Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RecursiveS

Pages: [1]
1
Dorset / Re: Does Anyone live in Shaftesbury?
« on: Sunday 29 October 06 18:24 GMT (UK)  »
Trish. You may have enough photos already but as I live in Shaftesbury I would be happy to let you have anything that I have or can get for you....

I also have a web address where you can get some pictures copyright free, and perhaps you would email/contact me so that I can let you have that as well.

Sorry, not quite sure of the protocol on this site yet, and don't want to offend the mods! :)

2
The Common Room / Re: What assumptions can ever be safely made?
« on: Friday 22 September 06 23:39 BST (UK)  »
thank you downside....

I am currently re-thinking the whole logic of this...

Have some thoughts on new ways to approach this and will report again if they have any apparent merit.....

Thanks again to all who took the trouble to reply.
 :)

3
The Common Room / Re: What assumptions can ever be safely made?
« on: Friday 15 September 06 23:34 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Boongie Pam on Friday 15 September 06 23:09 BST (UK)

In my mind, any database representation should reflect only the data in the original documents.  A database should collate data.  Assumptions can be applied to data but not be loaded into it.   Otherwise it can give a false idea of "truth" which can only be what is in the original documents.

I agree Andy & Guy's posts are good ways of firming up your assumptions for summarising data.  Many parish records include places of residence this would also validate supposed connections.


Thank you for your comments, and to Sillgen for hers. :)

I, too, now have the view that I cannot make any assumptions (however logical and valid they seem to be at the time) as if I cannot absolutely guarantee that the Adam & Eve who had a child in 1831 are the same Adam & Eve who had a child in 1833 then I risk missing valuable links or skewing the entire database. So, the (possible) duplicates go in then!!!! :)

Incidentally, Boongie Pam, I would be interested in talking to you about how you are dealing with a similar type of large scale database....

Thanks again to all who have replied and set me on track for many hours of filtering out the duplicates  ;D

4
The Common Room / Re: What assumptions can ever be safely made?
« on: Friday 15 September 06 23:00 BST (UK)  »
Cal & Essex.
Thanks for the comments and welcome!

You posted when I was replying to Guy, but the more I think about it, option 3 is the way to go.

Thanks to all for your comments (thus far!)

5
The Common Room / Re: What assumptions can ever be safely made?
« on: Friday 15 September 06 22:58 BST (UK)  »
Thank you Guy for your reply, and your comments are indeed how I would tackle things if any other information was available. Unfortunately, I have to deal with setting up a database without having the information that might become available when I input the next set of records (marriages, deaths etc).

I suppose this could be classed as genealogy on a village/town scale - I need to capture the information first and then make the links as and when further data becomes available to narrow down the possibilities...

Having read a few posts in these fora, it seems that instinct can sometime give you a clue, but it must always be reinforced by hard evidence at some stage - so option 3 seems to be the way I should go.

Anyone care to comment on that option choice?




6
The Common Room / What assumptions can ever be safely made?
« on: Friday 15 September 06 22:22 BST (UK)  »
I am currently on a project that involves collating information from, for example, parish registers and inputting that data into a database.
I am currently looking at baptism records for a parish and, from these, there are recurring pairs of 'fathers' and 'mothers' with the same surname. Whilst these are almost certainly the same father/mother pair, there is no absolute guarantee that that is the case...
Could any of you more experienced genealogists give an opinion on how I should treat these 'pairs'?

As I see it, my option are:

1. I can treat each pair as a 'definite' pair and only enter them once into the database as mother & father of child X.

2. I can determine that I do not have enough information to treat them as a 'definite' pair and add duplicate entries (of mothers and fathers) to the database.

3. Do 2, but make some form of note that they are probably (but not definitely) the same pair that bore child X (or Y 0r Z).

Instinct tells me that '3' is the best option but I would welcome any or all of your comments.

Pages: [1]