FamilySearch Wiki talk:WikiProject Utah Experimental County: Difference between revisions

====== 5/9/12 ======

====== 5/16/12 ======

Comments from Jana's email, 5/15  

I know it looks like I did zippo, but actually I gave it some serious thought and ended up doing several things.  

https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Talk:Pulaski_County,_Kentucky  

Do me a favor and read through that page after reading the rest of this epistle..  

My original intention was to come back to the experimental page, do some homework in the way of Utah county content and apply it--though I never got to that step  

In the last meeting, people suggested two things: "do we really want to repeat resources" and "perhaps we should send people to the state page where many alternatives could be taught"  

At first I thought I could avoid repetition by just coding a "rowspan" command in the "Also try" category, but it turns out that when you have to jump between extant and non extant resources the "Also try" category suggestion changes back and forth--negating the use of the "rowspan" command.  

I also realized that when I designed the county table I kept the "Alternative/Also Try Resoures" links SPECIFIC TO THE COUNTY (something I failed to point out to the group). The idea was if no vital rec then to send them to x county church rec section of the county page -----not to a State page where after reading about all the alternatives (including some state-wide sources link which they would tend to click on and go off and search) they would have to remember to come back to the county page to pick up county specific church resources not mentioned on the state page.  

One of the table's strengths was it's UNIQUE presentation for that COUNTY. Even the order of "Also trys" would eventually reflect a deep understanding of the county. (see notes under Pulaski table for why choices were made to illustrate this)  

The biggest grief the table gave me was that it ended up too long, and certainly was too long for a county page. This is because of so many "non extant" year breaks. Utah probably doesn't have so many "non extant" breaks, so maybe it could still work.  

I thought about combining years---not showing ALL the non extant years; but realized idea was not acceptable---showing the non extant years is what made the table priceless in terms of efficiency. For example often Ancestry and Historical Records will entitle their collection "1800-1900", when really there is no coverage for year 1880, 1891, etc and so you are flat out WASTING your time searching those collections for 1880 birth---especially considering all the name variations/transcription errors one has to adjust for and search for in attempting to find an individual.  

So, in the end, I ended up a baffled, confused, zapped soul---in great need of some chocolate ;) .....leaning towards the table belonging on a separate birth records county page because of it's length and having no decent ideas on what to put regarding births on the county page.  

====== Minutes summary 5/16 ======