Transcribed document in online archive

Nomis, you've done well. Most of the essentials are there. Our response is focusing on format. But first, one question:

Are you citing an actual transcription or an abstract?  (See EE 1.22 and 1.28)  I tried to access the document, but only got as far as the abstract. (To go beyond that point, I was asked to create an account. I did so and was told I'd receive an emailed link to confirm. It hasn’t arrived. A notice at the top of the page says they are experiencing delays.)

Working with what I'm able to work with—the abstract—EE would cite the document this way.

"PAR492", database, East Sussex County Council, The Keep (http://www.thekeep.info/collections/search/ : accessed 3 March 2015), abstract, maintenance order, 17 July 1821, for John Ford of Ticehurst; citing East Sussex Records Office, Parish of Ticehurst (1559–1999), Overseers of the Poor: Bastardy (1620), Maintenance Orders (1709), Maintenance Order PAR 492/34/4/53.

The explanations behind the alterations are these:

• Eliminating redundant wording can shorten a citation substantially. In this case, you’ll notice that the citation is reduced from 60 words to  47, yet I've packed more informative detail into the citation.
• Eliminate the internal period (full stop). If we put a period in the middle of a citation, when our readers reach that period, they assume we are done with all the details for that source and that what follows in a new sentence is a new source.
• Notice that our citation has two “layers,” with a semicolon separating the layers. The first layer cites what we are actually using there at the site. The second layer reports the source-of-the-source details, as given to us by the provider.
• The order in which archived elements are presented needs to follow a logical pattern. Here in the U.S., the pattern would be smallest-to-largest. In the UK, it’s typically largest-to-smallest. Following UK style, the details identify the agency, the parish, the series, the collection, and the document.
• The name of the creator/owner of the website needs to be identified. (You’ll also notice that the suggested citation above renders the website name as two words and capitalized “The.”  This rendering conforms to the manner in which the site identifies itself on the “About” page, rather than the site "logo" from which you worked.

One other issue might be addressed here. If we want our URL to lead directly to the abstract, we could turn the citation around and use this for our reference note:

“Maintenance Order … John Ford of Ticehurst,” abstract, East Sussex County Council, The Keep (http://www.thekeep.info/collections/getrecord/GB179_PAR492_34_4_53  : accessed 3 March 2015); citing East Sussex Records Office, Parish of Ticehurst (1559–1999), Overseers of the Poor: Bastardy (1620), Maintenance Orders (1709), Maintenance Order (1821) PAR 492/34/4/53.

The drawback to this arrangement lies in its effect upon your master source list. If you use multiple documents from The Keep, then each individual document would be an individual listing in your master source list.

Good suggestion, Simon.  As for what benefit we might get from the website, I got far into it to see a reference to ordering documents. That is something EE always recommends. Even if the extracted details are accurate—the cherry picked ones—lmost no abstract is a substitute for all the details and all the context that can be gleaned from the original document.

Can I ask a further question on this thread, as it basically relates to the same or similar issue.

I had previously looked at some abstracted information in late 2017, found in the online catalogue at the East Riding Archives website. But I am only now, actually trying to do a citation for the same. I searched the forum and this particular thread seemed to represent a similar issue and has helped me understand certain things.

I have crafted the following for my full reference note, but somehow I still feel a little confused if the layout is actually correct.

"Assignment of mortgage relating to property in Skelton as described in DDSE(2)/9/5," 4 December 1733, abstract, "Archives Catalogue," East Riding of Yorkshire Council, East Riding Archives (https://www.eastriding.gov.uk/CalmView/ : accessed 23 December 2017); citing Sotheron-Estcourt Family and Estate Records, 1398-1944; DDSE(2)/9/8.

Should I put a semi-colon after 4 December 1733 (which is the date of the document stated in the abstract) i.e. for a 1st layer of what I am actually looking at; then followed by what it is I am looking at (i.e. abstract) and where I found the info i.e. as a 2nd layer?.

Does the arrangement for the citing bit look correct, i.e. the collection title first, then the archive finding aid for the item following ?

It's interesting that if one goes to the website, and types: Assignment of mortgage relating to property in Skelton as described in DDSE(2)/9/5 - the exact record I am referencing, comes up immediately. But if one types DDSE(2)/9/8 (the finding aid), then one gets "No results found matching your search criteria."

The hierarchy of this collection, does not appear to be able to be located, by using the search term of the collection itself, but the collection can be determined from the initial search term of the record itself - Assignment of mortgage relating to property in Skelton as described in DDSE(2)/9/5.

Am I over thinking all of this ?

Thanks, RobynR

Robyn, I'm transferring this to a new thread because the original label covers "transcribed documents" and what you're dealing with is an entry from an online catalog. (And also because most readers hate plowing through very long threads.)

Look for the new thread "Citing an online catalog entry," but it will take a while to answer your question there.