Source type tag: Primary, Secondary, Terciary in the Person's Page & Source Box.
It's a good idea to create a separate listed field (no images, just text as it is) for a quick clickable visualization of Primary, Secondary, Tertiary already indexed records type under the person's page Sources tab.
Eg.: John has 100 records on your Sources tab. But John has only 4 main primary records: Baptism, Birth Record, Wedding and Death Record.
The others 96 records are from John's descendents. Some Secondary sources mentioning him as a Father or Grandfather. And some Tertiary sources mentioning him as godfather, witness in some events or even on a newspaper article.
So we don't need waste time searching all over indexed sources. After properly tagged by the user who has associated the record. In this way we have under Sources' tab a field in the upper screen with the most importants records, following by secondary and tertiary records.
Regards,
Leonardo Alves.
Comments
-
Perhaps it could be an Options filter - to show that kind of display - but the primary, secondary, tertiary tags would have to be attached/tagged to the source. I think someone would need to do that classification tagging.
0 -
When applied to sources, "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" mean something completely different from what you're using them for. They indicate the "distance" between the event and the record of the event: a primary source is usually something like a parish register, which is presumably written during or shortly after the event, by someone who was present or based on the report of someone who was present. A secondary source is something like an extract of a parish register, or an index of it: something written by a person who was neither present, nor spoke with anyone present at the event. A tertiary source is something like a typed transcript of the hand-written extract of the parish register, that is, a source that is three steps away from the recorded event.
I'm not sure your definitions adequately capture the possible value of a particular source. For example, a birth record does not list the baby's eventual occupation. A later wedding record for a sibling, listing him as a witness, does. Which source is more valuable? (The answer, in my opinion, is that they are both equally valuable.)
1 -
First I agree with Julia Szent-Györgyi 's definition of primary vs secondary source not being right here. Those words mean something different. I do, however, like the concept of what you are suggesting. Given the complexity of the value of each source, again, as illustrated by Julia Szent-Györgyi I suggest you stop considering that some sources will be a waste of time. What is needed is a classification system that can optionally be used NOT to tag the source, but to tag the people in the source. Being the groom in a marriage source is something. Being father of the groom in a source is something else. Each needs a different kind of tag. Being the deceased in a death certificate is sort of like being the groom in a marriage record. Being a non-family witness in a baptism is yet another something that is valuable. Primary and secondary are not good words. Are there descriptives for that? EDIT: and I think this could be a very helpful and useful addition for researchers, if done right.
0
