For what it's worth, I _would_ treat each line in an image as a source in its own right. For me, the decision about what level to pitch the source record at, is always about how much detail I put into the note for a source record. That's where I record the logic of why I think that the "John Smith", tailor of Alsager in 1766 (say) is my John Smith. For one of these images, that's liable to be several sentences. If I were to treat all the Apprentices stuff as one source, I would either put all that logic for _everyone_ into the Note for the one source, or I'd have to put the logic for each person into the citation for that person's fact - e.g. it goes into the citation against the master's occupation fact, and into the citation against the master's residence fact. And maybe the same logic goes into the same pair of facts for the apprentice if he were also of interest. That's 4 copies, maybe... So - I'd either have a very long note that I have to wade through to find the logic if I wanted to re-check that logic for one person, or I'd have the logic repeated in maybe 2 or more places. The last is a nightmare if I want to update it. Neither of these 2 options is nice for me, so I'd treat each line in an Apprentice image as a source in its own right. Other reasons to do it like that are that the Ancestry collection covers a lot of TNA references and these references (together with the page(?) number) are the only way you can really communicate to anyone else with certainty what you're looking at, so to go upwards, as it were, in the opposite direction, away from those TNA pieces references and just to having IR 1 as the reference seems perverse. I'd rather have one source per line and put the one full TNA reference plus page or folio and line number against the source - rather than a whole list to get confused among. I'd give each source a name something like: "Register Apprentice Duty: John Doe to Richard Roe, place, year" Under the publication info, I'd put something like: "digital image of original published in 'Ancestry.com. UK, Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures, 1710-1811 [database on-line]'" The Repository would be "Ancestry" The Identification / Call number within the Repository would read: "Class:IR 1; Piece: 71; Page 124; line 25" (I'm not sure if this should be a page or folio or what...) To get the .JPEG related to a fact, you need to select the fact; click "Show Media" button (the camera); select "Add..." and take it from there. (This assumes you haven't already linked the .JPEG to the Source. There's no point in linking the .JPEG to both Source and Fact. That's my take on things - I know others will do it differently. Adrian B

Hi everyone I hav'nt posted to this site before but hope someone will be able to help me, I have read the book to no avail, it either does;nt address the issue or more likely went over my head ( am getting a bit long in the tooth). My problem is- I have a single source - UK, Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures, 1710-1811 Within that there are a number of records of individuals of interest each of which has an associated jpeg. I assume these are the citations. I realise that I could proceed treating each record as an individual source, but that does'nt seem right. The sort of process I am looking for is that achieved by the excellant AS input program in relation to multiple Baptisms in the same church. To compund matters further I cant work out how to relate a particular jpeg to a Fact within in an Individual s Record rather than the whole Record ie. so that a "1" appears in the media column. I hope some kind person takes pity on an oldun, I have little enogh hair as it is. Regards Ray G

John: If the purpose of purpose of removing people with no BMD data is simply to avoid cluttering the list with people for whom you are not sure whether they were in the right time-frame for a census entry then maybe it goes too far? When I went hunting for missing census entries, I approached the problem slightly differently. I have uploaded to the query store on the FHUG site this morning two similar queries. Both are specific to ancestors of a specified starting person but could easily be modified to deal with all relatives or indeed anyone in the file. You should be able to locate them amongst recent downloads. One query gives the census places for ancestors; the other simply indicates whether i have a census entry in my file for that ancestor. People born after 1911 or with deaths or burials before 1841 are excluded but additionally I used the Ahnentafel function to cut the result off at my 4G-grandparents. This could be adapted for use with relatives other than ancestors, for example by using the RelationCode function - or it may be that in your case the other filters would be sufficient. If either of these two functions gives you something along the lines of what you are looking for, I would be happy to suggest modifications to suit whatever you are seeking to achieve. Derek

Margaret Thanks for the suggestion. The query has found the unrelated individuals I was looking for. Interestingly, it has thrown up two individuals whose names and birth dates imply they are sisters, but they are not recorded as such and their records give no indication of where or how I found them. I can only assume I was having a senior moment when I entered them. George

FYI That is where John started - using the Query "Census Missing Years 1911" He wants to filter out everyone who died before 1841 or who were born after 1911 or who have no Birth nor Marriage nor Death date. These E-mails are related to FHUG Forums > General > "amend census custom query" thread at http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=forum&board=General&op=display&num=5388 where these filters have been discussed. Not sure why John has switched to FH Mailing List. The three filters that must all be added together to the Rows tab are: Exclude if %INDI.DEAT[1].DATE% was earlier than 1841 Exclude if %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% was later than 1911 Exclude if =Bool(Not(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%))) is true Or, if you prefer, that last filter can be: Exclude unless =Bool(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%)) is true But remember the Date earlier/later than tests do not work for 'Date Phrases' unless you use the '...interpreted as:' option. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John James Sent: 25 August 2011 08:32 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Query setup further.. John Have you looked at the Query <http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=downloads&cat=queries> downloads section of the FHUG (www.fhug.org.uk) website? There may well be something very close to your requirements, that you could adapt, there already. HTH John _____ From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of APhill1274@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 8:26 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Query setup further.. Thank you for your help. Between yourself and Jane it has been educational. What I hoped to achieve was a list of all persons in the database which were then sorted to exclude the following:- All those persons born and died before 1841 All those persons who were born after 1911 All those persons who have no birth marriage or death data ie had name only. This would then produce a results list that one could see any omissions of individual census years. I am a little confused now whether Janes version or yours fulfills ALL of the requirements above. Do I have to rewrite again ?? Would it be too much to ask if this complete query could be written and called say" Census missing (3)" or something similar. I am sure this would be useful to other people using FH as well as myself. Once again thanks to you both. John In a message dated 24/08/2011 19:28:58 GMT Daylight Time, post@tatewise.co.uk writes: This should work better - the Boolean logic needed to be inverted. Add the following Row to exclude anyone with no birth date and no marriage date no death date. Exclude if =Bool( Not(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%)) ) is true Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of APhill1274@aol.com Sent: 24 August 2011 16:50 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Query setup further.. Thanks Jane All went in ok but still leaves showing in the results, the non birth non marriage non death persons. Is there a way I can send you the query for you to test why ?? How do I copy a query to send to you or anyone Thanks for being patient John In a message dated 24/08/2011 15:54:51 GMT Daylight Time, janetaubman@gmail.com writes: Sorry should be =Bool(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) On 24 August 2011 15:35, <APhill1274@aol.com> wrote: > you mention 2 > INDI.BIRT and one INDI.DEAT but no INDI. marriage ?? Jane. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____ avast! <http://www.avast.com> Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 24/08/2011 Tested on: 25/08/2011 08:29:23 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software. _____ avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 24/08/2011 Tested on: 25/08/2011 08:32:06 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

John Have you looked at the Query <http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=downloads&cat=queries> downloads section of the FHUG (www.fhug.org.uk) website? There may well be something very close to your requirements, that you could adapt, there already. HTH John _____ From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of APhill1274@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 8:26 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Query setup further.. Thank you for your help. Between yourself and Jane it has been educational. What I hoped to achieve was a list of all persons in the database which were then sorted to exclude the following:- All those persons born and died before 1841 All those persons who were born after 1911 All those persons who have no birth marriage or death data ie had name only. This would then produce a results list that one could see any omissions of individual census years. I am a little confused now whether Janes version or yours fulfills ALL of the requirements above. Do I have to rewrite again ?? Would it be too much to ask if this complete query could be written and called say" Census missing (3)" or something similar. I am sure this would be useful to other people using FH as well as myself. Once again thanks to you both. John In a message dated 24/08/2011 19:28:58 GMT Daylight Time, post@tatewise.co.uk writes: This should work better - the Boolean logic needed to be inverted. Add the following Row to exclude anyone with no birth date and no marriage date no death date. Exclude if =Bool( Not(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%)) ) is true Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of APhill1274@aol.com Sent: 24 August 2011 16:50 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Query setup further.. Thanks Jane All went in ok but still leaves showing in the results, the non birth non marriage non death persons. Is there a way I can send you the query for you to test why ?? How do I copy a query to send to you or anyone Thanks for being patient John In a message dated 24/08/2011 15:54:51 GMT Daylight Time, janetaubman@gmail.com writes: Sorry should be =Bool(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) On 24 August 2011 15:35, <APhill1274@aol.com> wrote: > you mention 2 > INDI.BIRT and one INDI.DEAT but no INDI. marriage ?? Jane. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____ avast! <http://www.avast.com> Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 24/08/2011 Tested on: 25/08/2011 08:29:23 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software. _____ avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 24/08/2011 Tested on: 25/08/2011 08:32:06 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.

Thanks a lot I only switched to see if i could get any other responses. Thanks once again for all your help I will take the custom 1911 missing query and now add the lines you suggested to the rows tab If it is ok (no reason why not) it may help a lot of people determine the "holes" in their census enquiries. It is quite another matter to find the necessary BMD' dates that are missing to start the forward census enquiries. Do you think I should repost this to the forum?? Best regards John In a message dated 25/08/2011 10:44:14 GMT Daylight Time, post@tatewise.co.uk writes: FYI That is where John started - using the Query "Census Missing Years 1911" He wants to filter out everyone who died before 1841 or who were born after 1911 or who have no Birth nor Marriage nor Death date. These E-mails are related to FHUG Forums > General > "amend census custom query" thread at http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=forum&board=General&op=displ ay&num=5388 where these filters have been discussed. Not sure why John has switched to FH Mailing List. The three filters that must all be added together to the Rows tab are: Exclude if %INDI.DEAT[1].DATE% was earlier than 1841 Exclude if %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% was later than 1911 Exclude if =Bool(Not(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%))) is true Or, if you prefer, that last filter can be: Exclude unless =Bool(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS>MARR.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%)) is true But remember the Date earlier/later than tests do not work for 'Date Phrases' unless you use the '...interpreted as:' option. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John James Sent: 25 August 2011 08:32 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Query setup further.. John Have you looked at the Query <http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=downloads&cat=queries> downloads section of the FHUG (www.fhug.org.uk) website? There may well be something very close to your requirements, that you could adapt, there already. HTH John _____ From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of APhill1274@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 8:26 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Query setup further.. Thank you for your help. Between yourself and Jane it has been educational. What I hoped to achieve was a list of all persons in the database which were then sorted to exclude the following:- All those persons born and died before 1841 All those persons who were born after 1911 All those persons who have no birth marriage or death data ie had name only. This would then produce a results list that one could see any omissions of individual census years. I am a little confused now whether Janes version or yours fulfills ALL of the requirements above. Do I have to rewrite again ?? Would it be too much to ask if this complete query could be written and called say" Census missing (3)" or something similar. I am sure this would be useful to other people using FH as well as myself. Once again thanks to you both. John In a message dated 24/08/2011 19:28:58 GMT Daylight Time, post@tatewise.co.uk writes: This should work better - the Boolean logic needed to be inverted. Add the following Row to exclude anyone with no birth date and no marriage date no death date. Exclude if =Bool( Not(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%)) ) is true Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of APhill1274@aol.com Sent: 24 August 2011 16:50 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Query setup further.. Thanks Jane All went in ok but still leaves showing in the results, the non birth non marriage non death persons. Is there a way I can send you the query for you to test why ?? How do I copy a query to send to you or anyone Thanks for being patient John In a message dated 24/08/2011 15:54:51 GMT Daylight Time, janetaubman@gmail.com writes: Sorry should be =Bool(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) On 24 August 2011 15:35, <APhill1274@aol.com> wrote: > you mention 2 > INDI.BIRT and one INDI.DEAT but no INDI. marriage ?? Jane. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____ avast! <http://www.avast.com> Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 24/08/2011 Tested on: 25/08/2011 08:29:23 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software. _____ avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 24/08/2011 Tested on: 25/08/2011 08:32:06 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

George, 'View', 'Standard Queries', 'Search for Orphans' will give you a list of all the people who aren't related to anyone else. Margaret ________________________________ From: bush.lyme <bush.lyme@ntlworld.com> To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, 25 August, 2011 0:18:38 Subject: Re: [FHU] Unrelated Individuals Mike It looks as if I now have to devise a query to find and remove any unrelated individuals I have added in the last week or so and another  if I ever need to find them in the source text . Fortunately I know help is at hand if I fail. Many thanks George ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you for your help. Between yourself and Jane it has been educational. What I hoped to achieve was a list of all persons in the database which were then sorted to exclude the following:- All those persons born and died before 1841 All those persons who were born after 1911 All those persons who have no birth marriage or death data ie had name only. This would then produce a results list that one could see any omissions of individual census years. I am a little confused now whether Janes version or yours fulfills ALL of the requirements above. Do I have to rewrite again ?? Would it be too much to ask if this complete query could be written and called say" Census missing (3)" or something similar. I am sure this would be useful to other people using FH as well as myself. Once again thanks to you both. John In a message dated 24/08/2011 19:28:58 GMT Daylight Time, post@tatewise.co.uk writes: This should work better - the Boolean logic needed to be inverted. Add the following Row to exclude anyone with no birth date and no marriage date no death date. Exclude if =Bool( Not(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%)) ) is true Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of APhill1274@aol.com Sent: 24 August 2011 16:50 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Query setup further.. Thanks Jane All went in ok but still leaves showing in the results, the non birth non marriage non death persons. Is there a way I can send you the query for you to test why ?? How do I copy a query to send to you or anyone Thanks for being patient John In a message dated 24/08/2011 15:54:51 GMT Daylight Time, janetaubman@gmail.com writes: Sorry should be =Bool(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) On 24 August 2011 15:35, <APhill1274@aol.com> wrote: > you mention 2 > INDI.BIRT and one INDI.DEAT but no INDI. marriage ?? Jane. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Mike It looks as if I now have to devise a query to find and remove any unrelated individuals I have added in the last week or so and another if I ever need to find them in the source text . Fortunately I know help is at hand if I fail. Many thanks George

George, I presume you use the Auto-text option in AS to create a transcript of the Census Grid. This will become the Text From Source field of the Source Record in FH. I usually add all Individuals on the Census into the Auto-text box, and make any other necessary adjustments. That way the Source Record is a full transcript of the Census, and mimics the linked Multimedia image of the Census Return. The only exception I make is for large Institutions, Barracks, Schools, Ships, Hotels, etc, where I just summarise all the unrelated people. Then at least the Census Records can be inspected or searched with a Query to find elusive relations. I usually do not add unrelated Individuals to the GEDCOM data. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of bush.lyme Sent: 24 August 2011 18:11 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Unrelated Individuals Thanks to Graham, Adrian and John for your suggestions. I am not sure how I shall proceed; there are pluses and minuses to all the options. I shall have to mull it over for a while. George

This should work better - the Boolean logic needed to be inverted. Add the following Row to exclude anyone with no birth date and no marriage date no death date. Exclude if =Bool( Not(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%)) and Not(Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%)) ) is true Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of APhill1274@aol.com Sent: 24 August 2011 16:50 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Query setup further.. Thanks Jane All went in ok but still leaves showing in the results, the non birth non marriage non death persons. Is there a way I can send you the query for you to test why ?? How do I copy a query to send to you or anyone Thanks for being patient John In a message dated 24/08/2011 15:54:51 GMT Daylight Time, janetaubman@gmail.com writes: Sorry should be =Bool(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) On 24 August 2011 15:35, <APhill1274@aol.com> wrote: > you mention 2 > INDI.BIRT and one INDI.DEAT but no INDI. marriage ?? Jane.

Thanks to Graham, Adrian and John for your suggestions. I am not sure how I shall proceed; there are pluses and minuses to all the options. I shall have to mull it over for a while. George

George, You can elect to add only those that you believe to be related but, as has already been pointed out, you risk missing someone who later turns out to be a relative, or becomes a relative at a date after the census in question. AS auto-creates a text version of the census entry, which I use to record the information from the census verbatim, and also manually include any apparently extraneous individuals also present in the household on census day for whom I have not created a record. I also use this to include selected persons, for example from an institution or vessel (you would not want to include every single convict in a prison, or every sailor on a ship, for example!). HTH John -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of bush.lyme Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:25 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Unrelated Individuals I have recently started to use Ancestral Sources to enter census information and am concerned by the fact that it adds unrelated individuals into FH's gedcom file. Obviously, they do not belong there, but if I remove them I assume they will be removed from the census data too, which means my census record is incomplete. If my assumption is correct, how do other users manage the situation? I am toying with the idea of omitting them from the census but adding a note saying, for example, "There were also 2 servants and a visitor present". Regards George Bush ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> I am toying with the idea of omitting them from the census but adding a note saying, for example, "There were also 2 servants and a visitor present". <<snipped>> Yes, that's what I do: I add a note about the (named) servants to my residence fact, saying (e.g.) that my family was well enough off to pay for X and Y, live-in servants, at the address in question. However, I don't use Ancestral Sources so am unsure what facts AS creates, so you may need to choose a different fact to add the note to, or even to create free-standing notes, depending on what looks nicest. Certainly, I've never bothered to list all inhabitants of a lodging house where my relatives were found - though naming the landlord (in a note) seems only polite! Adrian B

Hi George > I have recently started to use Ancestral Sources to enter census > information > and am concerned by the fact that it adds unrelated individuals into > FH's > gedcom file. Obviously, they do not belong there, but if I remove them > I > assume they will be removed from the census data too, which means my > census > record is incomplete. If my assumption is correct, how do other users > manage > the situation? I am toying with the idea of omitting them from the > census > but adding a note saying, for example, "There were also 2 servants and > a > visitor present". I always add everyone to my file, as on at least one occasion they have later turned out to be related. I also do this for witnesses to marriages etc. and on one occasion this has opened a door in a 'brick wall' (A marriage witness later turned out to be a married sister that I hadn't discovered by other means). It has been known for servants or boarders to marry into the host family. At the end of the day it comes down to how you want to store your family data. Hope this helps Graham No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3848 - Release Date: 08/23/11 19:35:00

Sorry should be =Bool(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) On 24 August 2011 15:35, <APhill1274@aol.com> wrote: > you mention 2 > INDI.BIRT  and one INDI.DEAT but no INDI. marriage ?? -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

I have recently started to use Ancestral Sources to enter census information and am concerned by the fact that it adds unrelated individuals into FH's gedcom file. Obviously, they do not belong there, but if I remove them I assume they will be removed from the census data too, which means my census record is incomplete. If my assumption is correct, how do other users manage the situation? I am toying with the idea of omitting them from the census but adding a note saying, for example, "There were also 2 servants and a visitor present". Regards George Bush

On 24 August 2011 13:19, <APhill1274@aol.com> wrote: > If date of birth is blank (null?) and date of marriage is blank and date of >  death is blank then the query result will not print their names. Something like a Row condition of Add If =bool(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) is true, should work for you. -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

Thanks Jane All went in ok but still leaves showing in the results, the non birth non marriage non death persons. Is there a way I can send you the query for you to test why ?? How do I copy a query to send to you or anyone Thanks for being patient John In a message dated 24/08/2011 15:54:51 GMT Daylight Time, janetaubman@gmail.com writes: Sorry should be =Bool(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%)) On 24 August 2011 15:35, <APhill1274@aol.com> wrote: > you mention 2 > INDI.BIRT and one INDI.DEAT but no INDI. marriage ?? -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message