GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-05 > 1147202815


From: Don Stone <>
Subject: Re: SP Addition: ancestry of Elizabeth de Caldcotis (and Livingstonof Kilsyth)
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 19:26:55 GMT
References: <2e6.647b356.319167e5@aol.com> <1147196115.975674.27470@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1147196115.975674.27470@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>


Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear John ~
>
> I found a book on the Tweedie family this evening at the following
> weblink which you might find helpful:
>
> http://www.tweedie.com/TweedieBook.pdf
>
[snip]


Doug (and others),

If you discover that you have made a typographical error in a posting, you
tend to make another nearly identical posting with the error corrected; your
subject for the new posting may even say "[Corrected]". (You may also
cancel the original post on Googol, but you can't, of course, cancel the
versions on soc.genealogy.medieval or GEN-MEDIEVAL.)

Since the posting with the error will be in the archives of GEN-MEDIEVAL
indefinitely, and thus retrievable in response to searches, your reposting
the complete original with correction(s) is a defensible strategy. This
insures that any query that retrieves the original will also retrieve the
corrected version.

However, to avoid confusion, the corrected version should certainly be
labeled "[Corrected]". You shouldn't count on the later time stamp to
convey this. In addition, as a courtesy and convenience to current readers,
I think that it would be good to specify what the error was. For example,
the correction to which I am responding could have had a new first line,
"[Sorry. James de Tweedy was dispensed to marry in 1422, not 1420.]".

-- Don Stone, GEN-MEDIEVAL co-listowner currently on duty


This thread: