Ok, Katy, sorry again. Let me rephrase.
I think all of us who find POTENTIAL in a well sourced, documented tree, who wishes to study it further and want a place to keep handy the existence of the Tree, WITHOUT merging the detail, feel this is potentially a viable "Lead", might agree.
Can I assume then, that definitively, you have never found and used anything of value in a public tree?
May I ask what process you use when you are working on documenting a new fact? Do you keep it all on paper until you find a supporting source and then enter in FTM or whichever program you use?
Do you work on one fact at a time and don't touch anything else until you find that source?
Kathy, personally, I consider FTM a workspace for my research and work in progress, not necessarily, the final repository of my family tree. I keep my Tree private, so nobody will assume it is gospel.
In addition, I have numerous entries without citations(Gasp!). I know that’s not gonna float or hold water in a final published tree for all humanity to see. Why do you suppose when you view an individual’s profile in your tree, it shows you how many citations and media items are supporting a certain fact? Why does it segregate citations from media? Why do you suppose you can print a report for sourced vs. un-sourced facts? FTM is designed to show me what work I have left to do.
So, heres my crime. I came across a few trees with potentially legitimate leads. I thought I would try the merge. I was shocked at the shabby bloated results. Regardless of the dismal job FTM did on the merge, still does not impact the validity of the potential leads, I found in the public trees. So, I still wanted to bring it into my workspace for further vetting.
Hence, the workaround to tweak my research tool. I suppose, I could have searched around for a different package, that would allow you to create potential leads, but I didn’t as I’m sure there would have been some other issue with that one too.
I apologize if I have offended or affected the industry guidelines and standards in documentation. I was not proposing a change in industry standards.
The "workaround", I am putting forth is designed to enhance the tool I am using to do my research. It has nothing to do with what future generations will see in the final family history. Again, I keep my tree “private’. Within my tree, I keep my "Custom Fact" private, so it won’t appear on any reports to raise any flags or confuse anyone into thinking it’s a new standard that they missed.
I’m afraid to point this out, each of us make concessions and use workarounds every day in FTM by simply just entering information. Look at the sources citation. You enter information into the fields differently than the next person. You use this field in this fashion, where someone else, does not use that field at all. You “workaround” the fact that the program doesn’t capture and use data, the way you wished it would. And also, in how it might be presented in a report or generated document. So, maybe ease up on workarounds being the doom of Genealogy.
What started out as a discussion on, the Value of public tree data, to Merge or Not to Merge and how one might safely handle Public Tree data while it’s being evaluated, without all the backlash.
We now, have introduced to the conversation... Family Tree Maker, the” be all to end all” or could it be a research tool and workspace.
I understand your issues regarding standards and practices and I applaud your adherence. And, if you want to be proud of your work, that’s great, but not all of us are at your level of adherence, or our trees are not as developed as yours or not all of us choose to ride a horse.
The problem with riding horses is you can hurt yourself something when you fall off. Me, I prefer to keep both feet firmly planted on the ground. Although usually one of them is inserted in my big mouth.