Search for content in message boards

SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 13 Feb 2013 7:55PM GMT
Classification: Query
Surnames: Lets here your thoughts!
At first, I thought, how great it was to be able to merge the data from other member trees, complete with facts, sources, etc. However, I learned that some of these sources and citations, were the same as I had found independently. The end result was now I had 2 sources for a particular fact, when it really only should have been indicating one.

Public trees are awesome in that they provide hints, direction and that valued missing puzzle piece. However, they should never be taken as gospel, without some accuracy assesment of the data.

So how, in FTM, should we handle the "LINKING" of information found in the public tree to people in our FTM tree? What facts, if any should be "linked"?

Obviously, you want to keep track of Public Member Trees in FTM, but should they be considered an actual "Source? Or should they be handled differently than a solid viable copy of a Census?

I'm trying to figure out how to handle public member trees. Just wondering how others might be handling this topic?

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 13 Feb 2013 8:41PM GMT
Classification: Query
I do very little if any merging, I want control as to what goes into my database.

Yes, this means I do a lot of typing, but I know what I type in.

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 13 Feb 2013 8:56PM GMT
Classification: Query
Nice, thanks David for your feedback. I think theres a lot of merit in that method. So, do you use Public Family Trees as sources at all? I'm beginning to think of them as leads as opposed to a true "Source". However, I don't believe there is any way to accomodate my lead brainstorm in FTM.

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 13 Feb 2013 9:01PM GMT
Classification: Query
To me, a 'source' is where I locate actual evidence.

Online Trees are more like graffiti on a latrine wall, so, imho, they can never be a source.

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 13 Feb 2013 9:06PM GMT
Classification: Query
....Exactly, although the urinal reference was a bit ugh...ok, your right....Exactly!

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 13 Feb 2013 9:12PM GMT
Classification: Query
Most of my "Online" sources are a entry in the notes. I do NOT use many sources as they are not handled well by most programs.
If one was to follow the sourcing comments here and at other sites, there are a lot of issues, about them being used properly and are they really helpful to others.

A lot of online sources require a "subscription" so why list them?

The census images at Ancestry is NOT the source, but the ones that the government has. But the information needs to be listed in such a manner, that one can to go to ANY provider of the images and find the information.

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 13 Feb 2013 10:02PM GMT
Classification: Query
I would have to agree on sources being mis-handled and misrepresented and being passed off as a true "Sources".

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 13 Feb 2013 10:03PM GMT
Classification: Query
I merge NOTHING from member trees. I will use info found there for doing my own research.

There is SO much that is bogus, it is not advisable to use any of it directly, until confirmed by YOU.

OPINION.

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 13 Feb 2013 11:27PM GMT
Classification: Query
I'm sensing a possible pattern developing here...

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 13 Feb 2013 11:28PM GMT
Classification: Query
I don't have any issue with citing a member tree as a source for any fact I am not in a position to independently verify, because I consider that is exactly what it is. It may be a secondary or tertiary source or perhaps effectively an anecdotal one but it is no less a source to me. Whether it should be considered a reliable source is another matter. That is a judgement call that I have to make on a tree by tree basis and person by person basis.
per page

Find a board about a specific topic