Source Citations - Downsides to Over Use?

[gathompson56]

As I come across data for an a person my first step is to build a source.

Then in each Reunion information field (events, facts, etc) for which that source provides data I link via the source citations. For example the birth date may have a number of source citations from each time that person shows up on a census, birth registration, marriage registration, death registration, etc. This is very handy if one needs to go back and check the accuracy of the data I collected. Just a few clicks will allow me to review the sources that lead me to the data in question.

I use the source citations for the name of the person similarly. For each and every source that this person appears in I add the source where I found that data. That means that EVERY source I have found for this person appears as a Name citation. In the detail I add the age of the person when in the source. Then I can sort by age which gives me a quick snapshot of the sequence of all sources I have collected for that person.

I have found this technique very beneficial for my needs.

But Is there a downside? When I come to generating reports will I be flooded with source summaries? Are there other issues I am not aware of?

[Michael Talibard]

This seems to me a very good way of proceeding—but then it would, since I do much the same. One difference is that I don't use source citations for the name of the person, unless there's some special reason to do so. Normally if I wanted to check evidence for the name I would look at the birth and/or baptism fields, and those of course carry source citations. Reports? Since I don't generate a report all that often, I am prepared to edit it as necessary when I do. I would not allow that to dictate how I record my data unless reports were a much more frequent feature of my work.

[gathompson56]

Thanks for the response Michael. I really only "load up" the name as a convenient means of listing all of the sources for that person. It makes for a very easy visual reference. I could move the bulk of the source citations to "general source citations" leaving only those that state the person's full name in source citations for "names". Either way consistency is the thing.

I too have not done much with reports as yet. Eventually I hope to create some Reunion books on segments of my family.

[Willie Davis]

Personal experience tells me that I rarely regret having too much information. My regrets often come when I have failed in sourcing information. That is not a technical answer to your question - just a life lesson.

[Warwick Dilley]

Whatever the downsides to what you are doing they are trivial compared with value of linking every bit of data from a source to the relevant field.

[Ryan_N]

I 100% agree with all responses thus far, but also feel we must strive to have the best of both worlds. I offered a solution in a post I just made in the "wish list" category that I think would be useful to help researchers "see" the best source(s) for every fact, i.e. by clicking on a button intended for that purpose. Useful if, let's say, there are 45 sources for a fact, two of which are primary sources that all the others actually derive from. (The idea would require QUAY assignment for citations in addition to sources.) In my experience; the primary sources are usually the very last to be added to the stack. I am thinking for instance of the Newbury, Mass town records from the 1640s that went online, with images, only very recently.