From: NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk   
      
   On 16/08/2020 14:39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   > To be fair, Steve wasn't complaining about trees, but a specific   
   > dataset. I think we all agree, trees are dodgy at best. (It doesn't help   
   > that the various tree-hosting sites don't AFAIK have any way of   
   > recording how _reliable_ you consider a "fact" [or its source] to be; I   
   > don't _think_ the GeDCom standard does, and as that's what most use for   
   > uploads, I can't really blame them. [Many home genealogical _softwares_   
   > _do_ have a "quality" field: for example, the one I use, Brother's   
   > Keeper, has [for sources rather than facts - a "fact" can have several   
   > sources, of differing quality]: 0 ["Unreliable"], 1 ["Questionable"], 2   
   > ["Secondary or fairly reliable"], and 3 ["Primary or very reliable"].   
   > Others, I'm sure, have similar, but no automatic way of _sharing_ that   
   > field.)   
      
   But surely your rating in your quality field is only of meaning to you.   
   I don't care how reliable or otherwise you think your data ia, if I   
   choose to "take" it from you I will make my own judgement about it.  I   
   very rarely accept information from other people's trees without   
   checking Sources myself.  If others aren't so bothered ...  well, I was   
   going to say "who cares?" but I suppose most of us DO care about the   
   amount of bogus information which is put about.   
      
   --   
   Jenny M Benson   
   Wrexham, UK   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)