TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2008-09 > 1221670131


From: "David Ball" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Death Reg. Sourcing Sorrows from a Long Time Lurker
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:48:51 -0700
References: <37245AC250AB4EB882FB6053003051E5@THINKPAD><200891793015.455493@Terry3>
In-Reply-To: <200891793015.455493@Terry3>


Ah, the challenges of time zones....by the time I got up and running this
morning I was 20 emails behind on this thread, sigh.

Terry, this is part of the struggle with crafting this particular source and
the main reason I haven't settled on my own version. My gut says that I can
lump records I have seen in Ontario together with the records I have seen
on-line at Ancestry.com, solely because I am giving in the CD for each tag
linked with that source the town, page and specific record identification
number, so that anyone else can directly find the same record through either
the Archives version or the on-line version.

I agree, though, that the only wording option I seem to have is "viewed on
Ancestry.com", leaving to the reader to deal with the mystery of whether the
entire Ancestry.com inventory of images for these records is absolutely
identical to every frame of the microfilm in the Archives. However, I don't
think I am leading any reader astray to assume that every record I HAVE
VIEWED from the Ancestry.com collection of images is also available on the
Archives films. I hold the same assumption on census images viewed on-line.

Dave Ball

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf
> Of Terry Reigel
> Sent: September 17, 2008 6:30 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [TMG] Death Reg. Sourcing Sorrows from a Long Time Lurker
>
> David Ball wrote:
>
> > However, Ancestry.com does provide a much more user-
> > friendly search vehicle than what is available in terms
> > of "finding aids" at the Ontario Archives (the term
> > "ugly" comes to mind <g>), so well deserves credit for
> > that in my lumpy set of sources.
>
> David,
>
> An interesting thought. Since you don't actually use the information from
> the "finding aid" (generally) you wouldn't record it as a source. So how
> would you "give credit"? Anything more than a "viewed on Ancestry.com"
> notation?

This thread: