TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2011-04 > 1301976005


From: "Peg's Gmail" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Changed URL
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:00:05 -0600
References: <20110404204544.6be8dfbc20d2e7d5fe2bfc59d59114c3.55c93b1a5b.wbe@email14.secureserver.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110404204544.6be8dfbc20d2e7d5fe2bfc59d59114c3.55c93b1a5b.wbe@email14.secureserver.net>


I would tend to agree with Linda if I checked something and accessed it recently. But I got the impression that this affected a whole bunch of things citing earlier wherein re-checking might be quite laborious.

Either way makes sense to me, depending, I guess on the circumstances.

I love this open forum where we can learn so much from each other. Thanks Linda!

Interestingly enough I am presently rewriting a group of citations in a database that was made when I didn't know how to cite sources very well. I am not looking the source back up again, though, so I am leaving the access date and such as is, just upgrading the citation format.

Peg


On Apr 4, 2011, at 9:45 PM, <> wrote:

> Janet,
>
> My naive approach would be to have the url and date accessed in the
> citation reflect my most recent viewing of the image. To whatever
> degree you've decided to specify the url.
>
> Why are you checking in the first place if not to make sure the citation
> is accurate? it might as well reflect the most up-to-date info you know.
> Would you have asked the same question if it had been the database
> title that was different?
>
> I'm not sure we want to embrace responsibility for documenting the
> change history for our online sources (it is "this" now, but "that"
> then). That seems like it would be a more-than-full-time job in itself.
>
> Linda
> ____________
> Linda Gardner
> Massachusetts
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [TGF] Changed URL
>> From: Janet Tanksley <>
>> Date: Mon, April 04, 2011 11:05 pm
>> To: "Peg's Gmail" <>
>> Cc: Transitional Genealogists Forum Mailing List
>> <>
>>
>>
>> I never thought of that, Peg, but now in the far reaches of my mind I may
>> remember having studied/read/been told something similar to this. I'm just
>> now getting around to writing the report that uses many of the licenses. As
>> I use them I have gone back to the Archives site to verify all the
>> information in the citation. What you are saying is that I should leave the
>> citation as it was written and add the parenthetical statement.
>> I have drilled down to the url for the actual document because the
>> Archives gives the reference url for use in citations. I use a more generic
>> url in the source list entry. Here's an example.
>> *
>> Source List Entry*
>>
>> Georgia. Newton County. Marriage License Book, 1835–1843. Digital images.
>> Georgia Archives, _*Marriage Records from Microfilm_*.
>> http://content.sos.state.ga.us/cdm4/countyfilm.php : 2011.
>>
>> **
>>
>> *First Reference Note*
>>
>> Newton County, Georgia, Marriage License Book, 1835–1843, p. 61, no. 122,
>> Henry Bennett–Nancy Shepherd, 21 December 1836; digital images, Georgia
>> Archives, _*Marriage Records from Microfilm_* (
>> http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/u?/countyfilm,100400 : accessed 4 April 2011).
>>
>> I suppose I could use the Virtual Vault url (
>> http://cdm.sos.state.ga.us/index.php) or even the archives home page url.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Peg's Gmail <> wrote:
>>
>>> I may be way off here, but if this were my research, I would tend to leave
>>> the citations exactly as they are. I might considering adding a
>>> parenthetical statement to the source information which carries forward to
>>> all related citations--something like (presently www.xxxxxxxxx.com). Or I
>>> might add a secondary footnote in the related report.
>>>
>>> This question underscores the best reason to use the highest level URL in
>>> the source information rather than the exact one
>>> (ie www.Ancestry.com rather than
>>> www.Ancestry.com/asdfjasdf/asdfjkasdf/asdfj;/asdfj;kasf)
>>> then those looking for the information can find it even if the precise
>>> location within that overall URL has changed over the years.
>>>
>>> Peg Ivanyo
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 4, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Janet Tanksley wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think I know the answer to this but I want to be sure. The Georgia
>>>> Archives changed the URLs for its Marriage Records from Microfilm. (May
>>> have
>>>> changed others also, but the marriage licenses and returns of marriage
>>> are
>>>> what I use most often.) I wrote the citations as soon as I downloaded
>>> them,
>>>> which may have been a few years ago for some. When I go back and update
>>> the
>>>> URL do I change the access date to the date I changed the URL? "Yes"
>>> seems
>>>> like such a logical answer, I hesitate to even ask the question. Thanks
>>> for
>>>> any advice.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Janet J. Tanksley
>>>>
>>>> The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive
>>> environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to
>>> professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list.
>>>> -------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Janet Tanksley
>>
>> The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list.
>> -------------------------------
>> 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: