QUESTION of the Day #2
If you were to find an Online Tree that is Messy, that is many Alternate Facts or Events, what is your Reaction as a Viewer, AND as a Collaborator?
In this case, there are 7 Birth Facts. Each has at least one Citation. One is my preferred Fact, the other 6 are the Alt Facts.
What is your reaction to this as a Viewer and/or a Collaborator ?
I'm thinking that even though there are many alternatives, I appreciate the fact that citations and sources are listed so I can check them myself.
ReplyDeleteDonna B. -- Thank you. Hope you took a peak at the Clean Tree ?
ReplyDeleteOh, I think I see. You put all the alternates, sources and citations under Birth?
ReplyDeleteIf I'm hungry for data, I don't care how messy it is. Yes good with the citations. Messy trees don't work with non genealogists and even for me it is better to see a reasoned conclusion...with sources.
ReplyDeleteJan Gunnis
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. I think you have hit on the point about Clean vs Messy. A seasoned researcher vs the non-genealogist.
Russ
I prefer all of the alternatives under one event. Then a summary of why you chose the particular date to be the preferred date.
ReplyDeleteLisa Gorrell Understand that. BUT, how do we do that in an Ancestry Member Tree ? If you know how to do that, I would love to see it.
ReplyDeleteThank you,
Russ
I see a researcher who has found a number of pieces of evidence of a birth date/year from a variety of sources, and has cited the sources, as part of a Reasonably Exhaustive Search. Perhaps as the result of a question like "what is the person's birth date and birth place?" the researcher has evaluated all of the pieces of evidence and has selected one of the Facts as a conclusion embodied in a preferred fact. If a better piece of evidence is found that is conclusive, then the Preferred Fact might change.
ReplyDeleteMessy is OK! If it's consistent it indicates that the researcher is using the principles of the Genealogical Proof Standard.
Randy Seaver
ReplyDeleteThank you.
One of the reasons for this discussion in the Best Practice Video that Crista published and I have labeled a "clean tree". No Alt Facts.
I am all about messy, but trying to determine what folks think about Clean Vs Messy, both as a Viewer and as a potential Collaborator. There may be three answers or categories. How do we publish our Online Trees, Clean or Messy.
Thank you,
Russ
I guess I am okay with messy, but I like to see resources and evidence to back up the "messy".
ReplyDeleteI do that if there is any difference between facts (ie. same date of birth but different location). If the source does not tell me where someone was born I am not going to attach it to a fact where a location is included even if the date matches. Going back through it with all information added helps me evaluate the validity and determine the next step to my search. I believe it also helps show what I already found while collaborating with others so the same searching isn't being done over.
ReplyDeleteShelley Murphy - All of the Facts, in the Online Tree have Citations in the Clean Tree. In the screen capture there is a hint to "Messy", you can see the multiple Birth Facts, each linked to a Citation.
ReplyDeleteRachel Evans - So, do you like Messy vs Clean ? Is that what you are saying?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think a Non-Genealogist or a Newbie might think about Messy ?
For me I would lean towards messy because I am seeing the documentation per source not just what the person concluded. I would love to have more freedom in the program to attach my "current thinking." Seeing it on other people's trees shows me how much they have done already and I can decide whether I want to follow up on any of the documentation.
ReplyDeleteFor a newbie or non-genealogist it may be overpowering to see so many alternates but it may also depend on the person. For instance, I'm always using my husband as a sounding board when I am trying to work on something difficult. He is not a genealogist but has a research/science background. He helps to get me over any bias I may have and his most common statement is to evaluate what the document is actually saying and not what you want to hear.
Rachel Evans - Great feedback. Good use of your resource there. Sometimes they see exactly what we didn't.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the reasons why have have thrown in the Collaboration piece of an Online Tree. I saw an error in a cousin's tree that she thought she had resolved earlier.
I know, myself, in the project the number of Data Entry issues that I had in my own tree. Reviewing it really helped. I am not sure that a Clean Tree would help me with that.
Thank you for the feedback.
Russ
For me, coming across a tree like this one, which you've labeled "messy", is preferred to the clean one you presented earlier.
ReplyDeleteThere's messy, then there is messy.
That is, there is messy-but-thoughtful, and then there is messy-and-lazy. Your example here is the thoughtful kind because you've taken the effort to cite sources.
This debate over trees harkens to a more fundamental question about how we see the past. Is "history" fixed, or does it need to be continually rewritten (and reinterpreted?)
A messy-but-thoughtful tree seems, to me anyway, to represent better our dilemma as family historians - we can only know the past imperfectly.
To each their own. For me the end game is create simple facts on a tree I share with family that tells a story. I use proof standard logic with bias toward data that is nearest in time and intent. If I have conflicting data but a fact is important to the timeline I will insert it as a range. If the fact is not that important it won't appear at all. Just like I won't put a person on my tree that I am not convinced is supported by facts. In my business career I have found one must have one version of truth to the public. To make a comparison, to me a messy tree is like the mind set of a bookkeeper diligently documenting transactions. Whereas the accountant does the same thing but also analyzes evidence so that the true picture emerges. Having said this, no person is the same as another and it is great genealogy applications allow for diversity.
ReplyDeleteJan Gunnis - again, thank you for your reply.
ReplyDeleteThe problem, as I see it, is how to we present our use of the Genealogical Proof Standard, which is what I think you are referring to. I have aways said that my "tree" is a work in progress, not done, not going to be done, because I haven't found "all of the records" for those in my tree.
To me, a Clean Tree is one where, to me, it is a based on my Conclusions, or a Clean Tree is a Conclusion Tree. I may / will add more records, more information, but someone viewing the Tree would never see that, unless they looked at the Citations attached to the data.
I know how I "got there", but will someone viewing the same information come to the same conclusion?
Thanks again,
Russ