Thank you for the clarification of how to identify sources and how to document them in Roots Magic. I am still learning Roots Magic and I now have one more tool that I can use to help me be more accurate. I love your channel!
You are so welcome! I try to be helpful. If you think of other things you want to learn about RootsMagic, let me know via our contact form. www.familyhistoryfanatics.com/contact
Thank you for your clear and concise explanation. It encourages me each time I watch you to use my Roots Magic software and all the tools available - I get stuck on the research and don't always pay enough attention to documenting the 'details'.
It can definitely happen. The search for more evidence is more fun than recording our findings. But to be accurate genealogists we have to balance both. I'm glad I'm helping you see that it's possible.
Great video...I'll share it with the group I run at the library...One thing to note for those who use England, Welsh, and Scottish census records...for England and Wales 1841-1901, and all Scottish ones, they are derivative rather than original as the enumerator copied the information from the householder's schedule into their summary book. For England and Wales, 1911 and 1921, we see the household schedule itself, thus it's original. The 1901 and 1911 Irish census images are also original as they are digitizations of the the householders' schedules as written by the head of the household.
You are not the only one who get no records found when you turn exact on in Family Search. I do not think that switch works. No matter who I am researching, it will not find anyone whenever I select an exact box.
I bought RM8. I'm going thru your RM playlist. Also want to get citations/sources correct. I'll download from Ancestry. Would you suggest that after I download to RM8, I take a break from Ancestry, and spend time cleaning up cities, names, and like this video suggests, citations?? Sounds like a big chore...
Great question. I would download from Ancestry, clean up on RootsMagic. Don't work on Ancestry until you've cleaned up your tree. When you're finished, you can return to using Ancestry, BUT, I'd have RootsMagic open. Remember that RootsMagic doesn't have an auto-syncing feature to Ancestry (like Family Tree Maker does). So, as you work on Ancestry finding new records or adding new details, make sure that you update that person's profile to RootsMagic using the tree share feature. At the same time, you can bring over the corrections on the RootsMagic profile to Ancestry. That way, instead of spending weeks fixing the tree before you research again, you improve as you go. Does that make sense?
Here’s the problem, when I was born I was put under the Hanks last name of my “father”. I took a 23 & me and that was not the case, so had my children built a tree as I had, it was wrong. My mom & “Dad” both knew that I wasn’t his child.
Wow, tough news when you lived so long not knowing. But IMHO, both families are worth preserving in a family tree. I'm doing a little branch inside my big tree for my mom's father who adopted her. I am the first in the family to actually track down her bio family...and boy, that family is huge!!
Did the Hanks parent raise you or claim you as his son? If so, then genealogically, you are a Hank even if you're genetically something else. You can trace both fathers in your family tree. If Mr. Hanks did not participate in your child rearing, then you can exclude him from your tree and explain in your name notes what you discovered.
When there are no records (at least currently known), yes, we should put a pause button in the research of that person. We can't research what doesn't have documentation or DNA evidence. However, notice I said, put a pause on that project not forget it entirely. New resources come to light frequently. Perhaps with some patience while working on a different family line, we can revisit the brick wall without records. Perhaps something will open up and we can move another step forward. However, we can not research family lines indefinitely. We face cultures that didn't keep records, so our research can run out. We face cultures that didn't preserve records that were created. We can't research when those records run out. Additionally, history goes to the ruling classes. Thus, eventually the records of the middle and lower classes disappear and our ancestry is lost to time. So at some point, when the records run out, our ability to research will end. Sad but true.
Evidence is not indirect because we have to calculate a birth year from a recorded age. You are giving incorrect advice. I submitted this comment yesterday but it was either deleted or not allowed, possibly because I included a link (to the page at ESM's website that disproves your claim).
I appreciate you pointing out a counter suggestion about indirect evidence. There are numerous interpretations, one of which you tried to provide. And they are so confusing to beginning genealogists attempting to understand evidence analysis. Thus, the guiding definition I use is whether or not a record directly states information on it. That conflicts with the definition of 'does the data directly answer a question.' And yet, it's a definition that can help resolve conflicts. For example, if one record directly states John was born in 1918, but another says he was 20 in 1939, many researchers would assert that the person was born in 1919. And yet, if the record was created before a person's 20th birthday, the year of birth would be 1918. Experienced genealogists will certainly take the time to parse all that information and calculate the date more accurately. However, the record didn't directly state the birth year if it only provided an age. Thus, a need for clarity would lend itself to labeling all data that is not directly stated on a record as indirect. When we analyze and correlate information from different pieces of evidence, we can then make the case that the age supports the birth year of 1918 when we view the date on the record and calculate a birth year from that date. While I understand the reference material you shared, can you understand the clarity this approach suggests and how it would lead to more agreement during analysis? I've observed numerous arguments over dates. One person says, "My record directly says the birth year is X." Someone else says, "My record directly says the birth year is Y." In actuality, one record has a birth year and the other has an age. Which one is right will require additional pieces of evidence to be resolved. But which person has a direct piece of data for the birth year? The one with a record has a birth year. In short, we can move the debate from an argument over the definition of direct into an analysis over which record is more reliable based on the reliability of the informant and other pieces of evidence. Can you understand that or do you need more clarification?
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I understand completely what you are writing, but it doesn't change the fact that it is incorrect. We can't change the definition of direct vs. indirect evidence just because someone might think it's difficult to understand it. Moreover, your response seems strange given that you are promoting software which completely removes the attention from the fact that it is not meant to be a labelling exercise but a means of estimating the reliability of the information.
@@DenmarkGenealogy I just took a class by E.Shown-Mills the other day and have her Process Map. Both of you are looking at it from a "was it calculated or.." viewpoint. I am looking at it from a further step back. A census is for a location and who was at that location and collecting other data for the govt. Sometimes the worker marks who was giving the information, well that's nice too - but still, the births would all be after the fact, usually way after the fact. To me, everything else than place and who, is secondary because a) I'm sure not going to trust a man to remember the dob of his children right, and the mother flubs it up sometimes too, guess it depends on what's she's in the middle of as he mosies on by; we all know women may fudge their own age, and many people don't like "the revenue man" and b) I just don't trust the worker to get it right considering how many of my ancestors have scratch-outs on said ages. The mother may have said years and the worker is trying to figure out how old they are, how good is he at math back then? So we don't know how the answers were given to him. Like ESM said, we have to analyze it. I have several ancestors whose gravestones are wrong. But nobody is going to believe me in the future when they see the stone, record it, and just keep going - unless they dig into the documentation. I understand completely what Devon is doing, why and totally agree. Technically, you are also right. But like ESM says - it's all in the analyzing, not cut and dry.
@@pinwheelgrl9304 I am sure ESM said that both primary and secondary information, as well as direct and indirect evidence can be wrong - because that's what she explains in her lectures. Information is not secondary because it can be questioned. Whether information is primary or secondary depends on who provided it and how that person knows the information. However, I really appreciate your analytical skills and your explanation of what it's all about - that is what I tried to point out that the Rootsmagic tool is missing. The program makes it a labelling game rather than a step in evaluating the reliability of the information.
Why do you keep demonstrating Rootsmagic to your followers when it is far from the best software. You mention analysis and evaluation several times but there is no way in Rootsmagic to run reports on these quality entries, In Family Historian I can report and sort on any quality and run queries on them. I'm sure you do not set out to deliberately mislead people into purchasing middle class software and I have searched your playlists and can find no mention or demonstration of Family Historian, why ???
I demonstrate the software that I use regularly. I do not use Family Historian because, according to it's feature list, it does not read and write to Ancestry or FamilySearch. Any software that can not save time in managing my online trees is not one I find efficient no matter how many analytical tools it has. If I'm mistaken, I hope that someone from Family Historian will reach out to me directly to demonstrate their syncing features.
