RootsMagic 4 Unwrapped – Citation Quality

Another quicky while I’m at the BYU genealogy conference.

We all know how important it is to add sources for the information we enter. When adding a source in RootsMagic, we’ve always been able to enter the “quality” of the citation. But it has been limited to “primary”, “secondary”, “questionable”, and “unreliable”. Until now.

Citation Quality

As you can see, RootsMagic 4 now follows approved standards for evidence analysis in an easy to understand format.

To learn more about evaluating your genealogy sources, visit:

And our friend Mark Tucker over at has put together a Genealogy Research Map that covers the full research process (including assessing the quality of a citation). You can download it for free from:

This isn’t the only new source enhancement coming in RootsMagic, but we’re saving the best for later. Stay tuned.

Tags: ,

17 Responses to “RootsMagic 4 Unwrapped – Citation Quality”

  1. Mark Tucker says:

    Way to go Bruce! Now my excitement level has jumped a few notches.

  2. Bruce Buzbee says:

    Thanks Mark. I updated the link in the post to point to the updated map you posted about an hour after I linked to it .

  3. George Dyer says:

    What a great idea to further design the program around accepted genealogical concepts.

  4. Nettie says:

    Thanks Bruce for including the source enhancement, which is going to be a great help and for also referring to Mark’s great research map, which is on my wall above the computer.

  5. William R. Thomas says:

    I am a Family History Consultant. I see that two venders of product are on with inerface to nFS. I didn’t see RootsMagic on the list. I was told when I bought the program it would be there. Will we be able to download from nFS to RootsMagic soon? I do like your product and it was recomended by Renea Zumora. Thanks Bill Thomas

  6. Romer says:


    Looks great! I’m very pleased that you’re addressing these types of improved source-related details.

    Besides Mark Tucker, I also hope you’ve been in contact with Elizabeth Shown Mills during RM 4.0 development! I’m very eager to see what other source enhancements might be up your sleeve.


  7. Bruce Buzbee says:


    Yes, RootsMagic will have full integration support with New FamilySearch.

  8. Susan Michael says:

    This is fantastic. I am currently working on my certification portfolio and these additions are just what I need!!!

    Hopefully, RM4 will be unveiled and available for purchase at FGS in a few weeks……

  9. John James says:

    Yes, it can’t be far away now, I am down to checking every couple of hours in expectation of the first major feature peek and it’s just not working )~:

  10. Shelia Hunt says:

    Thanks, Bruce! I’m really pleased to see all these exciting new features coming in the new version of RootsMagic, which is already the best genealogy software on the market. I’m sure glad I changed to your software years ago.

  11. Dave Bird says:

    Hi Bruce. As the citation quality screen is so different from the existing screen, what happens to the current entries (primary, secondary, etc) when I upgrade? I very much like RM and am looking forward to the upgrade.

  12. gsinbcmo says:

    Alright, enough already. When’s it coming?

  13. GentleGeek says:

    One the screen image you showed, there is a misspelling..
    “Primary: This information was provided by somone with firsthand knowledge…”


  14. Bob Cole says:

    The categories under “Evidence” for citation quality (especially “negative”) seem to not fit well. Instead of Direct, Indirect & Negative, I think Conclusive, Substantive, and Supportive would show better they quality of the particular type of evidence for the citation. Just a thought. Thanks.

  15. Laura Beeman says:

    Hi Bob,

    RM4 is following the guidelines of the Board of Certified Genealogists for citation qualities.

    This web page has helped me understand how they work.


  16. Jeff Hodge says:

    I went to the BCG site through the link you provided. Under their paragraph “Direct or Indirect Evidence” they don’t discuss negative evidence. Should the definition you are using be something like “Refutes the statement” rather than “the source is missing information”?