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.
I decided to post this question in the “Evidence Analysis Issues” forum rather than the “Citation Issues” forum because, although I do have a citation question, I think this is, at heart, an evidence analysis query.
Hello,
I've been using the Barbour Collection to find B/M/D records from Connecticut.
I've just come to the realization that I've been drawing conclusions from it that it doesn't actually support.
For example, Dan Hill is listed in the Wallingford records as being born 14 January 1734 but is also listed in the Goshen records.
From other records I can show that it's probable that the Wallingford records are the original birth record, so I concluded that Wallingford was the birth location. I now think that conclusion was wrong.
Jandy 1
Dear Editor,
I am trying to determine if a recently discovered YDNA match would be considered direct or indirect evidence. I have read the QuickLesson 24 re DNA. However, the four examples do not seem to address my situation which is as follows.
My question would be (generically) Is individual A of hometown USA a grandson of individual B of Faraway, USA?
The tester's (my sibling) YDNA information is a match to an individual who is a great great grandson to individual B, through a known son of individual B.
Yvette has asked:
Dear editor,
One thing I've heard Tom Jones say is that one record is never enough to prove anything, even when using reliable records, since you don't know if it's in the 99% that is correct or the 1% that is incorrect. But what if one record is all you have been able to find?
In today's blog post at http://www.legalgenealogist.com/2016/12/21/the-dog-that-did-bark/, Judy Russell corrected her response to a question posed at the end of her BCG webinar on negative evidence last night. As she writes, "The question was whether DNA results could be negative evidence, and, in my answer, the example I used of a case that could be negative evidence… isn’t," and she goes on to explain why.
