APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2008-02 > 1203542965
Subject: Re: [APG] Re; FTM and natural
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:29:25 -0600
> I couldn't even coax you into a friendly wager to
> benefit your favorite charity. I can live with that, really I can
Or, put another way, I couldn't coax *you* into proving that software can
write a manuscript of the quality you assert. <g> I'm still waiting to see
it at your website. You offer samples there to demonstrate what TMG is
capable of. (For
example,http://www.whollygenes.com/samplereports/journal.pdf.) It's a
splendid place to present an example of (if I recall your initial bet
correctly, or one of the followups) a genealogy that 'meets BCG standards.'
> will cast aside the 1980s stereotypes about software and take the
> time to judge for themselves.
Bob, none of us are stuck in the 1980s when we talk about today's software.
In the 1980s, professional genealogists were begging software producers to
provide a program that would let them cite their sources! We've come a long
way since then, and we thank programmers for it. But asserting that a
software's output can meet professional standards, without actually
demonstrating it is not convincing.
*Show* us your software's full capability. If your software can meet, say,
BCG's requirements for the narrative genealogy, then give us an example of
output that does that. Let the professional community access the database
that created that output, so everyone can see how you mechanically achieved
that output. Edit it in word-processing software if you want to. But then
post both the edited version and the original output, so anyone who
evaluates the capability of your software to meet that requirement can see
what the software itself produced and how much editing had to be done to
achieve a well-organized, well-written genealogy. That could be a wonderful
selling tool for TMG, no?
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
|Re: [APG] Re; FTM and natural by <>|