I have only asked once for help and received my answer in what I think is a professional manner, but I read every email and am disappointed with the lack of graciousness by people who are receiving free help from the software developer. It is rude and uncalled for. Elizabeth is always quick to respond and to the point on her answers and I agree with her that if more dialogue is needed, take it off the list and do it privately. Daniela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens, CG, CGL" <liz@ancestordetective.com> To: <Clooz-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Clooz] Responses > At 12:45 PM 11/25/2005, Clint Crocker wrote: >>Another view which supports the comments below. With a great deal of >>respect. I submitted a question last week to you directly. The response >>was to your question not mine. Rather than pursue the issue, the matter >>was dropped. >>Please have a great day. >> >>Clint Crocker > > Clint, I responded to your request and told you one possible cause of the > problem. I also said that without more information, I didn't know a reason > why you were having the problem you were. If you're still having the > problem, why drop it? I wasn't rude to you or to anyone else, for that > matter. I try to be as helpful as I can. Your customer support is free, > which is more than you can say for a lot of software programs. If some of > you think my answers are not proper or patronizing, I am sorry. I am a > matter-of-fact kinda gal and am also very busy. I try to answer everything > I can with the information you need, which is what I did in the case > below. The answer was not as described by Phil, it was straight forward > and honest. Why are some of you reading emotion into an e-mail message > where no emotion is intended? I am responding to questions in the way that > I am capable. That's all I have to offer. So how about we get back to > dealing with Clooz issues on this list and stop picking on the verbage I > use in my e-mails. If you're not getting the support you need, let me know > off-list. > >>Elizabeth, >> >>You may feel the need some time to review this answer. <vbg> >> >>It is not a very helpful answer to what I consider to be a very reasonable >>question. >> >>Your answer, smacks of granny sucking eggs, and looks remarkably >>patronising, even if that was not your intent. >> >>I will refrain from further comment, but ask that you re-consider your >>reply on another day. >> >>I hope you do not take umbrage at my view. >> >>Phil. >>At 14:22 25/11/2005, Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens, CG, CGL wrote: >> >>This is not a glitch. Each database in Clooz is a completely separate >>database. If you had two different genealogy program databases, the same >>thing would happen. That's why you keep different databases. If you want >>all the numbers not to duplicate, you need to keep just one database. This >>is how databases operate. >> >> >>============================== >>View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find >>marriage announcements and more. Learn more: >>http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >> >

At 12:45 PM 11/25/2005, Clint Crocker wrote: >Another view which supports the comments below. With a great deal >of respect. I submitted a question last week to you directly. The >response was to your question not mine. Rather than pursue the >issue, the matter was dropped. >Please have a great day. > >Clint Crocker Clint, I responded to your request and told you one possible cause of the problem. I also said that without more information, I didn't know a reason why you were having the problem you were. If you're still having the problem, why drop it? I wasn't rude to you or to anyone else, for that matter. I try to be as helpful as I can. Your customer support is free, which is more than you can say for a lot of software programs. If some of you think my answers are not proper or patronizing, I am sorry. I am a matter-of-fact kinda gal and am also very busy. I try to answer everything I can with the information you need, which is what I did in the case below. The answer was not as described by Phil, it was straight forward and honest. Why are some of you reading emotion into an e-mail message where no emotion is intended? I am responding to questions in the way that I am capable. That's all I have to offer. So how about we get back to dealing with Clooz issues on this list and stop picking on the verbage I use in my e-mails. If you're not getting the support you need, let me know off-list. >Elizabeth, > >You may feel the need some time to review this answer. <vbg> > >It is not a very helpful answer to what I consider to be a very >reasonable question. > >Your answer, smacks of granny sucking eggs, and looks remarkably >patronising, even if that was not your intent. > >I will refrain from further comment, but ask that you re-consider >your reply on another day. > >I hope you do not take umbrage at my view. > >Phil. >At 14:22 25/11/2005, Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens, CG, CGL wrote: > >This is not a glitch. Each database in Clooz is a completely >separate database. If you had two different genealogy program >databases, the same thing would happen. That's why you keep >different databases. If you want all the numbers not to duplicate, >you need to keep just one database. This is how databases operate. > > >============================== >View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find >marriage announcements and more. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >

The answer Elizabeth provided was clear, concise and no "sucking eggs" as far as I could see. Perhaps you may care to elaborate more? Lance -----Original Message----- From: Phil Warn [mailto:philwarn@ntlworld.com] Sent: Saturday, 26 November 2005 2:40 AM To: Clooz-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Clooz] People database Elizabeth, You may feel the need some time to review this answer. <vbg> It is not a very helpful answer to what I consider to be a very reasonable question. Your answer, smacks of granny sucking eggs, and looks remarkably patronising, even if that was not your intent. I will refrain from further comment, but ask that you re-consider your reply on another day. I hope you do not take umbrage at my view. Phil. At 14:22 25/11/2005, Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens, CG, CGL wrote: >This is not a glitch. Each database in Clooz is a completely separate >database. If you had two different genealogy program databases, the >same thing would happen. That's why you keep different databases. If >you want all the numbers not to duplicate, you need to keep just one >database. This is how databases operate. ============================== View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 2005-11-25

Elizabeth, You may feel the need some time to review this answer. <vbg> It is not a very helpful answer to what I consider to be a very reasonable question. Your answer, smacks of granny sucking eggs, and looks remarkably patronising, even if that was not your intent. I will refrain from further comment, but ask that you re-consider your reply on another day. I hope you do not take umbrage at my view. Phil. At 14:22 25/11/2005, Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens, CG, CGL wrote: >This is not a glitch. Each database in Clooz is a completely >separate database. If you had two different genealogy program >databases, the same thing would happen. That's why you keep >different databases. If you want all the numbers not to duplicate, >you need to keep just one database. This is how databases operate.

Whoa, I thought Liz's answer was to the point and very polite. Without getting into a long discussion on how you would be able to make this work if you had the MS Access version of the software versus the standalone version, there really is no other answer. If the original person has the MS Access version, they could develop their own process over all of the databases, linking the various people tables and create reports when duplicates happen. But, without linking the people tables from each and every database, there is no easy solution. This is why I have one database for my genealogy data and one database for Clooz. The reporting will allow separation, when you add other organizational overlays (like multiple databases) you are asking for complexity that I would not want. Rick -------Original Message------- From: Phil Warn Date: 11/25/05 11:53:01 To: Clooz-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Clooz] People database Elizabeth, You may feel the need some time to review this answer. <vbg> It is not a very helpful answer to what I consider to be a very reasonable question. Your answer, smacks of granny sucking eggs, and looks remarkably patronising, even if that was not your intent. I will refrain from further comment, but ask that you re-consider your reply on another day. I hope you do not take umbrage at my view. Phil. At 14:22 25/11/2005, Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens, CG, CGL wrote: >This is not a glitch. Each database in Clooz is a completely >separate database. If you had two different genealogy program >databases, the same thing would happen. That's why you keep >different databases. If you want all the numbers not to duplicate, >you need to keep just one database. This is how databases operate. ============================== View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx

Another view which supports the comments below. With a great deal of respect. I submitted a question last week to you directly. The response was to your question not mine. Rather than pursue the issue, the matter was dropped. Please have a great day. Clint Crocker Elizabeth, You may feel the need some time to review this answer. <vbg> It is not a very helpful answer to what I consider to be a very reasonable question. Your answer, smacks of granny sucking eggs, and looks remarkably patronising, even if that was not your intent. I will refrain from further comment, but ask that you re-consider your reply on another day. I hope you do not take umbrage at my view. Phil. At 14:22 25/11/2005, Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens, CG, CGL wrote: This is not a glitch. Each database in Clooz is a completely separate database. If you had two different genealogy program databases, the same thing would happen. That's why you keep different databases. If you want all the numbers not to duplicate, you need to keep just one database. This is how databases operate.

Eileen, to rename an existing database, go into My Computer, find your Clooz database, click once on the database name and you'll be allowed to rename the database. Make sure that you remember to add the .mdb extension if it's visible. Then, open Clooz, on the first screen click on the open folder icon, find the file you just renamed and select it. Then click OK and you'll be linked to that database. To remove the old name for the database from the list in Clooz, follow the directions in Help for Edit Lists. At 10:16 PM 11/24/2005, liz7275-gensearch@usa.net wrote: >Clooz List > >Is it possible to rename an existing database? For example, one database is >named Smith and I want to now call it Smith/Jones; is that possible and if so, >how? > >Eileen >liz7275-gensearch@usa.net > > > > >============================== >Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >New content added every business day. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx

This is not a glitch. Each database in Clooz is a completely separate database. If you had two different genealogy program databases, the same thing would happen. That's why you keep different databases. If you want all the numbers not to duplicate, you need to keep just one database. This is how databases operate. At 10:10 PM 11/24/2005, liz7275-gensearch@usa.net wrote: > Clooz List > When first setting up Clooz, I imported my people. I have 3 databases and >occasionally I need to add a new person. I thought if I added a person while >in one database, that if I needed that same person in another database it >would be in the people database. I'm discovering that not only is the new >person not in with all the people in the other databases, but some ID numbers >that are assigned when entering people have been duplicated. > >How do I solve this problem? Is this supposed to happen when you add new >people? Why don't all the people in the people database integrate between >individual databases? I have two different people with the same ID number in >the people database but they are only visible when working in a specific >family database. This sounds like a glitch to me. Has anyone else >experienced this problem? > >Eileen >liz7275-gensearch@usa.net Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens, CG, CGL Creator, Clooz

Clooz List Is it possible to rename an existing database? For example, one database is named Smith and I want to now call it Smith/Jones; is that possible and if so, how? Eileen liz7275-gensearch@usa.net

Clooz List When first setting up Clooz, I imported my people. I have 3 databases and occasionally I need to add a new person. I thought if I added a person while in one database, that if I needed that same person in another database it would be in the people database. I'm discovering that not only is the new person not in with all the people in the other databases, but some ID numbers that are assigned when entering people have been duplicated. How do I solve this problem? Is this supposed to happen when you add new people? Why don't all the people in the people database integrate between individual databases? I have two different people with the same ID number in the people database but they are only visible when working in a specific family database. This sounds like a glitch to me. Has anyone else experienced this problem? Eileen liz7275-gensearch@usa.net

Joe, On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:53:26 -0600 you said, Please allow me to ramble on with my thoughts on this continuing question of "file names", "organizing", etc. Joe, I couldn't have said it better! I've gone through several changes and finally went back to Liz's basic organizing method. My difficulty is that I am not going very fast to get my documents onto Clooz. They are numbered and in notebooks though so I have a table with the list of the numbers and names until I can get them put in Clooz. At least I have them into the notebooks; that's a start. Dottie

Wow, Joe. What a word of wisdom! Yoda could not have said it better. Lewis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bissett" <jbissett@txdirect.net> To: <Clooz-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [Clooz] Organizing CLOOZ (long) > Hi Thelma, > > Please allow me to ramble on with my thoughts on this continuing question > of "file names", "organizing", etc. > > At 09:57 AM 11/14/2005, you wrote: >>I am a long-time CLOOZ user and love it! >>However, I have not entered any data for a long time and have run into an >>organizational problem. >>I have Documents filed under Births 0001, Deaths 0001, Marriages 0001 and >>Internet Information 1000 etc. >>Internet information is my problem. >>I have begun a file Internet Information 0001. Some internet pages I >>copied have birth ,death and marriage info for several people. If I file >>this under Internet Information 0001 and use the event column for Birth I >>run into a problem with where to enter the marriage and death info. Same >>problem would be if I were to enter all the information under Birth 0001. >>In this case of multiple information data, would I have one copy for each >>bit of information? > > Since I first found CLOOZ years ago, folks, including myself, have been > wrestling with this "organizing" problem. Liz told us early on to use the > most basic KISS principles, but we pressed ahead with our established > norms. Because of the "organizing" problem, when Liz announced a new > version forthcoming some time ago, I ceased entering data with the > intention of inputting my new and old data into the new version in a more > simplified manner. So please forgive me if my memory is "a little dim" > here and there. > > I am now of the mind that many of us have totally over-complicated what I > now perceive as one of the most basic values of the CLOOZ database. By > that I mean that CLOOZ has the structure and architecture to pull together > all sorts of bits and pieces of information in order to allow the > researcher to FOCUS on the genealogy problem being researched, rather than > "how" it is organized. To CLOOZ, it matters not where the information is > found - nor filed; if the data deals with any information about John Doe > of Podunk, AR 1850-1940, all of the data will be available in concise > reports regardless of its source. Assuming correct data entry, the source > of the data will be clearly shown, allowing one to re-visit the "hardcopy" > to verify, cogitate, or for whatever reason we return to paper copies. > > Because we have been raised in a "paper data organization" world, it is > uncomfortable for most of us to think about filing an important document > in any other way. In other words, birth certificates should be filed with > other birth certificates, etc. That's just the way most of us think. > > The challenge to me was to ask myself "why"? > > If I have all of my certificates filed in books or folders by type, then I > have to decide on their "internal" order. Do I file and number the > certificates by date? By family? By surname? At some point we throw up > our hands and make a purely arbitrary decision and vow to "stick to it". > So what we have really done is to create some "defined" filing > architecture that by the nature of our genealogy calling can not be > without problems. Picture twins. Do we number and file the two > certificates alphabetically by given name, or by age or time of birth? > Decisions, decisions, decisions. > > But we, including myself, are "satisfied" because we have a book or file > called Census or Births, with papers numbered CEN0001, CEN0002, etc. > > I finally realized (rather late in the game) that so long as I am faithful > to CLOOZ, it matters not one whit whether my census page is numbered and > filed as CEN0054 or just plain 0054. > > Why do I say this? Because - no matter WHAT arbitrary filing system that > I devise, once my paper information starts to grow, some other Index, or > list, or database will be necessary to help me find what I need WITHIN my > neatly labeled notebook or folder. In other words, once I have a large > file, I need "some" external reference to guide me to find the 1892 Kings > County State Census page within the 300 plus census page print-outs that I > hold. Perhaps I can remember that I've filed these pages by state and by > census year; or did I really do it by state, by county, by census year; or > was that by year, by state, by county? In other words, there is NO WAY > one can devise a perfect "subject oriented" filing system that probably > will not be blown away when we suddenly discover that our long lost aunt > was actually living in Vancouver, BC in 1900, and not in Washington State. > So that Canadian 1901 census page is either filed out of order, or we > "adjust" to the problem, numbering that page CEN0054A, or something like > that. Then three years later we have no idea how we numbered that page, > and we must resort to our CLOOZ database to find it. Could we find it if > filed with all the other census pages? Of course - but we would either > have to resort to some "index", or riffle page by page, hoping to remember > the "sub-architecture" that we invented to fit that particular "anomaly". > > In my humble opinion - this "simple" use of CLOOZ is exactly how things > should be. In other words, through the beauty of the CLOOZ architecture, > if it is numbered simply 0054, then it resides at the 54th "place" in the > paper file, be it notebook, folder, etc. But JOE, I admonish myself, if I > file it with the other census pages at least I will know what file it is > in, and I won't need to search through many file folders. I answer myself > that if I know the document number is simply 0054, it is in the 54th > position in File One, no matter what the file identity is. > > Let's think about one of our personal favorite genealogy family history > books (don't we all have at least one?). Folks, we are extremely happy > that the writer prepared an index at the end listing alphabeticallt every > surname, with given name and listed every page on which our dear ancestor > is noted. I submit to you that this "architecture" is a tiny mini-model > of the architecture that CLOOZ allows. If your ancestor is noted on 43 > different pages, the index points you to each and every page. Without the > index, you would page through the entire book, reading or at least > scanning for the person of interest. To me the page number represents a > CLOOZ file name, and the book represents the CLOOZ database. If there is > an obituary listed in the book on page 79, with wife, brothers, sisters, > married names, residences, etc., listed, they are each individually > referenced to page 79 in the index. We do not seem to have a problem > accepting this architecture in this situation. Such, in my humble > opinion, is the wonderful simplicity and beauty allowed by CLOOZ. > > So Thelma, in the situation you refer to, there would be ONE piece of > paper, i.e., 00024 or some such number. Every tidbit of information in > the reference would sort to it's proper owner, or value. But for you to > check out some tidbit of information as you research using CLOOZ, you > would always be referred to 00024; not in one case to CEN0005, in another > case to BMD0009, etc. > > I have lived my six plus decades working diligently to complicate as much > of my life as possible. :-( Hopefully when CLOOZ TWO arrives, I will be > "mature" enough to break the "filing system" bonds that have held me and > watch my family history information flourish. > > Thanks for bearing with me. > > Joe > > Joe Bissett, PIGGOTT/CUMMISKEY List Administrator/Rootsweb > > I use America's Book CDs in my genealogical research to access otherwise > unavailable primary source material. http://www.abcd-usa.com/ > I support the Godfrey Memorial Library. http://www.godfrey.org/ > > > > ============================== > Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the > areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. > Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx > >

Hi Thelma, Please allow me to ramble on with my thoughts on this continuing question of "file names", "organizing", etc. At 09:57 AM 11/14/2005, you wrote: >I am a long-time CLOOZ user and love it! >However, I have not entered any data for a long time and have run into an >organizational problem. >I have Documents filed under Births 0001, Deaths 0001, Marriages 0001 and >Internet Information 1000 etc. >Internet information is my problem. >I have begun a file Internet Information 0001. Some internet pages I >copied have birth ,death and marriage info for several people. If I file >this under Internet Information 0001 and use the event column for Birth I >run into a problem with where to enter the marriage and death info. Same >problem would be if I were to enter all the information under Birth 0001. >In this case of multiple information data, would I have one copy for each >bit of information? Since I first found CLOOZ years ago, folks, including myself, have been wrestling with this "organizing" problem. Liz told us early on to use the most basic KISS principles, but we pressed ahead with our established norms. Because of the "organizing" problem, when Liz announced a new version forthcoming some time ago, I ceased entering data with the intention of inputting my new and old data into the new version in a more simplified manner. So please forgive me if my memory is "a little dim" here and there. I am now of the mind that many of us have totally over-complicated what I now perceive as one of the most basic values of the CLOOZ database. By that I mean that CLOOZ has the structure and architecture to pull together all sorts of bits and pieces of information in order to allow the researcher to FOCUS on the genealogy problem being researched, rather than "how" it is organized. To CLOOZ, it matters not where the information is found - nor filed; if the data deals with any information about John Doe of Podunk, AR 1850-1940, all of the data will be available in concise reports regardless of its source. Assuming correct data entry, the source of the data will be clearly shown, allowing one to re-visit the "hardcopy" to verify, cogitate, or for whatever reason we return to paper copies. Because we have been raised in a "paper data organization" world, it is uncomfortable for most of us to think about filing an important document in any other way. In other words, birth certificates should be filed with other birth certificates, etc. That's just the way most of us think. The challenge to me was to ask myself "why"? If I have all of my certificates filed in books or folders by type, then I have to decide on their "internal" order. Do I file and number the certificates by date? By family? By surname? At some point we throw up our hands and make a purely arbitrary decision and vow to "stick to it". So what we have really done is to create some "defined" filing architecture that by the nature of our genealogy calling can not be without problems. Picture twins. Do we number and file the two certificates alphabetically by given name, or by age or time of birth? Decisions, decisions, decisions. But we, including myself, are "satisfied" because we have a book or file called Census or Births, with papers numbered CEN0001, CEN0002, etc. I finally realized (rather late in the game) that so long as I am faithful to CLOOZ, it matters not one whit whether my census page is numbered and filed as CEN0054 or just plain 0054. Why do I say this? Because - no matter WHAT arbitrary filing system that I devise, once my paper information starts to grow, some other Index, or list, or database will be necessary to help me find what I need WITHIN my neatly labeled notebook or folder. In other words, once I have a large file, I need "some" external reference to guide me to find the 1892 Kings County State Census page within the 300 plus census page print-outs that I hold. Perhaps I can remember that I've filed these pages by state and by census year; or did I really do it by state, by county, by census year; or was that by year, by state, by county? In other words, there is NO WAY one can devise a perfect "subject oriented" filing system that probably will not be blown away when we suddenly discover that our long lost aunt was actually living in Vancouver, BC in 1900, and not in Washington State. So that Canadian 1901 census page is either filed out of order, or we "adjust" to the problem, numbering that page CEN0054A, or something like that. Then three years later we have no idea how we numbered that page, and we must resort to our CLOOZ database to find it. Could we find it if filed with all the other census pages? Of course - but we would either have to resort to some "index", or riffle page by page, hoping to remember the "sub-architecture" that we invented to fit that particular "anomaly". In my humble opinion - this "simple" use of CLOOZ is exactly how things should be. In other words, through the beauty of the CLOOZ architecture, if it is numbered simply 0054, then it resides at the 54th "place" in the paper file, be it notebook, folder, etc. But JOE, I admonish myself, if I file it with the other census pages at least I will know what file it is in, and I won't need to search through many file folders. I answer myself that if I know the document number is simply 0054, it is in the 54th position in File One, no matter what the file identity is. Let's think about one of our personal favorite genealogy family history books (don't we all have at least one?). Folks, we are extremely happy that the writer prepared an index at the end listing alphabeticallt every surname, with given name and listed every page on which our dear ancestor is noted. I submit to you that this "architecture" is a tiny mini-model of the architecture that CLOOZ allows. If your ancestor is noted on 43 different pages, the index points you to each and every page. Without the index, you would page through the entire book, reading or at least scanning for the person of interest. To me the page number represents a CLOOZ file name, and the book represents the CLOOZ database. If there is an obituary listed in the book on page 79, with wife, brothers, sisters, married names, residences, etc., listed, they are each individually referenced to page 79 in the index. We do not seem to have a problem accepting this architecture in this situation. Such, in my humble opinion, is the wonderful simplicity and beauty allowed by CLOOZ. So Thelma, in the situation you refer to, there would be ONE piece of paper, i.e., 00024 or some such number. Every tidbit of information in the reference would sort to it's proper owner, or value. But for you to check out some tidbit of information as you research using CLOOZ, you would always be referred to 00024; not in one case to CEN0005, in another case to BMD0009, etc. I have lived my six plus decades working diligently to complicate as much of my life as possible. :-( Hopefully when CLOOZ TWO arrives, I will be "mature" enough to break the "filing system" bonds that have held me and watch my family history information flourish. Thanks for bearing with me. Joe Joe Bissett, PIGGOTT/CUMMISKEY List Administrator/Rootsweb I use America's Book CDs in my genealogical research to access otherwise unavailable primary source material. http://www.abcd-usa.com/ I support the Godfrey Memorial Library. http://www.godfrey.org/

I've read what others have written but maybe I misunderstood. I thought Eileen was asking if she tried using the same number in the same database what would happen. Would it let her use it and create 2 entries with the same number in the same database? Would it not let her because the number is in use? Or would it use the new info and overwrite her old info, loosing it? Just my thoughts Mike -----Original Message----- From: Eileen Lemons [mailto:EileenLemons@usa.net] On Behalf Of liz7275-gensearch@usa.net Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:32 PM To: Clooz-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Clooz] Entering new file numbers Is there anything to keep you from using a previously used file # when entering information on a new record? For example, I have lots of Illinois censuses and I record them as Illinois 001, Illinois 002, and so on. If I start a new record with Illinois 015 and don't realize I've already used that file number, is there anything to prevent me from using that number? If not, then what happens to that record? Do I end up with two records with the same file number or is the original record erased? *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Eileen Lemons <mailto:EileenLemons@usa.net> liz7275-gensearch@usa.net ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx

Here is the response to that question from Liz at Clooz. This did pertain to using one database: If you put in a number that is used before, you will get a message when you try to save it that the number is already in use. But my 2nd question was in regards to using more than one database questioning if the same file number could be used in two separate databases or would the software prevent that somehow so there would be no duplicate file #s among all databases. Here is Liz's answer: You're right. Clooz would not check other databases. It's up to you to make sure you don't duplicate numbers. There is no merge feature in Clooz, sorry. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Eileen Lemons -----Original Message----- From: Mike & Linda [mailto:Landmbrew@charter.net] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 5:56 PM To: Clooz-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Clooz] Entering new file numbers I've read what others have written but maybe I misunderstood. I thought Eileen was asking if she tried using the same number in the same database what would happen. Would it let her use it and create 2 entries with the same number in the same database? Would it not let her because the number is in use? Or would it use the new info and overwrite her old info, loosing it? Just my thoughts Mike -----Original Message----- From: Eileen Lemons [mailto:EileenLemons@usa.net] On Behalf Of liz7275-gensearch@usa.net Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:32 PM To: Clooz-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Clooz] Entering new file numbers Is there anything to keep you from using a previously used file # when entering information on a new record? For example, I have lots of Illinois censuses and I record them as Illinois 001, Illinois 002, and so on. If I start a new record with Illinois 015 and don't realize I've already used that file number, is there anything to prevent me from using that number? If not, then what happens to that record? Do I end up with two records with the same file number or is the original record erased? *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Eileen Lemons <mailto:EileenLemons@usa.net> liz7275-gensearch@usa.net ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx

Dear Thelma, I would use the Internet as the source but if you are getting something like a genealogy or biography with lots of vital information from the internet, I would make the event a genealogy or biography. I would fill in the BMD on the people database from the internet source but I think for events such as a birth/marriage/death, I would want something more than internet information. I would want a birth record, a marriage record, death record or obituary/cemetery record which I would then record under "events" . Of course, if you want a report on that person it will show the BMD information but you will not have anything under "events" to show the source of that information but you could infer that the data came from a biography or genealogy as one of the "documents". I cannot remember if biography or genealogy was one of the devaulted events or if I added it to my file. Georgia On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:57:29 -0600 Thelma Wood <tjwood@shaw.ca> writes: > Hi Listers, > I am a long-time CLOOZ user and love it! > However, I have not entered any data for a long time and have run > into > an organizational problem. > I have Documents filed under Births 0001, Deaths 0001, Marriages > 0001 > and Internet Information 1000 etc. > Internet information is my problem. > I have begun a file Internet Information 0001. Some internet pages I > > copied have birth ,death and marriage info for several people. If I > file > this under Internet Information 0001 and use the event column for > Birth > I run into a problem with where to enter the marriage and death > info. > Same problem would be if I were to enter all the information under > Birth > 0001. > In this case of multiple information data, would I have one copy for > > each bit of information? > Thank you. > Thelma in Winnipeg... Alberta Clipper coming this afternoon. Brrr. > > > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in > the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > >

You're right. Clooz would not check other databases. It's up to you to make sure you don't duplicate numbers. There is no merge feature in Clooz, sorry. At 11:40 AM 11/14/2005, liz7275-gensearch@usa.net wrote: >I have 3 databases and I have found that this feature is database specific. >If I try to use the same file # in a 2nd database, it is accepted. This >means that I might have several records with the same file #, just in >separate databases. I suspect this means that for each database, the actual >documents will have to be filed in a separate binder. Since I just started >setting up Clooz in October, I may want to try to combine all my databases >into one to make entering information easier since I don't want to duplicate >file numbers even across these databases since they are all known ancestors. >How does the process work for merging two or three databases into one? > >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* >Eileen Lemons >liz7275-gensearch@usa.net > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens, CG, CGL [mailto:liz@ancestordetective.com] >Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 7:28 AM >To: liz7275-gensearch@usa.net >Subject: Re: [Clooz] Entering new file numbers > >If you put in a number that is used before, you will get a message >when you try to save it that the number is already in use. > >At 10:32 PM 11/13/2005, you wrote: > >Is there anything to keep you from using a previously used file # when > >entering information on a new record? For example, I have lots of Illinois > >censuses and I record them as Illinois 001, Illinois 002, and so on. If I > >start a new record with Illinois 015 and don't realize I've already used > >that file number, is there anything to prevent me from using that number? > >If not, then what happens to that record? Do I end up with two records >with > >the same file number or is the original record erased? > > > > > > > >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > > >Eileen Lemons > > > > <mailto:EileenLemons@usa.net> liz7275-gensearch@usa.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >============================== > >Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the > >areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. > >Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx

Hi Listers, I am a long-time CLOOZ user and love it! However, I have not entered any data for a long time and have run into an organizational problem. I have Documents filed under Births 0001, Deaths 0001, Marriages 0001 and Internet Information 1000 etc. Internet information is my problem. I have begun a file Internet Information 0001. Some internet pages I copied have birth ,death and marriage info for several people. If I file this under Internet Information 0001 and use the event column for Birth I run into a problem with where to enter the marriage and death info. Same problem would be if I were to enter all the information under Birth 0001. In this case of multiple information data, would I have one copy for each bit of information? Thank you. Thelma in Winnipeg... Alberta Clipper coming this afternoon. Brrr.

I have 3 databases and I have found that this feature is database specific. If I try to use the same file # in a 2nd database, it is accepted. This means that I might have several records with the same file #, just in separate databases. I suspect this means that for each database, the actual documents will have to be filed in a separate binder. Since I just started setting up Clooz in October, I may want to try to combine all my databases into one to make entering information easier since I don't want to duplicate file numbers even across these databases since they are all known ancestors. How does the process work for merging two or three databases into one? *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Eileen Lemons liz7275-gensearch@usa.net -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens, CG, CGL [mailto:liz@ancestordetective.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 7:28 AM To: liz7275-gensearch@usa.net Subject: Re: [Clooz] Entering new file numbers If you put in a number that is used before, you will get a message when you try to save it that the number is already in use. At 10:32 PM 11/13/2005, you wrote: >Is there anything to keep you from using a previously used file # when >entering information on a new record? For example, I have lots of Illinois >censuses and I record them as Illinois 001, Illinois 002, and so on. If I >start a new record with Illinois 015 and don't realize I've already used >that file number, is there anything to prevent me from using that number? >If not, then what happens to that record? Do I end up with two records with >the same file number or is the original record erased? > > > >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > >Eileen Lemons > > <mailto:EileenLemons@usa.net> liz7275-gensearch@usa.net > > > > > > > >============================== >Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the >areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. >Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx

Is there anything to keep you from using a previously used file # when entering information on a new record? For example, I have lots of Illinois censuses and I record them as Illinois 001, Illinois 002, and so on. If I start a new record with Illinois 015 and don't realize I've already used that file number, is there anything to prevent me from using that number? If not, then what happens to that record? Do I end up with two records with the same file number or is the original record erased? *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Eileen Lemons <mailto:EileenLemons@usa.net> liz7275-gensearch@usa.net