Thanks for trying to help Gabrielle, I have spent some time using task manager to examine the processes to see what's going on - however there's not an obvious culprit! I added a 'peak working set (memory)' column to record any peaks in surge. Part of my anti-virus program, ('Mcafee on access scanner service') seemed to be using a lot of resources and surged at just under 438,000 K and settled to a level around a quarter of that. However, F.H. recorded 1,000,000 K on starting up and surged to 1,921,260 K on using diagrams. Whilst using 'Diagrams' F.H. continued at that level! The'Commit Size' using F.H.was 1,916,676 K (this is apparently the amount of virtual memory that's reserved for use by a process). The difference between the peak working set (memory)figure and the 'Commit Size' when using diagram in F.H. seems to be so little and I suspect therein lies the problem that I am having with poor memory space. I admit that looking at the readings on task manager is not something I do often and trying to understand them is a little beyond me! Perhaps someone can suggest what I can do! Thanks Stewart -----Original Message----- From: Gabrielle Baker Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:29 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Memory troubles Hi, It might be another program that's the culprit. I use large datasets in Excel a couple of hundred megs each. I get similar messages if I have opened a memory intensive application beforehand such as a flash based game in Facebook. Even though I may have logged out of facebook when looking at the current processes in task manager it still registers the application as open. When it next happens open up task manager (control+alt+delete) and look under the processes tab, you will then see what is clagging up your system. If you google the name you should come up with the program that is the culprit. Cheers Gabrielle ------------------------------- 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

This topic is about how best to use Family Historian. If such a topic isn't permitted then what is? I only stay on this list because, just occasionally, something of interest pops up but any discussion is immediately killed, usually after I've contributed to it. Yet discussions about topics unrelated to Family Historian, such as backups, are allowed to ramble on for weeks. > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Jane Taubman > Sent: 28 February 2012 16:41 > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: [FHU] Admin : Sources Vs Citations > > > Please can we call a halt to this discussion as it tends to spiral > around and around if left. > > Thank you. > > > -- > 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

Please can we call a halt to this discussion as it tends to spiral around and around if left. Thank you. -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

On 2012/02/28 15:11, Victor Markham wrote: > Thanks for the detailed explanation Nick. > > I have never use citations so was beginning to wonder if I should. > From what you have said I will continue to stick to sources. Ahem! A citation is a reference to a source. You can't have one without the other, -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg

I am a fairly new user to FH4. Why would I want to convert my Note Records to a Local Note? I use the Note Records for my task list and have created a query to report on my outstanding Notes that are Task Related. Will FH5 automatically change my Note Records to Local Notes? I understood Local Notes were just held against the person record and were not a record in their own right???? -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of family-historian-users-request@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, 27 February 2012 6:01 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 7, Issue 66 Today's Topics: 1. Re: Notes (Jane Taubman) 2. Re: Notes (Brian Griffiths) 3. Re: Plugins (Paddy Buckley) 4. Re: Plugins (Jane Taubman) 5. Re: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 7, Issue 65 (Walter Burton) 6. Diagrams - indication of approximate dates (John Liddle) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:22:49 +0000 From: Jane Taubman <janetaubman@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Notes To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <CAKBTZLqehLhMUaXMHnOVEMh4zxwnGLCLALH8b4AaC8b-pwT1-Q@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 25 February 2012 15:40, Paddy Buckley <paddy.buckley@lineone.net> wrote: > Over the years I have not been very consistent in choosing the right option in the Add Note selection box. ?Is there an ?easy way of changing, for example, a Note Record with a link to a Local Note? Not easily in V4, but V5 allows plugins and I think you will find a plugin which will automatically convert any note records with only a single link to a local note. People who came from Generations often have this issue as Generations stored all notes as note records. -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:17:11 +0000 From: Brian Griffiths <roots@briangriffiths.me.uk> Subject: Re: [FHU] Notes To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <4F4A14B7.3030809@briangriffiths.me.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed ...as does anyone who has imported a gedcom from a Rootsweb tree, so this is excellent news BrianG On 26/02/2012 09:22, Jane Taubman wrote: > On 25 February 2012 15:40, Paddy Buckley<paddy.buckley@lineone.net> wrote: >> Over the years I have not been very consistent in choosing the right option in the Add Note selection box. Is there an easy way of changing, for example, a Note Record with a link to a Local Note? > Not easily in V4, but V5 allows plugins and I think you will find a > plugin which will automatically convert any note records with only a > single link to a local note. People who came from Generations often > have this issue as Generations stored all notes as note records. > > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:50:55 -0000 From: "Paddy Buckley" <paddy.buckley@lineone.net> Subject: Re: [FHU] Plugins To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <6E20759119594915A3AB253CD5C95A1D@Evesham> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original I've heard of plugins but have not knowingly used them. Where and how shall I find them once I get my FH V5? Paddy Buckley ex Generations ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Taubman" <janetaubman@gmail.com> To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [FHU] Notes On 25 February 2012 15:40, Paddy Buckley <paddy.buckley@lineone.net> wrote: > Over the years I have not been very consistent in choosing the right > option in the Add Note selection box. Is there an easy way of changing, > for example, a Note Record with a link to a Local Note? Not easily in V4, but V5 allows plugins and I think you will find a plugin which will automatically convert any note records with only a single link to a local note. People who came from Generations often have this issue as Generations stored all notes as note records. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:37:25 +0000 From: Jane Taubman <janetaubman@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Plugins To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <CAKBTZLoAPvBazn6CQEZcDAiahqBWp9nb8dRhB+Pr8BWgbNsFHQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 26 February 2012 13:50, Paddy Buckley <paddy.buckley@lineone.net> wrote: > I've heard of plugins but have not knowingly used them. Where and how shall > I find them once I get my FH V5? All will become clear, when you have access to 5, they are new to 5 and will allow many user written extras to be shared and used. -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:54:07 +0000 From: Walter Burton <walter.burton@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 7, Issue 65 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <CAJpu4d1tfnQe7jQNYNFc-+2x0kLt-n0aeVAEi40GnWN6kKq4-A@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Multiple installations. two questions *1.* If I want to install FH on a base machine, and a laptop for personal use, it might be possible to use a memory stick, so the data would be up-to-date for whichever machine is in use. Which parts of the project need to be copied to the memory stick? *2.* Different projects on different machines ( and different FH !! ) I have another boxed FH4, which I'd like to pass to her, and then transfer her tree to her machine (notebook). BUT, in March, will I be able to install and run a *full FH5* on my machine, while keeping my copy of FH4 on my machine to maintain her tree(FH4)? Any recommendations about keeping her and my versions synced? Easy questions today! Thanks Walter Burton On 26 February 2012 08:01, <family-historian-users-request@rootsweb.com>wrote: > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. ... > 2. Installing FH on another Computer (Marlene James) > 3. Re: Installing FH on another Computer (MARGARET LAWRENCE) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:15:53 +0000 > From: Marlene James <marlenejames119@hotmail.co.uk> > Subject: [FHU] Installing FH on another Computer > To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <SNT134-W19D9A5442056C246AC735DA76B0@phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Hi List, > > I've recently bought a Samsung Notebook (easier to take to Record Offices) > and wondered if it's possible to install my Family Historian 4.1.3 while > keeping the program on my main computer as well. > I can't find anything on the knowledge base about being able to use it on > two computers, but it's quite possible I've missed it! > > Regards > > Marlene > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:28:10 +0000 (GMT) > From: MARGARET LAWRENCE <meltcl@btinternet.com> > Subject: Re: [FHU] Installing FH on another Computer > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: > <1330190890.12849.YahooMailNeo@web87214.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > As long it is for your personal use and they are not being used at the > same time you can have FH on two computers. I expect that there is a > thread about this over on FHUG (www.fhug.org.uk). > > Hope that this helps. > > Margaret > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS list administrator, send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS mailing list, send an > email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > 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 > email with no additional text. > > > End of FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 7, Issue 65 > ***************************************************** > ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:46:12 -0000 From: "John Liddle" <jaliddle@btinternet.com> Subject: [FHU] Diagrams - indication of approximate dates To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000001ccf4d0$0f33f520$2d9bdf60$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Is there any way of changing the way an approximate date is shown in a diagram box? I really dislike the use of a "?" after a date e.g. "1959?" when what is really required is "c. 1959". I have footled about with diagram settings, but cannot find a way of doing this. Can anyone suggest a solution? Regards, John Liddle Backwell, North Somerset - "Where the cider apples grow" ------------------------------ To contact the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS list administrator, send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS mailing list, send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ 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 email with no additional text. End of FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 7, Issue 66 *****************************************************

> I don't think there can be such a clear distinction. A birth > certificate is > just a copy of part of a page in a register book. A census > household is > equally just a copy of part of a page of a census book. So if > you look at > it like that there is very little difference between them. It > is all down > to personal preference as to how you view it. I agree that the decision is largely down to personal preference, but not that the two examples are equivalent. There are two important things when using sources: - can I find where I got this data from - can others follow me and retrieve the same data? A certificate is indeed merely, in theory at least, a transcript from the register and often, as most certificates these days are from the GRO, a transcript of a transcript. However, a certificate is, of itself, a legal and standalone document and therefore deserves to be a source. More importantly, it is possible - and I have examples in my tree - where the same event will result in different certificates because different registers were used to produce the certificates, or because of transcription errors in the copy register, or simply because a handwritten certificate was mis-transcribed even though all registers for the event contain the same data, or because of birth re-registration. Thus it is critical that, when citing a certificate, I make it clear that the certificate I used is the one in my possession (the repository being my house) rather than a certificate which someone else might obtain and which may have different data. A single source of "Birth certificates" would not satisfy the second objective above. Conversely, there is only one census (for each year) and, without using indexes, it's not possible for a researcher following me to find the data I used without knowing the class, piece, foilo and schedule reference. This is why, using 1891 as an example, I use a repository of TNA, source 1891 census class RG12, and citations such as RG12/1234 f56 p78 s9. A single source of "1891 census", appropriately cited, will satisfy the second objective above. Thus neither method 1 nor method 2, used exclusively, can fulfil the requirements: it's necessary to use a mixture of the two dependent on the source. Alan

I am after some advice regarding the use of Sources vs Citations. I have been using a Source to indicate a major resource eg. an Index and then for a sub record I would use a citation. I have notice on this mailing list that some users are creating a separate source for EVERY reference. I am wondering why people are doing this - doesn't it make your lists long? Also, I haven't used my FH for awhile and have gotten myself a little confused. Can someone confirm for me whether the following statement is correct or not. - You can attach media to a Source but you cannot attach media to a citation. Thanks all Gayle Bosworth

Can we please not go through all this again? Jane has already pointed out a link to the last discussion, when we agreed to differ. Ian (Any errors in the above message are due entirely to the use of fat fingers on this Blackberry mini "keyboard") -----Original Message----- From: Nick Walker <nick@ancestralsources.com> Sender: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:58:50 To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Reply-To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Sources Vs Citations On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Alan E. White < family.historian@aewhite.me.uk> wrote: > > To me, having each page of a census as a source is the same as having each > page of a book as a source: I'd find that unwieldy. Surely a book is a > single source and pages cited from it are citations? > > Alan > I don't think there can be such a clear distinction. A birth certificate is just a copy of part of a page in a register book. A census household is equally just a copy of part of a page of a census book. So if you look at it like that there is very little difference between them. It is all down to personal preference as to how you view it. Ignoring the technical issues it really doesn't matter whether you consider a certificate to be a source or a citation, that is the decision of the user. Both methods are equally valid. However, sadly there are some technical reasons why it is sensible to put your data in the sources rather than in the citations (method 1). I transcribe every census household and this data is then recorded once in the Family Historian GEDCOM file using a source record. I link an image to this source. I then link a citation to each event referred to in the census (Census event, occupation, births, etc.). A typical census household of 6 people might therefore have 1 source, 1 image and perhaps10 citations. If instead I use 'method 2' then I'd need a copy of this transcription in each of these 10 citations, I'd link the image to each of these 10 citations. Therefore there is going to be a lot more duplicated data in the file. If I need to edit the transcription (perhaps I made a typing error), I need to edit it in 10 places. Data duplication is never a good thing. Also citations are much more hidden away in Family Historian: it is very straightforward to get a list of all the sources to find the one I want but there isn't such a convenient method to see my list of citations. Some of the issues with method 2 duplicated data can be mitigated by using a single shared note linked to each citation but they are still not so easily accessible as sources which can have titles, etc. I do use 'method 2' if, for example, I'm just recording a source of 'GRO Indexes' as this only leads to one citation (a birth, death, or marriage) without any screenshots or transcriptions. But as soon as I get a certificate then this becomes a 'method 1' source with all the various occupations, residence, etc. events linked to it via citations. Nick ------------------------------- 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

Thanks for the detailed explanation Nick. I have never use citations so was beginning to wonder if I should. From what you have said I will continue to stick to sources. Victor On 28/02/2012 12:58 PM, Nick Walker wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Alan E. White< > family.historian@aewhite.me.uk> wrote: > >> To me, having each page of a census as a source is the same as having each >> page of a book as a source: I'd find that unwieldy. Surely a book is a >> single source and pages cited from it are citations? >> >> Alan >> > I don't think there can be such a clear distinction. A birth certificate is > just a copy of part of a page in a register book. A census household is > equally just a copy of part of a page of a census book. So if you look at > it like that there is very little difference between them. It is all down > to personal preference as to how you view it. > > Ignoring the technical issues it really doesn't matter whether you consider > a certificate to be a source or a citation, that is the decision of the > user. Both methods are equally valid. However, sadly there are some > technical reasons why it is sensible to put your data in the sources rather > than in the citations (method 1). I transcribe every census household and > this data is then recorded once in the Family Historian GEDCOM file using a > source record. I link an image to this source. I then link a citation to > each event referred to in the census (Census event, occupation, births, > etc.). A typical census household of 6 people might therefore have 1 > source, 1 image and perhaps10 citations. > > If instead I use 'method 2' then I'd need a copy of this transcription in > each of these 10 citations, I'd link the image to each of these 10 > citations. Therefore there is going to be a lot more duplicated data in the > file. If I need to edit the transcription (perhaps I made a typing error), > I need to edit it in 10 places. Data duplication is never a good thing. > Also citations are much more hidden away in Family Historian: it is very > straightforward to get a list of all the sources to find the one I want but > there isn't such a convenient method to see my list of citations. Some of > the issues with method 2 duplicated data can be mitigated by using a single > shared note linked to each citation but they are still not so easily > accessible as sources which can have titles, etc. > > I do use 'method 2' if, for example, I'm just recording a source of 'GRO > Indexes' as this only leads to one citation (a birth, death, or marriage) > without any screenshots or transcriptions. But as soon as I get a > certificate then this becomes a 'method 1' source with all the various > occupations, residence, etc. events linked to it via citations. > > Nick > > ------------------------------- > 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

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Alan E. White < family.historian@aewhite.me.uk> wrote: > > To me, having each page of a census as a source is the same as having each > page of a book as a source: I'd find that unwieldy. Surely a book is a > single source and pages cited from it are citations? > > Alan > I don't think there can be such a clear distinction. A birth certificate is just a copy of part of a page in a register book. A census household is equally just a copy of part of a page of a census book. So if you look at it like that there is very little difference between them. It is all down to personal preference as to how you view it. Ignoring the technical issues it really doesn't matter whether you consider a certificate to be a source or a citation, that is the decision of the user. Both methods are equally valid. However, sadly there are some technical reasons why it is sensible to put your data in the sources rather than in the citations (method 1). I transcribe every census household and this data is then recorded once in the Family Historian GEDCOM file using a source record. I link an image to this source. I then link a citation to each event referred to in the census (Census event, occupation, births, etc.). A typical census household of 6 people might therefore have 1 source, 1 image and perhaps10 citations. If instead I use 'method 2' then I'd need a copy of this transcription in each of these 10 citations, I'd link the image to each of these 10 citations. Therefore there is going to be a lot more duplicated data in the file. If I need to edit the transcription (perhaps I made a typing error), I need to edit it in 10 places. Data duplication is never a good thing. Also citations are much more hidden away in Family Historian: it is very straightforward to get a list of all the sources to find the one I want but there isn't such a convenient method to see my list of citations. Some of the issues with method 2 duplicated data can be mitigated by using a single shared note linked to each citation but they are still not so easily accessible as sources which can have titles, etc. I do use 'method 2' if, for example, I'm just recording a source of 'GRO Indexes' as this only leads to one citation (a birth, death, or marriage) without any screenshots or transcriptions. But as soon as I get a certificate then this becomes a 'method 1' source with all the various occupations, residence, etc. events linked to it via citations. Nick

> There are two schools of thought - both 'correct'. > > Method 1 - Source Record per Source Document > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > In this method, each BMD Certificate, Household Census, etc > has its own dedicated Source Record. > > Method 2 - Source Record per Source Type > --------------------------------------------------------- > In this method there is one Source Record for all Birth > Certificates, one for all Marriage Certificates, one for all > 1891 Census Then there must be >2 schools of thought because I use neither of those :-) Probably more accurately, I use a combination of those methods depending on the nature of the source. To me, a birth certificate is a single source: there is only one of that particular certificate, it's stored at a single repository (usually my house), there's no further referencing possible, and no further breakdown of data required. The 1891 census is also a single source: it's held by TNA in a single class and has further references to enable citation of particular pages and even rows. When I think I need to add a source I ask myself whether this is a single item or whether I need to direct the reader to a particular point in the data. I try to remember that the point of the source and citation is to enable others to follow me. I need to say to them: - go to this repository (name, address etc provided in the REPO) - look at this source (name of birth certificate, RG12, etc.) - look at this record (RG12/1234 f56 p78 s9) (the citation) In other words, I ask myself if this is a single item or a collection and how does it fit into the requirement above. Each birth certificate is unique and so is a source; each census is a collection. To me, having each page of a census as a source is the same as having each page of a book as a source: I'd find that unwieldy. Surely a book is a single source and pages cited from it are citations? Alan

I agree -that is pretty much what I want to use Note Records for. And I have one Note Record which simply says "This area is speculative", and is attached to many records! However over the years I have had lots of help via Rootsweb and have downloaded and merged many gedcoms, and what I would enter (if I were doing it manually myself) as a "Text from Source" (with the tree owners name as "Source") have converted as "Note Records", which results in thousands of Note Records each attached to one person. As a first step to clearing up the clutter on the Note Record, converting these to Local Notes seems like a good idea. On 28/02/2012 06:32, Gayle Bosworth wrote: > I am a fairly new user to FH4. Why would I want to convert my Note Records > to a Local Note? I use the Note Records for my task list and have created a > query to report on my outstanding Notes that are Task Related. Will FH5 > automatically change my Note Records to Local Notes? I understood Local > Notes were just held against the person record and were not a record in > their own right???? > >

Gayle, There are two schools of thought - both 'correct'. Which one you use depends mainly on what you want to record against each Source. Method 1 - Source Record per Source Document ---------------------------------------------------------------- In this method, each BMD Certificate, Household Census, etc has its own dedicated Source Record. The Source Record Type would identify what kind of Source Document it records. Any Multimedia images of the document are linked directly to the Source Record. A transcript of the Source Document is held in the Text From Source field of the Source Record. A linked Repository Record identifies the organisation that holds the original Source Document. Then every Fact that is derived from that Source Document is linked to it via a Citation. There will often be many Facts linked via a Citation to each Source Record. e.g. Marriage Certificate would support a Marriage Fact, possibly two Birth, Residence, and Occupation Facts for the spouses, Occupation Facts for the fathers, etc. Census Return would support a Census, Birth, and Occupation Fact for each Individual in the household, etc. This method ensures all the data about one document is stored once in one place in the Source Record. By using a consistent naming convention and Source Types, it is not difficult to manage the large number of Source Records. Method 2 - Source Record per Source Type --------------------------------------------------------- In this method there is one Source Record for all Birth Certificates, one for all Marriage Certificates, one for all 1891 Census Returns, etc. The only place to store data about each individual document is in the Citations. If there are many Facts derived from one document, and you want to associate any Multimedia image or transcript, then they must be added to every Citation. This results in the same links and transcripts being replicated in many Citations. If the data needs to be updated, then all the copies in each Citation must be found and updated. However, if you rarely link Multimedia images and do not keep transcripts, then this method is perfectly OK. Both methods are 'correct' and both are supported by Family Historian and Ancestral Sources. It is a matter of horses for courses. If you want to keep detailed information on every document then use Method 1. Otherwise you can use Method 2. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Gayle Bosworth Sent: 28 February 2012 05:48 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Sources Vs Citations I am after some advice regarding the use of Sources vs Citations. I have been using a Source to indicate a major resource eg. an Index and then for a sub record I would use a citation. I have notice on this mailing list that some users are creating a separate source for EVERY reference. I am wondering why people are doing this - doesn't it make your lists long? Also, I haven't used my FH for awhile and have gotten myself a little confused. Can someone confirm for me whether the following statement is correct or not. - You can attach media to a Source but you cannot attach media to a citation. Gayle Bosworth

This has recently been discussed on the list. Please see http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS/2012-02/1329569896 and http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=glossary:sources which covers this subject in detail. You can attach media to citations using the all tab. On 28 February 2012 05:48, Gayle Bosworth <gayle.bosworth@gmail.com> wrote: >  I have notice on this mailing list that > some users are creating a separate source for EVERY reference.  I am > wondering why people are doing this - doesn't it make your lists long? -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

Hi Gayle The Repository, Source and Citation are hierarchical. The Repository is usually physically where the Source material is held, the Source describes the source of your material, a Parish Book, FreeBMD, GRO, Aunties Bible, 1861 Census etc. within the Repository. The Citation is the individual piece of information that is taken from the Source peculiar to the Individual and the Individual alone. Your method is correct, the Source is the document within the repository where you get the information from, the Citation is the page or line or chapter or sheet number or GRO reference etc. that makes it unique to your individual. Simply put, if goes on the Individual then it's a Citation. The confusion seems to arrive where you have a Census sheet that has, maybe, 10 entries all for the same family. My Source is '1861 Census'. Each Individual would have a Citation to the Sheet, District, Place etc. This way I can find, in report or query, all those people living together by finding one member and listing all those people with the same Census Reference. You're right, it does make the lists long but worse than that you are duplicating the same data in two different places, a no-no in data terms as it is prone to typographical errors, unique data should only be stores once. Stay as you are, don't be tempted to overload your system - yes, yes, I know, data is free etc. etc. Regarding media, I have downloaded most of my census sheets. This I where the system breaks down, you can attach media to a Source i.e. the copy of a census page but you can't attach media to a Citation. However, I just refer to the sheet etc. in the 'Where within Source' field of the Citation. Again I can list off all those people on the same Census sheet or same Parish Book etc. I then attach the Census image directly to the various members of the family. David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Gayle Bosworth Sent: 28 February 2012 05:48 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Sources Vs Citations I am after some advice regarding the use of Sources vs Citations. I have been using a Source to indicate a major resource eg. an Index and then for a sub record I would use a citation. I have notice on this mailing list that some users are creating a separate source for EVERY reference. I am wondering why people are doing this - doesn't it make your lists long? Also, I haven't used my FH for awhile and have gotten myself a little confused. Can someone confirm for me whether the following statement is correct or not. - You can attach media to a Source but you cannot attach media to a citation. Thanks all Gayle Bosworth ------------------------------- 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: 2114/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12

On 28 February 2012 06:32, Gayle Bosworth <gayle.bosworth@gmail.com> wrote: > Will FH5 automatically change my Note Records to Local Notes?  I understood Local > Notes were just held against the person record and were not a record in > their own right???? No FH will not change them, but there will be an optional plugin which will. If you read the original request someone was asking to do this as they had many note records which were only linked to a single person and they wanted them to be local notes. -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

Hi, It might be another program that's the culprit. I use large datasets in Excel a couple of hundred megs each. I get similar messages if I have opened a memory intensive application beforehand such as a flash based game in Facebook. Even though I may have logged out of facebook when looking at the current processes in task manager it still registers the application as open. When it next happens open up task manager (control+alt+delete) and look under the processes tab, you will then see what is clagging up your system. If you google the name you should come up with the program that is the culprit. Cheers Gabrielle -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Stewart Harverson Sent: Monday, 27 February 2012 5:48 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Memory troubles Over the last couple of days I've seen 'out of memory' and 'low on memory' messages when using diagrams on FH. A few images are replaced with crosses even though the file paths are correct. When I 'View All Media' some 12 or so images out of a total 375 images seem unable to load. When I try to enlarge some individual images the memory warnings appear! Other images seem to enlarge without warning messages.The program has also lately started to run slowly. I have masses of hard disc memory left of the 6 GB available RAM space, I have a 64 bit operating system and am using Windows 7. I have FH version 4.1. I am also sure that my FH data is tiny compared to other FH users. I presume its a processing problem with my computer rather than an issue with FH. However it is only when I am using FH that I am aware of this memory problem. I have looked at the saved images and none seems too huge - in fact total images take up 241MB. Largest image is 6MB alone. There does not seem to be any link with the file type. Some jpgs are not displaying but most of them are. I have switched off my antivirus and operated FH but I am still seeing crossed images and memory messages such as "unable to load object. Out of memory." I've looked at Windows task manager and during creation of an 'everyone' diagram, FH is using 2GB physical memory. Total usage of all processes is 3GB. Stuck!! Any ideas please. Stewart ------------------------------- 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 run the One Place Studies website at http://www.one-place-studies.org/ and am undertaking a one place study myself. Is there anyone else on this list doing an OPS? I’m particularly interested to hear if/how you are using Family Historian for any part of your OPS. I had previously thought that traditional genealogy software wasn’t really appropriate to the task, but I am now wondering if some of the features of Family Historian could, in fact, be turned to the actual process of family reconstruction – for example having custom queries to help you identify where separate source records more than likely refer to the same individual, and using the Merge function to combine those previously discrete individuals into one individual. Are there other ways in which Family Historian could be used for an OPS? Alex in Auckland NZ

If you want to experiment this should show the year for dates marked as Approximate with the c. in front. =TextIf(%INDI.DEAT.DATE:XDATETYPE% = "Approx",CombineText("c. ",%INDI.DEAT.DATE:YEAR%,,),%INDI.DEAT.DATE:ABBREV4%) On 27 February 2012 09:55, John James <john.wjames@which.net> wrote: > Regarding the 'c.1959' formulation, this has been asked a few times in the past on this mailing list and, to my knowledge, no-one > has ever come up with a way of doing it. -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

Hi John, Regarding the 'c.1959' formulation, this has been asked a few times in the past on this mailing list and, to my knowledge, no-one has ever come up with a way of doing it. The GEDCOM standard, which FH implements, uses 'ABT' or 'CAL' for storing approximate dates. There's no way in V4 or earlier that I know of to change the presentation of these date in the way you seek. It may be that there will be something in V5, but no-one in the know has hinted at anything, so I wouldn't get your hopes up! John _____ From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John Liddle Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:46 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Diagrams - indication of approximate dates Is there any way of changing the way an approximate date is shown in a diagram box? I really dislike the use of a "?" after a date e.g. "1959?" when what is really required is "c. 1959". I have footled about with diagram settings, but cannot find a way of doing this. Can anyone suggest a solution? Regards, John Liddle Backwell, North Somerset - "Where the cider apples grow" ------------------------------- 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! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 120226-3, 26/02/2012 Tested on: 26/02/2012 21:53:50 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2012 AVAST Software. http://www.avast.com _____ avast! <http://www.avast.com> Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 120226-3, 26/02/2012 Tested on: 26/02/2012 21:53:50 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 AVAST Software. _____ avast! <http://www.avast.com> Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 120226-4, 26/02/2012 Tested on: 27/02/2012 09:55:09 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2010 AVAST Software. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 120226-4, 26/02/2012 Tested on: 27/02/2012 09:55:15 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2012 AVAST Software. http://www.avast.com