>From long-time experience, if you have Adobe Printer set up, I find that the most useful way to go. That way, if something happens with the printer, you always have the file to reprint. It also serves as a record, as I often am printing for family members of friends for whom I've done some research. I can name the file and save it as a copy of the printed material. Also, it allows for greater flexibility for me. If you have Adobe Pro you can save the original "print" file and later add or delete pages to/from that file. Say, someone wants some pictures included that weren't on the original, I can insert them anywhere I wish in the document (with some restrictions). Just another means to another end... Jared Handspicker Nashua, NH > To Daniel Huston > > In BK, when you click the Print button, it prints to the "current" > printer. > > If you do not want to print to your default printer, pick File, Printer > Setup and change the printer there. > > Then click the Print button to print to that printer. > > John Steed > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Huston via" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:10 PM > Subject: [BK] Printing descendant report > > >>I am using BK 7.0.47. Attempted to print a descendant -descendent report. >> When the report is selected, I went into the report set up and set my >> changes. I then went to print and the document pinted immediately to >> the >> default printer. There was no print dialog box to change the printer.I >> was >> not able to change printers to use my pdf printer from this print box. >> >> I did go into my printer list and change the default printer to the pdf >> printer and the report then printed to the pdf driver. >> >> Can this report print button open the print dialog box so that a >> different >> printer could be selected here? >> >> Thanks for a great program. >> Dan Huston from central PA >> >> >> 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 > ------------------------ Jared "Jed" Handspicker Usque Saeculis Vigilem

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:10:37 -0400, Daniel Huston via <[email protected]> wrote: >I am using BK 7.0.47. Attempted to print a descendant -descendent report. >When the report is selected, I went into the report set up and set my >changes. I then went to print and the document pinted immediately to the >default printer. There was no print dialog box to change the printer.I was >not able to change printers to use my pdf printer from this print box. > before uyou print, see up to the left corner under File -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

To Daniel Huston In BK, when you click the Print button, it prints to the "current" printer. If you do not want to print to your default printer, pick File, Printer Setup and change the printer there. Then click the Print button to print to that printer. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Huston via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:10 PM Subject: [BK] Printing descendant report >I am using BK 7.0.47. Attempted to print a descendant -descendent report. > When the report is selected, I went into the report set up and set my > changes. I then went to print and the document pinted immediately to the > default printer. There was no print dialog box to change the printer.I was > not able to change printers to use my pdf printer from this print box. > > I did go into my printer list and change the default printer to the pdf > printer and the report then printed to the pdf driver. > > Can this report print button open the print dialog box so that a different > printer could be selected here? > > Thanks for a great program. > Dan Huston from central PA > > > 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 am using BK 7.0.47. Attempted to print a descendant -descendent report. When the report is selected, I went into the report set up and set my changes. I then went to print and the document pinted immediately to the default printer. There was no print dialog box to change the printer.I was not able to change printers to use my pdf printer from this print box. I did go into my printer list and change the default printer to the pdf printer and the report then printed to the pdf driver. Can this report print button open the print dialog box so that a different printer could be selected here? Thanks for a great program. Dan Huston from central PA

In message <[email protected]>, John Steed <[email protected]> writes: >To J P Gilliver > >I used to use the words "Individual / Marriage" instead of "Individual >/ Family" > >But since a lot of couples are not married, I changed it to Family. >That is shorter than "spouse or partner", but as you say it might be >confusing. I suggested "couple" could be used where "Family" currently is: "couple" makes it quite clear that we are talking of just two people who are together. > >Currently on the Pictures and Media it must have all Family lines below >all Individual lines. > >I am sorry that messes up your ordering. Currently the only way to get It isn't really important to me; I was used to it in BK6. I just thought, like the ability to list marriage before death in the events list, it might have changed in 7, but no problem. >perfect ordering is to make all of those lines Individual and then add >them again for the spouse or partner as Individual for them also. No, I'll stick with it as it is - I like the fact that it appears in both when I add it to either as "Family". But the suggestion may help others who are more concerned. > >Also, if you move to a person, it normally shows spouse number 1 even >if you were looking at spouse number 2 earlier. > >And I have seen the problem when you rearrange order of children of >spouse 2 that when you are done, it changes back to show spouse number >1. When I get some time to work on that, I will try to find a way to >have it not do that. Thanks. Again, now that I know what is going on, it's not urgent - it was just a bit startling the first time they all disappeared (-:! [] Actually, if you were going to give this sort of thing any time, I'd rather have the option of having _all_ the children of the person at the top of the screen shown, perhaps with those not with the currently-shown spouse greyed-out and not clickable or something (or perhaps with the spouse number on the line somewhere - but I think I'd prefer the greying option); I'm sure I can't be the only one to have added what I thought was a missing child, only to find s/he was already there (but under a different spouse) - especially when one spouse didn't have any. But I expect that's a lot more effort for you! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother,"saidPoohwhenhisspacebarrefusedtowork.

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:59:26 -0400, John Steed via <[email protected]> wrote: >To J P Gilliver > >I used to use the words "Individual / Marriage" instead of "Individual / >Family" > this is too small There are many couples that are not married, but still they are family :) -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

I am using registered BK 7.0.46 with Windows 8.1 When I save data found from the IGI (Familysearch.org) I always record the source information including the batch number, which I enter in the Page/Reel No box at the bottom left of the source window. Typically IGI batch numbers begin with C for christenings or M for marriages. Searching using the batch number and parent's names will usually find all the children of a couple. As the information on each child is recorded in BK and the source is added I get the option to either "Add the previous source to this event" or "Add the previous source and page to this event" but unfortunately the page number is not updating so it is generally adding an old batch number not the previous one. This worked fine in BK6 and is a feature I have relied on for years. To clarify, an example, if I find a christening with the batch number C04487-7 and record that batch number in the source page/reel no. box. If I then search on that batch number using the parent's names and a time period of +_ 20 years I may find several siblings, for each one of these I want to record the same source and batch number but when I click on "Add the previous source and page to this event" I get a batch number from several days ago, C01722-4, not the previous one. Typically the drop down list on the source addition window will contain one C number and one M number but both old ones not the most recently entered ones, and I can't edit or delete these Best Wishes, Brian Taylor See the "Our Lancashire Appletons" website @ http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brianh.taylor/

To Brian Taylor Please send me private email giving me the exact steps you are doing. 1. Click S for source for an event. 2. Add a new source with __ in field __ and __ in field page. 3. Then you Close that source screen. 4. Then do you click Add Previous source right then, or do you close that list of sources and go to a different person or different event for the same person? Then you do what exactly? Are you selecting the top one on the list of previous events? If you give me the exact steps, I should be able to reconstruct the problem and fix it. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Taylor via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 8:25 AM Subject: [BK] "Add previous source and page to this event" not updating >I am using registered BK 7.0.46 with Windows 8.1 > > When I save data found from the IGI (Familysearch.org) I always record the > source information including the batch number, which I enter in the > Page/Reel No box at the bottom left of the source window. Typically IGI > batch numbers begin with C for christenings or M for marriages. Searching > using the batch number and parent's names will usually find all the > children > of a couple. As the information on each child is recorded in BK and the > source is added I get the option to either "Add the previous source to > this > event" or "Add the previous source and page to this event" but > unfortunately > the page number is not updating so it is generally adding an old batch > number not the previous one. This worked fine in BK6 and is a feature I > have > relied on for years. > > To clarify, an example, if I find a christening with the batch number > C04487-7 and record that batch number in the source page/reel no. box. If > I > then search on that batch number using the parent's names and a time > period > of +_ 20 years I may find several siblings, for each one of these I want > to > record the same source and batch number but when I click on "Add the > previous source and page to this event" I get a batch number from several > days ago, C01722-4, not the previous one. Typically the drop down list on > the source addition window will contain one C number and one M number but > both old ones not the most recently entered ones, and I can't edit or > delete > these > > Best Wishes, > > Brian Taylor > > See the "Our Lancashire Appletons" website @ > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brianh.taylor/ > > > > 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 J P Gilliver I used to use the words "Individual / Marriage" instead of "Individual / Family" But since a lot of couples are not married, I changed it to Family. That is shorter than "spouse or partner", but as you say it might be confusing. Currently on the Pictures and Media it must have all Family lines below all Individual lines. I am sorry that messes up your ordering. Currently the only way to get perfect ordering is to make all of those lines Individual and then add them again for the spouse or partner as Individual for them also. Also, if you move to a person, it normally shows spouse number 1 even if you were looking at spouse number 2 earlier. And I have seen the problem when you rearrange order of children of spouse 2 that when you are done, it changes back to show spouse number 1. When I get some time to work on that, I will try to find a way to have it not do that. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 6:42 PM Subject: [BK] unwanted reorderings etc. > (Using BK7. Can't say which 7.x, because I'm in the edit screen, some > way down a sequence of people which I don't want to lose.) > > This first one has already come up with "media" files - it applies to > "picture" files too: > > If I have an image of the 1891 census as a wife, I classify it as a > "family" image, because it shows hubby too; in 1901 she's a widow, so I > have to make it an "individual" image (otherwise the dead husband's > image list would include it even though he isn't on it). But I can't > order the images 1891 before 1901. (I've asked if the word "family" in > this context could be replaced by "couple", because to me "family" > usually includes children, but I think there must be some reason this > can't happen.) > > These latter examples are a different one: I'm looking at a man who had > two wives (not both at once!). At first, BK shows wife #1, as one might > expect. I select wife #2 from the drop-down list, so now I'm looking at > husband, with wife #2 showing. I move to any other person - father, > mother, or in particular, one of the children. I now click "<" to go > back to the previous view. I sort of expect to see man with wife#2, > which I don't. > > A particularly startling version of this I've just discovered: I'm > looking at list of children of husband and wife#2, all with birth dates > showing, and I see the child born first is listed last (since I've just > added her). So I click Rearrange order, then Sort by birthdate. Poof - > all gone! They haven't really, but I thought they had until I realised > what had happened! > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > What is the world to a man when his wife is a widow? (think about it ...) > 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 Tue, 28 Apr 2015 23:42:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" <[email protected]> wrote: >(Using BK7. Can't say which 7.x, because I'm in the edit screen, some >way down a sequence of people which I don't want to lose.) > >This first one has already come up with "media" files - it applies to >"picture" files too: That should be easy before or after the e-mail is printed and before the e-mail is posted >If I have an image of the 1891 census as a wife, I classify it as a >"family" image, because it shows hubby too; in 1901 she's a widow, so I >have to make it an "individual" image (otherwise the dead husband's >image list would include it even though he isn't on it). But I can't >order the images 1891 before 1901. (I've asked if the word "family" in >this context could be replaced by "couple", because to me "family" >usually includes children, but I think there must be some reason this >can't happen.) Many misunderstand "family" and do believe this is including children or grandparents. Yes, there are a problem with images in the way you describe An other problem is also if they have a child or some other fmily member and connect the same image to the 2third person" But I see the problem to refrech the screen, when you change wife, the imange at uper right should also refresh better. >These latter examples are a different one: I'm looking at a man who had >two wives (not both at once!). At first, BK shows wife #1, as one might >expect. I select wife #2 from the drop-down list, so now I'm looking at >husband, with wife #2 showing. I move to any other person - father, >mother, or in particular, one of the children. I now click "<" to go >back to the previous view. I sort of expect to see man with wife#2, >which I don't. yes, so is the situation :( >A particularly startling version of this I've just discovered: I'm >looking at list of children of husband and wife#2, all with birth dates >showing, and I see the child born first is listed last (since I've just >added her). So I click Rearrange order, then Sort by birthdate. Poof - >all gone! They haven't really, but I thought they had until I realised >what had happened! Re-index database ? -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

(Using BK7. Can't say which 7.x, because I'm in the edit screen, some way down a sequence of people which I don't want to lose.) This first one has already come up with "media" files - it applies to "picture" files too: If I have an image of the 1891 census as a wife, I classify it as a "family" image, because it shows hubby too; in 1901 she's a widow, so I have to make it an "individual" image (otherwise the dead husband's image list would include it even though he isn't on it). But I can't order the images 1891 before 1901. (I've asked if the word "family" in this context could be replaced by "couple", because to me "family" usually includes children, but I think there must be some reason this can't happen.) These latter examples are a different one: I'm looking at a man who had two wives (not both at once!). At first, BK shows wife #1, as one might expect. I select wife #2 from the drop-down list, so now I'm looking at husband, with wife #2 showing. I move to any other person - father, mother, or in particular, one of the children. I now click "<" to go back to the previous view. I sort of expect to see man with wife#2, which I don't. A particularly startling version of this I've just discovered: I'm looking at list of children of husband and wife#2, all with birth dates showing, and I see the child born first is listed last (since I've just added her). So I click Rearrange order, then Sort by birthdate. Poof - all gone! They haven't really, but I thought they had until I realised what had happened! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf What is the world to a man when his wife is a widow? (think about it ...)

I have very often that people use or have an other name. I add sometimes the following extra names: Birth name Adopted name Also known as In your case probably : Also known as Jeannine Surname By use of "find" you will find her. With my best regards, Max van Dam Rechovoth Israel http://www.maxvandam.info/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Singer35 via Sent: 28 April 2015 20:40 To: [email protected] Subject: [BK] Search Hi all; BK 7.0.48 registered user for millenium :-) I think this is for the wish list - or I can't find it anywhere in help. I have many people, with several names at birth: Germaine Jeannine Surname. During her life she used the name of Jeannine; _but I don't know that yet._ Also, because, at this point, I only having the birth name, I can't add Jeannine to the "Sort" or 'Alternate' name. Later, searching for her at her marriage under Jeannine Surname (as shown on the marriage record) BK can't find her. My Request: Is there a way to make a search for the name no matter where it is in the birth name? Thanks for any help Fran L --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com 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 Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:34:58 +0300, Max van Dam via <[email protected]> wrote: >I have very often that people use or have an other name. >I add sometimes the following extra names: > >Birth name >Adopted name >Also known as In your case probably : Also known as Jeannine Surname > By use of "find" you will find her. > In n orway we use the standard that the name from the birth/bapt./christian is the first name we enter to a person. Additional we use alternative names to cover other name. E.g. Female was (mostly around 1900 and later) entered by the the name they are born but normaly change name when marrieage, then we use "name as married" In cesus we ofte see that name are didrrerent from cencus to census, but we do enter all variants as "name in sensus" And so on we use the flexibility in BK by the use of "alternative names" In that way a person in the database have many different name, but the namnes are also searchable But we nhormaly do not print all names in the reports, but add what is to be printed in the "biography" -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

To Fran L A normal search is by first name and last name. It is fast because names are indexed that way. If you can not find the person that way, then go to Lists, Word Search Then search for Jeannine AND Surname Then it will find her even if Jeannine is her middle name. The word search is slower, because it has to read every person in the database, not just the index. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Singer35 via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:39 PM Subject: [BK] Search > Hi all; > BK 7.0.48 registered user for millenium :-) > > I think this is for the wish list - or I can't find it anywhere in > help. I have many people, with several names at birth: Germaine > Jeannine Surname. During her life she used the name of Jeannine; _but I > don't know that yet._ Also, because, at this point, I only having the > birth name, I can't add Jeannine to the "Sort" or 'Alternate' name. > Later, searching for her at her marriage under Jeannine Surname (as > shown on the marriage record) BK can't find her. > > My Request: Is there a way to make a search for the name no matter > where it is in the birth name? > > Thanks for any help > > Fran L > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > 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 all; BK 7.0.48 registered user for millenium :-) I think this is for the wish list - or I can't find it anywhere in help. I have many people, with several names at birth: Germaine Jeannine Surname. During her life she used the name of Jeannine; _but I don't know that yet._ Also, because, at this point, I only having the birth name, I can't add Jeannine to the "Sort" or 'Alternate' name. Later, searching for her at her marriage under Jeannine Surname (as shown on the marriage record) BK can't find her. My Request: Is there a way to make a search for the name no matter where it is in the birth name? Thanks for any help Fran L --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

In message <[email protected]>, Jim Dell via <[email protected]> writes: >To me all sources are questionable. >When all sources point to the same result that's likely the true fact [] Except when they're all online family trees at Ancestry, or similar, when they often all point to - or rather repeat - the same error )-:. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Males and females, from seven to 70, the cool, the uncool, the straight and gay, the hip and those with hip replacements, all worship the water she walks on. - Kathy Lette on Kylie, in RT 2014/1/11-17

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:58:58 -0700, Jack via <[email protected]> wrote: >I changed the subject heading to fit with my question. > >I discovered several errors on one census covering my home town (gross >misspellings, etc.). Obvious to me because I had better information, >but those errors are now in a source document. My question is how >seriously do people take a census document (image)? And is it really a >good idea to add another layer of possible errors by transcribing it? >How do people typically deal with such situations? I believe that I've >simply added notes as appropriate. Just curious. > We use a lot of census, but they are documentation for other information, e.g. where people do live etc We have Internet connection to census and we can add the image to BK, mostly use are jpg. But thay are important, but we know that thee can bee wrong informationb as well, e.g. the name of a person can be spelled different in 1900 and 1910, so we always search for the documentaion from Chuchbooks for birthm mbapt, confirmation and marriage and death, That we definate as primary sources and census as Second sources. But all over we add them all to the individ. -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

I tend to look on the census returns as secondary information and for those before 1911, as transcriptions because they are not the original household returns. They also have the additional problems, for me, of illiterate ancestors so the household return could well have been completed by somebody else, and the problems of different accents due to migration from one part of the UK to another eg Cornwall or Somerset to Northumberland or Durham. I believe the 2nd problem is even worse in the USA with higher levels of migration and multiple languages. Plus I have come across, in the 1881 census, comments from the Enumerator regarding the paternity of a child who was living in lodgings with his mother. I suspect that other Enumerators may have gone further and changed names. Cheers Steve On 21/04/2015 17:58, Jack via wrote: > I changed the subject heading to fit with my question. > > I discovered several errors on one census covering my home town (gross > misspellings, etc.). Obvious to me because I had better information, > but those errors are now in a source document. My question is how > seriously do people take a census document (image)? And is it really a > good idea to add another layer of possible errors by transcribing it? > How do people typically deal with such situations? I believe that I've > simply added notes as appropriate. Just curious. > > //jack > > > On 4/20/2015 11:51 PM, Michael Cant via wrote: >> Hi John (J. P. Gilliver (John) >> >> I normally use transcribed censuses as word documents as they are easier for >> other family to read (if they ever do) >> >> Mick. >> IOW. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> J. P. Gilliver (John) via >> Sent: 21 April 2015 00:19 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order not >> individual then family below? >> >> In message <[email protected]>, Michael Cant via >> <[email protected]> writes: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 >>> >>> I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my >>> main lines. >>> >> I am assuming you mean images of the censuses. Is there any particular >> reason you're using the media tab rather than the pictures tab? >>> We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, >> Oh, I don't know - I started off as a ... [sorry (-:] >> >>> normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if >>> they are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it >>> goes automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading >>> to view the list. >> Good question ... >>> Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they >>> are individual or family? >> ... but John says (and Fran confirms) you can manually move them in v7. >> (You couldn't - in the pictures tab, anyway - in v6; well, you could, but >> they got moved back, with an error popup.) >>> Mick. >>> >>> IOW. >>> >>> England. >> [] >> John, Kent, England. >> -- >> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf >> >> Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi >> Rescue"], pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if your >> life could ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - Russell >> Howard, in Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013 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 >> > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > 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 me all sources are questionable. When all sources point to the same result that's likely the true fact Jim -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jack via Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:59 PM To: Michael Cant; [email protected] Subject: [BK] Census Errors I changed the subject heading to fit with my question. I discovered several errors on one census covering my home town (gross misspellings, etc.). Obvious to me because I had better information, but those errors are now in a source document. My question is how seriously do people take a census document (image)? And is it really a good idea to add another layer of possible errors by transcribing it? How do people typically deal with such situations? I believe that I've simply added notes as appropriate. Just curious. //jack On 4/20/2015 11:51 PM, Michael Cant via wrote: > Hi John (J. P. Gilliver (John) > > I normally use transcribed censuses as word documents as they are > easier for other family to read (if they ever do) > > Mick. > IOW. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John) via > Sent: 21 April 2015 00:19 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order > not individual then family below? > > In message <[email protected]>, Michael Cant via > <[email protected]> writes: >> Hi all, >> >> I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 >> >> I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my >> main lines. >> > I am assuming you mean images of the censuses. Is there any particular > reason you're using the media tab rather than the pictures tab? >> >> We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, > Oh, I don't know - I started off as a ... [sorry (-:] > >> normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if >> they are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it >> goes automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading >> to view the list. > Good question ... >> Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether >> they are individual or family? > ... but John says (and Fran confirms) you can manually move them in v7. > (You couldn't - in the pictures tab, anyway - in v6; well, you could, > but they got moved back, with an error popup.) >> Mick. >> >> IOW. >> >> England. > [] > John, Kent, England. > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 > MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi > Rescue"], pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if > your life could ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - > Russell Howard, in Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013 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 > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com 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 also use UK census records, but do try to verify things from other sources. I also use the official birth, marriage and death indexes, and used to heave the heavy volumes off the shelves at St. Catherine's House. (They are not there any more). A lot of the information in those is erroneous. You should look at Michael Whitfield Foster's books: "A Comedy of Errors" or the Marriage Records of England and Wales 1837 - 1899 ISBN 0-473-05581-3, published privately in 1998; and its sequel ISBN 00473-07480-X published in 2002. After getting and reading the first book I corresponded with him, and Chapter 9 of his second book is based on that correspondence and what he was able to learn when he was able to look at the actual GRO records. I am now a nonagenarian and am no longer actively researching. My task now is to go through all my old paper records and document them properly in BK. Geoff Wilson At 01:21 PM 4/21/2015, Steve via wrote: >I tend to look on the census returns as secondary information and >for those before 1911, as transcriptions because they are not the >original household returns. > >They also have the additional problems, for me, of illiterate >ancestors so the household return could well have been completed by >somebody else, and the problems of different accents due to >migration from one part of the UK to another eg Cornwall or Somerset >to Northumberland or Durham. I believe the 2nd problem is even worse >in the USA with higher levels of migration and multiple languages. > >Plus I have come across, in the 1881 census, comments from the >Enumerator regarding the paternity of a child who was living in >lodgings with his mother. I suspect that other Enumerators may have >gone further and changed names. > >Cheers >Steve > >On 21/04/2015 17:58, Jack via wrote: > > I changed the subject heading to fit with my question. > > > > I discovered several errors on one census covering my home town (gross > > misspellings, etc.). Obvious to me because I had better information, > > but those errors are now in a source document. My question is how > > seriously do people take a census document (image)? And is it really a > > good idea to add another layer of possible errors by transcribing it? > > How do people typically deal with such situations? I believe that I've > > simply added notes as appropriate. Just curious. > > > > //jack