TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-01 > 1104609244


From: "Sue Richart" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Baby Step 3 - Checking my output as I go
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 11:54:14 -0800
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050101165242.07909ab0@pop.sprynet.com>


Terry and Darrell,
I understand both arguments, one is concerned about data entry consistency
and the other about lack of clarity regarding when the person had an
occupation. Considering that I forgot to exclude the date half the time when
I wanted to when working on the first bunch of entries, my bigger concern
right now would be data entry.

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: Darrell A. Martin [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 8:59 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [TMG] Baby Step 3 - Checking my output as I go

At 04:32 PM 1/1/2005, Terry Reigel wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 07:34:08 -0800, Sue Richart wrote:
>> Darrell wrote:
>
>> --I would strongly recommend that you not develop a habit
>> of omitting dates from Tags.
>>
>> I'm just going through the data slowly (you can see the
>> brain matter smoking from the heat generated <g>), so
>> they are fixed and back with dates. The lessons on
>> sentence structure will help fix the basic problem.
>
>I strongly disagree with Darrell on this issue. <g> I almost never
>enter dates for occupation tags, because generally I don't know the
>beginning and ending date - I just know the occupation at a specific
>date from a census, death record, or the like. To me, output that says
>something like:
>
>He was a farmer in 1930.
>
>is unhelpful and even misleading. It suggests that he was not in 1929
>and 1931. So generally I leave out the date, and let the source
>note(s) explain what the data actually said. If I find the same
>occupation in multiple sources I just add the source citations to the
>existing tag, and use a sort date that places the tag at a reasonable
>place in a narrative.
>
>If I know more about the person's occupation, especially if it changed
>over time, I generally create separate tags for occupation initially.
>But when I'm "done" with researching that person, I go back and
>combine them, adding text to the Memo that creates a real narrative
>about what I know about the person's evolving occupations, move all
>the citations to that tag, and delete the others.
>
>Terry Reigel

Hi, Terry:

An occupation Tag is a good candidate for omitting the date, I confess. I'm
more concerned about the "habit" of omitting dates. But I think the real
issue is the *output* of the date. A better approach might be, not to
include the date in the Tag Type default sentence structure. If you later
decide the date *should* be output, you can always use [D] in the Memo
field. I do that with dates and places all the time, for Tag Types that
typically do not create output from those fields.

Another approach, if it fits your thinking and methods, is to relegate the
date of an occupation to the Citation Detail. This would be especially
useful if almost all your occupation Tags were for people whose careers did
not involve significant changes in fundamental activities.

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Illinois
http://www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy/



==== TMG Mailing List ====
Send all messages and replies to <>.


This thread: