Hi Arthur Please don't panic - FH can be as laid back as you want it to be. I sometimes do 'proper' sources with references and other times it's just '1871 census' or 'Birth Cert' , - it all depends on what I am doing. (I use FH in different ways for different situations so have several projects on the go) One thing I would suggest to make life easier is to use a program you can download from FHUG called 'Ancestral sources' - it really does automate the entering in of census, BMD's, PR's etc and even concocts transcripts. Again you can use it as precisely or as loosely as you want. Include images or not as you want . It does help amazingly with a large household for a census as it concocts all the census, residence and occupation facts and even adds in new people as it goes on. Fiona (converted from 'Generations') -----Original Message----- From: Arthur & Pauline Kennedy via Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:49 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Thousands of sources? On 17/02/2016 20:59, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > You need to be consistent about where you link your images, and consider > where they appear in Reports. > > Images linked to Individual/Family record Media tabs and to Facts are > meant to be Pictures, and appear in the body of Reports amongst the Facts. > > Source document images such as BMD Certificates and Census Records should > be linked to Citations or Source record Media tabs, and appear in Reports > with the Source transcripts. "Need", "consistent", "meant to be", "should" - words like this are making me wonder if FH is the right program for me. I'm human, I'm not always consistent in the way I do things (and I note that many of those who write about sources both here and in the FHUG forums say they use a mixture of Method 1 and Method 2 sourcing, so I'm not the only one), but I like to keep things as simple as possible, and above all clear and unambiguous.

On 17/02/2016 20:59, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > You need to be consistent about where you link your images, and consider where they appear in Reports. > > Images linked to Individual/Family record Media tabs and to Facts are meant to be Pictures, and appear in the body of Reports amongst the Facts. > > Source document images such as BMD Certificates and Census Records should be linked to Citations or Source record Media tabs, and appear in Reports with the Source transcripts. "Need", "consistent", "meant to be", "should" - words like this are making me wonder if FH is the right program for me. I'm human, I'm not always consistent in the way I do things (and I note that many of those who write about sources both here and in the FHUG forums say they use a mixture of Method 1 and Method 2 sourcing, so I'm not the only one), but I like to keep things as simple as possible, and above all clear and unambiguous. RootsMagic has on the whole enabled me to do that, but I've had a few long-standing annoyances with it, and there is no sign of these being fixed. (Interestingly, one of the first reactions in the RM community to the forthcoming ability to sync with Ancestry trees was that all development efforts might be focussed on that for the foreseeable future, so that other issues might be put on the back burner.) FH seemed to be free of those particular annoyances, but I was also attracted by its (a) being geared more to British than US research; and (b) using .ged as its native format, so that if I ever need to change programs again, I would hopefully have maximum data portability. However, if FH isn't flexible enough to accommodate my way of working, and I'm going to have to conform to a set of standards that I have so far probably only rarely attained, then I may be better off sticking with RootsMagic. At least I'm more familiar with how to do things with that, even if I dislike some bits of it. > So if you link Census Record images to the Census Facts they are disjointed from the associated Source transcript. Who said anything about Source transcripts? As it happens, I do try to keep transcripts of census entries (but rarely keep up to date with what I've downloaded etc), but in a word processor file separate from my FH database. This is partly to keep things simple in the FH program, but also because the programs I've used until now haven't been good at producing neat columns of data in either the Sources/Citations or Fact Notes. My census sources are simply "1881 Census" (etc), and the Citations are simply the references (eg RG11/2345 fo67 p89). I always put a brief transcription in the Fact Notes for each individual, such as "Age 23, born Leeds, Cloth Dresser", and sometimes include the marital status, whose household they are in, or any interesting household members who aren't part of the immediate family. That is all that's needed for that individual at that point. When using a census as a source for a birth, occupation, residence etc, I simply use the Source and Citation (reference), though I might again make some comment in the Fact Notes. The names, ages, occupations and birthplaces of the other household members are in most cases irrelevant here, so I see no need to include a full transcript, or even necessarily the page image. Where I would consider using a census page image is for the Census fact itself - in other words, attaching the image to the event to which it relates. I would need to consider whether that is best done by linking it to the citation or to the fact. > Would you also link BMD Certificates to Birth/Marriage/Death Facts? Why not? Isn't that what they relate to? Arthur

You need to be consistent about where you link your images, and consider where they appear in Reports. Images linked to Individual/Family record Media tabs and to Facts are meant to be Pictures, and appear in the body of Reports amongst the Facts. Source document images such as BMD Certificates and Census Records should be linked to Citations or Source record Media tabs, and appear in Reports with the Source transcripts. So if you link Census Record images to the Census Facts they are disjointed from the associated Source transcript. Would you also link BMD Certificates to Birth/Marriage/Death Facts? Regards, Mike Tate Sent from my Hudl

On 16/02/2016 1:36 PM, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > > I have approaching 100 Census Source records, and even more Birth Certificate records, and so on. > Some of my typical Source Titles would be: > 1891 RG12 0931 047 15 TATE, Henry > 1891 RG12 0936 061 16 TATE, William I record census similar to the above but a little different 1891 RG12-0931_Fo-47_Page-15 Henry Tate (birth year) 1891 RG12-0936_Fo-61_Page-15 William Tate (birth year) Fo means Folio The folio page number appears on odd pages only We all have our preferences. I have just illustrated mine Victor > TATE, Bernard 1914 Birth > > I never have any problem locating the Citations for those Source records by asking FH. > > Regards, Mike Tate > >

Thank you for the further thoughts on this. Just to add a couple of comments: On 16/02/2016 20:50, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > Actually the full Title and Short Title can be either way round and either can be chosen to use in the Report. So put the distinct full title in Title and the generic title in Short Title, then choose which you want in the Report. > > In FH/Gedcom the Census Sources benefit even more from using splitter Method 1 than BMD Certificates, because there are usually many more Citations per household. Typically one for each Census Event, each Birth Event, and each Occupation fact for every household family member. Each Citation needs repeated transcript text and page image if using lumped Method 2, but only needs entering once in the Source record for splitter Method 1. I don't currently have any source images connected to my database, but if/when I get round to adding them, I'll no doubt do some experimenting to see whether I think it's a good idea to alter the sourcing method as well - including the option of connecting the images to the census facts rather than to the sources or citations. On 16/02/2016 23:36, gw3190 via wrote: > My method 1 titles for census entries are styled, for example, "1881 Census, > Place (Head of household)" and the short title is "Surname, first name: 1881 > Census". The reference numbers go into the publication field. The benefit is > that both short and long titles can be shown in the source record window > allowing a sort by Surname, first name or by Census year, place. > > For Certificates and entries from Parish Registers I use the same format for > the short title eg "Surname, first name: Birth Certificate so that they can > be included in the sort or excluded if preferred by including "Census" in > the type field. This aspect of the question hadn't occurred to me, but I can see that there may well be advantages in having these alternative sorting options. However, I think it would be wiser for me to stick with my combination of Method 1 and Method 2 sources for now, and concentrate on getting fully familiar with the program before thinking about making major and pretty widespread changes. There's only so much a guy can do.... Arthur

My method 1 titles for census entries are styled, for example, "1881 Census, Place (Head of household)" and the short title is "Surname, first name: 1881 Census". The reference numbers go into the publication field. The benefit is that both short and long titles can be shown in the source record window allowing a sort by Surname, first name or by Census year, place. For Certificates and entries from Parish Registers I use the same format for the short title eg "Surname, first name: Birth Certificate so that they can be included in the sort or excluded if preferred by including "Census" in the type field. I have 2,400 source records in my file and everything is very easy to find. Gillian -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lorna Craig via Sent: Wednesday, 17 February 2016 7:39 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Thousands of sources? Not necessarily longer, just different. The long title might be "1841 census SMITH, John & Mary with children" while the short title might be "1841" followed by the census folio reference. Lorna On 16/02/2016 20:27, Arthur & Pauline Kennedy via wrote: > (I note that your suggestion for Method 1 could lead to the situation > where the Short Title is actually a long version of the Source > Title....) > > Arthur > ------------------------------- 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

Actually the full Title and Short Title can be either way round and either can be chosen to use in the Report. So put the distinct full title in Title and the generic title in Short Title, then choose which you want in the Report. In FH/Gedcom the Census Sources benefit even more from using splitter Method 1 than BMD Certificates, because there are usually many more Citations per household. Typically one for each Census Event, each Birth Event, and each Occupation fact for every household family member. Each Citation needs repeated transcript text and page image if using lumped Method 2, but only needs entering once in the Source record for splitter Method 1. Regards, Mike Tate Sent from my Hudl Arthur & Pauline Kennedy via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: >Thank you for this. Others may feel differently, but it reinforces my >feeling that for a lot of source types, Method 2 suits my way of working >better, so I don't think I'll be in any hurry to change what I've been >doing in RootsMagic. > >(I note that your suggestion for Method 1 could lead to the situation >where the Short Title is actually a long version of the Source Title....) > >Arthur > > >On 16/02/2016 20:03, Lorna Craig via wrote: >> Arthur, >> When you have generated report in FH, click the Options button on the >> right. On the Sources tab you will find various options available to >> select how much information from the Source records to include, as well >> as how much information from the citations to include. >> >> For your 'less detailed' style of reporting, you could include just the >> Source title and nothing else. For Method 2 sources this would achieve >> what you want. For Method 1, if you don't want to give away too much >> information you would need to think about how to construct the Source >> title. For censuses this might mean including the census year and >> family name but perhaps omitting the census folio reference. You could >> always keep that in the Source note or in the Short Title. >> >> Lorna >> >> On 16/02/2016 17:14, Arthur & Pauline Kennedy via wrote: >>> .... One advantage of this in RM is that in some reports and/or options you >>> can choose to show source names only, with no detailed citations. This >>> could be appropriate when passing information to someone who'd like to >>> know the outline of a family history without all the minutiae; equally, >>> if you hear from a possible relative out of the blue it allows you to >>> send some information without giving it all away at once - if they're >>> serious they'll either ask for more, or there'll be enough information >>> anyway for them to find the rest for themselves. >>> >>> I'm not yet familiar enough with FH to know if the same options are >>> available when using Method 2 (are they?), but it appears to me that >>> Method 1 (having a separate source for each census household, for >>> example) would preclude this less detailed style of reporting. Am I right? >>> >>> Arthur >>> > > > >------------------------------- >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

Not necessarily longer, just different. The long title might be "1841 census SMITH, John & Mary with children" while the short title might be "1841" followed by the census folio reference. Lorna On 16/02/2016 20:27, Arthur & Pauline Kennedy via wrote: > (I note that your suggestion for Method 1 could lead to the situation > where the Short Title is actually a long version of the Source Title....) > > Arthur >

Thank you for this. Others may feel differently, but it reinforces my feeling that for a lot of source types, Method 2 suits my way of working better, so I don't think I'll be in any hurry to change what I've been doing in RootsMagic. (I note that your suggestion for Method 1 could lead to the situation where the Short Title is actually a long version of the Source Title....) Arthur On 16/02/2016 20:03, Lorna Craig via wrote: > Arthur, > When you have generated report in FH, click the Options button on the > right. On the Sources tab you will find various options available to > select how much information from the Source records to include, as well > as how much information from the citations to include. > > For your 'less detailed' style of reporting, you could include just the > Source title and nothing else. For Method 2 sources this would achieve > what you want. For Method 1, if you don't want to give away too much > information you would need to think about how to construct the Source > title. For censuses this might mean including the census year and > family name but perhaps omitting the census folio reference. You could > always keep that in the Source note or in the Short Title. > > Lorna > > On 16/02/2016 17:14, Arthur & Pauline Kennedy via wrote: >> .... One advantage of this in RM is that in some reports and/or options you >> can choose to show source names only, with no detailed citations. This >> could be appropriate when passing information to someone who'd like to >> know the outline of a family history without all the minutiae; equally, >> if you hear from a possible relative out of the blue it allows you to >> send some information without giving it all away at once - if they're >> serious they'll either ask for more, or there'll be enough information >> anyway for them to find the rest for themselves. >> >> I'm not yet familiar enough with FH to know if the same options are >> available when using Method 2 (are they?), but it appears to me that >> Method 1 (having a separate source for each census household, for >> example) would preclude this less detailed style of reporting. Am I right? >> >> Arthur >>

Arthur, When you have generated report in FH, click the Options button on the right. On the Sources tab you will find various options available to select how much information from the Source records to include, as well as how much information from the citations to include. For your 'less detailed' style of reporting, you could include just the Source title and nothing else. For Method 2 sources this would achieve what you want. For Method 1, if you don't want to give away too much information you would need to think about how to construct the Source title. For censuses this might mean including the census year and family name but perhaps omitting the census folio reference. You could always keep that in the Source note or in the Short Title. Lorna On 16/02/2016 17:14, Arthur & Pauline Kennedy via wrote: > .... One advantage of this in RM is that in some reports and/or options you > can choose to show source names only, with no detailed citations. This > could be appropriate when passing information to someone who'd like to > know the outline of a family history without all the minutiae; equally, > if you hear from a possible relative out of the blue it allows you to > send some information without giving it all away at once - if they're > serious they'll either ask for more, or there'll be enough information > anyway for them to find the rest for themselves. > > I'm not yet familiar enough with FH to know if the same options are > available when using Method 2 (are they?), but it appears to me that > Method 1 (having a separate source for each census household, for > example) would preclude this less detailed style of reporting. Am I right? > > Arthur >

I'm coming at this from a background with RootsMagic. RM's discussions on this are usually described as between "splitters" and "lumpers", which appear to be more or less the same as FH's Method 1 and Method 2. I've always tended towards Method 1 for BMD certificates because each one is a separate document, but for most other sources I tend towards Method 2: I'll have sources like "Anytown Parish Registers", "Anytown Daily Newspaper" etc, and put the detail in a citation. Similarly for censuses I use each census (1841, 1851 etc) as a source, and put the precise reference in a citation. One advantage of this in RM is that in some reports and/or options you can choose to show source names only, with no detailed citations. This could be appropriate when passing information to someone who'd like to know the outline of a family history without all the minutiae; equally, if you hear from a possible relative out of the blue it allows you to send some information without giving it all away at once - if they're serious they'll either ask for more, or there'll be enough information anyway for them to find the rest for themselves. I'm not yet familiar enough with FH to know if the same options are available when using Method 2 (are they?), but it appears to me that Method 1 (having a separate source for each census household, for example) would preclude this less detailed style of reporting. Am I right? Arthur On 16/02/2016 14:43, Lorna Craig via wrote: > Similarly, I have well over a thousand Census Source records (subdivided > by country and census year). I have set the AS template to include the > year, place and family name as well as the census folio reference. > > If you wish you can also use the Short Title field to show something > more abbreviated, omitting the folio reference, such as "1841 SMITH, > John & Mary". (This can be entered in FH after the source has been > created by AS.) > > There is a common misapprehension that if you have thousands of sources > they are difficult to manage. But as Mike says, this is what FH is > particularly good at. In total I currently have about 2300 Source > records. There is no problem locating a particular Source or its > citations. > > Lorna > > On 16/02/2016 13:36, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: >> You say "I think that trying to remember which census reference applies to which family is too much". >> But you do not need to remember anything, that is what FH is particularly good at. >> So just ask FH who a particular Source is linked to and FH lists all the Individual family members for you. >> >> AS will automatically create a unique Source Title including if you wish the Census Folio reference and a family name. >> >> I have approaching 100 Census Source records, and even more Birth Certificate records, and so on. >> >

Similarly, I have well over a thousand Census Source records (subdivided by country and census year). I have set the AS template to include the year, place and family name as well as the census folio reference. If you wish you can also use the Short Title field to show something more abbreviated, omitting the folio reference, such as "1841 SMITH, John & Mary". (This can be entered in FH after the source has been created by AS.) There is a common misapprehension that if you have thousands of sources they are difficult to manage. But as Mike says, this is what FH is particularly good at. In total I currently have about 2300 Source records. There is no problem locating a particular Source or its citations. Lorna On 16/02/2016 13:36, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > You say "I think that trying to remember which census reference applies to which family is too much". > But you do not need to remember anything, that is what FH is particularly good at. > So just ask FH who a particular Source is linked to and FH lists all the Individual family members for you. > > AS will automatically create a unique Source Title including if you wish the Census Folio reference and a family name. > > I have approaching 100 Census Source records, and even more Birth Certificate records, and so on. >

You say "I think that trying to remember which census reference applies to which family is too much". But you do not need to remember anything, that is what FH is particularly good at. So just ask FH who a particular Source is linked to and FH lists all the Individual family members for you. AS will automatically create a unique Source Title including if you wish the Census Folio reference and a family name. I have approaching 100 Census Source records, and even more Birth Certificate records, and so on. Some of my typical Source Titles would be: 1891 RG12 0931 047 15 TATE, Henry 1891 RG12 0936 061 16 TATE, William TATE, Bernard 1914 Birth I never have any problem locating the Citations for those Source records by asking FH. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 11, Issue 54 I use Method 2 for Censuses and would do the same for the 1939 Register. My view is that these images should be attached to citations and that the source is the whole census. [ I think that trying to remember which census reference applies to which family is too much and having more than 50 sources called "1891 Census ........)" would be too difficult to use.]

No matter what method you use, just overwrite the old image with the new one, i.e. using exactly the same file name: job done! Mervyn. Sent from my iPad > On 16 Feb 2016, at 09:55, David via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > I use Method 2 for Censuses and would do the same for the 1939 Register. > My view is that these images should be attached to citations and that the > source is the whole census. > [ I think that trying to remember which census reference applies to which > family is too much and having more than 50 sources called "1891 Census > ........)" would be too difficult to use.] > > I cannot see any advantage in adding another copy of the same image, with > less redactions, using Ancestral Sources. Is there a way to replace the old > image with the new? > > Can someone answer my question bearing all that in mind please? > > DaveT > In Sunny South Yorkshire > > -----Original Message----- > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Can I change an attached image? (David) > 2. Re: Can I change an attached image? (Sue Herrington) > 3. Re: Can I change an attached image? (Beryl and Mike Tate) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi All! > With the 1939 register the images change over time as FindMyPast open more > records. On the record for my Mam they have changed once to show my Mam, > again to show Auntie Bessie who died years ago and again to hide my cousin > who was born on 25/9/1939. (They have not yet fixed the transcription error > I pointed out on the day the records opened!) > > If I enter the information using Ancestral Sources how can I change the > image when FMP change the redaction? > > DaveT > > In Sunny South Yorkshire > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:42:35 +0000 > From: Sue Herrington <sue.herrington9@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [FHU] Can I change an attached image? > > > David > > There's an option in Ancestral Sources to add an image to an existing entry > so surely you can use that. > > Sue in Notts > always on the lookout for FURNANDIZ anywhere On 15 Feb 2016 12:31, "David > via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > > Hi Dave > Assuming you are using Method 1, then find the Source record in FH and on > its Media tab change the attached image. In fact all you really need to do > is download the latest image from FMP and replace the matching image file in > the FH Media folder. > > 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

OK Dave. In the Method 2 Citation there is a link to the Media record for the image of the page you are discussing. In the Media record there is a 'Linked File' path to the image file that should start with Media\... and may be like Media\Census\Page23.jpg So all you need to do is replace that old image file with the new one. Assuming you are using the default 'Family Historian Projects' folder, and that your Project name is 'MyProj', then the full path in Windows Explorer will be like: My Documents\Family Historian Projects\MyProj\MyProj.fh_data\Media\Census\Page23.jpg So make sure the new image file from FMP has the same filename (Page23.jpg) and copy it to that path to replace the old file. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 11, Issue 54 Hi! I use Method 2 for Censuses and would do the same for the 1939 Register. My view is that these images should be attached to citations and that the source is the whole census. [ I think that trying to remember which census reference applies to which family is too much and having more than 50 sources called "1891 Census ........)" would be too difficult to use.] I cannot see any advantage in adding another copy of the same image, with less redactions, using Ancestral Sources. Is there a way to replace the old image with the new? Can someone answer my question bearing all that in mind please? DaveT --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi! I use Method 2 for Censuses and would do the same for the 1939 Register. My view is that these images should be attached to citations and that the source is the whole census. [ I think that trying to remember which census reference applies to which family is too much and having more than 50 sources called "1891 Census ........)" would be too difficult to use.] I cannot see any advantage in adding another copy of the same image, with less redactions, using Ancestral Sources. Is there a way to replace the old image with the new? Can someone answer my question bearing all that in mind please? DaveT In Sunny South Yorkshire -----Original Message----- Today's Topics: 1. Can I change an attached image? (David) 2. Re: Can I change an attached image? (Sue Herrington) 3. Re: Can I change an attached image? (Beryl and Mike Tate) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi All! With the 1939 register the images change over time as FindMyPast open more records. On the record for my Mam they have changed once to show my Mam, again to show Auntie Bessie who died years ago and again to hide my cousin who was born on 25/9/1939. (They have not yet fixed the transcription error I pointed out on the day the records opened!) If I enter the information using Ancestral Sources how can I change the image when FMP change the redaction? DaveT In Sunny South Yorkshire ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:42:35 +0000 From: Sue Herrington <sue.herrington9@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Can I change an attached image? David There's an option in Ancestral Sources to add an image to an existing entry so surely you can use that. Sue in Notts always on the lookout for FURNANDIZ anywhere On 15 Feb 2016 12:31, "David via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: ------------------------------ Message: 3 Hi Dave Assuming you are using Method 1, then find the Source record in FH and on its Media tab change the attached image. In fact all you really need to do is download the latest image from FMP and replace the matching image file in the FH Media folder. Regards, Mike Tate

Hi Dave Assuming you are using Method 1, then find the Source record in FH and on its Media tab change the attached image. In fact all you really need to do is download the latest image from FMP and replace the matching image file in the FH Media folder. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: [FHU] Can I change an attached image? With the 1939 register the images change over time as FindMyPast open more records. On the record for my Mam they have changed once to show my Mam, again to show Auntie Bessie who died years ago and again to hide my cousin who was born on 25/9/1939. (They have not yet fixed the transcription error I pointed out on the day the records opened!) If I enter the information using Ancestral Sources how can I change the image when FMP change the redaction? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

David There's an option in Ancestral Sources to add an image to an existing entry so surely you can use that. Sue in Notts always on the lookout for FURNANDIZ anywhere On 15 Feb 2016 12:31, "David via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hi All! > > > > With the 1939 register the images change over time as FindMyPast open more > records. On the record for my Mam they have changed once to show my Mam, > again to show Auntie Bessie who died years ago and again to hide my cousin > who was born on 25/9/1939. (They have not yet fixed the transcription error > I pointed out on the day the records opened!) > > > > If I enter the information using Ancestral Sources how can I change the > image when FMP change the redaction? > > > > DaveT > > In Sunny South Yorkshire > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 All! With the 1939 register the images change over time as FindMyPast open more records. On the record for my Mam they have changed once to show my Mam, again to show Auntie Bessie who died years ago and again to hide my cousin who was born on 25/9/1939. (They have not yet fixed the transcription error I pointed out on the day the records opened!) If I enter the information using Ancestral Sources how can I change the image when FMP change the redaction? DaveT In Sunny South Yorkshire

Hi Robin, There have been similar problems with creating PDF reported in the FHUG Forums. FH PDF Not Displaying All JPEG Images: http://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12572 Problems with Book saved as PDF: http://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10959 Display bugs in Books: http://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11197 It was thought to be fixed in FH V6. You say you are using latest version of FH, but what version is that? It may be easier to understand your problem by posting screenshots, but that is only possible in the FHUG Forums, and not these [FHU] Mailings. There is also advice about the size of the Book, and checking exactly which PDF conversion tools are being used. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: [FHU] Problems with page 1 of Book I am trying to create a Book of my ancestors for my grandchildren. When I create the book and view it in FH it looks ok. When I save it as a pdf file page 1 has changed. In the book the bottom of page 1 is 2nd generation, in the pdf file it is a list of sources and the 2nd generation is missing. Pages 2 onwards are the ok. The missing 2nd generation is nowhere to be found. Anyone else found this or similar issue with creating a book? I am using the latest version of FH on a Windows 8.1 desktop. Robin Dew