It would be extremely beneficial if, when a fact is genealogically proven, the fact changes color or becomes bold to indicate its verified status. This would allow users to easily see the status without having to click through each one.
This feature could work similarly to how disputed facts are shown with a strikethrough.
Additionally, it would be a great idea to add a “Possible” or “Probable” option to the list, with “Probable” set as the default. These too could be set to change colour, maybe using something like a traffic lights system.
Also, it would help if Private facts could be a slightly muted tone too. This helps with initial glance over a persons profile!
Color-coding the people who share a certain fact is easy if you happen to think about it in advance, as opposed to deciding you want to do it only after you already have a few hundred people in your database who share that fact.
I do this with Huguenot descendants, of whom there are a large number in my extended family. Happily, I thought to do that back when I had only two dozen relevant person pages created, by starting a new group called “Huguenot.” Color-coding that group (now 200+ people) makes it easy to pick them out of any list of descendants.
While that’s true, I think you’ve missed the purpose of this feature request (if I understood @EmmaHP correctly).
The idea is to change the text formatting, and or color-character of the individual facts listed on a person’s detail page. In that way, you could more visually see where the quality gaps & deficiencies are in the documentation for them.
Here’s a mockup. Green for facts where the “Proof” value is set to “Proven”, yellow for “Disputed”, red for “Disproven”. Uncolored facts would mean no Proof value is set. (Note, I know the facts about Princess Diana are all well-documented. I’m just using her as a strawman for illustration.)
This is an interesting proposition but I would like a little more information on what you mean by the fact being “proven” or otherwise. Is it just the Source (or lack of) or the fact itself that you are referring to and hence colour coding? The “fact” that you have entered the person indicated that the “Fact” is proven. What might not be proven is the actual date of birth or the associated Source/Citation. I have lots of Baptisms which I regard as proven as I have a copy of the Register entry however the date for the Birth Fact is not always known so I enter as “bef 25 Dec 1800” where this is the Baptism date. Would you be colour coding the Birth Fact as “unproven” merely because you don’t have an exact date? I don’t think we are disputing the fact that the person was born!
Not true. Generically speaking, just because someone has entered a fact for a person doesn’t mean it’s proven. I, for instance, have encountered multiple trees out there claiming Native American parentage of one of my ancestors but with no evidence to back it up. It’s hearsay, rumor, lore. Not fact. If I chose to enter that same claim in my tree, that wouldn’t make it a fact.
Evidence Explained, in turn, is based on the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS), as covered on Page 19 of the Third Edition Revised copy I have.
Basically, anyone who’s serious about genealogical research, rather than just collecting a bunch of names and dates, will treat it like any other serious historical / anthropological effort. That way, if challenged, your conclusions (tree, people, etc) can be solidly backed up. RootsMagic, through the Proof field, lets you keep track of the quality of your research.
In my approach to genealogical research, I adhere to a rigorous standard that emphasises the use of multiple, diverse sources to ensure accuracy and reliability. By cross-referencing information from various kinds of records—whether it’s vital records, census data, newspapers, or other historical documents—I strive to corroborate the details across these sources. This method helps build a comprehensive, well-supported family history that stands up to scrutiny. It’s important to not only collect data but also evaluate the credibility of each source, ensuring consistency and reliability in the final findings.
To further enhance the credibility of my research, I would like to use a colour-coding system to indicate the proven status of each fact. This helps to clearly identify which information is most reliably supported by sources (at least 3 usually). For example, in your own research, you may have come across instances where a birth recorded in a baptismal record differs from what’s listed in a civil registration. This discrepancy highlights the importance of critically evaluating each piece of information to ensure its accuracy and place it in the correct context.
Adding a notation like “bef 25 Dec 1800” as a birth date is another example of why genealogically proving details is so important. Without a clear birth date, it’s crucial to consider other factors—such as the possibility of a child being born and baptised on the same day. I’ve come across several instances in my own research where this happened, especially in cases where a child was not expected to survive infancy. These nuances further illustrate the need to carefully assess all sources and create a well-rounded, accurate family history.
