[APG Public List] SourceCitation better link version 2
wilssearch at me.com
Thu Jun 10 11:56:29 MDT 2010
Craig - your objects are so noted. But in my defense: I am just
starting my "professional" genealogical education. I know how to do
the research (mostly - some I have not needed to try yet as it does
not apply to my family), I know how to fill in a family group sheet.
But the in-depth stuff is new to me - I can write a legally
sufficient Date of Birth Determination for the SSA, but can i write a
great research report or other genealogy report? I do not think so
considering the hard time I have had with understanding the language
used in the BCG standards. Therefore, I think this might be one way
for me to truly understand what is meant by some of the terminology,.
Maybe citations is not the right place, but it is a starting place.
On Jun 10, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Craig Kilby wrote:
Ahh, but Larry. Statistical analysis is wonderful, but just why did
Lancaster County, Virginia (where I happen to live) have a 20% voter
turnout in Tuesday's primary? The rest of the counties both within
this congressional district and others which had much more spirited
races (and I've checked every county) had a 5% turnout (give or take).
Citing my sources for this information is quite another matter. I
personally don't see the need for a discussion group to explain it all
for me. The basic data is to be found at the Virginia State Board of
Elections. Granted, perhaps the VBE has their data screwed up. If I
were publishing an article, I would verify the results county by
county. But, I'm not writing an article.
And while the turnout in Lancaster County was five times higher than
average/mean/mode/median, the votes fell the same way as the rest of
the district (comprising about 20 counties and several Independent
Cities), stretching from Williamsburg to the suburbs of DC. So, the
sample is not polluted or skewed in any way.
The only thing I can figure out is that Lancaster is one of the few
(maybe the only) counties that routinely purges its voter rolls. Thus,
this tells us that in all the other jurisdictions that only reported a
5% turnout are not purging their rolls, making them rife for mischeif
this fall. (Which leads me to the cynical conclusion that this is the
reason they are not purged in the first place. We'd hate to remove all
those weeds in vacant lots, dead people, cats and dogs from the "every
vote counts" rolls, wouldn't we?)
On Jun 10, 2010, at 12:19 PM, LBoswell wrote:
> ahh, but Craig, you're talking to someone who thinks Statistical
> Analysis is one the most stimulating subjects in the world, Yes,
> ready to scour the depths of source citations like they've never
> been scoured before!
> If I can get a link up that works. Apparently my link gets this
> added to the front for some reason: x-usc
> removing that should take care of it, but here's the link again in
> plain text.
> It's probably better if you type that address into your browser
> rather than just click on it.
> but anyone who has problems, let me know and I'll send out a direct
> Craig, Craig! Wake up, you nodded off reading this! I know it's
> minutia and picky, but so is Stats!
> Larry Boswell BA, PLCGS
> "Experts in Historical & Genealogical Research"
> Listowner, TheoryGen (a non-archived list)
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
> laboswell at rogers.com
More information about the APGPublicList