TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-09 > 1030861910


From: Diana Powell <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Research & Output Solutions [was: She witnessed the death of...ugh!]
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 23:34:19 -0700
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020830194543.041f8e98@pop3.norton.antivirus> <5.1.0.14.0.20020830172308.00a0ce30@pop.sprynet.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020830095740.027fdf90@pop3.norton.antivirus> <5.1.0.14.0.20020830004411.00a09d90@pop.sprynet.com> <KBEEJNHPFAMCGLNKDFEFMEFAENAA.rdamon@beltronicsinc.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020829211843.00a17b50@pop.sprynet.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20020830231229.02806a30@pop3.norton.antivirus> <005901c250fc$ed75dba0$153ad843@oemcomputer>


Rae Jean wrote:
>
> After taking a look at Second Site output, I decided to rethink how I use
> tag sentences for Birth, Marriage and Death events. My primary focus is
> research.
>
> Have tags with 3 types of events for each of these - Birth (documented
> specific date), Birth-Est (suggested by a document such as Census entry or
> just a guess), Birth-Alt (suggested by another source). For research
> purposes, these worked very well and alerted me to the source without having
> to open the tag when reviewing the person view.
>
> For output purposes, this combination of tags created chaos because each had
> a purpose and using primary designation as a selection tool for print did
> not work. For one person that might be a Death tag, for another it might be
> Death-Est. Using the tag type selection list did not work either. What I
> needed was an OUTPUT - NO OUTPUT option.

Rae Jean,
I have not implemented Second Site yet, so I don't know if what I am
doing will be a problem in that regard or not, but since I have been
using the same three tags that you have (Birth, Birth-est, Birth-alt) I
thought I would toss this into the fray.

When I first find a birth date for an individual (same applies to marr
or death) I create a birth tag and cite it accordingly. If I then find
a different date I have to decide if I have enough information to use
one over the other. If I decide the original date was most likely
correct I enter the conflicting information as an Birth-alt tag and put
an exclusion marker in front of the sentence. This becomes strictly a
research tag. The original birth tag remains primary and prints in my
reports. I usually add the conflicting source as an additional citation
on the original birth tag and explain in the CD what date it offered and
why I believe it is wrong. I often add this explanation in the memo of
the birth tag as well and add [M] to my sentence structure.

If on the other hand I decide the new date is most likely correct, I
enter IT as a birth tag, add the memo and citations to both sources (and
the dates they offered) as described above, and change the tag on the
original date to a Birth-alt tag and enter an exclusion marker so IT
becomes strictly a research tag.

However, if I have no idea whether the "old" or the "new" date is
correct I
create an Birth-alt tag for the new entry (with citation) and also
change the first birth tag to an Birth-alt tag. These both now become
strictly research tags - I use the exclusion marker to keep them both
from printing. I then create a new birth tag. I enter as the date
whatever the common denominator was from the two alt tags; eg if one
date was 13 Jan 1800 and the other was 18 Jan 1800, I would enter Jan
1800 as my birth date. If there is disagreement over the year I enter
"1800 or 1801" (without " ") as the date. This birth tag becomes
primary and prints in my reports or charts. I incorporate [M] into the
sentence and add something in the memo field referencing the discrepancy
between the various dates. I also add both sources as citations, and
list the specific date offered by each source in the CD. This makes
sure that the source of the differing dates is clear regardless of
whether I am printing a narrative or chart type report.

If I only have an estimated date of birth (say from a census) that would
be my primary tag. I like using that instead of a straight birth tag in
those situations where it is truly an estimate since it alerts the
reader, especially on a chart where there is not narrative. Again, I
include a memo in my sentence, incorporating some phrase about how I
arrived at that estimated date. If I later find a specific date that is
consistent with the estimated date I enter a birth tag with the specific
date, cite it and possibly add the census as a confirming citation. The
original Birth-est tag then becomes strictly a research tag and I put an
exclusion marker in front of the sentence structure.

I like having the Alt-tags and Est-tags visible on the screen as
research aids since it readily alerts me to the discrepancy, but I have
found it easier to have just one Birth or one Birth-est tag that always
prints. Sometimes it is a little more work to incorporate the same info
into a research Birth-alt tag and then reference it again as conflicting
info on my printing Birth tag but it assures me I am not misleading
anyone and helps me remember how I arrived at a decision to use or not
use a date.

> After editing the Birth Group tags, I found it was my
> estimated dates that needed to be treated differently. Would appreciate
> feedback on this concept. Know others have considered the research - output
> conflict and hope more suggestions are available for consideration.

I think I missed the earlier discussion re what was happening with the
research-output conflict and would be most interested in this. Was it
an issue with the way you generated reports in TMG or was it related to
Second Site's use of your TMG tags?

Diana Powell

This thread: