Hello all,
Is it possible to include a level of confidence in relationships in Gramps?
Sometimes you find someone, but are not 100% sure it is the right person…
Would be great to be able to register this, and also see a dotted line graphs.
If not possible yet, it would be a great addition.
Eugene
I register the ambiguity in the person’s record.
I created a Name type “Could Be”. I will often have more than one “Could Be” records. I put the leading candidate’s name in the Preferred Name slot. I put information about the confusion in a person’s Note.
Conversely, when other ‘genealogists’ have the wrong spouse and I have confirmed it with other research (to my satisfaction) I have the name type “Person is NOT” and I add a note to that name’s record detailing why not.
Thank you Dave.
It’s an idea, but if I know those are 2 different people, I would like them both to be in my database.
Often they are related to each other anyway, so both are interesting.
Then absent the Confidence on the Family record, I would create two Family records one each to the possible spouse. This would be a good time to put the Family type as “Unknown” with notes on each family detailing the issues. Maybe share a single note with both families.
There are the confidence levels on citations which can be attached to a Family record. These citations would be the supporting, or problematic, relevant facts. And again, these citations can be shared with both Families.
I also created two, or more, individuals - or even several families - when I am not sure whether they are the same ones.
I like the idea of “could be”, not in names but in Relationships, but I don’t use it, I chose an attribute-based solution.
I use attributes for what they are for but also as my work items in Gramps. So I have a whole bunch of technical attributes.
They all carry the type of “Workflow for searching for something”, basically they are the carriers of my projects:
In the latter case when I created this attribute I added a “To do” note describing what I am trying to do. I may add other notes of context or description.
Once this preparation is done, I “share” (an attribute is not really shared, it is rather duplicated) with the other individual(s) who are potentially the same person.
The references in the “To do” note serve, among other things, to list who is concerned by this research.
The benefit I see in these attributes is that, as they are not shared, unlike the “To do” note they contain, they can live their lives independently of each other based on my findings. It is thus possible that I find elements which concern both individuals, I therefore attach them (sources, notes) to the different attributes, but it may be that I do not know if it is indeed a common information, so I put it in the attribute that I consider the right one.
In the To do note, I include the reflections and conclusions as my research progresses.
I end up, or not, merging the two individuals if I found that they were the same person.
Note that Merging created an attribute that I provide with a note indicating when (to possibly go back later by looking at what I had in the backups from that time) I made this merge and why by attaching the sources that support it.
The attributes therefore make it possible to carry the common research project, notes and sources common or not to different individuals and are easily identifiable.
As I said at the beginning, I chose a solution based solely on attributes and I keep it, rather than using Relationships, also for the search for identical individuals in order to be homogeneous in my search system because yet the two are quite similar: they have a title, a notes area, a sources area, they are not shared.
Thank you. I’m going to see what works best for me.
Another idea to add to the pot…
Create a Tag (or Tags) with a confidence meaning. Then you can tag the Family (or other records). Color code the tags… Red for no or little confidence, Yellow (or better displayed color) for Concern or marginal confidence, etc.
I like that idea too…
Gramps is very flexible. Which is great! And also a problem sometimes.
After you have decided how to do something, it is not very easy to change…
That’s why SuperTool is so great. Your methods are certain to evolve over time. And you can use it to move data around based on criteria.
It definitely takes some getting acclimated. And like RegEx in custom filters, I don’t use it regularly enough to become (or remain) proficient. But when I need it, I just have to run a series of experiments to regain basic competence.
It helps that users can save and load scripts. Building a basic script library is helpful. But I haven’t found sharing as enlightening. (You can get lost trying to follow other people’s scripting style.)
And SuperTool can power through en masse changes without touching unrelated records. That (plus its immediate feedback without reloading) makes it superior to editing an XML file for re-import or using a database editing tool.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.