bmoake wrote: >Gosh no, it is not foolish to use info tentatively, it is prudent to print the info and use it as a guide to localities, people and documentation. In this vein, I would suggest that *everything* we record in our research files and genealogical software is entered tentatively. No information can be accepted as Gospel at first encounter. That, in a nutshell, is the reasoning behind the documentation bmoak reminds us to seek. We find a source and it offers information that appears to be relevant. Whether it is documented or not, we extract it, in some fashion, into our files. We not only identify the source but also evaluate and describe its characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. By doing so, our notes clearly differentiate between information that is likely to be unreliable and that which is potentially credible. By doing so, we also make it possible, many times in the future, to come back to this piece of evidence and reevaluate it on the basis of new findings. When we approach research from this mindset, we will record in our files information of all sorts of quality. For example: - We will have totally undocumented assertions that we clearly identify for what they are: totally undocumented assertions that still may be useful as clues. As we continue with research, we may upgrade these to realistic assertions by supporting them with seemingly sound evidence we have found elsewhere. Or, we may delete them from our files, as clearly erroneous. Or, more commonly after we prove them wrong, we will keep them in our files, together with our proof arguments as to why those assertions are not credible. By doing so, we are prepared to deal quickly with "family gatherers" who continue to sweep in and disseminate garbage. - We will have assertions from sources that do provide documentation but may or may not be reliable -- in which case we identify both the source and the documentation it provides, along with our description and assessment of that source. As our research progresses, we may downgrade or upgrade our opinion of the credibility of each individual assertion within that source. - We will have assertions from sources that supposedly speak from firsthand experience -- which, again, may or may not be reliable. Again, we identify the source and the nature of the firsthand experience that is alleged. Then, as research progresses, we continue to make judgments as to the acceptability of each assertion that person made, bearing in mind that in any document by people with "firsthand knowledge," there will likely be some points on which their information is only secondary or hearsay. Ergo, my first statement above: Everything we record is tentative. While less-serious researchers expect "plain facts" and "final answers," good researchers know that neither exists. Elizabeth ----------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG Track 4, 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