Document / citation checklist?

Yes, I think a checklist would be useful.

I found the following project:

Civil Registry and Church Records around the World
https://www.geni.com/projects/Civil-Registry-and-Church-Records-aro...

I've just added New Zealand.

Checklists are a common feature of many desktop programs. They can be very extensive and are often tailored to the individual.

I checked the program I use (Legacy) to see what it would suggest for a random ancestor. I choose a man who lived 1773-1835 because I happened to be looking at him earlier this afternoon.

I get 78 preliminary survey sources and 220 suggested sources, most of them tailored to this time and place.

And that's not all. It also shows me whether each one is online, repositories where it can be found, and a formatted citation.

Then, I can choose whether to ignore it or put it on my to do list, and an option to mark it as done.

This is the kind of thing that could become very elaborate.

Indeed !

I was thinking of something simple but easily overlooked, and without repositories. Part of a due diligence for “reasonably exhaustive search.”

After watching the video on citations I despair on how the research paper can be slimmed down to a few pixels ...

"Reasonably exhaustive search" is still pretty extensive. It includes making a search for available records.

One easy trick I use is to look up specific places in two good databases of sources:

Family History Research Wiki
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Main_Page

U.S. Genealogy Records Directory
https://ldsgenealogy.com/dir/

Should a "Reasonably exhaustive search" also include all the webtrees on the internet? Blogs etc?

This is new to me https://ldsgenealogy.com/dir/ good site

I really suggest watching this https://www.rootstech.org/video/source-citations-the-good-the-bad-a... as Leanne's question is addressed.

I always do a general internet search, but I immediately discard trees that are based on other trees, already known info from the usual usually reliable sources that I'm already citing, and "empty" trees that seem to be based on nothing. Blogs are great if they give interesting info, but they need to be cited correctly as to reliability of the info. There are some excellent sites out there like WitneyGen and the Sprague database, but many are worthless.

Web trees.

My answer is that the scope of a reasonably exhaustive research changes depending on what you're researching.

This was brought home to me by a piece I saw about whether a reasonably exhaustive includes DNA. (Answer: it depends.)

When you're searching, you want to get all the primary sources. Things like vital records, deeds, wills, censuses, military records, and civil and criminal cases.

You also want to look at all the standard secondary sources for the family and area that might contain other info. Things like published genealogies, county histories, lineage society applications, and research projects like the Great Migration Project.

When you're looking for secondary sources what you're really doing is looking to see if someone else has found other info. Maybe it would be something you missed because you didn't look in the right area. Or maybe it would be something not ever published, like a Bible record or personal memoirs.

So yes. I would think you'd normally check the major databases. My desktop program recommends 14 of the major "Lineage Linked Databases", including Geni, MyHeritage, FamilySearch, Wikitree, Ancestry, WeRelate, and Rootsweb.

But remember, this is all contextual. Web trees are good for scoping out your research but only if they might have good info. Great for 18th century Virginia, but if you're doing medieval research they're a snare for the innocent.

This need to be categorized according to the trustworthiness of the source. We should always look for primary sources first (you could use secondary sources like FamilySearch to find the data in primary sources, but you should always cite the primary source).

Possible records you should look at first are:
Churchbooks
Cencuses
Inheritance
Probate
Court proceedings
Emigration/Imigration
Military records
Maritime records of seamen
In the middle ages: diplomas
Taxation, both in the middle ages and in the modern times
Archives like School records, vaccination, Kindergarden.

When all of these archives with primary information are sought through, then you could start using the secondary and tertiary sources like Webtrees ofcource knowing about the untrustworthiness in them.

A small quibble -- you want to get to primary sources but that doesn't always mean you start there.

You start where you are. For example, you don't start by checking the Kentucky census if you don't yet know your ancestor lived there. That might be something you discover first through a secondary source.

There is a difference between a research strategy and the citations you end up using.

Ofcourse, I start at a secondary source often to, but only to find a primary source. But what I do and what a beginner do is two different things. I didn't interpret what Erica said in her introduction to this discussion that it was just for beginners. In fact I interpreted it to be something what experienced genealogists did like I think she is.

If I should guide a beginner I would tell the person to start talking about their family history with their elders in the family and get the details of their knowledge before it is to late.

Remi, your checklist is exactly what I was thinking of, made into a form.

For instance we’ve discussed that Church Records In the US are not as easily accessible as in Europe, so I tend not to look for them. But I found a minister’s name in the a marriage return, so that might give me a lead to the church, maybe there’s a publication, etc.

Another example is I was worrying why I couldn’t find an ancestor born 1880 until the 1900 Census when married, forgetting that the 1890 Census got burnt up, and that she was born in 1880 after her birth family was enumerated ... a check list would have saved a minor heart attack. :)

Don't forget to add newspapers as part of the checklist. FindMyPast, NewspaperArchive, Trove (Aus), PapersPast (NZ), just to name a few.

Part of what I was thinking a checklist could be used for is an answer to “reasonably exhaustive search” when peer evaluated (?). With an explanation such as “US 1890 Census burnt” for those who may not know specifics like that but could otherwise be perfectly well qualified to say good enough or needs more work.

I was afraid of that. I hope we don't go that direction. A basic checklist of standard sources does not fulfill the requirements of a reasonably exhaustive search.

OK.

1. Wouldn't it be a step on the way?

2. What criteria would?

(that's why this is called a workshop: to understand and "work through" what is meant by the terminology, and somehow try to apply it to the Geni environment).

Yes, it would be a step on the way but let's review the video link posted on the project page:
https://youtu.be/TG_fJMCFmt4

A reasonably exhaustive search:

1. Assumes examination of a wide range of high quality sources, emphasizing original records.

2. Minimizes the probability that undiscovered evidence will overturn too hasty a conclusion.

You can't generalize about a reasonably exhaustive search without knowing what records exist. Every place and period has its own sources.

That's why I posted the messages above. I gave an example from my desktop program where it suggests 220 sources for a particular ancestor. Then, I posted two links that make it easy to look up record sets by location.

I have the impression that there are two very common misunderstandings about a reasonably exhaustive search.

One, many people emphasize the word "reasonable" and think that's an "out". It would be too much work to search a lot of sources or the sources aren't online, so that wouldn't be reasonable.

But, "reasonable" in this context has more to do with whether it is reasonable to think the source might contain relevant information. If your ancestor lived in Oklahoma, you don't need to search Maine. That is, not unless you have some reason to think that ancestor might have come from New England.

Two, many people think about a search as being a general search for any info about an ancestor.

But, in the context of a reasonably exhaustive search you are looking for answers to specific questions. For example, when and where was the ancestor born? A reasonably exhaustive search for that information would be different from a reasonably exhaustive search for whether that ancestor served in the Civil War.

If you like Crista Cowan, here she is talking about genealogy source checklists:
https://youtu.be/AxWoqfpuDy4

She creates her own. And the first thing she does is do a search to find what records exist ;)

She shows the US template she uses (a spreadsheet) and talks about how she uses it.

What I like about Remi's list is that it was categories to search, not specific repositories, as those are, of course, variable for time and place.

Turn it around to questions.

For a "reasonably exhaustive search in building a Geni profile life story", have you checked

.... Churchbooks
Cencuses
Inheritance
Probate
Court proceedings ...

I'm not seeing everyone turning themselves into ACG's here ...

I think that would be a fair way of pitching it. My objection is turning it into criteria for determining whether it merits "GPS designation".

I would change the word 'search' to 'research', because that is what I do when I go through the different primary sources for information about a person/family. I'm not searching for the information, I'm researching for it.

A search sound like searching an online source, while researching sounds more like reading a book. The primary sources are almost only in bookform or scanned pages from a book. A searchable database of a census or events from a churchbook will always be a secondary source compared to reading the original which is a primary source.

Yes, good distinction. Research versus search: and the GPS says “search.”

You can’t search until you’ve researched, just like you can’t footnote facts for a citation until you have text to footnote (a facts biography).

It's hard to wrap my mind around the distinction. Isn't this just playing with different ways of saying almost the same thing?

GPS says "a reasonably exhaustive search". It could just as easily say "conducted reasonably exhaustive research".

The two ideas are not exactly the same but they are close. As I research a line I am searching for information. It's not possible to separate the two. If you are doing one, you are doing the other at the same time.

It is just a tiny bit clearer to say "reasonably exhaustive search" because the point is to tie this part of the GPS to a specific piece of information. You might not have conducted reasonably exhaustive research for an ancestor yet, but you might indeed have conducted a reasonably exhaustive search for a particular type of information,

For example, you might have searched or researched marriage records but not yet finished searching for records of military service. The GPS wants you to notice that you have conducted a reasonably exhaustive search for one piece of information so you're ready to draw a conclusion about it. But that's not the same as having finished your research on that ancestor.

So I’m trying to think of ways to apply the principles of the GPS to the use of Geni software. A research paper would use the charting aspect of Geni & not so much the overview, I expect, or the other components such as document repository.

If the GPS wants to ensure that you’ve remembered to search for military service then a checklist would be useful, wouldn’t it?

Justin, I don't think the highly educated persons doing their research papers for their degrees would like that you called their work for a search while doing their search papers :-)

Nor do I think the "searchers" for the cure for cancer would like that you called what they are doing for searching ;-)

Remi, I don't know why they'd be distressed. Researchers searching for a cure for cancer. How else would they think of it?