At 03:00 AM 7/3/2001, Mark R. Williamson said: >Yes, of course, but most of the time the names are at least close, >so changing the name from the People record to match the directory >listing would require less typing than retyping from scratch. That >would be faster for those of us who are hunt-and-peck typists. While I can understand how it would be faster for people who are hunt-and-peck typists to use the name from the person view, NOT entering the names the way there are found on the document you are transcribing might cause you to miss a future, different document. The greatest feature of Clooz, IMO, is that when you are going to do some research and have decided on which people you wish to search for, you can print out (or use your laptop if you have one) to see what name spelling you've already found them under. You just might find them again under that spelling (or a totally new spelling). >I've just barely started, but I've been using "(not found)" as an >occupation to indicate negative results. It seems to make gaps in >the directory portion of a people listing easier to read. (In the >specific case, the husband of a couple seemed to be "between >careers" about half the time, so the wife was listed instead.) Is >there an obvious disadvantage to my doing that, or to you providing >a "not found" check box? While I can see some advantages to having a field for "not found", until Clooz offers one, I just use my genealogy database to record this information. Most of the genealogy programs now offer a "research to-do list" that you can record your findings in, which I do use in TMG (my genealogy database program). I include my negative findings as a source, so I know not to look there again for at least this person. >I was asking whether each year should have a separate source (which >I see you say it should). Since each Directory record bears a year >field, isn't that sufficient to show which year of an annual >directory was consulted? Also, many years of the same directory >make a lot of sources to scroll past. > > >Maybe I'm missing a key point of Clooz theory here. Should I be >throwing out the pages of pencil notes I take from city directories >at the library after I transcribe them into Clooz, keeping only the >Clooz transcriptions? This point is not as clear as the case of an >original document or a photocopy of an original document, where >Clooz serves just as the index. I started out by making each page from a directory a separate record, but after entering three, saw how it would be much easier and faster to use each year as a source. This way, for me at least, makes it easier to go to map to see how close they lived to each other, since they are on one report together. Since I've decided to use Liz's recommendations for how to keep my files (3 ring binders with top-loader sheet protectors), after I've entered my notes into Clooz, I print out each record, then put my notes behind the print out. The print out is what I use to enter my sources into my genealogy program, since all of the information I need is right there. I'm just not comfortable with throwing away any notes I've taken, and this way, I am able to keep them in one place. Just some thoughts from a satisfied Clooz user and I hope this helps you at all. Debbie