To Jean-Guy Moi The problem is that there are 3 locations (born, died, married) and locations are much longer than dates, so there would not be room for locations in the smaller boxes. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Guy Moi via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:48 AM Subject: [BK] Ancestor fan chart > Hi! > > Would it be possible to print in the Ancestor fan chart the place where an > event took place. > > For exemple : > > m. Ste-Monique, Nicolet, 16-07-1682 > > We could also chose any of the event in the add even list > -- > > *Jean-Guy Périard*GJGP inc. > 450-646-5258 > [email protected] > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message

Hi! Would it be possible to print in the Ancestor fan chart the place where an event took place. For exemple : m. Ste-Monique, Nicolet, 16-07-1682 We could also chose any of the event in the add even list -- *Jean-Guy Périard*GJGP inc. 450-646-5258 [email protected]

Would it be possible to have a line - probably pale, such as yellow - from each "blob" to its parents on the "rings" ancestor chart? Optional, of course! (With perhaps purple instead where only one parent is recorded?) I'm finding the ring chart an excellent guide to where I'm missing ancestors. (I've completed ring 5 [32 blobs], but am missing 16 out of 64 in ring 6.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times, 3-9 July 2010

Hi Paul, Excellent comment and I do fully agree! Btw, that's where DNA genealogy comes along as the gold standard in genealogy. Proofing or falsifying your family research through DNA and overcoming some dead ends is so fulfilling. It doesn't mean we throw away our research as for me personally my father who adopted me is my family as well (reminds me to enter his part of the family on WT as well). WT is right now one of the best places to combine paper trail (traditional) and DNA genealogy in their database with useful reports of proven by DNA relationships. I know many genealogists stay away from DNA as it's the big unknown, too complicated to learn something new, afraid of finding out that 20 or more years of research was wasted. But whatever you researched is never wasted, we're all interested in the correct sources proofing our work, right? That includes pointing out why some other leads/sources are incorrect (just take a look at any random Ancestry tree and you will find obvious errors). So see DNA as a powerful tool (actually the most powerful) that adds to your research and not substracts from it. Andreas > On 24 Jul 2015, at 21:05, Paul J. Lareau via <[email protected]> wrote: > > I manually entered a couple of entries to try it out, after reading > their goals and site information, I definitely got the feeling that they > strongly discourage anyone from adding more than a handful of very > carefully documented entries by any one person with that person taking > very proactive position regarding the people they enter. We oldtimers > have always considered the concept of an "absolutely true" and > non-conflicting database as some kind of "gold standard", and the wiki > model does seem appropriate to try to construct it. Several decades ago, > there was also feeling that the LDS model could be used. But the > existing "comparison of conflicting information" method that most > systems use today is probably more useful in the long run. Perhaps > I'm a bit too cynical. but I can't help but believe that the only person > who comes close to "absolute genealogical truth" is the mother, and even > when she is not trying to intentionally hide anything, even she has to > guess every so often! > > Paul J. Lareau > > >> On 7/24/2015 2:42 AM, Bill Webster via wrote: >> Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? >> >> I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. >> >> I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. >> >> Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. >> >> Bill >> >> >> Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

No, there are many people who started and left their profile exactly at 1 (like my relative from the U.S.). 80% of the profiles are connected in one giant tree I think which is the purpose of WT. Besides volunteers are working on connecting the remaining ones like my own. Where do you get such a level of collaborative work? Andreas > On 25 Jul 2015, at 04:03, J. P. Gilliver (John) via <[email protected]> wrote: > > In message <[email protected]>, Andreas West > via <[email protected]> writes: > [] >> Unfortunately you have to have a birth date on every profile you >> upload. As a BK user I have almost all my "old" ancestors recorded >> correctly with the baptism date that was in the church book mentioned >> and mostly there is no birth date mentioned (pre 1795 in Germany). > > That's what's going to stop me bothering with it. > [] >> It now has 10+ million profiles from almost 300k researchers. > [] > So that's about 33 "profiles" per researcher; sounds suspiciously close > to the number of great-great-great-grandparents, assuming a "profile" > means a person - does it? > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's > money." > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Fran, Cumbersome yes but what control are you lacking? Andreas > On 25 Jul 2015, at 01:08, Frances LaChance via <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with Marsha...too cumbersome and lack of control. Rootsweb World Connect much better. > > Fran L > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Jul 24, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Marsha Ensminger via <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've uploaded several batches. >> >> I don't like the way they display the results. WorldConnect at www.rootsweb.com does a much better job with the same input. >> >> I really dislike the way they insist on exact birth and death dates for every individual - the import strips out any other date format that was in the gedcom. I restrict the information I provide to birth, marriage/divorce, death, and census. >> >> Most "matches" are spurious. They propose that my Jane Anne Doe, born in Illinois to named parents, is a match for Jane Marie Doe, born in New Zealand to completely different parents... >> >> But for some reason, it's the currently popular place for people new to genealogy to hunt for relatives. I've had several inquiries. >> >> Posts are permanent. You can't reload a gedcom a year later to reflect additions to your work - have to re-do each indiviual. >> >> >> Marsha L. Ensminger >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Bill Webster via <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 12:42 AM >> Subject: [BK] WikiTree gedcom >> >> >> Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? >> >> I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. >> >> I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. >> >> Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. >> >> Bill >> >> >> Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Marsha, Those things you don't like are necessary to keep the principle of one person = one profile and avoid duplicates all over the database. I agree with you on the DOB part but the matching algorithm needs to check on one date field for birth/baptism and an algorithm needs to be precise to create a match. It usually doesn't work fuzzy like Google and Siri can understand. Hence your Ms Doe is a match. Irregardless of her second Christian name. As to representation it comes to personal taste but remember that World Connect isn't a database where you connect with others and Ancestry has closed down a lot of Rootsweb projects already that didn't bring in money. WorldConnecf might be next to be killed and your tree is gone. Andreas > On 24 Jul 2015, at 22:48, Marsha Ensminger via <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've uploaded several batches. > > I don't like the way they display the results. WorldConnect at www.rootsweb.com does a much better job with the same input. > > I really dislike the way they insist on exact birth and death dates for every individual - the import strips out any other date format that was in the gedcom. I restrict the information I provide to birth, marriage/divorce, death, and census. > > Most "matches" are spurious. They propose that my Jane Anne Doe, born in Illinois to named parents, is a match for Jane Marie Doe, born in New Zealand to completely different parents... > > But for some reason, it's the currently popular place for people new to genealogy to hunt for relatives. I've had several inquiries. > > Posts are permanent. You can't reload a gedcom a year later to reflect additions to your work - have to re-do each indiviual. > > > Marsha L. Ensminger > [email protected] > > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill Webster via <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 12:42 AM > Subject: [BK] WikiTree gedcom > > > Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? > > I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. > > I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. > > Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. > > Bill > > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In message <[email protected]>, Andreas West via <[email protected]> writes: [] >Unfortunately you have to have a birth date on every profile you >upload. As a BK user I have almost all my "old" ancestors recorded >correctly with the baptism date that was in the church book mentioned >and mostly there is no birth date mentioned (pre 1795 in Germany). That's what's going to stop me bothering with it. [] >It now has 10+ million profiles from almost 300k researchers. [] So that's about 33 "profiles" per researcher; sounds suspiciously close to the number of great-great-great-grandparents, assuming a "profile" means a person - does it? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

In addition to Steve here's my view: Having used WikiTree for over 1 year now. It's my ideal place to give all my research a permanent place and share it with the public. Ideal to include scans of evidence like I did for my great Grandfather and his naturalization certificate: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Basso-29 It takes a bit of time indeed to get used to it. Every person can only exist one time in the database so the checking of the merge results is very important. Unfortunately you have to have a birth date on every profile you upload. As a BK user I have almost all my "old" ancestors recorded correctly with the baptism date that was in the church book mentioned and mostly there is no birth date mentioned (pre 1795 in Germany). That's the only weird thing, so I had to edit all my direct line ancestors that I uploaded to WikiTree and gave them an about date of the baptism date as the birth date (best solution to fulfill their requirement). You should start with uploading your direct ancestors first of all (maximum 999 is allowed) and just let them check automatically against the 10 million profiles for matches. If you do nothing, your Gedcom is automatically deleted after 30 days. To take your data into WikiTree, you have to go through the merge process that Steve described. My tip is to start with the first 2-3 generations and their family members first. That way you can build the foundation fast and spend time editing their life stories (which we should know for our parents and grandparents) in the narrative (what Steve describes as the form WT likes). The take over of your branches and export all ancestors and their family from one of your great grandparents. That should keep you busy for a while. You will have minimum one merge now with the grand grandparent you added with the first upload. Continue to do in these batches as it will allow for faster processing of your merge results and the post processing from your side (like taking Gedcom info out of the narrative and adding categories for regional places or WWII veterans etc). It's a great place with a lot of very helpful people. Eg I forgot to change the current last name of my married ancestors and still had their name at birth. Two people saw that error and corrected it for all my ancestors. WT has great privacy rules (check my profile below in the signature for my own detail and that of my half brother who is set for high privacy level). So export always all info and set the privacy for living accordingly to what the people want to show. All dead people's profile should be open so that others can add to them or do changes in case you have an error like me. Don't be afraid of this, you are notified of these changes and you can revert them with one click (like on Wikipedia) but it was never necessary. Try it out please as we need more connected profiles, especially from Europeans as WT is mostly used by U.S. genealogist. Best of all it's free, the permanent place where your research will be available to everyone beyond our depart from this planet. Sharing is caring they say, don't let all your results get lost when you die. Any questions? Happy to answer. It now has 10+ million profiles from almost 300k researchers. Regards, Andreas http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Basso-23 > On 24 Jul 2015, at 16:14, Steve via <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've uploaded 2, so far. > > It takes a few days for them to be checked so that you can complete the import, and I have had no experience of having to merge anybody, yet. > > The down side of WikiTree is the amount of time involved in converting an uploaded person from this http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Maggs-37 to something more like this http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Taylor-22994 for 2 reasons > 1) getting the formatting the way the WikiTree community likes it > 2) doing that makes me re-visit every bit of information for that person in BK, Ancestry and Genes Reunited - I worked on Taylor-22994 for nearly 5 hours and found errors, omissions and new sources of information. > > I am not interested in the DNA testing side of things as I am not sure of the value of it, but I do like having information out on the web as it has led to connections with more than one distant relative. > > Regards > Steve > >> On 24/07/2015 08:42, Bill Webster via wrote: >> Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? >> >> I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. >> >> I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. >> >> Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. >> >> Bill >> >> >> Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> . > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. Bill

I've uploaded several batches. I don't like the way they display the results. WorldConnect at www.rootsweb.com does a much better job with the same input. I really dislike the way they insist on exact birth and death dates for every individual - the import strips out any other date format that was in the gedcom. I restrict the information I provide to birth, marriage/divorce, death, and census. Most "matches" are spurious. They propose that my Jane Anne Doe, born in Illinois to named parents, is a match for Jane Marie Doe, born in New Zealand to completely different parents... But for some reason, it's the currently popular place for people new to genealogy to hunt for relatives. I've had several inquiries. Posts are permanent. You can't reload a gedcom a year later to reflect additions to your work - have to re-do each indiviual. Marsha L. Ensminger [email protected] ________________________________ From: Bill Webster via <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 12:42 AM Subject: [BK] WikiTree gedcom Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. Bill Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I would add that there are 7 levels of privacy, from open as on Basso-29 through to unlisted, for living people. I have a tendency to favour the 2nd lowest level of Public where anybody can see everything, but only the trusted list can edit, with the profile manager controlling the trusted list. My late parents and myself, I have limited to being I am the only one able to edit. But, I wouldn't upload everything as I have some information on people that, even though they are no longer with us, would affect people who are living and who gave me the information (not in the public domain) in confidence and it is not possible, as far as I can see, to redact part of information about a person, plus cloud security is a very worrying concept to me. But, I do think that I am going to continue with it. Oh, and there is a community for all sorts of questions to do with genealogy and WikiTree Cheers Steve On 24/07/2015 14:48, Andreas West wrote: > In addition to Steve here's my view: > > Having used WikiTree for over 1 year now. It's my ideal place to give all my research a permanent place and share it with the public. > > Ideal to include scans of evidence like I did for my great Grandfather and his naturalization certificate: > > http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Basso-29 > > It takes a bit of time indeed to get used to it. Every person can only exist one time in the database so the checking of the merge results is very important. > > Unfortunately you have to have a birth date on every profile you upload. As a BK user I have almost all my "old" ancestors recorded correctly with the baptism date that was in the church book mentioned and mostly there is no birth date mentioned (pre 1795 in Germany). That's the only weird thing, so I had to edit all my direct line ancestors that I uploaded to WikiTree and gave them an about date of the baptism date as the birth date (best solution to fulfill their requirement). > > You should start with uploading your direct ancestors first of all (maximum 999 is allowed) and just let them check automatically against the 10 million profiles for matches. > > If you do nothing, your Gedcom is automatically deleted after 30 days. To take your data into WikiTree, you have to go through the merge process that Steve described. > > My tip is to start with the first 2-3 generations and their family members first. That way you can build the foundation fast and spend time editing their life stories (which we should know for our parents and grandparents) in the narrative (what Steve describes as the form WT likes). > > The take over of your branches and export all ancestors and their family from one of your great grandparents. That should keep you busy for a while. You will have minimum one merge now with the grand grandparent you added with the first upload. > > Continue to do in these batches as it will allow for faster processing of your merge results and the post processing from your side (like taking Gedcom info out of the narrative and adding categories for regional places or WWII veterans etc). > > It's a great place with a lot of very helpful people. Eg I forgot to change the current last name of my married ancestors and still had their name at birth. Two people saw that error and corrected it for all my ancestors. > > WT has great privacy rules (check my profile below in the signature for my own detail and that of my half brother who is set for high privacy level). So export always all info and set the privacy for living accordingly to what the people want to show. All dead people's profile should be open so that others can add to them or do changes in case you have an error like me. Don't be afraid of this, you are notified of these changes and you can revert them with one click (like on Wikipedia) but it was never necessary. > > Try it out please as we need more connected profiles, especially from Europeans as WT is mostly used by U.S. genealogist. > > Best of all it's free, the permanent place where your research will be available to everyone beyond our depart from this planet. Sharing is caring they say, don't let all your results get lost when you die. > > Any questions? Happy to answer. > > It now has 10+ million profiles from almost 300k researchers. > > > Regards, > > Andreas > > http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Basso-23 > > > > On 24 Jul 2015, at 16:14, Steve via <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> I've uploaded 2, so far. >> >> It takes a few days for them to be checked so that you can complete the import, and I have had no experience of having to merge anybody, yet. >> >> The down side of WikiTree is the amount of time involved in converting an uploaded person from this http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Maggs-37 to something more like this http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Taylor-22994 for 2 reasons >> 1) getting the formatting the way the WikiTree community likes it >> 2) doing that makes me re-visit every bit of information for that person in BK, Ancestry and Genes Reunited - I worked on Taylor-22994 for nearly 5 hours and found errors, omissions and new sources of information. >> >> I am not interested in the DNA testing side of things as I am not sure of the value of it, but I do like having information out on the web as it has led to connections with more than one distant relative. >> >> Regards >> Steve >> >> On 24/07/2015 08:42, Bill Webster via wrote: >>> Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? >>> >>> I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. >>> >>> I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. >>> >>> Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> . >>> >> >> Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I agree with Marsha...too cumbersome and lack of control. Rootsweb World Connect much better. Fran L Sent from my iPad > On Jul 24, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Marsha Ensminger via <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've uploaded several batches. > > I don't like the way they display the results. WorldConnect at www.rootsweb.com does a much better job with the same input. > > I really dislike the way they insist on exact birth and death dates for every individual - the import strips out any other date format that was in the gedcom. I restrict the information I provide to birth, marriage/divorce, death, and census. > > Most "matches" are spurious. They propose that my Jane Anne Doe, born in Illinois to named parents, is a match for Jane Marie Doe, born in New Zealand to completely different parents... > > But for some reason, it's the currently popular place for people new to genealogy to hunt for relatives. I've had several inquiries. > > Posts are permanent. You can't reload a gedcom a year later to reflect additions to your work - have to re-do each indiviual. > > > Marsha L. Ensminger > [email protected] > > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill Webster via <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 12:42 AM > Subject: [BK] WikiTree gedcom > > > Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? > > I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. > > I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. > > Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. > > Bill > > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:42:01 +1000, Bill Webster via <[email protected]> wrote: >Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? > >I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. > >I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. > >Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. > I believe most Norwegian use http://www.norwaydna.no/en/ -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

I've uploaded 2, so far. It takes a few days for them to be checked so that you can complete the import, and I have had no experience of having to merge anybody, yet. The down side of WikiTree is the amount of time involved in converting an uploaded person from this http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Maggs-37 to something more like this http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Taylor-22994 for 2 reasons 1) getting the formatting the way the WikiTree community likes it 2) doing that makes me re-visit every bit of information for that person in BK, Ancestry and Genes Reunited - I worked on Taylor-22994 for nearly 5 hours and found errors, omissions and new sources of information. I am not interested in the DNA testing side of things as I am not sure of the value of it, but I do like having information out on the web as it has led to connections with more than one distant relative. Regards Steve On 24/07/2015 08:42, Bill Webster via wrote: > Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? > > I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. > > I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. > > Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. > > Bill > > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > . >

To Bob Dunlop Currently there is not any type of global search and change for items on the Todo List. I might be able to do something like that in the future. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Dunlop via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 3:15 PM Subject: [BK] To Do Lists >I was wondering if anyone has an easy way to clean up or clear up To Do > lists. In my case, I have used a To Do List to create a report that shows > a group of people that have information at a Family History Centre. > > I use the Status as Plan, a Description of FHC, a Type as Research and the > Priority as Medium. > > When I have the information I need, I must go through each person and > change the status to Completed or Delete the item. > > Is there a 'routine' that allows one to look at the database where there > is > a To Do flag and then either change the status or delete it? If not, > would > this be a valuable process to have included on an update or next release? > > Thanks for your input and help, > Bob > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

I manually entered a couple of entries to try it out, after reading their goals and site information, I definitely got the feeling that they strongly discourage anyone from adding more than a handful of very carefully documented entries by any one person with that person taking very proactive position regarding the people they enter. We oldtimers have always considered the concept of an "absolutely true" and non-conflicting database as some kind of "gold standard", and the wiki model does seem appropriate to try to construct it. Several decades ago, there was also feeling that the LDS model could be used. But the existing "comparison of conflicting information" method that most systems use today is probably more useful in the long run. Perhaps I'm a bit too cynical. but I can't help but believe that the only person who comes close to "absolute genealogical truth" is the mother, and even when she is not trying to intentionally hide anything, even she has to guess every so often! Paul J. Lareau On 7/24/2015 2:42 AM, Bill Webster via wrote: > Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? > > I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. > > I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. > > Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. > > Bill > > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

To Gilles & John - I thank both of you for the prompt and on-target response to my question.  As a veteran BK user, I'm embarrassed that I didn't figure that out myself, but that's the value of this excellent forum.  Problem solved!  Thank you!! Rennie Brown From: Gilles Paquette via <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [BK] Marriage & Family Events in Group Sheets   When on the Group Sheets, go to the *Fields to include* tab.  In the left   window under *Events available*, highlight the vent you need, then press the   Add button and this event will then print on you Group Sheet.  You can add   as many events as you need or remove the ones you don't need.   The order in which the events are displayed in the right window under *This   is the list of events to print* is not important.  They will be printed in   the same order as what you have set up on the Edit screen.   Gilles Paquette   Le 2015-07-23 12:53, R L Brown via a ecrit : I use BK's Group Sheets a lot, and I've always been disappointed that the marri age date/place/etc and divorce information has not shown up on them.  So I was happy to see the recent BK 7.1.1 update, which appeared to have a fix for this.   But after installing the update, I've found no difference.  The marriage info rmation still isn't showing up. I see nothing in the settings that should affect this.  I've made minor unrelat ed changes to the options just to save the settings after the update, but still no marriage information shows up on the Group Sheets. Am I missing something?  What marriage or family events are supposed to be show ing in Group Sheets, as implied by the 7.1.1 changes?  And how can I make them show up for me? Rennie BrownWest Union, WV =======================    We're all in this togeth er [1]www.doddridgecountyroots.com Remember me in the family tree,My name, my days, my strife;Then I'll ride upon the wings of timeAnd live an endless life.------------------------------------- -- Remember - Use the Archives at [2]http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bi n/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [3][email protected] m with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message References   1. http://www.doddridgecountyroots.com/   2. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search   3. mailto:[email protected] Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 21:07:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" <[email protected]> wrote: >In message ><[email protected]>, R L >Brown via <[email protected]> writes: >>My default BK date format is Jun-24-1954.  My method of entry is >>6/24/1954, then TAB, which BK then converts to the desired format.  >>This is a very easy and efficient method. > >I have my dates in 24-Jun-1954 format; I would enter 24061954, which BK >would convert into 24-Jun-1954. Actually, I'd enter 240654; for dates >within a certain range corresponding to most of the 20th century, you >only need a two-digit year. (I think you can change the endpoints >somewhere.) I have found certain anomalies - see below. > >If I know only the month and year, I enter the numerical month, slash, >two spaces, slash, 4-digit year, then TAB.  For example, 6/  /1954, >then TAB.  BK will then convert that to the standard format Jun-  >-1954.  The > >I would enter that as __061954 (then tab). (I've found the six-character >version less tolerant - I think - of incomplete dates; I _think_ I could >enter that as __0654, but there are certainly combinations the >six-character form won't decode but the eight-character one will.) >[] > From: Andrew Jackett via <[email protected]> > >[] >I enter my dates into BK7 databases using Type 7 (from the manual) i.e. >15-JUN-1954 with European date input. > >(I have the similar one but with only the first letter of the month >capitalized.) > >The entering of most dates is self-explanatory, but I’m not sure how >to enter an incomplete date when only month and year are known... > >Do I enter as ?-JUN-1954 or as __-JUN-1954 or as JUN-1954 ? > >The middle one certainly works, though __061954 - which will get >converted into your chosen format - is easier. > >...and what about dates to indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th quarters of a >registration year? ... > >Do I enter as (2) 1954 or as (2)-1954 to indicate registered in >Apr-May-Jun of 1954 ? > >There has been a discussion of this - I forget whether it was here or on >soc.genealogy.britain; I think it was here - in the last few months. The >conclusion was, unfortunately, that BK doesn't _have_ a way of >indicating quarters. Yes, I think it was here, because we then had a >discussion on how people choose to record such dates. I put "Q2" into >the event note; others have different means. Unfortunately this is one >case where the wildcard _doesn't_ work; you'd think, for fourth quarter >(months 10, 11, and 12), that __1_1954 would work, but BK interprets >that as January. > >As each of these options gets a notice marked in red as ‘Invalid date’ >I am none the wiser as to which is the preferred method of expression in >BK.  Does it matter? > >We've also had a discussion of that. Unfortunately, BK indicates both a >wrongly-formatted date and an incomplete one (one with _s in it) in red >as "Invalid", at the point of entry. If it has converted what you >entered into your preferred format (and correctly), then it is OK and BK >will use it for calculations if it can. > >Thank you for reading this.  Please help me someone. > >I hope we have a bit. > But remember that some use of 00 and XX and -- and __ are no good idea when making gedcom and give that to other friends that do no have BK -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

In message <[email protected]>, R L Brown via <[email protected]> writes: >My default BK date format is Jun-24-1954.  My method of entry is >6/24/1954, then TAB, which BK then converts to the desired format.  >This is a very easy and efficient method. I have my dates in 24-Jun-1954 format; I would enter 24061954, which BK would convert into 24-Jun-1954. Actually, I'd enter 240654; for dates within a certain range corresponding to most of the 20th century, you only need a two-digit year. (I think you can change the endpoints somewhere.) I have found certain anomalies - see below. If I know only the month and year, I enter the numerical month, slash, two spaces, slash, 4-digit year, then TAB.  For example, 6/  /1954, then TAB.  BK will then convert that to the standard format Jun-  -1954.  The I would enter that as __061954 (then tab). (I've found the six-character version less tolerant - I think - of incomplete dates; I _think_ I could enter that as __0654, but there are certainly combinations the six-character form won't decode but the eight-character one will.) [] From: Andrew Jackett via <[email protected]> [] I enter my dates into BK7 databases using Type 7 (from the manual) i.e. 15-JUN-1954 with European date input. (I have the similar one but with only the first letter of the month capitalized.) The entering of most dates is self-explanatory, but I’m not sure how to enter an incomplete date when only month and year are known... Do I enter as ?-JUN-1954 or as __-JUN-1954 or as JUN-1954 ? The middle one certainly works, though __061954 - which will get converted into your chosen format - is easier. ...and what about dates to indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th quarters of a registration year? ... Do I enter as (2) 1954 or as (2)-1954 to indicate registered in Apr-May-Jun of 1954 ? There has been a discussion of this - I forget whether it was here or on soc.genealogy.britain; I think it was here - in the last few months. The conclusion was, unfortunately, that BK doesn't _have_ a way of indicating quarters. Yes, I think it was here, because we then had a discussion on how people choose to record such dates. I put "Q2" into the event note; others have different means. Unfortunately this is one case where the wildcard _doesn't_ work; you'd think, for fourth quarter (months 10, 11, and 12), that __1_1954 would work, but BK interprets that as January. As each of these options gets a notice marked in red as ‘Invalid date’ I am none the wiser as to which is the preferred method of expression in BK.  Does it matter? We've also had a discussion of that. Unfortunately, BK indicates both a wrongly-formatted date and an incomplete one (one with _s in it) in red as "Invalid", at the point of entry. If it has converted what you entered into your preferred format (and correctly), then it is OK and BK will use it for calculations if it can. Thank you for reading this.  Please help me someone. I hope we have a bit. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [email protected] Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message (It's best to remove that text from any post, as it will be added again.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "How many noble trees have given their lives to become bibles? How many have died to become korans? It's not their fault. It's not the fault of the trees." - Jason Woodrue