Souces and Citations are painful!

[sbootes]

Hi,

Sorry to be a drag on my first post, but the Sources and Citations system in RootsMagic 11 has the most convoluted and cryptic design that I have ever seen in 20 years of working in IT. (I also have an M.Ed. so it’s not like I don’t understand academic standards for citation.)

When the help system does not explain how a screen works field by field, there are no explanations of which fields trigger what rules, and users and staff are debating the names of different fields based on which source book they came from on the discussion board you have a problem. No novice user has any hope of using these screens properly. If I can’t work with something as simple as APA, I will simply go back to using paper notes.

I really hope you can add some serious user support. Thank you.

[OleSeminole]

It you haven’t watched this RootsMagic video, it may be helpful even though it was done for RM8 , it still mostly applies to RM11.

sources, citations and documents

[kbens0n]

@sbootes

as simple as APA

Noting that APA seems popular in the sciences, including fields like psychology, sociology, education, and communications …RM certainly allows free form sources you can create in any style you desire, but the templating system is juiced with defaults in the style of Elizabeth Shown Mills. They likely can, in turn, be copied, added to, edited to remove elements, moved around and modified to aim for reflecting the APA style in a programmed way.

[sbootes]

Hi Guys,

Thank you for such a quick response. I really appreciate the help. The video with Bruce Buzzbee is finally explaining what was left out of 3 other videos on the internet. (I had not found Mr. Buzzbee’s video yet.)

The problem I’m having is that Roots Magic advertises itself as fun and easy-to-use, so it should be good for amateurs. But, the interface seems more like it is intended for experts. In terms of “usability”, the interface resembles Access 97’ but there are quirks like forcing users to pick a source before they can enter citation details (could be one screen), calling links “web tags” (not conventional naming in industry), and not making the hierarchy of concepts displayed obvious to the user.

New users need to be able to see the relationship between a template, master record, and dependent records right in the interface in an intuitive way, or be given guidance like a “wizzard” to help them setup their citations. Otherwise we just guess at the answer and make mistakes. (Displaying over 100 “sources” is scary if you think you’ll only use 4 or 5.)

A few other issues: How do you know what a reference means when you use initialisms to a identify a formatting style in the template? That might be okay for insiders - but it is a definite no-no for newbies. If you change a template, the screen should not display old fields that are not longer used - otherwise you’ll think something is broken. And why would you allow a novice to “edit sources” (which should be invariant) from the Person screen where you can’t see how making a change will affect the accuracy of other citations? In fact, most of what Mr. Buzzbee put in his video should be right in the interface as pop-ups or “online help”.

Anyhow, I didn’t mean to get into a bit of a rant. It’s just sad to see that you’ve gotten used memorizing workarounds that could have been designed better. Thank you for your patience.

[kevync1985]

@sbootes

Sorry to be a drag on my first post, but the Sources and Citations system in RootsMagic 11 has the most convoluted and cryptic design that I have ever seen in 20 years of working in IT.

Well some of what you are talking about has nothing to do with RM but more about the overall design of sources and citations. Whether and when you split or lump and to what degree/level. RM can use templates and once you have some understanding … creating or changing them to you need opens lots of doors - that might take a couple weeks to digest.

I learn this by automating a test of creating about 4000 citations for find-a-grave – the course and citations were done be a script (But I left linking the final step to manual at the time)

the manual process is not bad but can be more tedious till you get use to things

Kevin

[karleif]

I have to agree completely. The source system is too complicated for the average user.
I often refuse to establish a new source, not to mention retrieving established sources.
The art is also being able to keep the number of sources to a minimum. Let’s get a more user-friendly setup.

[Rooty]

RM for me has a very convoluted source citation process even with free form and it takes many clicks to see all the information stashed in different screens. FTM 2024 has one screen where all information is easily entered AND displayed for use. No contest.

[jswyukon]

I appreciate the Original Poster’s concerns. Similiar to mine posted October one year ago regarding the entry of Sources and Citations and what prints where in the Publish section. Here is part of the thread only from that time, but perhaps a read through the full thread might be helpful. Inflexibility of Sources AND Citations in Reports

[sbootes]

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for joining in the conversation. I think you hit the nail on the head. New users expect the program interface to reflect how sources and citations are designed - not have to figure out the difference for themselves. A popular book on this aspect of software that addresses intuitive design is called “Don’t make me think”.

You also hit on a couple of significant issues. First, I was assuming a typical family tree to max out around 300 people and (maybe?) 5 sources for each. That would only require about 1500 citations so I’m curious to know if 4000 entries is fairly common or more of an exception in your experience?

The fact that you used a script could also imply that the interface can’t handle that many entries without a lot of tedium. Could you comment on any work arounds you used in the interface or challenges with the format of importing from find-a-grave? (Thanks!)

Finally, your screen shot noted a citation format in the footnote and bibliographic entries that some of my memorial owners would reject. This is not RM’s problem but some of the people I’ve run into expect entries to appear like a catalog card that they see in a physical library. They won’t accept a URL that points to a link on Find-A-Grave or Family Search, so I’m having to take extra steps.

Thanks for your comments.

Scott

[mscheffler]

I echo this thread that citations in the later versions of RM are painful. I am basically a researcher and really only want my method of recording sources to be clear enough they can be checked out by others finding my online database or reports I may place in a library file.

For all but the basic book format, I do not use the templates. Instead I only use freeform sources and keep them simple. As an example I use US census schedules as sources for various facts such as approximate birth dates and residence.

As an example of my freeform census source;

Master Source: 1850 U.S. Federal Census

For footnote, short footnote and bibliography: 1850 U.S. Federal Census (Washington D.C., National Archives microfilm publications)

For Details/page no.: Boone, Boone County, Illinois

I can add page number, E.D. to this line should I choose. Sometimes I then use the note for the fact if I want to add other comments.

Using the above format the reader of my printouts can go to the web, and look up the exact census page and interpret what they find for themselves. In reports this approach reduces the amount of space dedicated to the footnotes or endnotes. These simple freeform sources export successfully when I post gedcom files online. Additionally most newbies can learn this approach fairly quickly.

Genealogy journals like the NEHGR use simplified sources. Do most users need the specificity that the newer RM versions encourage? Should we not spend time actually viewing sources for ourselves rather than try to copy what someone on Ancestry or FamilySearch has posted as a source. I was taught when I started researching that I should only use sources that I had actually used for myself, not what somone else indicated they had used.

I have several advanced degrees and am well acquainted with the type of sourcing needed for professional journals, but I don’t feel it necessary to apply that kind of detail to my genealogy research. While researching I want to keep focused on what I am researching and not get off track stressing about how I might record the source.

This method is quick, easy, and easy to teach to newbies learning genealogy research. I can keep my mind on what I am researching and still point out to others how to access the information for themselves.

[kevync1985]

@sbootes

They won’t accept a URL that points to a link on Find-A-Grave or Family Search, so I’m having to take extra steps.

fyi they also have webtags and I will likely abandon embedding urls like that

@mscheffler

While researching I want to keep focused on what I am researching and not get off track stressing about how I might record the source…. and still point out to others how to access the information for themselves.

well – keeping it simple can be important, one can ‘cite’ the source without going granular on every single detail or chose to go granular with height / weight for a draft. or the mutiple cols of the household details

[mscheffler]

@sbootes

The problem I’m having is that Roots Magic advertises itself as fun and easy-to-use, so it should be good for amateurs. But, the interface seems more like it is intended for experts. In terms of “usability”, the interface resembles Access 97…. [and I add TMG…. which seemed impossible for a beginner]

That has been my point ever since RM8 and following versions were released. My impression is that most people doing genealogy are older and not as well versed in computer use. Family Origins version and RM through RM7 were easy for amateurs to use from the start. They could begin with the basics of entering names and dates and begin to see progress immediately. No longer is this the case. I have helped many over time to begin their own genealogy searches, but now I no longer can recommend RM to the newbie. I don’t know what program to recommend. Perhaps a so called “RM lite” could be released, geared to the newbie with limited computer skills. Or sell RM6 or RM7 as well as the latest version. Obviously people can download the free versions of these but they are lacking most of reports which are a popular feature of a genealogy program for beginners as well as more seasoned users. Of course that means no access to the FamilySearch matches which I realize is due to factors beyond the control of the developers.

I am also aware that use of TreeShare and downloading in mass (numbers of generations) from Ancestry and FamilySearch result in people adding many errors to the large shared databases, because people are reposting their research with the borrowed material without verifying the validity of what they find online. This is not criticism of RM alone since many programs encourage this and the adding of sources the individual has not actually accessed for themselves. Since this forum is primarily for technical use for the current version, warnings a newbie should see about verifying information are lacking. Perhaps Bruce could add some warnings to the help features.