TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2006-03 > 1143032281
From: J Lipmanson <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Sureties
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:58:01 -0500
References: <200603211900.k2LJ0Z8s023954@lists5.rootsweb.com> <email@example.com>
I am going to beat the almost-dead horse of a few months ago: the new
proposed sureties system from Mills. It takes care of these kinds of
situations, and in my opinion is significantly superior to the current
sureties method. I've heard no reaction from the TMG people, so don't
know if the new system is being entertained for the next version.
> At 11:00 AM 3/21/2006, you wrote:
>> TMG-D Digest Volume 06 : Issue 217
>> Today's Topics:
>> #6 Re: [TMG] Sureties (was: TMG vs Ge [bob gillis
>> X-Message: #6
>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:38:16 -0500
>> From: bob gillis <>
>> Subject: Re: [TMG] Sureties (was: TMG vs Genbox)
>>> Absolutely. I view Sureties as a means to identify Quality
>>> of information rather than Quantity of information.
>> to me the Quantity of information in a date or place is also a
>> measure of the quality.
>> If I have say three sources for a date, I want to see where the date
>> came from. a Vital REcord, a Census and a local history may all
>> agree on the year, but only the VR has the full date.
>> bob gillis
> However, if you use a 3 for the Principal/s - since you are
> pretty sure it is the same person/people you think they are, and then
> 0's or blanks for details not included, isn't that the same thing?
> The next source might be the vital record and in this case we will say
> it is the vital record and primary to the event, then principal/s,
> date and location are also 3's. I don't know what the library has to
> do with your example since it would be a repository in my data, not a
> source (I know, Teresa does it differently ;-) )
> I have the birth record of my grandmother - at time when names
> were not included necessarily. So, she was 'Baby HARVEY' female, it
> named her parents etc. I have her marriage license (well, I have all
> three of her marriage licenses as she outlived two husbands) -- she
> lied about her age every time. But, she gave the full data, the year
> was the inconsistent part. Then, when I finally found her fathers
> obituary, her name was completely different than the one she had been
> going by all of my life, and before. She went by Ida Marie. She was
> named as Mary Eliza in the obit, which I presume was submitted by her
> mother who was still living at the time.
> And, as a further point of interest, seeing this family in the
> 1930 census is a real work of fiction. Clearly the enumerator must
> have talked to my grandmother at the front door. :-D
> So, for me, completeness of data does not equal a high surety
> - probable truthfulness of the source is what I base sureties on.
> Anyway, as usual -- thank goodness TMG lets us do things the
> way we want to do them.
> ==== TMG Mailing List ====
> To un-subscribe from TMG-L (in MAIL mode), send a message to
> <> [to <> in
> Digest mode] with just the word "unsubscribe" (no quotes)in the text
> and turn off your signature.
|Re: [TMG] Sureties by J Lipmanson <>|