APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2006-12 > 1165877475
From: Connie Sheets <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Word Processing vs Database (was Analyzing evidence)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:51:15 -0800 (PST)
James Brady <> wrote:<Helen wrote:
Seems to me that database programs such as PAF, TMG, Family Tree Maker, etc., while they have their uses, actually get in the way of evidence analysis. Writing in word processing is far more helpful. (This is my current soapbox subject.)
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. There is no reason that you can't get a
good genealogy program to mimic the output from a word processor....
If your genealogy program isn't helping you to see things, why use it in the first place.>
I use a genealogy program to quickly find information about a particular individual, "permanently" store linked relationship information that is not as easily stored otherwise, more quickly generate a timeline for an individual, and quickly share basic information with others, among other uses. But I do not find evidence analysis to be a strong point of any genealogy program I've used (and I've tried most of them), except for factual details, e.g. realizing one source has a birthdate of 14 Sep while another has 16 Sep, or that I've forgotten to search, say, the 1830 census (though I've got a paper chart that is quicker for me for the census).
Different people's brains work differently, so some may find a database to be all they need. My brain, however, doesn't work that way. I always discover something I had not "seen" or understood before when I write a research report. Databases, no matter how you tweak them, are rigid in their structure and do not provide the complete flexibility that word processing (otherwise known as writing) does.
My 10 cents (accounting for major inflation)...
|Re: [APG] Word Processing vs Database (was Analyzing evidence) by Connie Sheets <>|