On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 00:30:48, Jenny M Benson <
[email protected]>
wrote:
On 16/08/2020 14:39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
To be fair, Steve wasn't complaining about trees, but a specific
dataset. I think we all agree, trees are dodgy at best. (It doesn't
help that the various tree-hosting sites don't AFAIK have any way of >>recording how _reliable_ you consider a "fact" [or its source] to be;
I don't _think_ the GeDCom standard does, and as that's what most use
for uploads, I can't really blame them. [Many home genealogical >>_softwares_ _do_ have a "quality" field: for example, the one I use, >>Brother's Keeper, has [for sources rather than facts - a "fact" can
have several sources, of differing quality]: 0 ["Unreliable"], 1 >>["Questionable"], 2 ["Secondary or fairly reliable"], and 3 ["Primary
or very reliable"]. Others, I'm sure, have similar, but no automatic
way of _sharing_ that field.)
But surely your rating in your quality field is only of meaning to you.
I don't care how reliable or otherwise you think your data ia, if I
choose to "take" it from you I will make my own judgement about it. I
We all only have limited time. If a quality-of-sources fact rating was
evident on trees, some of us would pay heed to it - in combination with
our general level of trust of the person whose tree we were looking at,
of course. For example, if I was looking at _your_ tree, _and_ was in a
hurry, I _might_ not be quite as rigorous (e. g. check only a transcript
rather than an original document image) for a fact where you'd been able
to allocate a high quality rating, than one where you'd allocated a low
one. But it's academic as there isn't a quality field in online data,
AFAIK. (And we're not connected AFAIK either, though I'd love it if we
were!)
very rarely accept information from other people's trees without
checking Sources myself. If others aren't so bothered ... well, I was
going to say "who cares?" but I suppose most of us DO care about the
amount of bogus information which is put about.
That's connected to the question of public/private trees. Some of us
feel the more good data is out there, the more the bad will be diluted;
others don't see why they should make the results of their work freely available (and possibly misused). I can understand both views. [Actually
that might well be my epitaph!]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)