Comments on: 2013 Docu-Challenge #1: English Parish Register Marriage Entry–Part 4 Marriage Summary Conclusion

By: Russ Worthington

Russ Worthington — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:29:12 +0000

Laura,

We have missed you, but knew you were busy.

Thank you for your comments.

I hope you have a chance to “do your homework” / participate in the Docu-Challenge.

Thanks again,

Russ

By: Laura C. Lorenzana (@ArchivalBiz)

Laura C. Lorenzana (@ArchivalBiz) — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:55:42 +0000

Russ, etal, Well, I’m terribly sorry that I’ve been away and unable to participate in this amazing exercise. My entire reason for being so excited about this software is that it is the FIRST of its kind to even attempt to make the Genealogical Proof Standard known and even remotely understandable to researchers who are unfamiliar with it. Is the software perfect? Heck no, but the developer dove in head-first when Ol’ Myrt started these discussions and he’s working to update it. Again, there is no software out there, that I’ve been aware of, that’s sole purpose is to assist in ANALYZING the evidence (note, I didn’t use the word ‘information’…I learned that through the use of this software) we glean from the sources we gather in our research. There is a reason that the first workshop webinar was SRO…there are so many family historians and genealogists who WANT to do their research right, but for whom the jargon of our Industry is still just jargon. I was a hobbyist for 15 years; I worked on my own to locate information to fill in my database of family history information. I didn’t even know the GPS existed. At least this software attempts to educate us and make us better at analyzing our ancestors before we commit them to our trees. For that, I’m very thankful.

By: Russ Worthington

Russ Worthington — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:08:51 +0000

Dear MYRTLE,

Thank you for your comments. I know that this Docu-Challenge is causing my to rethink, as you suggest, from filling in the blanks, to doing analysis on the data I have and find.

Thank you for the Challenge.

Russ

By: dearmyrtle

dearmyrtle — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:36:13 +0000

I think it’s perfect that Russ did not edit the summary report, so we could see how the program could be tweaked. I also think Its perfect that Jenny tweaked her summary report so we can see the adaptability of Evidentia. I particularly liked the “astronaut” comment.

Evidentia is leading us to water (the GPS water) but it cannot make us drink.

It takes a LOT to get genealogists to switch from “fill in the blank” genealogy, to evidence analysis.

All of this is a perfect prelude to Tom Jones’ MASTERING GENEALOGICAL PROOF. It has a workbook component.

By: Russ Worthington

Russ Worthington — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:40:42 +0000

Jenny,

Thank you,

Russ

By: Russ Worthington

Russ Worthington — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:39:27 +0000

Jenny,

Thank you for your comments. I think we have seen that the developer of Evidentia is listening to what each of us are sayings. Wording was one item he has mentioned on Google+.

Again, Thank you,

Russ

By: Russ Worthington

Russ Worthington — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:36:31 +0000

Dear MYRTLE,

Thank you for your comments.

I am still on a learning curve with this program and the whole Genealogical Proof Standard way of thinking. I hope that my blog post has not clouded the issue.

Thanks you for the Challenge.

Russ

By: dearmyrtle

dearmyrtle — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:28:13 +0000

I think Randy’s comments are somewhat justified, but what he fails to see is that Evidentia is the first program that “forces” a genealogist to look at what is inferred and what is directly stated in a document.

Evidentia is the first program that takes a variety of claims (assertions) from one or more sources, and brings them to the researcher’s attention for analysis.

Evidentia is the first program to take our analysis and attempt to correlate this into a summary report.

These are quite simply not options available in our typical “fill in the blank” genealogy management software.

It’s a little fix to rearrange wording on a summary report, and the software developer has worked months with beta-testers to tweak the program.

By working through a series of DearMYRTLE Docu-Challenges with Evidentia, we shall move the discussion to a broader audience.

From this, the software developer will be able to make additional refinements to the program.

Randy, lets not make sweeping statements expressing serious doubts, when what we’ve got is:

– unusual software
– an even more unusually responsive software developer.

Otherwise, my dear friend Randy, we may find software developers will stop designing in the genealogy genre.

How we WISH, for instance, that Ancestry.com would be this responsive!

TOGETHER, we can accomplish much.

By: Russ Worthington

Russ Worthington — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 03:54:17 +0000

Ed,

Thank you for your comments.

It is my hope, that this new user of Evidentia, and NOT completely knowledgeable about GPS has not created confusion on the Blog. I am very new to your program and still in the earlier stages of understanding the Genealogical Proof Standard.

Clearly, to me at least, Evidentia is causing me to re-think how I work with the information that I might find in my research. I am on the upward part of the learning curve on both.

Russ

By: ed4becky

ed4becky — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 03:06:03 +0000

I have been working on improvements for the last 2 months and a new release due out next week address some of Randy’s concerns.

I feel I need to point out that the line that currently says “4 sources were consider…” has been updated in the next release to indicate “4 assertions from 1 source were consider…”.

The above citations were clearly from the same source (though the assertions as noted were different), and the regrettable error in wording may lead one to believe more sources support the final argument than have actually been considered.

The next release will hopefully be available next week with many other enhancements as well and is free to all registered users of Evidentia.