Steve and Bunny wrote:
>I used to work in an engineering environment and was responsible for 
detailed engineering procedures. This is very much like following the 
procedures that Elizabeth has cited. This works well for the seasoned, 
experienced individuals. However the more novice individuals may not 
understand the implications. Do they know to look for "Jno" when they want 
"John" or "Jonathan"? 
>The search engine never finds a "Jno" when looking for 
"John" or "Jonathan".


Tom wrote:
>I'm sorry, but when I see your work in the future, I'll be making a
mental note that it is not entirely reliable.


May I offer a middle-of-the-road perspective here?  

I agree with Tom's further statement that major search engines such as
Ancestry are programmed to search on abbreviations as well as full names.
What's not clear here is whether Steve and Bunny are referring to the search
engine they are using within their own product.

On three other issues, I'm going to both disagree and agree with both the
Binnses and Steve.

1. 
With regard to Tom's expressed disappointment that the Binns' tax images and
indexes are "not entirely reliable," I would argue that a researcher should
*never* expect anything to be "entirely reliable." We all know today's catch
phrase, "trust but verify." I'd rephrase that as "use but don't RELY!"
Everyone makes errors (yours truly included) and no system is perfect.

2. 
With regard to Steve and Bunny's statement that long prevailing standards
"work well for the seasoned, experienced individuals" but not for "novice
individuals [who] may not understand the implications":  We who produce
genealogical materials for genealogists are educating those novices by the
practices we apply. If each of us decide that novices may not understand the
standards and that we should, therefore, do things some other way, what the
genealogical world ends up with is a hodgepodge of resources created every
which way. The novices learn nothing from that--except an assumption that
genealogy has no standards.

Within the framework of what the Binnses describe, there is a way for to
adhere to standards while also teaching the novices. When a tax roll reads
"Jos. Williamson" and we know positively that the man in this case was
"Josiah," the index entry could read:

	Williamson, Jos. [Josiah] 39

That maintains standards. That educates the novice on the point that "Jos."
is an abbreviation for Josiah. And it educates the novice to the point that
material added for clarification by the editor or indexer should be placed
in square editorial brackets. That's two bits of education silently
transmitted in eight keystrokes.

On the other hand, in a situation such as the one they describe in which a
tax entry presents a man's name twice--once as "Jos." and the other as
"Josiah," the indexer would be justified in using just Josiah in the index.
Virtually no one would fault us--assuming we knew positively from the
context of the entry that only one man was being discussed here and that
this was not a situation in which Jos. (Joseph) Williamson paid a tithe for
his son Jos. (Josiah).  If we wished to avoid any semblance of guessing at
the intent of the tax assessor, we might transcribe the entry for our index
as

	Williamson, Jos. (var. Josiah) 39

This, of course, would indicate that the original entry itself was written
in two varying ways.

3.
With regard to the policy that Steve and Bunny adopted for their tax
records---in which Tom expressed disappointment---I'd be inclined to cut
Steve and Bunny a good deal of slack here, considering how long they've been
working on this project. The reality is that it has only been in the last
few years that editing, transcribing, and other standards in genealogy have
been codified. (The BCG Standards Manual did not come out until 2000 and the
professional manual for genealogy---which goes into far more depth on
transcribing, abstracting, indexing, and notetaking by all researchers,
hobbyists or professionals---did not come out until 2001.) 

Prior to that, most people came into genealogy thinking that such standards
did not exist for the field (or the hobby--there is no difference) because
they did not find any published guides within the field. Unless they had an
academic or technical background in which they learned editing and
transcribing standards--usually at a graduate degree level--most were not
aware that such standards existed in other fields. 

What's important now, IMO, is that we look forward to making our own
personal improvements that will, by extension, help everyone who uses our
work. We can all look back at other projects and think "I wish so-and-so had
not done it that way" (or "I wish *I* had not done it that way when I began
this-or-that project---something I would have to say about my own earliest
abstracts, transcripts, and translations). Now that the the standards *have*
been codified for the field, adopting those standards from here on out will
improve things for all researchers.

Steve and Bunny note that when they finish the county-level work, they will
be reviewing all entries again for a master index. That is commendable and
certainly speaks to a desire to present the most reliable work possible.
That review stage would also seem to be one in which they could reconsider
the manner in which they handle the issue of how abbreviated names are
handled.

Elizabeth

-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
Course Coordinator and Lead Lecturer
Advanced Research Methodology & Evidence Analysis
Samford University Institute of Genealogy & Historical Research

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html