At 09:34 AM 7/2/01 -0400, Liz Kelley Kerstens wrote: >At 02:02 AM 6/30/01 -0500, you wrote: >>1. What are you supposed to enter in the "H", "R", and "Bds" boxes on the >>detail form? [...] >I put an x in the boxes. You're right, the x's aren't printing, so that >will be fixed in the next patch, which I'm working on. Thanks for letting >me know. Still enter the x's as it's just the report that's not working right. Would you add it to the directory report only, or also the directory portion of the people report? Will it print whatever is in the box, or just if it is an "X"? I've been putting an "h" in the H box, for example. >>2. Shouldn't the default values for Surname and Given be the >>corresponding values from the People record (rather than blank) when the >>option to fill in the data from the previous detail form is not requested? >No. The whole point of having a surname and given name field in the detail >screen is to allow you to enter the person's name as it's recorded in the >record. You are transcribing a document into Clooz. You should transcribe >the document as it appears, misspellings or alternate names included. 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. >>3. Do you use the Employed field for an address or the name of an employer? >Use it for whatever is in the directory. Not all directories include >employment information, so if there's nothing there I leave it blank. But >if there's an employer's name and address I fill it in there. I guess I was looking for separate fields for separate data, as with the "Street #" and "Street" fields. >>3.1 If you use the Employed field for a work address when both work and >>home addresses are given, how do you treat an entry with a single address >>not marked as being a home address (which may then be work only or work >>and home)? >I just fill in the address. There's usually some reference such as h or r >or bds. If not, just fill in the address. Again, you're transcribing, not >making assumptions on this data. But we are indeed making assumptions or deductions about how to separate parts of the directory entry, or it might as well be one long text field. I have been doing as you suggest, but it makes the directory portion of the people report look strange when a business address floats in and out of the single address field just because the directory publisher was inconsistently listing a home address. >>4. How do you record the fact the fact that you searched for a particular >>person in a directory but did not find an entry, as distinct from not >>having searched? >There is currently no way to record negative research in Clooz. That will >have to be entered elsewhere. I use a research calendar. You can download >a free template for Word or WordPerfect from my web site at >http://www.ancestordetective.com/freebies.htm. The next version upgrade of >Clooz will have a research calendar incorporated into it. However, that's >still in the distant future. 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? Thanks for the pointer to the template. >>5. If you find a person in successive instances of the same directory, do >>you create one source record for each year or just one for the >>series? If the latter, it would certainly be handy to be able to build >>each year's source record from a previously entered record. >I assume you mean successive years of the same directory? Each directory >merits its own record, including the source information since there is >different source information. I'll keep your suggestion in mind. 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. >>6. Since some census records bear street addresses, but Clooz does not >>display them in a People report, could you double-enter such a census as >>a directory listing to aid in tracking moves? > >That's your choice, but you wouldn't be able to use the same document >number twice. Not a problem. I've already been appending suffixes to document numbers to indicate which of several parts of one sheet relate to which Clooz entities. It seems an awful waste of filing cabinet space to start a new page of notes for (e.g.) each year of searching a city directory series for an individual or family. 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.