Thank you Elizabeth.  This was very informative - and refreshing.
I've picked up several tips - so thank you again!
Connie

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Elizabeth Shown Mills
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
>

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