Session Start: Thu Apr 30 11:59:55 1998
*** Now talking in #rootsclass
#rootsclass topic is 'BCC & VU Genealogy Class Chat/Office Hours'
#rootsclass topic set by Marthe on Thu Apr 30 11:50:03
<LadyBlack> well, ancestry is having problems giving us ANCESTRYnames :-(
<LadyBlack> i was there on Tuesday nite/ my Wednesday 5am to check it out
<Cesario> Did you get the news about the Ancestry Chat going down sometime
 this weekend?
<Cesario> DearMyrtle will add us in after that...
<Cesario> cause all the entries made so far will be lost during the down 
times
<LadyBlack> hopefully they will get all the *bugs* out
<Cesario> Is anyone familiar with Surety Levels?
<Cookie--> Not me
<Cesario> It is how 'sure' you are that a source is giving you accurate 
information
<LadyBlack> ranking from 1-3?
<Cesario> UFT uses 0-4 and many other software programs use 0-3
<Cesario> 0 being the lowest score
<LadyBlack> bk uses 1 to 3, i seem to remember
<Cesario> Hello RRCB! and Welcome!
<RRCB> Hello
<Cesario> What would you give the top score of 3 or 4?
<Cesario> Hi bleu, Glad to see you!
<bleu> Hello
<LadyBlack> a birth certificate?
<Cookie--> I agree, birth certificate
<Cesario> from what I've learned recently (last night at the chat *smile*)
<Cesario> I probably wouldn't give any single document the top score
<Cesario> I'd give a document a top score
<Cesario> after I verified it with another pretty sound source...
<Cesario> Hello doris! and Welcome!
<Cookie--> My husbands birth certificate has his name spelled wrong!
<doris> Hi everyone
<Cesario> death certificates can be very unreliable 
<LadyBlack> my husband doesn't even  have a birth certificate LOL
<Cesario> :)
<MCW> My brothers birth certificate has the wrong date
<Cookie--> death certificates depend on the informants knowledge
<LadyBlack> the hospital burned to the ground, so he has a document
 signed by the delivering physician stating that he was born
<Cesario> so it seems no document is absolutely reliable on it's own...
<bleu> Mine had my father's name wrong, as well as other errors
<RRCB> My father's birth certificate lists his mother as Laura Rivers 
Albert, it was changed 8 years after her death to read Flossie Larine Albert.
<doris> My ggrandparents' marriage cert. had his name start with 
Sam instead of Lem
<doris> Very difficult until you could see the similarity
<Cesario> Wow! and I used to think those kinds of documents
 were pretty near to carved in stone :)
<RRCB> BTW her name according to the family was Flossie Larine Martin
<Cookie--> <G>
<Cesario> I also learned last night that FTM 4+ has a place to record 
surety levels
<LadyBlack> it FTM 4 on the market yet?
<doris> what does that mean?
<Cesario> have you guys noticed something like that in what you use?
<doris> yes, Lady, I have it
<Cesario> doris - a surety level is how sure you are the source is accurate
<Cookie--> I have FTM 4
<doris> ok thanks
<Cesario> FTM 4.4 is out now :)
<LadyBlack> geesh, and i just bought ftm deluxe III
<Cookie--> I haven't seen a surety level though
<Marthe> I'm back!
<Cesario> Hello :)
<Cookie--> Hi Marhte
<doris> Hi Marthe
<Marthe> FTM Deluxe III is FTM version 4.4, LB.
<Cesario> we were just discussing surety levels
<Cookie--> WE started without you!
<RRCB> wait a minute they have Deluxe III 4.0 and 4.4
<LadyBlack> so that's how much I REALLY know about FTM
<Marthe> :)
<LadyBlack> i've only had it 2 weeks
<Marthe> We had a great chat last night in the Ancestry
 Software room (which Wendy and I are hosting) about surety levels.
<Cesario> during Marthe's class too LB
<Cookie--> The spell check makes my system crash
<Cesario> I learned a lot :)
<Marthe> Does everyone here know whether or not their software
 supports indicating a surety level for each piece of evidence?
<RRCB> spell check works fine on mine, but what is the surety level?
<doris> I don't know about surety check
<Cookie--> no
<Cookie--> I have FTM 4.0
<RRCB> I have FTM 4.4
<Cesario> RRCB - a surety level is how 'sure' you are that
 a source is accurate
<Cesario> the common scale is 0-3
<Cesario> with 0-4 and 1-3 being used by some others
<Marthe> Shall I list what UFT has to say about surety levels?
<RRCB> Would that be like the source quality?
<Cesario> Pleas!
<Cesario> oops Please!
<LadyBlack> yes marthe
<Cookie--> Yes please
<doris> yes please
<Cesario> *grin*
<Marthe> Level 4 (UFT uses 0-4): clear and convincing proof
<Marthe> Level 3: probably conclusive, no conflicting evidence
<Marthe> level 2: probably confclusive, some conflicting evidence
<Marthe> level 1: marginal certainty, weak or conflicting evidence
<Marthe> level 0: information which has not undergone formal proof
<doris> what would be considered in level 1>
<LadyBlack> family story
<Marthe> I'm a little unclear as to what the difference 
between 3 and 4 is...unless it relies on a gut feeling or something.
<Marthe> Right, LB.
<MCW> I don't know anything cause I just got UFT and am 
having problems getting it d/l. The problems are me though not the program.
<Cesario> Hello Kinkell! and Welcome!
<LadyBlack> kinkell!!
<Marthe> Perhaps having convincing proof and no conflicting
 evidence are the two factors in consideration between the levels 4 and 3
<Marthe> How many of you here record some sort of surety level 
for your data? 
<RRCB> Okay,then here goes I have a letter from a cemetery with
 my ggrandfather's date of death, but can't locate the certificate
 yet would that be concidered level 3 or 4
<Marthe> Whether or not you use software to indicate the level of surety?
<Cookie--> Not me marthe
<LadyBlack> what little i have, most is 0 or 1 *G*
<doris> I never heard of it before, but do have all kinds of certificates
<bleu> I record any conflicting information in the notes about the person
<Marthe> I would say a level 1 or 2, RRCB. Not because you think the
 cemetery is lying to you, but because you don't have any other proof.
<Cookie--> RRCB I would say a 3
<Marthe> And information given to cemeteries is done by family or
 friends, who may not know the correct dates.
<Cookie--> So you really need more then one means of proof?
<Marthe> Absolutely, especially when it comes to dealing with
 information which is not primary evidence.
<Marthe> Info from headstones and cemeteries, while often correct
 and very helpful, can be wrong.
<Marthe> Although with a death date it should be fairly easy to confirm 
via death records.
<Marthe> SSDI
<Marthe> Probate records
<Marthe> etc.
<Marthe> I'd look for verification before I assigned a higher surety level.
 BUt then, I'm very suspicious of all the information I receive. :)
<MCW> lol My aunts grave had a death date on it But she was alive
<Marthe> Right, MCW!
<Cesario> geez
Playing 2easy.wav received from StarLite 2§2,13¦6=12| auto-play
<MCW> we have a family plot and stones are there for when they would be 
needed
<LadyBlack> my great aunt never told us her correct year of birth 
-- only found out what it was using SSDI about 3 weeks ago
<RRCB> What do you do if you write to the state for a death certificate, 
and they write you back to ask you if your sure they are dead?
<Marthe> And how many women did not reveal a true birthdate to their 
families...and that misinformation was translated to death records due 
to ignorance?
<Marthe> Men too...I don't mean to pick on women. :)
<Cande> My great-grandmother lied about her age on all the census.
<Marthe> There you go!
<Cesario> Now what surety level does one assign info found on the internet?
<LadyBlack> even censuses from a ten year gap can have the same 
individual 15 or 16 years older
<Cande> The one census that shows her true age is the one where 
she's with her parents. :)
<Marthe> What if you find the info in one of the pay databases? 
Is it considered more valid?
<Cookie--> no
<Cande> Nah... money doesn't guarantee anything.
<LadyBlack> i wouldn't think so, not without another piece of documentation
<bleu> NO, because you still don't know the source
<Cesario> what if you do know the source - it's listed say
<RRCB> So what source would you consider the best of all?
<LadyBlack> i'd want a paper copy in my hot little hands first before 
i took it as gospel
<Cookie--> eye witness
<LadyBlack> the individual, if still living
<Marthe> Soooooo...according to the folks at UFT, conclusive is the key
 word in determining surety. What does conclusive mean? How conclusive
 *is* CONCLUSIVE?
<Marthe> Barb!
<BarB--> yes
<Cookie--> Making a comparison between severl documents or witness, 
and they are in agreement
<Cookie--> A preponderance on the evidence
<doris> if, after trying, nothing can contradict the info?
<bleu> provided that the information in the documents doesn't trace
 back to the same source.
<Marthe> One of the gimmicky little things that helps you remember 
evaluating evidence criteria is CDO
<Marthe> Consistency, Directness, Origin
<Cesario> anyone checked out Evidence! yet?
<LadyBlack> not yet
<bleu> For example, in the official records about my grandfather's 
family was given by his oldest brother.  But I have found some errors 
in the information that he gave.
<Cookie--> my little brain can't take much more! :(
<Marthe> Poor Cookie. :)
<Marthe> Consistency refers to whether or not the evidence supports 
a conclusion, negates a conclusion, or is neutral.
<Marthe> Directness refers to whether or not the information is a 
direct statement of fact, or whether it's implied.
<RRCB> I have a letter from a family member doing research, it lists several 
sources for one man; through my own research I found out that she had
 confused the son with the father on several occasions.  I double check 
everything now
<Marthe> Origin is the primary, secondary, unknown evidence.
<Marthe> So now you're all going to go out there and evaluate your evidence, 
right? :)
<RRCB> Should you double check everything or not?
<Cookie--> Example:  great grandfathers name, listed on my grandfathers death
 certificate John Jackson
<bleu> not right away :)
<Cookie--> Census lists the following John J.; John' and J.J.
<Cookie--> Consistant would support John Jackson??
<Marthe> Since I happen to have a copy of Evidence! by Elizabeth Shown Mills 
sitting right here, all nice and handy, let me run through what Elizabeth 
says are the fundamentals of analysis.
<Cesario> Thank you! had to loan my copy out... :(
<Marthe> Her first point is that "direct evidence is easier to understand,
 but indirect evidence can carry equal weight."
<Marthe> Hoooooo...that's a tough one, Cookie.
<Marthe> Assumedly it's the same person, but I'd look for other sources
 to see what names he is listed under on them.
<Marthe> Point two: "Reliable genealogical conclusions are based on the
 weight--not quantity-- of evidence found.
<Marthe> That is an important point with I believe many newbies miss. :)
<Marthe> And I think we've had several examples here of how incorrect 
information propigates
<Marthe> Point 3: "Evidence should be drawn from a variety of independently
 created sources."
<Marthe> Point 4: "Original source material generally is more reliable than
 derivative material."
<Marthe> Natch. :)
<Marthe> Point 5: "The reliability of a derivative work is influence byt
 he degree of processing it has undergone."
<Cesario> oh gee - I could spend my life being perfect about genealogy -
 where is the middle ground?
<doris> my thought exactly
<Marthe> Point 6: The purpose of a record and the motivation of its creators 
frequently affect its truthfullness."
<bleu> I frequently find myself wishing I could find _any_ source of information 
about certain events
<Marthe> Point 7: The most reliable informants have firsthand knwledge of 
the events to which they testify
<Marthe> Point 8: The veracity and skill of a record's creator will have 
shaped its content
<Marthe> Point 9: Timeliness generall adds to a document's credibility
<Marthe> Point 10: Penmanship can establish identity, date, and authenticity
<Marthe> I personally think that's an interesting point...it can tell you whether 
or not that deed book has been recopied, or is the original record book.
<Marthe> Point 11: A record's custodial history affects its trusworthiness
<Marthe> Point 12: All known records should be used and a thorough effort made 
to identify unknown materials
<Marthe> Point 13 (the final point): The case is never closed on a genealogical 
conclusion.
<Marthe> So there you have evaluating evidence in a nutshell. :)
<
<Marthe> Oh, while you're all here and awake...I won't be here tonight.
 I don't think Ces will be here either...and Cande is unavailable as well.
<Marthe> :)
<Marthe> But you are welcome to stop by and help any of the evening folk who drop 
in.
<Marthe> Get a rousing discussion going about evidence. You're all experts on it
 now. :))
Session Close: Thu Apr 30 12:57:16 1998