Search for content in message boards

Ancestry as repository?

Ancestry as repository?

Posted: 12 May 2013 9:28AM GMT
Classification: Query
It appears that most of the source information that you get from Ancestry lists Ancestry as the REPOSITORY. However, is this really factual? For example:is not the USA Federal Government the Repository for census etc? In the early days I recieved much of my documentation through NARA. I have USA Army and Navy records that I received directly from those facilities. To me, Ancestory is the middleman because we are using the service, but what about the future? And those people that do not use Ancestry?
I was wondering how others enter the repository information.
Betty Dahlstedt

Re: Ancestry as repository?

Posted: 12 May 2013 9:48AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 12 May 2013 10:01AM GMT
"It appears that most of the source information that you get from Ancestry lists Ancestry as the REPOSITORY. However, is this really factual?"

When it is your access to the source document, of course it is.

"I was wondering how others enter the repository information."

Easy rule of thumb, whatever you "link" to is the repository for that particular source. Changing every document citation to its original source (e.g. Bureau of the Census) is just not feasible (or necessary). For bloodlines, I will often offer alternatives (with repository designated eg. 1910 United States Federal Census [Internet Archive])...but I'm not dogmatic about that either. They can, however, be useful for non-subscribers.

Re: Ancestry as repository?

Posted: 12 May 2013 11:30AM GMT
Classification: Query
For the repository I use the actual repository not Ancestry, Family Search, etc.

The reason is that the online web site change URL's and may not be here tomorrow, so what is to day may not be tomorrow.

If I list the LOC or NARA as the repository I will list one or multiple access points. ie Ancestry, Family Search

I print AKK of my document image to PDF's, so later as I am preparing my sources, I don't always remember exactly which site I found the census records.

I handle state and local data in the same manner. If I have a death record, I can request it form the proper government office. This used to be difficult but is easy with Google.

There are some document images where I reference the online site. An example is the undocumented records from Family Search. From experience, I know that while they came from a local government, the local government may have no idea of where the record is located.

There are some records ie Pennsylvania Church records where Ancestry is truly the repository, and I list as such.

Re: Ancestry as repository?

Posted: 12 May 2013 11:57AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 12 May 2013 12:01PM GMT
"The reason is that the online web site change URL's and may not be here tomorrow..."

So (if I understand your approach correctly), you will change every ACOM generated citation to reflect a different repository where a superior repository can be identified because an ACOM link isn't infinite?

Yikes. To each his own I guess.

Re: Ancestry as repository?

Posted: 12 May 2013 12:24PM GMT
Classification: Query
In my database there are no Ancestry, Family Search, or any other automatically generated sources.

I got burned once by merging data into my database and after 10 years I still have not remove all of the of the bad sources from my database. It is just not worth it.

On the other hand I do not have any source that point to documents that do not show the data that is purported to be in the reference.

Re: Ancestry as repository?

Posted: 12 May 2013 1:34PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 12 May 2013 1:44PM GMT
I suggest you look at the citation as a whole, not just the particular isolated feature of "repository". If ancestry is already mentioned in the citation, it is totally unnecessary to repeat it again and again in the citation.

Let's give an example, say, of an 1850 census entry coming from the census at ancestry.com:

Ancestry.com, 1850 United States Federal Census (Provo, UT, USA, Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009), www.ancestry.com, Database online. Year: 1850; Census Place: , Butte, California; Roll: M432_33; Page: 12A; Image:.

I suggest that having the text string "ancestry.com" 3 times in the citation is ridiculous, the text string "database online" is redundant and ridiculous (knowing that the info coming from ancestry already says the database is online), ancestry's address "Provo, UT, USA" is easily findable and equally ridiculous, the text string "census place" is obvious and ridiculous. And, note the image reference was omitted. Which could lead to this citation, which is a more appropriate citation, IMHO:

1850 US Federal Census, www.ancestry.com, 2009, Butte, California; Roll: M432_33; Page: 12A; Image: xx.

This is of particular significance to those who may wish to publish their findings in a paper format, eg a genealogy (register) report on paper (where endnotes in a "normal" length report can generate hundreds of pages of citations). This is not so significant for an on-line presentation because on-line trees typically have unlimited resources to include all of this extra citation "garbage" in their citations.

________________

Another example:

Social Security DataBase:

Ancestry.com, Social Security Death Index (Provo, UT, USA, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2010), www.ancestry.com, Database online. Number: ; Issue State: California; Issue Date: Before 1951.

Besides the above comments, does not include the date of the latest update of this particular index:

could be shortened to:

Social Security Death Index, www.ancestry.com, updated 02/17/2010, Issue State: California; Issue Date: Before 1951.
______________________

Unfortunately, since I still use ancestry for my main research source, I can't do anything about these citations because the next record from 1850 (for example) will replace an "edited" version of the source with the "garbage" citation of the next 1850 census record I merge into my database.

And.. I have more pressing demands on my time than to correct all of the dumb ancestry source & citation "garbage", so I move forward putting up with them.

Re: Ancestry as repository?

Posted: 12 May 2013 2:04PM GMT
Classification: Query
I think you answered my question.
Thank you.
Betty

Re: Ancestry as repository?

Posted: 12 May 2013 4:01PM GMT
Classification: Query
These issue with the generated source, source_ citation, repository_citation and repository are the exact reasons I always enter my own information and never let ACOM, FMT or any other automatic system enter/create my sourcing entries.

It takes longer to do the entry but it follows the standards I use (EE, Chicago, etc.) while also allowing me to create better custom reports from my report writer.
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | New Privacy | Terms and Conditions