Evidence Analysis Issues

There's a first for everything...

In my own 12+ years of dedicated genealogical research, the inadvertent discovery of a completely unknown photograph album filled with daguerreotypes, tintypes and carte de vistas of my very own ancestors stands alone as one of the most surreal happenings I can recall.  This just happened in fact--just a few weeks ago.

I have been trying to formulate a "discussion" in the Research Notes of one of my ancestor's profiles @ Wikitree. This is the base of it.

Unfortunately, a number of the 1841 Scotland census records are missing or did not survive, and Ceres is one of those. This is most unfortunate, as Ceres was most likely the parish where Isabell was living that year. No other 1841 census record that fits her profile has been located.

I've recently been contemplating a genealogical problem I solved many years ago. My question revolves around whether I did so through the use of direct or indirect evidence.

Dear Editor;

I just re-read one of the posts I made on Wed, 03/13/2019 - 12:58, entitled "When and how to employ transcriptions and extracts?" In your response of Wed, 03/13/2019 - 16:08, you noted that you intended to write a blog article and a "QuickTips" as a result of the questions posed. If you did have the opportunity to write more on the subject, could you provide a link to the relevant articles? The content could well have a bearing on a current segment of my genealogical research.

When is it appropriate to use murdered instead of died? I'm looking at a Holocaust family. Did they just die in Sobibor or Auschwitz or is a death there automatically murder? From a huge family of 16 kids, who had lots of kids themselves, it's hard to document death after death. Somehow i want some of the emotion i'm feeling doing this work to come out in simple words. Murdered seems a better word to use.

From 1814 to 2003, Danish parish registers were kept in duplicate, but the actual procedure was not the same from time to time and place to place. Sometimes, the minister and the sacristan met regularly and then the sacristan copied the entries from the minister's book into the sacristan's book. Other times, both the minister and the sacristan kept their books simultaneously and compared them regularly and made corrections if needed. I would say that by the first procedure, the sacristan's book is a derivative record, but by the second procedure, the sacristan's book is an original record.

Dear Editor;

I've been trying to ensure that my documentation content and structure incorporates all the required elements needed to document my research. I've read over the following, including the referenced examples, but am getting confused by the differences in approach.

Dear Editor;

I've read over a number of document analysis reports by a variety of authors in an effort to distill the format and content of such a document.

Observation: I note that some (genealogists) include a transcription or extract and some do not. In asking some more experienced genealogists, it became evident that those persons included a transcription or extract to facilitate later publication (via a simple cut and paste). However; I not that this specific rationale is not always in play.

Dear Editor;

As noted in another of my posts, I have inherited a substantial number of documents. Many of these contain "wet" signatures (i.e. original signatures), others are photostat copies of originals, and still others are notarized copies. If I now maintain them in my own files as a collection, they will not necessarily have a known "source-of-the-source". How does this affect the assessment of their "quality".

Dear Editor;

My question relates to your article, "QuickLesson 20: Research Reports for Research Success".

Correctly scoping the initial problem statement in a research report is, in my mind, absolutely crucial. If it is too specific, little is gained and likely much is missed. If it is too vague, it becomes a daunting task with less hope of reaching a clear and useful conclusion.