J. Craig Canada Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:21
The software I use to maintain my data (Legacy) allows me to assign numbers 0 through 4 for reliability of a citation and defines 0 as "undecided".

I generally assign 4 to source documents or facsimiles: census records, marriage licenses, death certificates, obituaries.

If a FamilySearch International Genealogical Index record has a scan of a death certificate I mark the citation as "verified" and assign a reliability of 4. With no scan of the document I assign a 3.

I generally assign a reliability of 2 to FamilySearch Pedigree Resource Files and Ancestry Files and RootsWeb or other unsourced and uncited online genealogies ... or even 1 if the data looks flakey. I do not consider a list of sources at the end of the genealogy to be "cited". Cited means each item of data is sourced.

There's also how I'm feeling at the time, the mood I'm in, and if I remember to set a reliability when I create the citation.

If it has a 4 you can generally assume I have seen a reliable source document, or a scan of one.

I generally give Find-A-Grave a reliability of 2 or 3, about the same as a FamilySearch Pedigree Resource File, unless they include an obituary with the name and date of the newspaper or other publication. Frankly, some of the stuff on Find-A-Grave is blithering nonsense.

As with the FamilySearch International Genealogical Index, if they provide a scan of the document I will give it a reliability of 4.

J. Craig Canada Sunday, 23 April 2017 10:23
Legacy provides the following guidelines for assigning reliability:
0 - have not decided yet
1 - marginal evidence
2 - probable conclusion
3 - almost certain conclusion
4 - convincing evidence

J. Craig Canada Wednesday, 8 March 2017 14:01
What does this have to do with anyone in my data? Nothing that I can see.

But thanks anyway.

J. Craig Canada Saturday, 17 December 2016 08:00
Do you have a source for the "Lambert" part? I mean besides some wiki entry that cites a FamilySearch "contribution" for a source?

Marjorie Lambert was Barbara's husband's mother, wife of Sir James Hoge. So why on earth would she be called Lambert-Hume?

Barbara's mother, wife of Hume, was Marjorie Johnstone. If anything, Barbara would be Johnstone-Hume.

Or Hoge-Hume.

J. Craig Canada Tuesday, 7 June 2016 16:48
Chronicling America: [chroniclingamerica.loc.gov]

Jeff Carter Monday, 13 June 2016 22:12
Fantastic site! The Thomas Carter (1610-1658) who tried to purchase 800 acres "Eastermost branch of Corotoman River" was Colonel John Carter’s brother who arrived with him on the ship “Safety” in 1635. Thomas never actually paid for the land, instead taking a mortgage from his brother. The entire transaction was voided by the Jamestown Court on 10 December 1656 when the court ruled that the rightful heir to the land was John Jackson, nephew of Captain Brocas, whose widow John Carter had married.

Jeff Carter Monday, 13 June 2016 22:27
The Thomas Carter who tried to buy 560 acres from George Marsh was also Col. John Carter’s brother and the probable father of Thomas Carter of “Barford” who married Katherine Dale. Thomas Carter did not pay George Marsh for the land because he died before the payment date. At probate, the land was clearly documented as the land Thomas Carter (Deceased) had bought from George Marsh but “Had refused to pay” (because he was dead). The court reverted the land back to George Marsh who then sold it to Col. John Carter (see Lancaster Deed Book # 2, p. 209).

Jeff Carter Monday, 13 June 2016 22:49
The Thomas Carter who patented 220 acres in 1661 was Capt. Thomas Carter, the son of William Carter of Surry. This 220 acres was the Vintner’s Company’s land, part of Epaphroditus Lawson’s holdings that John Carter and Bartholomew Hoskins put together back in the 1640s (Nugent, Vol. 1, pp. 135, 151, 387); and this was a re-patent set up by John Carter. After Capt. Thomas Carter of Surry temporarily moved to Lancaster to serve as Judge, John Carter had the land declared deserted and re-patented it again in 1665 to Edward Carter (Nugent, Vol. 1, p. 480). None of these lands could have been the original Barford plantation.