In Genealogy, footnotes cite the source of information contained in a narrative. They also often contain commentary that didn't fit into the narrative. This tip for genealogists highlights best practices for the Substack footnotes feature.
Yes, "evidence Explained" is essential to citing, correctly, your sources. In addition to formatting your source, EE is a valuable resource of source types, ie WHERE to search for evidence.
I’d like to thank you for your article. When I first started using Substack, I was so excited to see the footnote feature—but until reading your piece, I hadn’t been able to find it again and thought I must have imagined it!
I had begun to think I had only dreamed the functionality into existence, and as a result, I’ve continued using Blogger as my main platform—broken as it is. But now that I’ve rediscovered this feature, I can see myself shifting more fully to Substack.
My Marginalia Notes and thoughts while reading:
When I write family history, I see it as a kind of layering process. Each article becomes a foundation—or even just a seed—for another, as-yet-unimagined future piece.
With that in mind, I always try to include sources, and recently I’ve started adding explanations for each citation. This is partly for my future self, who may not remember the reasoning behind the line drawn between evidence and the fact it supports. That habit has become especially important as I extrapolate further from simple one-to-one source-to-claim correlations.
Audience matters, and it’s always shifting. Something written for an elderly aunt today might find its way into the hands of her granddaughter tomorrow—someone who may well question the reliability of what I’ve written if there are no sources attached.
Working on digital platforms like WikiTree, Blogger, and now Substack has changed how I present my references. For example, I used to follow this format:
Pennsylvania (who), Death Certificates (what), 1919, section 4001–4150, certificate stamped 6355 (wherein), Tony Brasile (what again), 18 January 1917 (when)
But I now find this rearrangement much more effective:
Tony Brasile (what again), 18 January 1917 (when), Pennsylvania (who), Death Certificates (what), 1919, section 4001–4150, certificate stamped 6355 (wherein) [Explanation: confirms Tony Brasile’s death date]
This format works better for the disinterested or time-poor reader who might quickly scan down the page, reading only the first few words of a reference.
It’s not pure Evidence Explained, but it aims to include all the necessary elements of a good citation—while remaining functional and readable in a digital context.
I like your rearrangement and "Explanation." It gets the job done and is more suited to your audience. You mention that you "may not remember the reasoning..." Sometimes the reasoning is complicated and requires a case study or a proof argument. A little secret -- I've used my case studies and proof arguments as sources at FamilySearch.
I have to admit I've been a bit lax about using footnotes here on Substack, as I wanted to concentrate on using my time for storytelling. If I had time I've added endnotes. But in my professional life I used hyperlinks a lot to take people directly to the source. You don't mention that, is there a reason?
When the record is available online, I'm using hyperlinks after the first level of the footnote which describes the source. I agree that hyperlinks make it easier for our readers, but I think the first level still needs to be there in case the hyperlinks no longer work. (The Italian archives re-did their website, and all my earlier links to their records no longer work.)
I agree that footnotes are important (as you can tell if you have read anything I have written) but, on Substack, I tend towards a less informal use of them. When I include sources in footnotes they won't necessarily have the 'right' things italicised or the 'right' punctuation in the 'right' place as per academic convention and you certainly won't find an obid. or an op. cited anywhere. My focus is predominantly on saying enough to enable a reader to follow-up and check the veracity of what I have written if they want to. I like that it is so easy to add footnotes on Substack and have them appear at the end of the article. They can be easily ignored by anyone who is not interested in reading them.
I like to include sources as footnotes, which is one of the things that drew me to Substack. It's so easy and quick to add a footnote. Readers who are not interested in the sources, could easily skip over them. I'm mostly writing my stories so they are available after I'm gone. Including the sources makes it possible for my descendants to verify my work.
One of the criticisms levelled at genealogists by academic historians is the lack of references and sources. Some go on from there to make assertions and even conclusions. Really we should use footnotes/references even when the evidence is partial, circumstantial, or inconclusive. The average reader can skip over them but for your integrity and future researchers they are invaluable.
Great post Deborah and I am going to be a bit controversial here and suggest that the inclusion of footnotes depends on your audience. I am waiting for the big gasp from everyone, but hear me out. If I am writing about an ancestor that will only be read by another family member then I don't think that my Aunt is necessarily interested in all the extra citations, in her eyes they will only clutter the page - having said that the citations and notes are added to my copy as a reference of course. However if I was doing some research for a 3rd party, then of course, footnotes and citations are essential in the document produced. If that makes sense
Yes, "evidence Explained" is essential to citing, correctly, your sources. In addition to formatting your source, EE is a valuable resource of source types, ie WHERE to search for evidence.
I’d like to thank you for your article. When I first started using Substack, I was so excited to see the footnote feature—but until reading your piece, I hadn’t been able to find it again and thought I must have imagined it!
I had begun to think I had only dreamed the functionality into existence, and as a result, I’ve continued using Blogger as my main platform—broken as it is. But now that I’ve rediscovered this feature, I can see myself shifting more fully to Substack.
My Marginalia Notes and thoughts while reading:
When I write family history, I see it as a kind of layering process. Each article becomes a foundation—or even just a seed—for another, as-yet-unimagined future piece.
With that in mind, I always try to include sources, and recently I’ve started adding explanations for each citation. This is partly for my future self, who may not remember the reasoning behind the line drawn between evidence and the fact it supports. That habit has become especially important as I extrapolate further from simple one-to-one source-to-claim correlations.
Audience matters, and it’s always shifting. Something written for an elderly aunt today might find its way into the hands of her granddaughter tomorrow—someone who may well question the reliability of what I’ve written if there are no sources attached.
Working on digital platforms like WikiTree, Blogger, and now Substack has changed how I present my references. For example, I used to follow this format:
Pennsylvania (who), Death Certificates (what), 1919, section 4001–4150, certificate stamped 6355 (wherein), Tony Brasile (what again), 18 January 1917 (when)
But I now find this rearrangement much more effective:
Tony Brasile (what again), 18 January 1917 (when), Pennsylvania (who), Death Certificates (what), 1919, section 4001–4150, certificate stamped 6355 (wherein) [Explanation: confirms Tony Brasile’s death date]
This format works better for the disinterested or time-poor reader who might quickly scan down the page, reading only the first few words of a reference.
It’s not pure Evidence Explained, but it aims to include all the necessary elements of a good citation—while remaining functional and readable in a digital context.
I like your rearrangement and "Explanation." It gets the job done and is more suited to your audience. You mention that you "may not remember the reasoning..." Sometimes the reasoning is complicated and requires a case study or a proof argument. A little secret -- I've used my case studies and proof arguments as sources at FamilySearch.
I have to admit I've been a bit lax about using footnotes here on Substack, as I wanted to concentrate on using my time for storytelling. If I had time I've added endnotes. But in my professional life I used hyperlinks a lot to take people directly to the source. You don't mention that, is there a reason?
When the record is available online, I'm using hyperlinks after the first level of the footnote which describes the source. I agree that hyperlinks make it easier for our readers, but I think the first level still needs to be there in case the hyperlinks no longer work. (The Italian archives re-did their website, and all my earlier links to their records no longer work.)
I agree that footnotes are important (as you can tell if you have read anything I have written) but, on Substack, I tend towards a less informal use of them. When I include sources in footnotes they won't necessarily have the 'right' things italicised or the 'right' punctuation in the 'right' place as per academic convention and you certainly won't find an obid. or an op. cited anywhere. My focus is predominantly on saying enough to enable a reader to follow-up and check the veracity of what I have written if they want to. I like that it is so easy to add footnotes on Substack and have them appear at the end of the article. They can be easily ignored by anyone who is not interested in reading them.
I like to include sources as footnotes, which is one of the things that drew me to Substack. It's so easy and quick to add a footnote. Readers who are not interested in the sources, could easily skip over them. I'm mostly writing my stories so they are available after I'm gone. Including the sources makes it possible for my descendants to verify my work.
One of the criticisms levelled at genealogists by academic historians is the lack of references and sources. Some go on from there to make assertions and even conclusions. Really we should use footnotes/references even when the evidence is partial, circumstantial, or inconclusive. The average reader can skip over them but for your integrity and future researchers they are invaluable.
Great post Deborah and I am going to be a bit controversial here and suggest that the inclusion of footnotes depends on your audience. I am waiting for the big gasp from everyone, but hear me out. If I am writing about an ancestor that will only be read by another family member then I don't think that my Aunt is necessarily interested in all the extra citations, in her eyes they will only clutter the page - having said that the citations and notes are added to my copy as a reference of course. However if I was doing some research for a 3rd party, then of course, footnotes and citations are essential in the document produced. If that makes sense