Hey! Open message <http://urbanxtra.co.uk/showed.php?cm101> roy_l_parsons@lineone.net

Hi All Those planning to self publish their family histories you should have a look at this South African company. http://www.justdone.co.za/ I have no connection with the company other than having purchased some of the books on offer. The technical quality is excellent. The exchange rate would work to the advantage of most overseas customers. Regards Robin

Re: Karen's comments about "something that I could hold in my hand, flick through the pages, give to a relative etc." In a recent webinar (Tap Into Your Inner Private Eye - 9 Strategies for Finding Living Relatives), Lisa Louise Cooke said that she produces small (20-40) page photo books to give as gifts when she visits newly-found distant relatives. If you are doing descendancy research, you could make a book focused on the common ancestor whose descendants you are trying to find. The short book length makes the book small enough to be inviting and tempting for people to pick up and flip through. One service that currently popular in the USA is Shutterfly. The webinar is in the Legacy Family Tree webinar library here: http://familytreewebinars.com/download.php?webinar_id=250 Jan Murphy packrat74@gmail.com

Graham, Toni I considered publishing to Kindle or the like but that option still didn't give me what I want i.e. something that I could hold in my hand, flick through the pages, give to a relative etc. How can one know what technology will change in the future? Books have endured for so long so it was a no-brainer for me. Toni, as for format... my blog has colour photos too but, like you, I considered the product would be too expensive for anyone else to buy so I 'chose' monochrome. Lulu prefers PDF, by the way, so you can easily convert your Word documents - and their templates are excellent to work with. Re the size... I tried all sorts of combinatins but settled for perfect bound, paperback, Crown Quarto by looking at the majority of genealogical paperbacks on my bookshelf. Consider how many pages each option would give you and therefore how thin/thick the finished article would be. I think the maximum option for perfect bound paperback is either 300 or 400 (can't remember which!). Having said all that, if you do go with Lulu I'd be happy to help if you get stuck :-) One thing I will say about this company and that is that the finished article is, in my opinion, really good quality. Cheers, Karen Sent from Outlook Mobile

Another option is to self-publish it purely digitally, for use on Kindles, Kobo's & the like. The 'publisher' is likely to take a proportion of the income (if any) as their fee but there should be no up-front charge. Smashwords.com are one of the companies that provide such a service. They feed Barnes & Noble & quite a few national/ international book retailers, including Gardners, who supply to libraries (although, I don't think they distribute to Amazon), as well as sell via their own website. Graham On 09-Jan-16 5:34 PM, Toni Pralle via wrote: > <Self publish your book (I used Lulu) and it costs you absolutely nothing > as it is a print by demand service - if someone wants to buy a copy the > company prints one at no cost to you. > >

<Self publish your book (I used Lulu) and it costs you absolutely nothing as it is a print by demand service - if someone wants to buy a copy the company prints one at no cost to you. > Thank you, Karen! Although the directions are a bit daunting, I used to work in the publishing field so I should be able to figure this out even though I will be using everything from the chapters I made in Word 2003 rather than the software we used at work (way back when!). It looks like the Lulu template has directions as you go. How hard can it be to follow directions? That is a rhetorical question! I do have real questions for you, Karen. My "book" that I already have written is on 8.5 x 11 in color. If I choose that same option at Lulu no one would be able to afford it. Would you do it smaller in black and white? Or that size in B&W? Or what did you do? I'll have to convert all my photos to RGB or B&W anyway. This will be a Project, no doubt about it. -- Toni in Iowa USA ************************************************ Feminism in 2015 comes from the same place it always has: *the radical notion that women are people.* ************************************************ <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Agreed that creating the Events and Citations together is easier, but if you use Ancestral Sources it is even easier. However, for the benefit of others, the FH Automatic Source Citations feature does not help with Events linked to Media. On 08/01/2016 16:03, David wrote: > If you look at the image on the Media Tab, select "links" in the property box and all individuals linked to the image are listed (clickably). If a household goes over two pages I link both pages to each individual. But if I understand correctly, those links may be to all Individuals on the page, and not just one Household, but I guess inspection of the transcript helps sort them out. I know you have not explored Reports, which is partly why I mentioned them. We always advise users to explore Reports and Diagrams, with any proposed technique, before committing too much data entry. No the Reports cannot be customised to resolve those particular problems, or I would have said so. They need to be revised by an update to FH itself, or the GEDCOM exported to an external report writer product. Regards, Mike Tate

On 08/01/2016 15:35, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > There is a small replication of the Media link in each Census Event, and your effort in creating the link is replicated. Replication of links is not an issue in terms of databases design - it is the way that you avoid duplication of the data. Replication of effort in creating the links is actually fairly easily avoided if creating records from scratch. (Adding media after the event is more of an effort! I only started using media when moving to FH6 and a bigger hard disk.)) You create the Census fact for the one member of the household (I start with the Head of Household) as previously described - together with (Method2) source link and media link. You then copy the fact and paste it into the next household member - and change any relevant data - such as "age" and "text from source" - if it is individual specific. Copying and Pasting also sets up the relevant links. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Method 2 with Media record pages linked directly to Events (or Citations), cannot easily find all Individual records that are members of just one Census household, especially where a household spans two or more pages. If you look at the image on the Media Tab, select "links" in the property box and all individuals linked to the image are listed (clickably). If a household goes over two pages I link both pages to each individual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ With reports - which as I have said before I have not explored - are the problems you describe hard-coded into reports or can the problems be customised out? If the latter we need to look for someone to prepare a set of "Method 2" report templates! David

Paul Helen Sue... Re: not having descendants to whom you can pass on your research; an interesting discussion. I'm in the same boat i.e. no children, family not that bothered etc. I started a blog a few years ago and that really helped to get my stuff out 'there' but it's a bit insubstantial as a lasting legacy (who's going to pay the Wordpress fees every year for a start!) and so in the end I put some of the blog and other bits of research into a book. I would advice anyone and everyone to do this - if you obtain a ISBN number (you don't have to, depending on what you want to do with said book) you can lodge a copy in libraries, including the British Library, where your work is more accessible. It's not much use trying to reach US relatives, for example, by putting your work in a few boxes to languish in the dusty bowels of the SoG (don't get me wrong - it's a great institution but not everyone knows about it in the wider world). Self publish your book (I used Lulu) and it costs you absolutely nothing as it is a print by demand service - if someone wants to buy a copy the company prints one at no cost to you. I didn't write a blockbuster, it's true, but I've sold nearly fifty copies and I know that some found their way to the US, Canada and Australia. Just to throw an idea into the mix :-) Karen .................................................................................................................................... Dr Karen Francis .... Find my Ridout family history blog here

I realise you are only joking John, but rarely is anyone is a devoted Method1ian or a Method2ian. Many users employ both Methods: Method 1 for when transcripts/images are required. Method 2 for when those are not required. The debate is about the deployment of Method 2 to record transcripts/images, rather than Method 1 that is better suited in FH. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] Source Citation Structure So, combining threads for a moment, it occurs to me that what we REALLY need are four different discussion fora, depending on whether one is a Novice or Grand Master, and whether one is a Method1ian or a Method2ian .... which reminds me, I must re-read Gulliver's Travels. John For the record, a Method1ian, and somewhere slightly north of Novice with FH6. And no, I'm not being serious. But I have enjoyed the debate.

David, I accept that reduces the replication, but has several side effects that many users might not accept. So I have explained the side effects and the alternatives below. There is a small replication of the Media link in each Census Event, and your effort in creating the link is replicated. A side effect of adding the Media to the Event is that in Reports the Media Census image appears near the top amongst the photos, and completely dissociated from the Sources citations listed at the end. Alternatively, add the Media to the Citation itself, so it appears in the Sources citation list. Then it is easy to Copy & Paste the Citation to each member of the Census, that would reduce the replicated effort. A side effect of putting the transcript in the Media Picture Note is that it does not appear in any Individual Reports with the Sources. If put in the Link/Note, it appears in Reports only if 'Use Note as Caption' is set, but then it is squeezed under the Census image as a Caption. Alternatively, put the transcript in a shared Note record, linked to the Citation, so it appears in the Sources citation list. This does mean a replicated link in each Citation, but it is still easy to Copy & Paste the Citation to each member. Method 1 still allows links between neighbours to be found by using the 'Where Used Record Links' Plugin. >From the single Media record of the Census Page find 'Where Used' in all Source records with a transcript of a household on that page. >From that Source records list find 'Where Used' in all Individual records that are members of the households. This even works where a household spans two or more pages, and is what I find essential when following households across the decades. Conversely, Method 2 with Media record pages linked directly to Events (or Citations), cannot easily find all Individual records that are members of just one Census household, especially where a household spans two or more pages. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] Source Citation Structure On 08/01/2016 10:42, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > But as soon as transcripts or media images are needed, then Method 1 > keeps all that together once, rather than replicated in every Citation for that Source item. I think I am operating Method 2 but I am not duplicating my media images. Unless my understanding is more awry than I think! For instance with a census record I have a source 1881 England and Wales Census For the first person in the household (say William Faulder) I add a census fact and add media "Insert from File" This puts the census image in the media manager (under the media tab) and creates one link: * Faulder, William I also specify "1881 England and Wales Census" as the Source for the fact. For the next person say Anne Sewell (his wife) I add a census fact and add media "Link to Existing Media File". (NOT "Insert from File") When browsing for the media file it is easily found if you have sorted by reverse (media) Record ID - it should be at the top of the list as the last file downloaded. If you then look at the census image record in the media manager (under the media tab) you will find the image (once) but now with two links: * Faulder, William * Sewell, Anne I also specify "1881 England and Wales Census" as the Source for the fact for Anne. The image is not replicated, and will not be replicated as I add further members of the household. Now if I want a full transcript recorded, I don't see why (following this thread!) I can't put it in the "Picture Note" (immediately after the "Faulder, William & Family @ Brisco" that I have previously added), where again it will be held once*. If I want to record transcript specific to an individual, I can record it on "Text From Source" - or if I want to keep it with the media I can put it in the "Link Note". * If you have two households on a single census enumeration form, the transcript will be for both households - which I find logical, we want to see the link between neighbours. David

On 08/01/2016 10:42, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > But as soon as transcripts or media images are needed, then > Method 1 keeps all that together once, rather than replicated in every Citation for that Source item. I think I am operating Method 2 but I am not duplicating my media images. Unless my understanding is more awry than I think! For instance with a census record I have a source 1881 England and Wales Census For the first person in the household (say William Faulder) I add a census fact and add media "Insert from File" * I leave the "title" as the downloaded name (e.g. GBC_1881_4362305_00404 so if I try downloading it again from say Find My Past, I get a warning - "do you want to overwrite"?) * In the "Picture Note" (at the moment) I put a brief description (e.g. Faulder, William & Family @ Brisco) * In the "Keywords" I put Census * In the "date" I put 1881 This puts the census image in the media manager (under the media tab) and creates one link: * Faulder, William I also specify "1881 England and Wales Census" as the Source for the fact. For the next person say Anne Sewell (his wife) I add a census fact and add media "Link to Existing Media File". (NOT "Insert from File") When browsing for the media file it is easily found if you have sorted by reverse (media) Record ID - it should be at the top of the list as the last file downloaded. If you then look at the census image record in the media manager (under the media tab) you will find the image (once) but now with two links: * Faulder, William * Sewell, Anne I also specify "1881 England and Wales Census" as the Source for the fact for Anne. The image is not replicated, and will not be replicated as I add further members of the household. Now if I want a full transcript recorded, I don't see why (following this thread!) I can't put it in the "Picture Note" (immediately after the "Faulder, William & Family @ Brisco" that I have previously added), where again it will be held once*. If I want to record transcript specific to an individual, I can record it on "Text From Source" - or if I want to keep it with the media I can put it in the "Link Note". * If you have two households on a single census enumeration form, the transcript will be for both households - which I find logical, we want to see the link between neighbours. David

So, combining threads for a moment, it occurs to me that what we REALLY need are four different discussion fora, depending on whether one is a Novice or Grand Master, and whether one is a Method1ian or a Method2ian .... which reminds me, I must re-read Gulliver's Travels. John For the record, a Method1ian, and somewhere slightly north of Novice with FH6. And no, I'm not being serious. But I have enjoyed the debate. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8 January 2016 at 10:42, Beryl & Mike Tate via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > ... > I did not spot that GEDCOM 5.5.1 had added the <<MULTIMEDIA_LINK>> entity > to the SOUR <SOURCE_DESCRIPTION> on Page 39 without > mention in the "Modifications in Version 5.5.1" on Pages 6 & 7. ... > Yes, I got caught out like that in the BetterGEDCOM list. I swore blind that some feature was or wasn't in 5.5.1 - then I got told the page number in 5.5.1 that proved I was wrong. I'd made the mistake of looking at the Modification List, which is clearly incomplete. That's why I have no patience with these people who argue we *should* be using 5.5.1. How many more errors and inconsistencies are there in the 5.5.1 draft? Adrian

Sorry, I concede that I am wrong, and you cannot add Media to a Source Note in FH. I did not spot that GEDCOM 5.5.1 had added the <<MULTIMEDIA_LINK>> entity to the SOUR <SOURCE_DESCRIPTION> on Page 39 without mention in the "Modifications in Version 5.5.1" on Pages 6 & 7. Nevertheless, either way, that has no impact on Method 1 versus Method 2. Using that form of Source Citation would run totally against the Method 1 concept, which I think Paul misunderstands. The whole point of Method 1 is to enter all the relevant Source Document details & images in the Source record once, and have virtually nothing in the multiple Citations except a reference to the Source record, and thus avoid any data replications in the Citations. Having large numbers of Source records is no more a problem to Method 1 advocates than large numbers of Individual records, or Media records & files. It only seems to be a problem for Method 2 advocates, bearing in mind that many users employ both Methods. Using the SOUR <SOURCE_DESCRIPTION>/Source Note approach would make matters much worse for Method 1 advocates, because all the references, details & images would be replicated in every Citation, which is the complete opposite of the Method 1 objectives. Whether to employ Method 1 or Method 2 is not some mysterious belief system, but based on the simple database concept of avoiding duplicated data. If there is no need for transcripts or media images for Source documents, then Method 2 works well, because the most that needs duplicating is a small Where within Source reference. But as soon as transcripts or media images are needed, then Method 1 keeps all that together once, rather than replicated in every Citation for that Source item. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] Source Citation Structure You can add Media. Right-click on the blue Source item for Source Note and it is on the context menu. Regards, Mike Tate Paul via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: >Mike Tate said: > >"Paul, as a matter of fact, that SOURCE_CITATION structure is identical to GEDCOM 5.5 and is already supported by FH. >In FH it is called a Source Note and can be added on the All tab. >I do not see how it helps Method 1 and I don't think it gets include in Reports as a Source Citation." > >Hello, Mike, I had no idea about that. >Just tried it, but it seems you cannot add the permitted media links (was that added in 5.5.1?) so doesn't seem to go far enough? >Paul

You can add Media. Right-click on the blue Source item for Source Note and it is on the context menu. Regards, Mike Tate Sent from my Hudl Paul via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: >Mike Tate said: > >"Paul, as a matter of fact, that SOURCE_CITATION structure is identical to >GEDCOM 5.5 and is already supported by FH. >In FH it is called a Source Note and can be added on the All tab. >I do not see how it helps Method 1 and I don't think it gets include in >Reports as a Source Citation." > >Hello, Mike, I had no idea about that. >Just tried it, but it seems you cannot add the permitted media links (was >that added in 5.5.1?) so doesn't seem to go far enough? >Paul > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Mike Tate said: "Paul, as a matter of fact, that SOURCE_CITATION structure is identical to GEDCOM 5.5 and is already supported by FH. In FH it is called a Source Note and can be added on the All tab. I do not see how it helps Method 1 and I don't think it gets include in Reports as a Source Citation." Hello, Mike, I had no idea about that. Just tried it, but it seems you cannot add the permitted media links (was that added in 5.5.1?) so doesn't seem to go far enough? Paul

Well said Martin!! ...Some of us are doing it just to fulfill a personal objective that may benefit the family in general. Perhaps, as a rule, the users we should have two streams: 1. Leave the Forum for the professionals and purist, and 2. Leave the Mailing List for the novice and those interested in resolving a particular operational procedure with FH. One can always consult with the Forum if a more in depth purist answer is required. Patrick Bribie Island, Queensland, Australia Thursday, January 7, 2016, 10:58:20 AM, you wrote: MBv> I guess #3 gives me the clue. I treat genealogy as a hobby not a job. MBv> I just want to understand how my forebears lived. Life is just too short to worry whether I put the citations I use in precisely the correct spot because tomorrow someone may change (or God MBv> forbid) interpret the thing differently. MBv> I and my family know what it all means and when I'm gone there are no descendants to carry it all on so it will all be consigned to the skip and no bloodline to fret about the misplaced MBv> references. 

There is no way to regulate how one person or another will use a forum or mail list. The best you can do is keep either on topic. I've been using both for 20+ years and sometimes prefer one, sometimes the other. If the content or messaging bothers me, I unsubscribe or use the delete key, as mentioned above. Personally, I've enjoyed the thread about sources - when I tire of it, I'll know what to do. Chill out, folks, there are more important things to fret about. Kathleen in temporarily soggy California P.S. For those in the US, Allen County Public Library also takes unwanted family genealogy research. Don't let your relatives toss it when you're gone! On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:26 AM, ColeValleyGirl via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Sue, > > That's what I'm intending to do with mine, since I don't have any > descendants to pass it on to, and no members of the extended family who > have > yet taken an interest. I also intend to publish it on as many websites as > I > can find that will maintain it after my death. (Obviously none of the > subscription ones, but I intend to be around a long time yet and the > 'shared > trees' may well have matured in some years' time to be more useable). > > Helen > ColeValleyGirl > > Hi Paul > Sorry about the no bloodline to inherit all your hard work. But please may > I > make a request ,that rather than consign to a skip, your executors offer > the > information to The Society of Genealogists (SOG) Library in London, where I > can assure you it will be well looked after and may be of important > interest > to some later researcher in years to come. > They have some marvellous boxes of peoples research searchable on their > database, from early last centuary. > Sue Howard > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- *Kathleen Cooper*GOONS Member 5474 /McElrea *~* http://www.mcelrea.org DNA study: www.familytreedna.com/public/McElrea mtDNA: K1a4a1a2a *~* Tifft/yDNA: R1b1b2a1a2d3* *"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle." author unknown*

Sue, That's what I'm intending to do with mine, since I don't have any descendants to pass it on to, and no members of the extended family who have yet taken an interest. I also intend to publish it on as many websites as I can find that will maintain it after my death. (Obviously none of the subscription ones, but I intend to be around a long time yet and the 'shared trees' may well have matured in some years' time to be more useable). Helen ColeValleyGirl Hi Paul Sorry about the no bloodline to inherit all your hard work. But please may I make a request ,that rather than consign to a skip, your executors offer the information to The Society of Genealogists (SOG) Library in London, where I can assure you it will be well looked after and may be of important interest to some later researcher in years to come. They have some marvellous boxes of peoples research searchable on their database, from early last centuary. Sue Howard