Jump to content


Photo

Tools to use Proven/Disputed/Disproven tags


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1006 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 07:04 AM

This is a repeat of requests I've made before. AFAIK, the Proven/Disputed/Disproven tags on facts and particularly on links between children and parents, has never been used for anything. I would like that to change. The information is to valuable for RM to ignore. Currently you can have a "Disproven" link between a parent and a child and RM's tools (Charts, Calculators, etc) just ignore it and act as if the link is "Proven". I would like to see options in tools like Relationship Calculator, Pedigree Charts, etc that would either skip past Disproven or Disputed links or at least flag the results to show that they contain disputed or disproven links.

 

Also, I'm not exactly sure why a disproven death date is treated the same as an undisputed one. The only difference in the program seems to be that a red line is drawn through it on the Edit Person screen. Just cosmetic.

 

As for why anyone keeps disproven or disputed information in their database, that's a different issue.



#2 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3024 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 07:19 AM

Currently you can have a "Disproven" link between a parent and a child and RM's tools (Charts, Calculators, etc) just ignore it and act as if the link is "Proven". I would like to see options in tools like Relationship Calculator, Pedigree Charts, etc that would either skip past Disproven or Disputed links or at least flag the results to show that they contain disputed or disproven links.

 

I think that the Proof tags in RM are a feature that is of very limited value because the feature is not very fully implemented. But I have a question. Where do you put a Proof tag for a link between a parent and a child? I don't see a place in the RM user interface to specify such a tag. I may just be missing something obvious.

 

Jerry



#3 zhangrau

zhangrau

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1338 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 11:34 AM

Proof for Parent-Child Relationship:

 

1 - Open the child's Edit Person screen

2 - select the parent line in the top pane

3 - near the top of the right pane there are separate proof dropdowns

 

And I have never bothered to select these dropdowns since RM makes no use of them in reports.

 

I, also, would appreciate seeing this feature fully implemented.



#4 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7855 posts

Posted 18 January 2018 - 04:53 PM

Confirming this is on the enhancement request list. 


Renee
RootsMagic

#5 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1006 posts

Posted 30 January 2018 - 09:27 AM

An example of how this could be used is locating weak links in the chain of proofs needed by descendency societies, such as the D.A.R. & S.A.R. Where strong, original documents are required. 



#6 jmduke

jmduke

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 09:54 AM

I just discovered this thread and see that it raises the same concerns as another one ( see New Proven-Unproven Fact Type).  The problem is that the adjectives proven, disproven and disputed do not adequately describe the researcher's level of confidence in facts and linkages that are probably correct but to not meet the standards of proof in the genealogical context.  Particiants in the other thread have suggested the inclusion of terms such as possible, probable and asserted in the drop down list.  One might argue that disputed covers the middle ground between proven and disproven, might but disputed is better applied to facts where conflicting evidence has not been resolved. Further to the point raised by Don above, if RootsMagic is being used as a research tool, characterizing the confidence level of facts and linkages identifying those that require additional research (and especially useful if these were highlighted somehow in the fact list). 



#7 BradleyinDC

BradleyinDC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 07 March 2018 - 12:40 PM

I just discovered this thread and see that it raises the same concerns as another one ( see New Proven-Unproven Fact Type).  The problem is that the adjectives proven, disproven and disputed do not adequately describe the researcher's level of confidence in facts and linkages that are probably correct but to not meet the standards of proof in the genealogical context.  Particiants in the other thread have suggested the inclusion of terms such as possible, probable and asserted in the drop down list.  One might argue that disputed covers the middle ground between proven and disproven, might but disputed is better applied to facts where conflicting evidence has not been resolved. Further to the point raised by Don above, if RootsMagic is being used as a research tool, characterizing the confidence level of facts and linkages identifying those that require additional research (and especially useful if these were highlighted somehow in the fact list). 

 

I had similar thoughts. I was thinking "unproven" might be better and distinct from "disputed" which would imply contradictory information rather than just not proved.