APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2006-12 > 1165887697


From: "James Brady" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Analyzing evidence
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:42:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <200612111722.kBBHMELR027460@mail.rootsweb.com>


>>Mr. Brady, you miss the point.

I missed the point? Well, that wouldn't be the first time.

In thinking about this I probably should have said that I tend to analyze
evidence before it goes into my database or while it is in my database. I
feel to free to comment heavily upon individual items where useful. I
sometimes build things to throw into my database to-do list for later
research based on that analysis.

It just wouldn't occur to me to take all of that back out of a relational
database to put it into a word-processor to discover relationships.

I wonder if this has something to do with the way that we often times
process information differently. I'm not as verbal as most people I know,
but I'm also more analytic than most.

So it wouldn't ocur to me to "talk" through a problem using a word-processor
when I have a relational database that can easily link and de-link separate
pieces of information. Beyond those "hard" links, I can informally link an
item to another item by placing comments at each item referring back to the
other.

If I want to share something with another researcher from my database I'll
download it to a word-processor to read it to make sure that my commenting
still looks coherent. If not, I revise the database to get the printout to
look the way I want it to. Should I later come across additional information
that substantiates my analysis I revise or delete my prior commentary.

The question that I would have for you is this - what happens to the
evidentiary analysis that you create in a word-processor? Does it go into
your database? Or do you keep two programs open on your PC and toggle back
and forth?

In any event, I would suggest that people do whatever is most comfortable
and productive for their particular style.


Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]On
Behalf Of Melinde Sanborn
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [APG] Analyzing evidence


Mr. Brady, you miss the point. I agree emphatically with Helen, and I think
you would find that leading genealogy program vendors do, too. They continue
to work toward a "smart" system, but its still far away. Mimicry is not
analysis.
Melinde

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.
---
James Brady wrote:
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 procesor. The output
from a genealogy program may need to be tweaked in a word processor, but in
most cases you can go back and revise in the genealogy program to mimic your
revised output from a word processor....







.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message

This thread: