Another.... how would you.....

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Another.... how would you.....

Michael Tiernan
Ok, I know how to deal with this on paper but how is this sort of thing handled by others?

I have a date for someone (say Birth) and it says "About 1880" and the source of this is someone else's research with no associated documentation to back it up. So far, so good. Along comes another document (let's say government issued) with the birth as "June 1883".

So far, I have two birth entries and one had more veracity than the other. I'd like to mark the first one as "Discredited" so that I have a record of it and I can feel confident that I've researched the value of this entry and proven it wrong so that *next* time I come across some part of someone's research that lists this statistic I know right away to pass it over.

Anyone have a method for handling this in Gramps?
(Or is this sort of thing folly?)

Thanks for everyone's time!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Rogier Visser
Hi,

I usually make a note about this: "sources X and Y give incorrect
dates; see Z for correct information".
I personally do not want to add incorrect/discredited data to the
database, and I would also not add two different "birth" events,
because obviously you can only be born once ;)

Best,
Rogier


On 22 May 2012 21:16, Michael C Tiernan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ok, I know how to deal with this on paper but how is this sort of thing handled by others?
>
> I have a date for someone (say Birth) and it says "About 1880" and the source of this is someone else's research with no associated documentation to back it up. So far, so good. Along comes another document (let's say government issued) with the birth as "June 1883".
>
> So far, I have two birth entries and one had more veracity than the other. I'd like to mark the first one as "Discredited" so that I have a record of it and I can feel confident that I've researched the value of this entry and proven it wrong so that *next* time I come across some part of someone's research that lists this statistic I know right away to pass it over.
>
> Anyone have a method for handling this in Gramps?
> (Or is this sort of thing folly?)
>
> Thanks for everyone's time!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Brad Rogers
In reply to this post by Michael Tiernan
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:16:27 -0400 (EDT)
Michael C Tiernan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Michael,

> Anyone have a method for handling this in Gramps?

Use of the confidence level in the Source, maybe?  That ranges form Very
High to Very Low.  Admittedly, not quite what you're after, but close.

I do wonder though, why you need to keep the "discredited" reference
anyway?  Surely, when you already have a better source, it's a given
that something less specific isn't worth the effort of keeping in the db.

> (Or is this sort of thing folly?)

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
The public wants what the public gets
Going Underground - The Jam

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users

signature.asc (501 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Helge@Gramps
In reply to this post by Michael Tiernan
Yes, that's a good question.
For different information (especially for the date) for the same event I use a note related to the event. The great thing in Gramps is the possibility to use links to media and sources in notes too. So you can reference any source within a note - also if the source was proven to be wrong.

The date having the highest plausibility I use for the date field of the event. All additional information also changes I write to the note. For dates it is also possible to define "between x and y".
In addition to comments in a note I use my own special manual written code within the event-ID to mark an event having a date and/or a place  with a low or a high probability to see the quality of data as much as possible.

At the end: for me it's more difficult to mark an event having the possibility to be located on several places (to be born in A or in B or in ... but not in X or Y or ...). As written before for dates it is possible to define "between x and y", but for a place there is no way to do likewise. And in general it's difficult to mark an event as "not related to the place FOO". Of course the last information isn't real an information for a pedigree but it's important for the researcher: Where to search next time and where not. But at least I use the same way:
  highest probability --> event value (if the probability to low --> empty value)
  all other and possible but excluded places --> note information

-Helge
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Michael Tiernan
In reply to this post by Brad Rogers
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brad Rogers" <[hidden email]>

> I do wonder though, why you need to keep the "discredited" reference
> anyway? Surely, when you already have a better source, it's a given
> that something less specific isn't worth the effort of keeping in the db.

Good point. The only reason I want it available is so that when I next run into info that reflects the 'discredited" reference I know it right away and can move on without spending much more time on it. I have one entry who's got four "Birth" entries. Each one of them has occurred more than once but only one of them I really trust. I can't remember an hour ago so I want the system to tell me when I see an entry from another family member that says one of the bad things so that I know to be careful.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Michael Tiernan
In reply to this post by Helge@Gramps
you really need to fix whatever's wrong so that your mail doesn't come through already marked as "[SPAM]"

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Helge@Gramps" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:09:49 PM
> Subject: [Gramps-users] [SPAM] Re: Another.... how would you.....
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

LornaJ
In reply to this post by Brad Rogers
I do wonder though, why you need to keep the "discredited" reference
anyway?  Surely, when you already have a better source, it's a given
that something less specific isn't worth the effort of keeping in the db 

I think I understand why you might want to do this.  Let's say I have John Smith with an estimated birth date of about June 1885.  In other people's trees on the web I see that they have a birth date of 15th. May 1885, so I also record this as his birth date.  But then I realise that the source information for John Smith born on 15th May states he was born in Glasgow, and my John Smith lived all his life in Kent, so it is highly unlikely this is the correct birth record.  However, if I don't store this research somewhere I am in danger of going through the whole process again in a few months' or even years' time, when I have forgotten about my previous findings.  Also it is easy to make the mistake of thinking that 15 May 1885 is more accurate than "about June 1885" because it is a more precise date.  More precise can also be more wrong!

On 22 May 2012 22:06, Brad Rogers <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:16:27 -0400 (EDT)
Michael C Tiernan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Michael,

> Anyone have a method for handling this in Gramps?

Use of the confidence level in the Source, maybe?  That ranges form Very
High to Very Low.  Admittedly, not quite what you're after, but close.

I do wonder though, why you need to keep the "discredited" reference
anyway?  Surely, when you already have a better source, it's a given
that something less specific isn't worth the effort of keeping in the db.

> (Or is this sort of thing folly?)

--
 Regards  _
        / )           "The blindingly obvious is
       / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
The public wants what the public gets
Going Underground - The Jam

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Michael Tiernan
On 05/22/2012 04:14 PM, Michael C Tiernan wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Brad Rogers"<[hidden email]>
>
>> I do wonder though, why you need to keep the "discredited" reference
>> anyway? Surely, when you already have a better source, it's a given
>> that something less specific isn't worth the effort of keeping in the db.
>
> Good point. The only reason I want it available is so that when I next run into info that reflects the 'discredited" reference I know it right away and can move on without spending much more time on it. I have one entry who's got four "Birth" entries. Each one of them has occurred more than once but only one of them I really trust. I can't remember an hour ago so I want the system to tell me when I see an entry from another family member that says one of the bad things so that I know to be careful.
>

Maybe it's just me, but the similarity between 1880 and 1883 in fountain
pen script writing doesn't boil up in me the urge to toss out everything
that wrong source wrote.

--
"There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be
done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental
disaster, you need people with high IQs."
Thomas Sowell

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Michael Tiernan
In reply to this post by LornaJ
----- Original Message -----
> From: "b4m" <[hidden email]>

You've stated it very very well. Thank you.

My most recent example is I've got a person with a birth date of 1885 on a passport document and a birth date of 1880 on an immigration document. So, I have two birth entries that are equally plausible as valid so when I get this sorted out I'll mark the "bad" one as already proven wrong and I won't have to dive down that rabbit hole again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Brad Rogers
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:28:03 -0500
Ron Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Ron,

> Maybe it's just me, but the similarity between 1880 and 1883 in
> fountain pen script writing doesn't boil up in me the urge to toss out
> everything that wrong source wrote.

I tend to agree.  Also, as Michael has it, how can one person have four
birth events?  Obviously, they can't.  Until I have positive proof of an
actual DoB, everything gets recorded as notes in the birth event.

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
Bet you thought you had it all worked out
Problem - Sex Pistols

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users

signature.asc (501 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Brad Rogers
In reply to this post by LornaJ
On Tue, 22 May 2012 23:22:06 +0200
b4m <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello b4m,

>  More precise can also be more wrong!

A very good point.

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
What do you call that noise, that you put on?
This Is Pop - XTC

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users

signature.asc (501 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Benny Malengier
In reply to this post by Michael Tiernan
Do we need a confidence level of 'unreliable' ?

Extra levels make mapping to gedcom more difficult though
http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pmcbride/gedcom/55gcch2.htm#CERTAINTY_ASSESSMENT

This can then be used as source citation on the event, while other information from the same source can have a high confidence level.

Benny

2012/5/23 Michael C Tiernan <[hidden email]>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "b4m" <[hidden email]>

You've stated it very very well. Thank you.

My most recent example is I've got a person with a birth date of 1885 on a passport document and a birth date of 1880 on an immigration document. So, I have two birth entries that are equally plausible as valid so when I get this sorted out I'll mark the "bad" one as already proven wrong and I won't have to dive down that rabbit hole again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Michael Tiernan
----- Original Message -----
> Do we need a confidence level of 'unreliable' ?
I looked at the reference you provided and it seems that I'm outside the bell-curve on this idea too. :(

However, I'd be happy if I could mark something as outright "Wrong" or "Incorrect" in Gramps and then, when it comes to GEDCOM export/mapping, I'd settle for anything marked as such is *not* exported. The idea being that when so marked it is less of a fact for other researchers and more a "reminder" or note to me specifically doing the research.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another.... how would you.....

Michael Tiernan
In reply to this post by Brad Rogers
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brad Rogers" <[hidden email]>

> I do wonder though, why you need to keep the "discredited" reference
> anyway?
Here's another 'ferinstance' to consider. Of course, all of this conversation assumes I'm not way off in how something "should" be done. My purpose in this conversation is two-fold. First to answer the question "Am I nuts?" ;) And second, to engage the community in what I hope is a constructive discussion to help others.

I have a relative who I know is from Ireland. I have one source who says he's from "Galway", ok, so far so good, I have another source, currently of equal "reliability" who says he's from Ballinisloe, Galway, Ireland. After some work I can confirm the first source but I have no evidence that the second source is not correct. But, I can confirm that the *date* of residence the second source has provided has been proven to be wrong and I can even prove that it was a mistyping of the correct info. (i.e. 1950 when it should have been 1920).

My wife's side of the tree is from Italy and almost all of the USA documentation I've been able to get seems to have been done with the axiom "Close enough for gummint work." written over the door. I've got two sources that say Luigi is from a town that is misspelled exactly like another town is misspelled.

I think what I'm saying in all of this is that I'd like to be able to grade the *information* obtained and not the *source* it came from. (How many people have US Military records that show they were 17 when they enlisted but their birthdates are off by a year or so?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users