Skip to main content

Getting to grips with recording sources: how being part of a group project can really help




 "Guild members collaborating is not at all new, but 30 people collaborating on one study certainly is.  One of the goals of the project was to bring Guild members together to mark our 40th anniversary.  The experience of one team member below describes how well this project is working for her." Paul Howes


I started genealogy research about 1976 BC (BC -  Before Computers) helping my mother with her research, laboriously copying records by hand.  My mother was an early adopter of computers for genealogy, using one of the first versions of PAF (Personal Ancestral File).  When I took over the updating of the family tree, data was transferred between computers on floppy discs.  When it was hinted that PAF may no longer be supported, I switched to Legacy.

So what has this got to do with referencing and sourcing?   The PAF file I started with had all the source details in the notes field, and that is how it got transferred to Legacy.  I continued to just use the very basic features of Legacy, so all my source notes went into the general notes field.   I started a new surname study, that grew rapidly -  from a couple of thousand people to 70,000 in about 5 years – without ever using the “events” tabs or source lists, and would have continued that way if I hadn’t joined the team researching RUBY.

It has been a steep learning curve, but satisfying.  What has made it easier is:
- seeing how other team members have recorded similar data
- having a compiled “master source list” as a starting point
- the very supportive team exchanging views and ideas in our closed group on facebook
- the advice given as I have submitted records for uploading.
- only taking on one small family group which gives me a manageable set of records to work with.

Will I now change the way I record my own surname study?   The thought of changing 70,000 records with an average 10 events each is overwhelming, but the RUBY research experience has shown me that I can do things a different (and better) way, utilising more of the features of my family tree software, so yes, I will change.  Slowly, and a bit like eating an elephant – it is possible, if you take it one bite at a time (or one small family group at a time).

Thank you to the RUBY ONS project for helping to improve my genealogy research skills.

Corinne Curtis #5579, from the Ruby team (but usually found working on the Sennett/Sinnott One-Name Study)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PASSING THE TORCH

Thank you to Paul, who took on a project that was untried and became a rather large initiative.  His post below is an excellent summary. It is just a fact that without Paul the bumpy start to this concept would never have achieved what it did.  My own contributions never met their unrealistic goals - oh sure I will cover every Ruby in Canada - and due to many shifting priorities, my commitment regretfully decreased as time progressed but Paul persevered and never gave up the goal - Kudos! Peggy Chapman This is the final note from me as project manager for the initial stage of the Ruby One-Name Study, started by the Guild of One-Name Studies as a means of demonstrating what Guild members could do when working together in a tight timetable to celebrate the Guild’s 40 th birthday in September 2019. We started this project early in 2018 when three of us, me in Florida, Peggy in Canada and Karen in Australia had a few video-conference discussions to figure out how best...
2 comments
Read more
Learnings from the Ruby study   #1 – Impact of the new GRO index One of the first things to do when starting out on a new One-Name Study is to construct some core data sets.   Apart from being a requirement set by the Guild, there are several other reasons why it makes sense to do this. 1.      These lists act as helpful checklists as one reconstructs families 2.      They can also be a useful reminder of the scale of the study in different countries and thus possibly aid in decision-making about where to start 3.      As one notes which individuals from each data set have been included the notes can be used as a means of checking progress and ultimately for answering the question, “How will you know you have finished?” The initial Ruby team constructed core data sets for several countries: notably Canada, England and Wales, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, and the USA.   The original England ...
3 comments
Read more

Outside your geographical comfort zone? Some tips to help in a one-name study.

In my own one-name study, I have been to different countries both virtually and in person to conduct research.   The effort to date has been primarily in the Channel Islands, pre-confederation Newfoundland, Canada, England, a very little bit of France, and some beginning research in the United States. I am fortunate to have a reasonable degree of fluency in French, which I have used quite a bit in old Jersey documents, although the Jersey dialect itself, known as Jèrrais , is definitely beyond me.   Thank goodness a lot of old documents followed the Norman tradition of “standard” French.   The Ruby project presents quite an interesting experience for those who have not strayed far from home in their one-name study research.   It is unlikely that any version of Ruby has its origins in the United Kingdom, despite a longstanding presence in southwestern England and in parts of Ireland.   Preliminary reading suggests that for both these areas, th...
1 comment
Read more