Jump to content


Photo

"Certainty" in source citations


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 CherylCh

CherylCh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 10:58 AM

When I first started using The Master Genealogist many years ago, I used their "surety" system of assigning ratings to sources: 3=primary, 2=secondary, 1=I don't remember.  Eventually I stopped doing that.  But I never went back and deleted the sureties I had already assigned.  

 

RootsMagic seems to be labeling these as "certainty: 3", etc.  They don't show up in narrative reports or family group sheets, at least not the ones I've checked so far.  Where they do show up is in some GEDCOM exports and imports.  Specifically, I'm uploading some people to WikiTree and they are showing up in the source citations there.  But when I look at the source in the Master Source List, there's nothing about certainty or surety in the footnote, short footnote, or bibliography.  I've also looked at the Source Templates for these items, and there's nothing there, either.

 

How can I get rid of this?

 

 



#2 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6444 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 11:34 AM

In the Citation Editor, click on the Quality tab. Search for "quality" in Help for more references.


Tom user of RM7630 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#3 CherylCh

CherylCh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 12:11 PM

Thanks, Tom.  So it's a citation by citation label.  Well, at least it only shows up in Gedcom.  I guess I'll just delete it when it shows up on WikiTree, and fix it in my database when I'm working on someone and notice it.  I can't face going through hundreds of citations looking for it.  Or is this something I can fix in SQL?



#4 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3493 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 12:12 PM

Probably editing the GEDCOM itself will be easy enough. The lines that contain the Source citation templating:

2 SOUR @S494@
3 _TMPLT
4 FIELD
5 NAME Page
3 QUAY 3
3 _QUAL
4 _SOUR O
4 _INFO P
4 _EVID D


---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#5 CherylCh

CherylCh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 12:53 PM

In a small GEDCOM, that's certainly doable.  And that's all I'm doing for WikiTree, 100 or 200 people at a time. Of course, I'll have to be really careful not to mess up the file otherwise.



#6 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6444 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 02:29 PM

Yes, you can readily reset the Quality criteria using SQLite. 

UPDATE CitationTable SET Quality = '~~~';

Tom user of RM7630 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#7 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3978 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 03:13 PM

So it's a citation by citation label.  

 

I think the reason is that the same citation can be of different quality for different facts. For example, a death certificate is usually a much better citation for a death fact than it is for a birth fact or for parentage.

 

I don't mention it much, but a failing of my extremely split sourcing system is that it basically renders RM's quality system to be of no value because the quality of every instance of an extremely split source has have the same quality values.

 

Jerry



#8 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6444 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 03:43 PM

 

I don't mention it much, but a failing of my extremely split sourcing system is that it basically renders RM's quality system to be of no value because the quality of every instance of an extremely split source has have the same quality values.

 

I don't think that is the case, Jerry. Every time you tag a source to a fact, a record is created in the CitationTable. So even though your Citation Detail has no fields, there is a record in which you can set the Quality of that source for that fact. Tag the same source to another fact and there is a different record in which you can set its quality.


Tom user of RM7630 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#9 KFN

KFN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 08:43 PM

In GEDCOM quality is a function of the quality of the source for the specific fact.

Remember Quality is actually "An assessment of the certainty of the evidence to support the conclusion drawn from evidence."

3 = Primary, 2 = Secondary, 1 = Questionable, 0 = Unreliable

Different facts from the same source can have different values of quality. For example: A death certificate could have a high quality for the date of death but, a lower quality for full name.

#10 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3978 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 09:09 PM

I don't think that is the case, Jerry. Every time you tag a source to a fact, a record is created in the CitationTable. So even though your Citation Detail has no fields, there is a record in which you can set the Quality of that source for that fact. Tag the same source to another fact and there is a different record in which you can set its quality.

 

Technically, you are obviously correct. But I still think there is a problem. The way I think of it is that my Citation Details do have a field, namely quality. So if I memorize and paste a citation it might be pasting the wrong quality. If I forget to make the correction to the incorrect quality that I just pasted, then I'm back into the same problem I was in when first decided to become an extremely splitter. Namely, I may have to go back and correct a bunch of quality values, and they are even more difficult to search for than are the normal citation detail fields.

 

In practice, I expend little effort in setting quality values because they are so difficult to report on outside of SQLite. But I'm thinking that setting qualify values is something I should really look into. I just wish the user interface made it a little easier to set, search, and report on the quality fields.

 

Jerry



#11 CherylCh

CherylCh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 31 May 2017 - 10:55 AM

Thank you, Tom, for the SQLite statement.



#12 zhangrau

zhangrau

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 31 May 2017 - 01:00 PM

I have never bothered to set a Quality for citations, since there is NO WAY to report that information.

 

File > Properties shows that my working database now has 14K Sources and nearly 2.3M Citations. Even if RM8 gains the ability to report citation quality, the chances are nil that I will ever go back and select all of those missing Quality variables.



#13 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3978 posts

Posted 31 May 2017 - 03:03 PM

The only place I know of that you can see the citation quality in a report is Lists->Sources->Print, but I think that is a very difficult report to work with.

 

Jerry



#14 zhangrau

zhangrau

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 31 May 2017 - 04:47 PM

And that report is of no use to my audience. If the Quality were reportable as part of the Bibliography (which should be linked to a Repository List), it would make sense to record and report. IF AND ONLY IF, for the logicians out there.....



#15 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3978 posts

Posted 31 May 2017 - 07:48 PM

And that report is of no use to my audience. If the Quality were reportable as part of the Bibliography (which should be linked to a Repository List), it would make sense to record and report. IF AND ONLY IF, for the logicians out there.....

 

Totally agree.

 

There are actually quite a few things in RM where the data is visible to me as the RM user but where it is challenging or well nigh impossible to make the data available to my audience. For example, that's one of several reasons why I geocode individual burial sites the way I do with a custom fact type instead of trying to use RM's built-in geocoding support. If I used RM's built-in geocoding support, I would have to have a separate place (or a separate place details, if I were using place details) for each individual burial site. And having done so, I still wouldn't be able to print out the GPS coordinates for my audience in narrative reports.

 

Something that's about impossible to show to my audience from RM's narrative reports is all my documents - images of census records, images of death certificates, family photos, grave marker photos, images of marriage certificates, etc. That's why I'm so enthused with the new GedSite product because it allows me to show all my documents on a Web site. GedSite is not an RM product and it's from a completely different vendor, but it works extremely well with GEDCOM produced by RM.

 

Jerry



#16 zhangrau

zhangrau

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 31 May 2017 - 09:08 PM

Something that's about impossible to show to my audience from RM's narrative reports is all my documents - images of census records, images of death certificates, family photos, grave marker photos, images of marriage certificates, etc. That's why I'm so enthused with the new GedSite product because it allows me to show all my documents on a Web site. GedSite is not an RM product and it's from a completely different vendor, but it works extremely well with GEDCOM produced by RM.

 

Jerry

 

I use the Reports > Publisher books to generate reports for my audience. My workaround for displaying all of my attached images is a bit of extra work, but it works beautifully.

 

1 - Link the images to Source Citations, since they are the real documentation supporting the linked facts.

2 - Link the images to the appropriate fact/event, so that the images are readily visible in the Edit Person screen.

3 - Create a dummy individual named [scrapbook] Surname.

4 - In the Edit Person view, create a Miscellaneous fact for each image, using the date of that event, and link the image. I use the Miscellaneous fact type for birth, baptism. census, marriage, death, burial, residence, news article, etc.- whatever I have an image for documentation. In a multi-generation report, there may be 50 or more linked images, each dated to sort in chronological order.

5 - In the Publisher book, create a Scrapbook chapter for [scrapbook] Surname

 

I also paste an edited (for readability) copy of the  Timeline report into a Text page immediately before the Scrapbook.

 

This all creates a chronological appendix of images with it's own Table of Contents.



#17 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3978 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 06:37 PM

 

I use the Reports > Publisher books to generate reports for my audience. My workaround for displaying all of my attached images is a bit of extra work, but it works beautifully.

 

(text deleted for clarity)

 

3 - Create a dummy individual named [scrapbook] Surname.

 

 

(text deleted for clarity)

 

 

I use both dummy individuals and dummy facts in RM to good advantage for a variety of useful purposes. But it had never occurred to me create dummy individuals for the sole purpose of hosting a scrapbook that could then be printed with the Publisher feature. This is an absolutely brilliant idea. Much thanks for sharing it.

 

I have to admit that I was very put off back in the Family Origins days when I added a link to a photo of a grave marker to a burial fact, and the photo would not print in a narrative report. So I have had a pretty negative attitude about Family Origin's and RootsMagic's support of images and reports ever since. I have played around with the Publisher feature several times, but I had not seen a good way to use it to include images in reports in a way that makes sense to me. But your suggestion has great promise.

 

The Publisher feature appears to me to be a very solid feature - well thought out, well developed, etc. The thing that has most slowed me down from using it very much is that that the endnotes for each chapter are not consolidated into a single endnote list. For reports such as I would take to family reunion, I would make each child of the most distant ancestors into a separate chapter. There would therefore be much duplication between the endnotes for each chapter in my report which in turn would mean my reports would require a lot more paper. The Publisher feature does consolidate indexes, so it's not clear to me why it wouldn't consolidate endnotes.

 

Finally, I enter all images into RM as files instead of images. This would be a very minor problem for my possible use of Publisher because I would simply use SQLite to change the image designations from file to image, run my report, and then change the designations back to file.

 

Jerry