The Book of Numbers
Something has been brought to my attention a couple of times in the past two months. It appears that my numbering system for uniquely identifying individuals in my genealogy is unconventional. In my database of people I have assigned a number in the order in which I have entered them into the database. For example, I started with my family as a child. My father is #1, my mother is #2, I am #3, etc.
The reason I use the numbers on my web site, Downs Genealogy.com, is to help avoid confusion. This sample should prove my point:
So this is my numbering system as it stands today. It is simple and it works for my needs. The problem seems to be that genealogists have become used to certain numbering systems when they read the material published by someone else. Two examples are “Register Style” and NGSQ. But these systems are designed for genealogies starting with a single progenitor and working forward. My research does a lot of working back, so this type of a system would not work.
I could use the Ahnentafel system which is quite neat. If you want to know who someone’s father is, just double their number. However, only parents are given a number and siblings are left out. This makes collateral lines, and multiple descents from a single individual, a nightmare for both the compiler and the reader.
I guess the real issue is if we consider my web site a final published product. If you look at a publication like the Mayflower Society’s Five Generation Project, you notice that it is set up so that the numbering system helps you navigate through the book, up and down generations. They use the Register System of numbering, but why does a system like that work for them while leaving me stymied?
The answer is that my web site is always a work in progress. One of the last steps in publishing a genealogy is assigning the numbers. It has become a finished product without need of change. When corrections need to be made in future editions, often the numbering has to be modified. In the Five Generation Project, we see this when a child needs to be added to a family. We’ll say the children in a family were originally #236, #237 and #238, and a new child has just been discovered who was born between #237 and #238. In order to make a correction in a subsequent a printing or edition, the numbering system has to be adjusted something like this: #236, #237, #237a and #238. The only other solution would be to renumber the entire publication, which would be confusing when referring to it in source citations, research and such.
It would be the same for me when I add people to the database or the web site. I would need to renumber everyone each time I expanded, which would cause more confusion. If someone printed a page of my research, filed it away and then wanted to check back a year later, he would assume that the numbers still had meaning. I think you see what I am trying to explain, so I’ll stop here.
The reason I use the numbers on my web site, Downs Genealogy.com, is to help avoid confusion. This sample should prove my point:
My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was Joshua Hopkins{#97}, who was born in 1657. I am descended from him through his son, Joshua Hopkins{#95}, born in 1698. Among his sons was my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, Joshua Hopkins{#93}, born in 1725. This Joshua{#93} had a son, Joshua Hopkins{#91}, born in 1753. Joshua{#91} had eight children. Two of his sons were Joshua{#838}, born in 1787, and Giles{#89}, born in 1791. Giles Hopkins{#89} was my great-great-great-grandfather.
So this is my numbering system as it stands today. It is simple and it works for my needs. The problem seems to be that genealogists have become used to certain numbering systems when they read the material published by someone else. Two examples are “Register Style” and NGSQ. But these systems are designed for genealogies starting with a single progenitor and working forward. My research does a lot of working back, so this type of a system would not work.
I could use the Ahnentafel system which is quite neat. If you want to know who someone’s father is, just double their number. However, only parents are given a number and siblings are left out. This makes collateral lines, and multiple descents from a single individual, a nightmare for both the compiler and the reader.
I guess the real issue is if we consider my web site a final published product. If you look at a publication like the Mayflower Society’s Five Generation Project, you notice that it is set up so that the numbering system helps you navigate through the book, up and down generations. They use the Register System of numbering, but why does a system like that work for them while leaving me stymied?
The answer is that my web site is always a work in progress. One of the last steps in publishing a genealogy is assigning the numbers. It has become a finished product without need of change. When corrections need to be made in future editions, often the numbering has to be modified. In the Five Generation Project, we see this when a child needs to be added to a family. We’ll say the children in a family were originally #236, #237 and #238, and a new child has just been discovered who was born between #237 and #238. In order to make a correction in a subsequent a printing or edition, the numbering system has to be adjusted something like this: #236, #237, #237a and #238. The only other solution would be to renumber the entire publication, which would be confusing when referring to it in source citations, research and such.
It would be the same for me when I add people to the database or the web site. I would need to renumber everyone each time I expanded, which would cause more confusion. If someone printed a page of my research, filed it away and then wanted to check back a year later, he would assume that the numbers still had meaning. I think you see what I am trying to explain, so I’ll stop here.
Even though my site is a published work, it can’t be considered finished since I am constantly updating. It is for these reasons that a standard genealogical numbering system can’t be employed. Perhaps someday, if I publish a book, I will be able to use a better numbering system.
"None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers."
Congressman David A. Stockman
On the US Budget, 1981
Bill Downs
DownsGenealogy.com
posted by Bill | 9:51 AM
|
0 comments
