Martyn: I moved from Generations (v8.5a in my case) to Family Historian about 4 years ago and recall at the time encountering various conversion issues, including that of source fields. After experimenting, I found that the problem of unnamed sources could be mitigated by working in Generations prior to export by mapping the various Generations source fields to the most appropriate FH (and hence standard GEDCOM) source field. As a help to familiarising myself with GEDCOM tags, I made (in FH) a test file for John Doe and his wife Jane with a single source for which I filled in all available options in the source pane within FH. I then printed out as a text file using Notepad the resulting GEDCOM to see how the various source fields appeared. This showed the following correlation: Author AUTH Title TITL Short Title ABBR Type _TYPE Pub Info PUBL Actual Text TEXT Repository REPO Note NOTE If in your version of Generations you have a dialogue for defining source fields (in 8.5 it is Options>Define>Sources Fields) you will see that for each of the available fields in Generations, there is a box for GEDCOM tag. If you make sure that for the fields with a tick in the active box, only the tags set out above are used (spare information can be tagged NOTE initially) and only then export to FH, you should find that a lot of work is thereby saved. I hope this helps. Incidentally, I found that the Generations source numbering was carried over to FH so if you produce from Generations a source report and save it to your drive, that should be a useful way of identifying any FH sources still requiring attention since the FH source Record ID should be the same as the Generations source number if your version of Generations behaves in the same way as 8.5. I'm happy to try and help with any other conversion issues you encounter. Derek

Mike, Very well put ! I'm an ex-programmer, and I still haven't got to the bottom of FH. There's nothing to beat it, however. John L ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies Hello Andrew, <<snippet>> Can I really digitise all this information in FH, not per person, but in its entirety? <<snippet>> Yes, I would be extremely surprised if you cannot digitise all the information. Transcripts are only text, and computers as I am sure you know, can hold a lot of text in relatively little space compared to images, audio, and video. There are many FH users with many thousands of Individual Records and Source Records and Multimedia Records. My own small FH data has over 500 Individuals, 650 Sources, and 1,000 Multimedia. <<snippet>> ...nothing in my business life offers the computing challenges of FH. I look at the structure of some of those queries and think what is that all about? <<snippet>> I accept that a weakness of FH is its user interface, and Query language, but it is improving. However, it must be recognised that the genealogy software market is tiny compared to most of the other software you mention. So Calico Pie (Simon Orde) can only devote the effort to FH development that the market can stand. Also, for various reasons, FH is tied closely to the GEDCOM structure, which influences much of the structure of FH. I have found that understanding GEDCOM helps with understanding FH. <<snippet>> ...there are times when I read responses and think a degree in computer science would be a great help unravelling that one! I sense I am not alone? <<snippet>> FH is its own worst enemy here. By offering such a highly customisable product it inevitably involves much technical detail. If you are prepared to tolerate what FH offers out of the box, which is a lot, then much of that technical detail is irrelevant. It's a bit like Windows and Microsoft Office that both have unplumbed depths, that most of us steer clear of, until we need to break through a particular brick-wall. Regards, Mike Tate

Thanks Adrian I think I need to dig a little deeper into FH and try entering some "complete" sources not linked to individuals. As you say it is the filtering and indexing that may be the challenging bit. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 01 March 2012 23:25 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies <<snipped>> Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? <<snipped>> Because I know how to filter the columns of my spreadsheet... For baptisms, the parents get put into one column, the abode into another, etc. Then it's simple filtering in Excel if I want to pull off all Doe family members in Davenham (say). I'm unclear how easy similar queries would be in FH. (Translation - I'm too lazy to try to find out????) <<snipped>> Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? <<snipped>> Because my _impression_ (like I say, I've never used Custodian) was that it was for managing the full content of a document, whereas I just wanted a quick and dirty index to transcripts elsewhere. <<snipped>> I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript <<snipped>> I would suggest that first of all you need to think what you mean by this. It sounds to me like you want something more than just a Word transcript???? Do you want indexing on it, for instance? Do you want an exact transcript of the text? Or is it a reformatted version of that text? (See http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~cprdb/ for the Cheshire Parish Register Project as an example of what I mean. Each record contains (errors and omissions excepted) all the data in the original, but since it is reformatted it's not actually a transcript in the correct sense of that word. Not a criticism - this is a brilliant project done with a lot of care!) <<snipped>> Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. <<snipped>> I'm not sure what you think is missing - Source records can be entered into Family Historian as exact transcripts without creating any people (menu option Add/Source). What may be (is?) more difficult is filtering and indexing those transcripts in order to recreate the families. Adrian B ------------------------------- 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

You can simply use the standard approx or calculated date display, Family Historian will show them with out using expressions. If you paste the expression you are having a problem and we can probably see what the issue is. On 5 March 2012 10:19, Pat Ness <pwness@btinternet.com> wrote: > Still having problems - found the place to insert but when I use "Test" it > comes up with "the expression at the position . is not a recognised > function". -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

Hi Still having problems - found the place to insert but when I use "Test" it comes up with "the expression at the position . is not a recognised function". So where exactly should it be put? I have used various genealogical programmes but never had to write my own expressions. The use of "circa" is a recognised way of expressing "about - roughly" which is great when taking ages from marriage certificates as a starting point. Pat Ness Researching, England- Smith, Allen, Robinson, Holgate, Scotland -Ness, Drummond, Govan, Cooper

John, I have run into that limit too, but do not know exactly what it is. Also, in this case, you would need to include Baptism as well as Christening (unless you never use Baptism) and that would definitely be "too long". Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John Liddle Sent: 03 March 2012 21:58 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Diagrams - indication of approximate dates Mike, Many thanks - that does the trick. A further question - I tried to extend the expression to deal with cases where there is a christening date but no birth date. When I tested the expression, it was "too long" - what is the maximum length of a text expression? Regards, John Liddle Backwell, North Somerset - "Where the cider apples grow" -----Original Message----- From: Beryl & Mike Tate [mailto:post@tatewise.co.uk] Sent: 01 March 2012 11:29 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Diagrams - indication of approximate dates Try this to eliminate the " - " =TextIf(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%),CombineText(TextIf(%INDI.BIRT.DATE:XDATETYPE% = "Approx",CombineText("c.",%INDI.BIRT.DATE:YEAR%,,),%INDI.BIRT.DATE:ABBREV4%) ," - ",TextIf(%INDI.DEAT.DATE:XDATETYPE% = "Approx",CombineText("c.",%INDI.DEAT.DATE:YEAR%,,),%INDI.DEAT.DATE:ABBREV4%) ,),) What it does is surround your expression with =TextIf(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%),{your expression},) Regards, Mike Tate

Mike, Many thanks - that does the trick. A further question - I tried to extend the expression to deal with cases where there is a christening date but no birth date. When I tested the expression, it was "too long" - what is the maximum length of a text expression? Regards, John Liddle Backwell, North Somerset - "Where the cider apples grow" -----Original Message----- From: Beryl & Mike Tate [mailto:post@tatewise.co.uk] Sent: 01 March 2012 11:29 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Diagrams - indication of approximate dates Try this to eliminate the " - " =TextIf(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%),CombineText(TextIf(%INDI.BIRT.DATE:XDATETYPE% = "Approx",CombineText("c.",%INDI.BIRT.DATE:YEAR%,,),%INDI.BIRT.DATE:ABBREV4%) ," - ",TextIf(%INDI.DEAT.DATE:XDATETYPE% = "Approx",CombineText("c.",%INDI.DEAT.DATE:YEAR%,,),%INDI.DEAT.DATE:ABBREV4%) ,),) What it does is surround your expression with =TextIf(Exists(%INDI.BIRT.DATE%) or Exists(%INDI.DEAT.DATE%),{your expression},) Regards, Mike Tate

Hello Mike, Thank you so much for your advice. I am slowly working my way through "Getting the most from Family Historian". I haven't yet read the section on Sources but should be doing so in the next few days. Yes, I have every intention of persisting with Family Historian as it is clearly an excellent program. One of the main criteria I was looking for when I decided to move on from my old "Generations" program was to have a window that displayed a family unit (i.e. a couple with their parents arranged above them and children below) and the ability then to navigate from here vertically (rather than laterally) through the family tree - as was the case with "Generations". This is, of course, what I have found in the Focus Window of Family Historian. Apart from Legacy, this is the only other program I came across which had this arrangement. I haven't yet joined the User Group but will be doing so when I have mastered the basics of the program. Best wishes, Martyn Queensland, Australia -----Original Message----- From: Beryl & Mike Tate Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:29 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Source fields Martyn, Please do persevere - FH is more sophisticated than Generations, and can be highly customised, but using different techniques, that I am sure you will come to use. If you have not discovered it already, then do join (it is free) the Family Historian User Group (FHUG) at http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi It is full of advice, expert forums, free utilities, etc, etc - it is run by Jane. Do refer to the Help within FH via its Help buttons. Do take the time to work through the book "Getting the Most From Family Historian 4" via the menubar Help. Answering some of your points... FH has a number of different Record types (Individual, Family, Source, Note, Multimedia, Repository, etc) in accordance with the GEDCOM standard. Each of these Record types has its own unique Record ID. To navigate down the Records you usually start with an Individual and in the Property Box open the yellow Source pane. Particularly on the Facts tab (but also the All tab) select any item and if it has a linked Source it appears in the Source pane. Click the yellow triangular Go To Source Record button to open the Source Record. >From there you can open its Repository Record and Multimedia Records if >any. To navigate up the Records, first select any Record (say a Source Record), then use menubar View > Record Links. That will list all Records that link to the selected Record, and you can Go To any one of them. Regards, Mike Tate

Yvonne, I am going to make some assumptions, which you will need to correct if I am wrong. <<snippet>> I have linked photos to my tree <<snippet>> I assume you double-click an Individual's box in your Diagram tree to open the Property Box, and then use the Multimedia tab to Add Media. <<snippet>> I'm left with a box with an X in it <<snippet>> I assume you mean that where the photo was in an Individual's box in a Diagram there is now a large X. Are you using FH Version 4 with the default Family Historian Projects structure for your data? When you add Multimedia photos, do you get the Copy Media Files popup, and choose to Copy into the Project Folder? The above is the safest method, and should not go wrong. If instead you choose Don't Copy, or you are using FH Version 2 or 3, then having linked your Multimedia photo image you must NOT move, rename, or delete the original photo file. You can check on how many Multimedia images have suffered this fate by using Tools > Work with External File Links and noting the number of X marks. Can you please let me know which assumptions fit your scenario. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Yvonne Farrell Sent: 02 March 2012 20:39 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Linking photos I have linked photos to my tree but often I will notice that the link has disappeared and I'm left with a box with an X in it, what am I doing wrong? Yvonne

Hello Andrew, <<snippet>> Can I really digitise all this information in FH, not per person, but in its entirety? <<snippet>> Yes, I would be extremely surprised if you cannot digitise all the information. Transcripts are only text, and computers as I am sure you know, can hold a lot of text in relatively little space compared to images, audio, and video. There are many FH users with many thousands of Individual Records and Source Records and Multimedia Records. My own small FH data has over 500 Individuals, 650 Sources, and 1,000 Multimedia. <<snippet>> ...nothing in my business life offers the computing challenges of FH. I look at the structure of some of those queries and think what is that all about? <<snippet>> I accept that a weakness of FH is its user interface, and Query language, but it is improving. However, it must be recognised that the genealogy software market is tiny compared to most of the other software you mention. So Calico Pie (Simon Orde) can only devote the effort to FH development that the market can stand. Also, for various reasons, FH is tied closely to the GEDCOM structure, which influences much of the structure of FH. I have found that understanding GEDCOM helps with understanding FH. <<snippet>> ...there are times when I read responses and think a degree in computer science would be a great help unravelling that one! I sense I am not alone? <<snippet>> FH is its own worst enemy here. By offering such a highly customisable product it inevitably involves much technical detail. If you are prepared to tolerate what FH offers out of the box, which is a lot, then much of that technical detail is irrelevant. It's a bit like Windows and Microsoft Office that both have unplumbed depths, that most of us steer clear of, until we need to break through a particular brick-wall. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Blue and White China Andrew Pye Sent: 02 March 2012 19:54 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies I welcome and appreciate all these views. In case of doubt, I have used FH since version 3, upgraded at every opportunity and look forward with total patience to 5. After research I decided it was probably the best software on the market and am a member of FHUG. I am not an outsider looking in! I do find it an amazingly complex piece of software and it seems that those with a computer background really love it and the rest of us do our best. I run my own business and have financial software, bespoke mail-order software, management reporting software, website content management software, taxation software and SQL coming out of my ears, but nothing in my business life offers the computing challenges of FH. I look at the structure of some of those queries and think what is that all about? Thanks for the pointer on Sources. I was not aware of this facility before. I have taken a look and am not sure it really fits the bill. I would like to digitise parish register transcripts for 100 parishes in a consistent format. I have manorial records from numerous manors. I have probate transcripts in various formats. All on paper. Doing a one place study I need the entire contents of each source available to me, so I can gradually index, locate and insert individuals into their respective families. It works, sort of on paper, but I would prefer a digital solution, especially as it makes sharing with other so much easier. I am working on 300+ families and so far my approach with FH is to take a family at a time and enter the data/sources for each individual within a family, one by one. My sources are there in FH in terms of "this birth came from a baptismal entry in the parish register for parish X", I can copy the wording of the actual entry into FH, but my source in reality, the entire parish registers from start to finish, is still on paper sitting on my desk. Can I really digitise all this information in FH, not per person, but in its entirety? Obviously, in any user group you value all the help that people offer in their own unpaid time, but there are times when I read responses and think a degree in computer science would be a great help unravelling that one! I sense I am not alone? Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl & Mike Tate Sent: 02 March 2012 00:14 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [KEYWDCHK] - Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies - Found word(s) list error in the Text body <<snippet>> Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. <<snippet>> Family Historian follows the GEDCOM standard that has Records for each Individual, Family, Source, Repository, and Multimedia entry. You can enter Source Records with plain text transcripts, and linked Multimedia images of documents, and a Repository reference. These do not need any Individual or Family Records. By using 'labelled' text and Source Types there are many possibilities for searching using the Query facilities. With FH Version 5 available soon there is a programmable Plugin capability that perform further search, sort, and index functions providing that the Source data is suitably consistently organised. Hope that helps convince you. But if not, then find out why Family Historian came top in the Which? Computing test of 9 Family History software packages and download the free 30-day trial of FH V4. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Blue and White China Andrew Pye Sent: 01 March 2012 22:18 To: abruce@madasafish.com; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies Interesting. Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? I carry no brief for Custodian and I am trying to approach this with a open mind, but what I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript, because it is more accurate than any other transcript. I cannot trust the census transcripts available as the error rate is so high, so I use my more accurate transcripts. How do I digitalise those? Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 01 March 2012 17:34 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies <<snipped>> ... All genealogical software seems to concentrate on adding individuals to "your family" and there is no way to first record all the references to your surname in the parish registers of parish X and then work through identifying and allocating individuals to their appropriate place within the family and on the tree. ... <<snipped>> Actually, as far as FH goes, it's up to you which way round you do it. The way I work when doing occasional one-name-in-one-place reconstructions is to record the source(s) first, with the transcript in the "Text from Source" on the source record. No individuals yet. (I get the feeling lots of people create individuals first, with their facts, then create source records after. I _always_ create a source record first. Apart from anything, there's then no temptation to forget to indicate the source of something.) What happens next tends to depend on whether I can easily identify the contents of the source record to an individual already in the "database". If it can be identified, then I'll record the reason why it's who I think it is in the Note on the source record and add the fact. If there's no obvious candidate - or several - I'll create a new individual, with the facts justified by that source record. So, if I have a marriage of John Doe in Northwich, and it could be John Doe from Davenham or John Doe from Hartford, I'll create a 3rd individual named John Doe. This is useful where the Northwich John has other facts clearly linked to him. When I have enough evidence to "prove" that Northwich John is one of the others, then I'll document that "proof" in a separate note record, link it to one and merge the 2 John individuals. (That "proof" is a separate note record to enable its easy disconnection if the proof later turns out to be wrong. Unfortunately, splitting the facts off, if the proof is wrong, is trickier). What I'm not sure is how easy it is to use FH to "shuffle the cards" of the source records to see matches as, to be honest, I summarise the records in a spreadsheet and use filtering to find candidates there, not in FH. I've never used Custodian but was influenced by someone who said that there was no point in using it because, in essence, the crucial stuff was duplicated between Custodian and FH. Excel suffices for me. Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------- 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

I have linked photos to my tree but often I will notice that the link has disappeared and I'm left with a box with an X in it, what am I doing wrong? Yvonne

I welcome and appreciate all these views. In case of doubt, I have used FH since version 3, upgraded at every opportunity and look forward with total patience to 5. After research I decided it was probably the best software on the market and am a member of FHUG. I am not an outsider looking in! I do find it an amazingly complex piece of software and it seems that those with a computer background really love it and the rest of us do our best. I run my own business and have financial software, bespoke mail-order software, management reporting software, website content management software, taxation software and SQL coming out of my ears, but nothing in my business life offers the computing challenges of FH. I look at the structure of some of those queries and think what is that all about? Thanks for the pointer on Sources. I was not aware of this facility before. I have taken a look and am not sure it really fits the bill. I would like to digitise parish register transcripts for 100 parishes in a consistent format. I have manorial records from numerous manors. I have probate transcripts in various formats. All on paper. Doing a one place study I need the entire contents of each source available to me, so I can gradually index, locate and insert individuals into their respective families. It works, sort of on paper, but I would prefer a digital solution, especially as it makes sharing with other so much easier. I am working on 300+ families and so far my approach with FH is to take a family at a time and enter the data/sources for each individual within a family, one by one. My sources are there in FH in terms of "this birth came from a baptismal entry in the parish register for parish X", I can copy the wording of the actual entry into FH, but my source in reality, the entire parish registers from start to finish, is still on paper sitting on my desk. Can I really digitise all this information in FH, not per person, but in its entirety? Obviously, in any user group you value all the help that people offer in their own unpaid time, but there are times when I read responses and think a degree in computer science would be a great help unravelling that one! I sense I am not alone? Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl & Mike Tate Sent: 02 March 2012 00:14 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [KEYWDCHK] - Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies - Found word(s) list error in the Text body <<snippet>> Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. <<snippet>> Family Historian follows the GEDCOM standard that has Records for each Individual, Family, Source, Repository, and Multimedia entry. You can enter Source Records with plain text transcripts, and linked Multimedia images of documents, and a Repository reference. These do not need any Individual or Family Records. By using 'labelled' text and Source Types there are many possibilities for searching using the Query facilities. With FH Version 5 available soon there is a programmable Plugin capability that perform further search, sort, and index functions providing that the Source data is suitably consistently organised. Hope that helps convince you. But if not, then find out why Family Historian came top in the Which? Computing test of 9 Family History software packages and download the free 30-day trial of FH V4. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Blue and White China Andrew Pye Sent: 01 March 2012 22:18 To: abruce@madasafish.com; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies Interesting. Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? I carry no brief for Custodian and I am trying to approach this with a open mind, but what I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript, because it is more accurate than any other transcript. I cannot trust the census transcripts available as the error rate is so high, so I use my more accurate transcripts. How do I digitalise those? Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 01 March 2012 17:34 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies <<snipped>> ... All genealogical software seems to concentrate on adding individuals to "your family" and there is no way to first record all the references to your surname in the parish registers of parish X and then work through identifying and allocating individuals to their appropriate place within the family and on the tree. ... <<snipped>> Actually, as far as FH goes, it's up to you which way round you do it. The way I work when doing occasional one-name-in-one-place reconstructions is to record the source(s) first, with the transcript in the "Text from Source" on the source record. No individuals yet. (I get the feeling lots of people create individuals first, with their facts, then create source records after. I _always_ create a source record first. Apart from anything, there's then no temptation to forget to indicate the source of something.) What happens next tends to depend on whether I can easily identify the contents of the source record to an individual already in the "database". If it can be identified, then I'll record the reason why it's who I think it is in the Note on the source record and add the fact. If there's no obvious candidate - or several - I'll create a new individual, with the facts justified by that source record. So, if I have a marriage of John Doe in Northwich, and it could be John Doe from Davenham or John Doe from Hartford, I'll create a 3rd individual named John Doe. This is useful where the Northwich John has other facts clearly linked to him. When I have enough evidence to "prove" that Northwich John is one of the others, then I'll document that "proof" in a separate note record, link it to one and merge the 2 John individuals. (That "proof" is a separate note record to enable its easy disconnection if the proof later turns out to be wrong. Unfortunately, splitting the facts off, if the proof is wrong, is trickier). What I'm not sure is how easy it is to use FH to "shuffle the cards" of the source records to see matches as, to be honest, I summarise the records in a spreadsheet and use filtering to find candidates there, not in FH. I've never used Custodian but was influenced by someone who said that there was no point in using it because, in essence, the crucial stuff was duplicated between Custodian and FH. Excel suffices for me. Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------- 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

Hi Martyn, Another unique feature of Family Historian is its interactive Diagrams. In most genealogy software a Diagram is just that - a static Diagram. However, in FH a Diagram is much more. You can of course move around the family tree as in any Diagram. But click on any Individual box and the associated Property Box opens with all the Facts and Source links available. Click-&-drag in various directions, and new family members (Children, Spouses, Parents) can be added to a Diagram interactively. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of martynpeart@iprimus.com.au Sent: 02 March 2012 12:54 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Source fields Hello Mike, Thank you so much for your advice. I am slowly working my way through "Getting the most from Family Historian". I haven't yet read the section on Sources but should be doing so in the next few days. Yes, I have every intention of persisting with Family Historian as it is clearly an excellent program. One of the main criteria I was looking for when I decided to move on from my old "Generations" program was to have a window that displayed a family unit (i.e. a couple with their parents arranged above them and children below) and the ability then to navigate from here vertically (rather than laterally) through the family tree - as was the case with "Generations". This is, of course, what I have found in the Focus Window of Family Historian. Apart from Legacy, this is the only other program I came across which had this arrangement. I haven't yet joined the User Group but will be doing so when I have mastered the basics of the program. Best wishes, Martyn Queensland, Australia -----Original Message----- From: Beryl & Mike Tate Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:29 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Source fields Martyn, Please do persevere - FH is more sophisticated than Generations, and can be highly customised, but using different techniques, that I am sure you will come to use. If you have not discovered it already, then do join (it is free) the Family Historian User Group (FHUG) at http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi It is full of advice, expert forums, free utilities, etc, etc - it is run by Jane. Do refer to the Help within FH via its Help buttons. Do take the time to work through the book "Getting the Most From Family Historian 4" via the menubar Help. Answering some of your points... FH has a number of different Record types (Individual, Family, Source, Note, Multimedia, Repository, etc) in accordance with the GEDCOM standard. Each of these Record types has its own unique Record ID. To navigate down the Records you usually start with an Individual and in the Property Box open the yellow Source pane. Particularly on the Facts tab (but also the All tab) select any item and if it has a linked Source it appears in the Source pane. Click the yellow triangular Go To Source Record button to open the Source Record. >From there you can open its Repository Record and Multimedia Records if >any. To navigate up the Records, first select any Record (say a Source Record), then use menubar View > Record Links. That will list all Records that link to the selected Record, and you can Go To any one of them. Regards, Mike Tate ------------------------------- 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

<<snippet>> Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. <<snippet>> Family Historian follows the GEDCOM standard that has Records for each Individual, Family, Source, Repository, and Multimedia entry. You can enter Source Records with plain text transcripts, and linked Multimedia images of documents, and a Repository reference. These do not need any Individual or Family Records. By using 'labelled' text and Source Types there are many possibilities for searching using the Query facilities. With FH Version 5 available soon there is a programmable Plugin capability that perform further search, sort, and index functions providing that the Source data is suitably consistently organised. Hope that helps convince you. But if not, then find out why Family Historian came top in the Which? Computing test of 9 Family History software packages and download the free 30-day trial of FH V4. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Blue and White China Andrew Pye Sent: 01 March 2012 22:18 To: abruce@madasafish.com; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies Interesting. Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? I carry no brief for Custodian and I am trying to approach this with a open mind, but what I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript, because it is more accurate than any other transcript. I cannot trust the census transcripts available as the error rate is so high, so I use my more accurate transcripts. How do I digitalise those? Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 01 March 2012 17:34 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies <<snipped>> ... All genealogical software seems to concentrate on adding individuals to "your family" and there is no way to first record all the references to your surname in the parish registers of parish X and then work through identifying and allocating individuals to their appropriate place within the family and on the tree. ... <<snipped>> Actually, as far as FH goes, it's up to you which way round you do it. The way I work when doing occasional one-name-in-one-place reconstructions is to record the source(s) first, with the transcript in the "Text from Source" on the source record. No individuals yet. (I get the feeling lots of people create individuals first, with their facts, then create source records after. I _always_ create a source record first. Apart from anything, there's then no temptation to forget to indicate the source of something.) What happens next tends to depend on whether I can easily identify the contents of the source record to an individual already in the "database". If it can be identified, then I'll record the reason why it's who I think it is in the Note on the source record and add the fact. If there's no obvious candidate - or several - I'll create a new individual, with the facts justified by that source record. So, if I have a marriage of John Doe in Northwich, and it could be John Doe from Davenham or John Doe from Hartford, I'll create a 3rd individual named John Doe. This is useful where the Northwich John has other facts clearly linked to him. When I have enough evidence to "prove" that Northwich John is one of the others, then I'll document that "proof" in a separate note record, link it to one and merge the 2 John individuals. (That "proof" is a separate note record to enable its easy disconnection if the proof later turns out to be wrong. Unfortunately, splitting the facts off, if the proof is wrong, is trickier). What I'm not sure is how easy it is to use FH to "shuffle the cards" of the source records to see matches as, to be honest, I summarise the records in a spreadsheet and use filtering to find candidates there, not in FH. I've never used Custodian but was influenced by someone who said that there was no point in using it because, in essence, the crucial stuff was duplicated between Custodian and FH. Excel suffices for me. Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- 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

<<snipped>> Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? <<snipped>> Because I know how to filter the columns of my spreadsheet... For baptisms, the parents get put into one column, the abode into another, etc. Then it's simple filtering in Excel if I want to pull off all Doe family members in Davenham (say). I'm unclear how easy similar queries would be in FH. (Translation - I'm too lazy to try to find out????) <<snipped>> Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? <<snipped>> Because my _impression_ (like I say, I've never used Custodian) was that it was for managing the full content of a document, whereas I just wanted a quick and dirty index to transcripts elsewhere. <<snipped>> I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript <<snipped>> I would suggest that first of all you need to think what you mean by this. It sounds to me like you want something more than just a Word transcript???? Do you want indexing on it, for instance? Do you want an exact transcript of the text? Or is it a reformatted version of that text? (See http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~cprdb/ for the Cheshire Parish Register Project as an example of what I mean. Each record contains (errors and omissions excepted) all the data in the original, but since it is reformatted it's not actually a transcript in the correct sense of that word. Not a criticism - this is a brilliant project done with a lot of care!) <<snipped>> Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. <<snipped>> I'm not sure what you think is missing - Source records can be entered into Family Historian as exact transcripts without creating any people (menu option Add/Source). What may be (is?) more difficult is filtering and indexing those transcripts in order to recreate the families. Adrian B

Interesting. Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? I carry no brief for Custodian and I am trying to approach this with a open mind, but what I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript, because it is more accurate than any other transcript. I cannot trust the census transcripts available as the error rate is so high, so I use my more accurate transcripts. How do I digitalise those? Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 01 March 2012 17:34 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies <<snipped>> ... All genealogical software seems to concentrate on adding individuals to "your family" and there is no way to first record all the references to your surname in the parish registers of parish X and then work through identifying and allocating individuals to their appropriate place within the family and on the tree. ... <<snipped>> Actually, as far as FH goes, it's up to you which way round you do it. The way I work when doing occasional one-name-in-one-place reconstructions is to record the source(s) first, with the transcript in the "Text from Source" on the source record. No individuals yet. (I get the feeling lots of people create individuals first, with their facts, then create source records after. I _always_ create a source record first. Apart from anything, there's then no temptation to forget to indicate the source of something.) What happens next tends to depend on whether I can easily identify the contents of the source record to an individual already in the "database". If it can be identified, then I'll record the reason why it's who I think it is in the Note on the source record and add the fact. If there's no obvious candidate - or several - I'll create a new individual, with the facts justified by that source record. So, if I have a marriage of John Doe in Northwich, and it could be John Doe from Davenham or John Doe from Hartford, I'll create a 3rd individual named John Doe. This is useful where the Northwich John has other facts clearly linked to him. When I have enough evidence to "prove" that Northwich John is one of the others, then I'll document that "proof" in a separate note record, link it to one and merge the 2 John individuals. (That "proof" is a separate note record to enable its easy disconnection if the proof later turns out to be wrong. Unfortunately, splitting the facts off, if the proof is wrong, is trickier). What I'm not sure is how easy it is to use FH to "shuffle the cards" of the source records to see matches as, to be honest, I summarise the records in a spreadsheet and use filtering to find candidates there, not in FH. I've never used Custodian but was influenced by someone who said that there was no point in using it because, in essence, the crucial stuff was duplicated between Custodian and FH. Excel suffices for me. Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- 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

Many thanks to Simon and Mike, Simon - I unticked the "Auto-load Thumbnail Images when opening Project"- I agree, the images were much slower as you said they would be! Mike- thanks for the tip on how to maintain the scale reduction- it worked! However, I found that the best method of working around my problem was to simply reduce the number of ancestors and descendants in the diagram. This setting is remembered by the program and my images are visible without having to rescale the whole diagram. Thanks again to anyone who's tried to help, Stewart -----Original Message----- From: Beryl & Mike Tate Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:29 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Memory troubles <<snippet>> I've now scaled down the diagram display to 75% and my images are now visible as a result. Unfortunately I don't seem able to maintain this reduction and have to reset it each time that I open the program! <<snippet>> To preserve the scale and any other settings, use Diagram > Save Diagram As > Custom Diagram Type and give it a name of your choice. Then subsequently use View > Custom Diagrams and choose the named Diagram Type. The five Standard Diagrams (at the top of the View > Standard Diagrams list) do not preserve the scale setting. It is advised that you do not change the settings of these five Standard Diagrams without taking precautions. See the FHUG Knowledge Base for further details: Managing FH Settings at http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:move_settings Scope of FH Features at http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:understanding_scope_of_features Regards, Mike Tate ------------------------------- 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

Jane, Thank you very much for taking the time to try to help me. I'm sure what you say about the poor gedcom created by Generations is quite correct but unfortunately I'm stuck with it i.e that's where about 15 years worth of all my sources are documented. Clearly from what you say FH does not have the same array of source fields that I had in Generations and I think you are telling me that I cannot create new ones. As I indicated in my original email, I have not been using Family Historian long enough to have mastered its intricacies as yet. I have looked at the log files for the gedcom import but it really doesn't mean anything to me. I will have to do a lot more reading. I will try what you suggest when I have done enough reading to understand exactly what you mean. When I open the RECORDS window and look at the sources, a large number are listed as "unnamed sources" and when I expand any one of these I get a bit more information about the source but at this stage I don't understand how from there I can identify the individual and fact about that individual to which each of these sources refers! Alongside the source in this same window is a number in the column headed Record id. I haven't yet worked out what this number refers to as clearly it is not the identification number of the individual to whom the record refers. I'm sorry to appear so dumb but I am very new to this program (3 days!). I am sure that with perseverance I will be able to master FH but at this stage. I am really stumbling around as the software is much more complicated than my old Generations program although obviously it has many more capabilities. Martyn -----Original Message----- From: Jane Taubman Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:58 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Source fields On 29 February 2012 02:21, <martynpeart@iprimus.com.au> wrote: > Can someone please advise if somewhere in Family Historian there is a a > range of source fields that can be chosen or if I can create my own > source > fields for each source type Generations creates really poor gedcom when you export and includes a lot of invalid gedcom. The standard does not support the extra fields, but you can use Labelled Text to tag the items you are looking for using for example Qtr: 1 District: Ilminister in the Where in Source field or any other Note field. If you check the exception report for the import you should be able to see if all your extra fields have been brought in as UDF (undefined data fields) or dropped completely, if they are UDFs you will be able to see them using the All Tab on the Sources If they have been dropped as completely invalid it's sometimes possible to write a script (or use a text editor) to convert them as needed. -- 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4843 - Release Date: 02/29/12

<<snipped>> ... All genealogical software seems to concentrate on adding individuals to "your family" and there is no way to first record all the references to your surname in the parish registers of parish X and then work through identifying and allocating individuals to their appropriate place within the family and on the tree. ... <<snipped>> Actually, as far as FH goes, it's up to you which way round you do it. The way I work when doing occasional one-name-in-one-place reconstructions is to record the source(s) first, with the transcript in the "Text from Source" on the source record. No individuals yet. (I get the feeling lots of people create individuals first, with their facts, then create source records after. I _always_ create a source record first. Apart from anything, there's then no temptation to forget to indicate the source of something.) What happens next tends to depend on whether I can easily identify the contents of the source record to an individual already in the "database". If it can be identified, then I'll record the reason why it's who I think it is in the Note on the source record and add the fact. If there's no obvious candidate - or several - I'll create a new individual, with the facts justified by that source record. So, if I have a marriage of John Doe in Northwich, and it could be John Doe from Davenham or John Doe from Hartford, I'll create a 3rd individual named John Doe. This is useful where the Northwich John has other facts clearly linked to him. When I have enough evidence to "prove" that Northwich John is one of the others, then I'll document that "proof" in a separate note record, link it to one and merge the 2 John individuals. (That "proof" is a separate note record to enable its easy disconnection if the proof later turns out to be wrong. Unfortunately, splitting the facts off, if the proof is wrong, is trickier). What I'm not sure is how easy it is to use FH to "shuffle the cards" of the source records to see matches as, to be honest, I summarise the records in a spreadsheet and use filtering to find candidates there, not in FH. I've never used Custodian but was influenced by someone who said that there was no point in using it because, in essence, the crucial stuff was duplicated between Custodian and FH. Excel suffices for me. Adrian Bruce

Thank you John, you have alerted me to areas I have never been and didn't know existed - and are well worth the knowing. I have tried the highlighting / deleting technique only to find the whole digest rather than the selected section is removed to the 'deleted items' folder. Is this normal? Peter