From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 00:30:48, Jenny M Benson    
   wrote:   
   >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   
      
   We all only have limited time. If a quality-of-sources fact rating was   
   evident on trees, some of us would pay heed to it - in combination with   
   our general level of trust of the person whose tree we were looking at,   
   of course. For example, if I was looking at _your_ tree, _and_ was in a   
   hurry, I _might_ not be quite as rigorous (e. g. check only a transcript   
   rather than an original document image) for a fact where you'd been able   
   to allocate a high quality rating, than one where you'd allocated a low   
   one. But it's academic as there isn't a quality field in online data,   
   AFAIK. (And we're not connected AFAIK either, though I'd love it if we   
   were!)   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   That's connected to the question of public/private trees. Some of us   
   feel the more good data is out there, the more the bad will be diluted;   
   others don't see why they should make the results of their work freely   
   available (and possibly misused). I can understand both views. [Actually   
   that might well be my epitaph!]   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on   
   politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)