know you think my method involves a lot of repetition, and I accept that behind the scenes it probably does. However, since other users testify to FH's ability to handle databases many times larger than mine, I think it will cope with what I do. What I like to aim for is clear and concise presentation and output, and this seems to be one way of achieving it. Currently (without images) the repetition is of a few lines of text; if images are used, as I admitted above, my method may be less desirable.

[tatewise]

As per my examples, I don't include the global name of the document as it appears in the Report Sources list.
This is where the Source record long Title and Short Title can be very useful.
The long Title can include such as "Kildwick Parish Registers" and the Short Title just "Baptism of...".
Then with appropriate Report > Options > Sources settings only the Short Title need be included to avoid repetition.

I am only saying that many users don't like the repetitive nature of Method 2 Citations because it breaks the general database objective of storing data only once. If that data needs to be corrected, there may be difficulties in finding all the repeated copies that need changing. It is just an opinion.

Furthermore, it is more difficult to find all the Citations of one document with Method 2 than it is with Method 1 for which there are several methods using View > Record Links or Plugins.

Let's not get into the debate of what is a source document, because the majority of BMD & Census sources are extracts from a composite document. Perhaps it would be better to just use the word "sources" and drop "document".

[arthurk]

As per my examples, I don't include the global name of the document as it appears in the Report Sources list.
This is where the Source record long Title and Short Title can be very useful.
The long Title can include such as "Kildwick Parish Registers" and the Short Title just "Baptism of...".
Then with appropriate Report > Options > Sources settings only the Short Title need be included to avoid repetition.

The problem I have with that is that one of the most important bits of information about a register entry is which church it's from. Someone's occupation or residence might have as a source an entry relating to one of their children, but since children's events don't appear in an Individual Summary Report, the only way to show the church/place is as part of the source.

Furthermore, it is more difficult to find all the Citations of one document with Method 2 than it is with Method 1 for which there are several methods using View > Record Links or Plugins.

List all Citations for a Source and Where Used Record Links Plugins work for me with Method 2, and aren't what I would call difficult.

[AdrianBruce]

For what it's worth...

I think it important to point out (probably not for the first time) that even I (generally a Method 1 user, who can be incredibly pedantic over not repeating) use Method 2 (i.e. the "lumped" source) quite frequently. I have one source record for FreeBMD and normally use that, Method 2 / lumping style, (almost) wherever I need to cite my use of FreeBMD. For me, one important thing is that I need to record how I have identified a particular line in FreeBMD as belonging to the person in question. In Method 2, that can only go into the Notes in the Yellow Source Pane - i.e. as part of the "citation" data. If it's a birth certificate index line, this then gets copied and pasted so that it appears as part of the citation against both birth event and name data.

If I ever need to alter this "how I have identified this source" text (e.g. I find that there are actually 3 guys in Bristol called Orlando Purdy Salter), then I need to alter it against both the birth event and name data.

It's my concern about the need to access this text - the ease of access and update - that leads me into normally using Method 1 sourcing because then the "how I have identified this source" text appears once and once only in the notes against the Source Record.

But, of course, I'm as lazy as the next guy, so it becomes a trade-off between the faster use of Method 2 sourcing and the clarity of Method 1 sourcing, particularly in relation to the "how I have identified this source" text. So FreeBMD, Directory entries, municipal rates, tend to be where I use Method 2 because the "how I have identified this source" text tends to be short - particularly in the case of Directory and Rate-Book entries.

I can get quite evangelical over the importance of this "how I have identified this source" text - just sticking a source against a fact really doesn't work for me. The source might tell you that Sarah Jane Smith lived at Bannerman Road, but equally important for me is "How do I know that this is my Sarah Jane Smith?" (You get no prizes for identifying the references there....) So whenever I believe that I need lengthy source-identification text, then I use Method 1 - in fact, occasionally even FreeBMD gets a Method 1 entry where the identification of the source is complex.

Another example is a photo of a gravestone. Normally I know that this is the gravestone of X because I've already got their death date, so the "how I have identified this source" text would be brief, suggesting Method 2 with a Source Record for the cemetery, say. But then where do I put my image of the stone? I simply find it easier to have a single source-record per stone and put the image against that. Particularly if the stone supports multiple data items about several people.

Reverting to the original question, the one thing I don't need to worry about is having lots of sources, any more than I worry about having lots of people called John Smith. I don't combine them so why would I combine sources?

[tatewise]

Arthurk, you make a good point that the global name of the document should appear in the Sources list.
So, I have been experimenting with the Ibid. scenario and it does not work very well for me.
It seems that Ibid. only appears in the Sources list if the Citations for the same Method 2 source are consecutive.
In the vast majority of cases that is not so, and the Citations for the same Method 2 source are in amongst other Citations, and then the full Source Title is repeated many times.
The example Sources list you posted last Thursday, where all 9 Citations use the one Kildwick Parish Registers must be an extreme rarity, and in most cases would be little different from Method 1.

Presumably with List all Citations for a Source and Where Used Record Links Plugins you sort on the Where within Source column to bring Citations of one source page together.

[AdrianBruce]

... The example Sources list you posted last Thursday, where all 9 Citations use the one Kildwick Parish Registers must be an extreme rarity, and in most cases would be little different from Method 1 ...

That point had occurred to me, Mike, but I'd already written enough. Essentially that sort of consecutive, repeated use of a parish register would, the way I work, only appear for me against an occupation or an abode for the parents of the baptised children. By its nature, this tends to be only for post-1815(?) parish registers.

Some people will automatically cite all the consecutive parish registers against the names of the parents. That would indeed result in more concise entries for Method 2 citation of PRs because of the use of Ibid. However I don't repeat such entries against the name - in fact, I regard such repetition as profoundly wrong - the later entries (after the first one or two) are not evidence for the parents' names, which by this time are taken as read - instead the names have been used to identify the source record as appertaining to that parent - on a diagram, the mapping would be in the opposite direction. Quite a different thing. But that's the way that I work.

[arthurk]

Arthurk, you make a good point that the global name of the document should appear in the Sources list.
So, I have been experimenting with the Ibid. scenario and it does not work very well for me.
It seems that Ibid. only appears in the Sources list if the Citations for the same Method 2 source are consecutive.
In the vast majority of cases that is not so, and the Citations for the same Method 2 source are in amongst other Citations, and then the full Source Title is repeated many times.

Thanks for checking this - I might once have noticed it myself, but I'd forgotten about it when posting here. It's logical really, Ibid being more or less equivalent to Ditto, so as you point out, if there's more than one source, the string of Ibids is likely to be broken.

The example Sources list you posted last Thursday, where all 9 Citations use the one Kildwick Parish Registers must be an extreme rarity, and in most cases would be little different from Method 1.

Not so rare - I'm currently working on 17th-18th century ancestors, with several generations and families all in the same parish. Obviously at that date there's nothing like the GRO or censuses, and the most important - and in some cases only - source for them is that one parish register. I'm sure most of us will have come across similar situations at that sort of date.

Presumably with List all Citations for a Source and Where Used Record Links Plugins you sort on the Where within Source column to bring Citations of one source page together.

Yes.

[AdrianBruce]

... Not so rare - I'm currently working on 17th-18th century ancestors, with several generations and families all in the same parish. Obviously at that date there's nothing like the GRO or censuses, and the most important - and in some cases only - source for them is that one parish register. ...

Yes, that's true, on reflection. In fact, at that stage, it's not even separate registers for baptisms, marriages and burials.