The full size of a message includes all the header stuff you don't normally see, as well as the text you've typed. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Beryl & Mike Tate via Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 10:16 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] ADMIN: Replying to Posts I guess you are talking about the message starting: [Third attempt in 48 hours to post!] I also found that it had a similar number of characters ~ 5,000. But the size of the message shown in my Outbox is 13K ! So is RootsWeb checking characters or message size? Whereas, the message below is about 800 chars, but message size is 4K. Mike Tate

I am beginning to lose the will to live!!!!!!!!!! Isn’t this what the FHUG is for? Barry

On 05/01/2016 17:53, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > I would add that Media images play just as important a role as transcripts. > > It is not clear in your Method 2 case where the image & transcript are attached, but in GEDCOM they can be added to a Citation, > although if there are multiple Citations of the same "Quote" there will be multiple copies of them. I attach an image *reference" to the fact - if I have understood how it works. The image is only held once (in the media tab/manager) - but there are multiple links (for instance a single image of a census page is kinked to the relevant census fact for each individual). The transcript placement is something I still ponder. 1) If you have the image - do you need a full transcript? (If someone has done a decent transcript of a hard to read image, Yes) 2) The part of the transcript relevant to the supported fact can be held in the "Text From Source" for the "source" citation for the fact. [Individual>Census>Source>Data>Text From Source] 3) For census records I might put a full transcript on the "Text From Source" for the "source" citation for the census fact for the Head of Household. (And on all individual census facts, I record who is the head of household in the note [Individual>Census>Note]) 4) For Occupations etc. derived from Censuses I reference the occupation fact to a source "Census Cross-reference" - prompting you to look on the corresponding census fact for the source, the image and the transcript. 5) In following this thread I am now wondering whether a full transcript best lives in the Media Manager with the image of which it is a transcript. Each image has a Note field that seems to be suitable. Unfortunately in FH you need to have a bit of media for each transcription - and adding a 1pixel "blank image" just seems "wrong".

On 05/01/2016 17:53, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > The Method 2 concept says a GEDCOM Source record represents what you call a "Source": > 1) entire collection of UK Birth Certificates (does that include Scotland, or just England & Wales?). > 2) entire collection of UK Marriage Certificates (or should that be UK Marriage Parish Registers?). > 3) entire collection of UK Census Records (or one year of UK Census Records) not sure which? I think it rather depends on how you work! (Which I guess is a major consideration for everyone!) To me a source is actually best matched to a "Collection" as defined by where you get your data. For instance: * Ancestry has England & Wales Census Collections (one per census year) - and Scotland Census Collections * Find My Past has a single England Wales & Scotland Census Collections * If you worked through County Record Offices, you would probably have one set of Census Collections per County! By adopting this approach I can keep a note of what work I have done on each Collection - which I keep in dated Note Files attached to the (Method 2) Source. I find this particularly useful with the various Parish Record Collections which are usually incomplete and get periodically updated - prompting a review. (FreeBMD and BMD indices are other collections that "expand"). I also keep notes about the Collections in Source Notes.

I guess you are talking about the message starting: [Third attempt in 48 hours to post!] I also found that it had a similar number of characters ~ 5,000. But the size of the message shown in my Outbox is 13K ! So is RootsWeb checking characters or message size? Whereas, the message below is about 800 chars, but message size is 4K. Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of ancestry@faulder.org.uk via Sent: 05 January 2016 21:06 To: janetaubman@gmail.com; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] ADMIN: Replying to Posts On 05/01/2016 15:53, Jane Taubman via wrote: > The list has a maximum post size of 10,000 characters. So you post > will get "stuck" with the spam if it's longer than that. Ah, I thought perhaps that's why my last post did not get through - and Jane dug it out of the spam pile! Thanks etc. But I thought, let's check what 10,000 characters look like. So I loaded my last (rather long) post into Notepad++ and did a character count: 4864 characters (excluding blanks), 5004 (including blanks etc.) . So I was only half way to the limit! (I know not an invitation etc.) David ------------------------------- 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 05/01/2016 17:53, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > As far as I can tell, everything you described can be represented in GEDCOM structures. > (That is not quite the same as saying they can be easily supported in Family Historian V6.) > So could you please justify the statement: > 'Now all the above is "theoretical" because "it's not supported by GEDCOM".' I was under the impression that FH was a faithful implementation of GEDCOM and therefore if not supported in FH it was not supported by GEDCOM!

On 05/01/2016 15:53, Jane Taubman via wrote: > The list has a maximum post size of 10,000 characters. So you post will > get "stuck" with the spam if it's longer than that. Ah, I thought perhaps that's why my last post did not get through - and Jane dug it out of the spam pile! Thanks etc. But I thought, let's check what 10,000 characters look like. So I loaded my last (rather long) post into Notepad++ and did a character count: 4864 characters (excluding blanks), 5004 (including blanks etc.) . So I was only half way to the limit! (I know not an invitation etc.) David

On 5 January 2016 at 18:12, Beryl & Mike Tate via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Not sure how to interpret "That **is** the constraint." - is that good or > bad? > > Good or bad? Neither! It's just life - if the constraints on a system's requirements and design are followed, it won't work. Adrian

Not sure how to interpret "That **is** the constraint." - is that good or bad? To me, it is a positive constraint, without which I suspect genealogy product databases would be even more diverse!!! At least the basic record types, and fact structures are largely consistent across many products. Yes, there are problem areas, primarily with Places & Addresses and with Sources & Citations, but don't overlook the benefits. However, the biggest problem is most products do NOT implement GEDCOM well, and the biggest players are often the worst culprits!!! Hopefully the Family History Information Standards Organisation (FHISO) http://fhiso.org/ will solve those , providing the big players are on board, otherwise I fear they are doomed. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References "Perhaps the "problem" /is /the GEDCOM structure" - no 'perhaps' about it. That *is* the constraint. Adrian

David, As far as I can tell, everything you described can be represented in GEDCOM structures. (That is not quite the same as saying they can be easily supported in Family Historian V6.) So could you please justify the statement: 'Now all the above is "theoretical" because "it's not supported by GEDCOM".' The choices somewhat hinge on the definition of a Source Document. The Method 2 concept says a GEDCOM Source record represents what you call a "Source": 1) entire collection of UK Birth Certificates (does that include Scotland, or just England & Wales?). 2) entire collection of UK Marriage Certificates (or should that be UK Marriage Parish Registers?). 3) entire collection of UK Census Records (or one year of UK Census Records) not sure which? The Method 1 concept says a GEDCOM Source record represents what you call a "Quote": 1) just one individual Birth Certificate (from anywhere in the world). 2) just one couple's Marriage Record (Certificate or Parish Register or anywhere in the world). 3) just one household schedule from one Census year (from anywhere in the world). To my mind these are much cleaner definitions of a Source Document, and apply almost worldwide, as there is no mention of UK, Scotland, USA, etc. I would add that Media images play just as important a role as transcripts. It is not clear in your Method 2 case where the image & transcript are attached, but in GEDCOM they can be added to a Citation, although if there are multiple Citations of the same "Quote" there will be multiple copies of them. Other structures are possible to avoid multiple copies by using shared Note records, but Method 1 is easier. In the Method 1 case the image & transcript are attached directly to the GEDCOM Source record and thus avoid the multiple copies. The Source record in this case may refer to the full collection in several alternative ways: 1) via the Author/Publication details. 2) via the Notes and a subsidiary Source record. 3) via the Repository record (slight misuse I agree). You ask 'where do you put something like a census transcript'? Well in Method 2, where the Source is the entire Census, you must transcribe the entire Census into the Source record Text From Source field. With Method 1, the answer is easy, simply put the transcript of one household in the Source record Text From Source field, then the collection of Census Source records hold the entire transcript. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References Perhaps the "problem" /is /the GEDCOM structure. Whilst it is useful for moving data between differing systems (because it is old and widely established, not because it is necessarily good), it is not suitable for modern genealogical databases. : : : Now all the above is "theoretical" because "it's not supported by GEDCOM". David

On 5 January 2016 at 17:04, Jane Taubman via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > ... It works in Chrome, so it might be a "Chrome" special sorry. ... Curious - I can't get it to work in Chrome either... You've not used some sort of extension have you? Adrian PS - And I echo David's thanks to Jane - and indeed all the other mega-contributors to the list and UG.

"Perhaps the "problem" /is /the GEDCOM structure" - no 'perhaps' about it. That *is* the constraint. "But where do you put something like a census transcript, or ..." That's why we use Method 1 (grin!). But then Bibliographies (as I admit) get a little over the top... The thing is, there is no real world definition of the Master Sources that appear in a bibliography other than - they're the ones in a bibliography! Some would want "1851 Census for England & Wales", some "1851 Census for Cheshire", etc... Neither of those two qualify as a single physical document, if that seems relevant. Adrian

And can we thank Jane for her patience over the last mammoth set of postings, when I saw her email address appear today I visibly trembled - I really thought teacher was going to slap our wrists and say enough is enough! Happy New Year to Jane for all her hard work over 2015, what would we do without her? David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jane Taubman via Sent: 05 January 2016 15:54 To: family-historian-users Subject: [FHU] ADMIN: Replying to Posts Just a friendly reminder. When replying to posts on the list, Please remember to "trim" the quoted text from the original. The list has a maximum post size of 10,000 characters. So you post will get "stuck" with the spam if it's longer than that. It also makes the Archive untidy and causes many problems for people trying to read the digest. So remember either do not quote the email you are replying to or keep the amount you reply to a sentence or two. If you are using a mail client like Google Mail remember to check in the ... section as the bottom as by default it will quote the whole message but hide it while you are typing. In Google Mail, if you highlight a small section of the message you are replying to before hitting the reply button it will only quote the small section rather than the whole message, -- 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

On 5 January 2016 at 16:51, Adrian Bruce via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I can't get your last suggest to work, I'm afraid - it always seems to > include the full text when I've clicked the "..." after first selecting, > It works in Chrome, so it might be a "Chrome" special sorry. You need to select the text in the original email before you hit the reply button. -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

Thanks Jane - I'm afraid I've been guilty of a few full-content replies since I moved to GMail - the problem (to warn others) is that you don't actually see the full-content reply unless you click the box with "..." in, so you don't realise the pointless text you've sent. I can't get your last suggest to work, I'm afraid - it always seems to include the full text when I've clicked the "..." after first selecting, then hitting reply. Shame. Deleting the whole lot is easy - hit reply and before typing, press the down arrow on your keyboard to select the "..." box, then hit delete. It's strangely difficult to select the "..." box otherwise. (Or it is in Firefox, at least). Adrian ​

Just a friendly reminder. When replying to posts on the list, Please remember to "trim" the quoted text from the original. The list has a maximum post size of 10,000 characters. So you post will get "stuck" with the spam if it's longer than that. It also makes the Archive untidy and causes many problems for people trying to read the digest. So remember either do not quote the email you are replying to or keep the amount you reply to a sentence or two. If you are using a mail client like Google Mail remember to check in the ... section as the bottom as by default it will quote the whole message but hide it while you are typing. In Google Mail, if you highlight a small section of the message you are replying to before hitting the reply button it will only quote the small section rather than the whole message, -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

I too have been guilty of forgetting to trim the previous messages. Apologies to all. Jan Murphy packrat74@gmail.com

[Third attempt in 48 hours to post!] On 03/01/2016 11:28, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > Elizabeth Shown Mills ... > I admit not having read her book, but I recall others saying it does not relate the principals to GEDCOM structures. > ... > Regards, Mike Tate > Perhaps the "problem" /is /the GEDCOM structure. Whilst it is useful for moving data between differing systems (because it is old and widely established, not because it is necessarily good), it is not suitable for modern genealogical databases. Not sure I can express this in text but here goes. My preference(!) is: We want to have a Master Bibliography which holds details of Sources which can be cited to support many facts (individual, family, place, etc.). The citation is a link record that says which fact is supported by which source (and where within the source). Facts can be supported by multiple sources (even multiple citations within the same source!) Fact (f001): Harold Faulder b 15 Feb 1885, Fern Villa Gledholt, Huddersfield, West Riding. Source (s001): UK Birth Certificates Link (l0001): records that f001 is supported by s001. Ideally the link record also indicates: 1. where within the source: Huddersfield, York, 1885 column 83 2. what "sub-facts" are supported: Date of Birth, Place|Address of Birth 3. type: Local Registry Office Copy My grandfather's birth fact is also supported by other sources Source (s002): 1891 Census Link (l0002) records that f001 is (also) supported by s002, indicating: 1. where within the source: RG12; piece: 4296; folio: 93; page: 10 2. what "sub-facts" are supported: YoB (derived), Place of Birth 3. Note: "FMP transcription has surname as "Paulder"" The above is all relatively straight forward (Method 2) - we recognise the Fact and Source record types - and the "Link records" are sort of implied by FH. The Links are Citations. We can - but most of us don't(?) - also add further "links" through the "All tab". Such as Fact (f002): Parents Family: Joseph Sewell Faulder and Emily Story Link (l0003) records that f002 is supported by s001 (UK Birth Certificates), indicating: 1. where within the source: Huddersfield, York, 1885 column 83 2. what "sub-facts" are supported: Father, Mother (i.e. this substantiates the parentage) 3. type: Local Registry Office Copy Now a relational database can handle all of this without necessarily duplicating. It also roughly follows bibliographic structures. But where do you put something like a census transcript, or the full text of a Dictionary of National Biography Article (assuming copyright not an issue?!). Such transcripts or articles can refer to multiple people, so you don't want to hold it multiple times (uses disk space - and if you correct a typo or add an annotation, you don't want to have to chase down all the duplicate copies). Two approaches. Relationally purist: You recognise that a source can have multiple "Quotes" (i.e quotes from within a source) and the link records actually link facts to Quotes (this is essentially Method 1). Quotes are then referenced back to their (unique) Sources. Some may see the difference between Quotes and Sources as pedantic - but I think this is the core difference between Method 1 and Method 2. Pragmatic: We have a Media Manager and we reference media items to Facts or to Sources, so why not have a Transcript Manager (after all a transcript is just an OCR of a piece of media!) - or better still combine the two (as "Evidence" items?) and reference items in the "Evidence Manager" to the links described above. Could the "Note" field on the existing Media Item be used to hold a transcript? Now all the above is "theoretical" because "it's not supported by GEDCOM". I think it is essential that we can get data into and out of Genealogical Software (otherwise you risk getting tied into non-supported or out-of-date software), and GEDCOM is currently the "standard" - /at the moment/. But that does not mean that the software has to use GEDCOM as its underlying database. What is important is that there are import and export routines to translate to and from GEDCOM (/or whatever is the standard at the time/) - even if it means that the GEDCOM file (or whatever) is not as "efficient" as the database. It can never be as efficient - but do we want that inability to slightly hinder us when we are moving to a new program or to hinder our usage of a program all the time? So perhaps FH v10(?) might have its own database format - and perhaps the Master Bibliography (and Evidence Manager?) could even be shareable across multiple family trees (even if only to get consistency between "1881 Census England & Wales" and "England and Wales 1881 Census"!). David

Once again, thanks Helen for your reply. (I have been trying to send this post for the last 39 hours). I agree that census images on different digital platforms can vary dramatically in quality. For that reason I usually use the Ancestry version rather than Findmypast, especially for the 1841 census. For parish registers there is usually only one version of source images. If they are not available or not of sufficient quality it is a matter of waiting patiently (Suffolk is an example), purchasing a photocopy or visiting the repository. My preference is to wait patiently because I have plenty of other holes in trees to persue. Your point about some images missing from all digital platforms is well taken. In those relatively rare cases I would report the omission and encourage them to complete the collection. My wife Mary has had long dialogues with the people at Ancestry responsible for correcting such ommissions regarding the LMA parish registers but even when armed with detailed information Ancestry have not yet rectified the situation. But my posts were assuming that the digital images do exist, are readily available and are of high quality. There are going to be exceptions to everything in this hobby. I suspect that the missing census that you mention was 1851 Manchester. "The 1851 "unfilmed" census for Manchester, Chorlton, Salford, Oldham and Ashton-Under-Lyne is now available on Findmypast.co.uk and Ancestry.co.uk." http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/448/archives_and_local_history/462/family_history/7 Your point about tithe maps is also well taken. As far as I know there were three originals for each parish which over time will have varying degradation. I do transcribe into Family Historian the basics - full names, dates and places for births, baptisms, marriages, burials, cremations, wills, probate, and census via AS - together with current information for each person where relevant such as address, email, telephone, websites. For GRO index information I use the "Q3 1879" format together with "xxxxxxx registration district" which information is obviously obtained only from GRO indexes. Anything else I go to the Media tab in the Property Box then click the green arrow to display the source images. I use a combination of flags and icons in diagrams to denote at a glance which digital images I have linked in for each person, and just as important, to denote any gaps I have not found yet. Works extremely well. I don't create any reports. If I want to share my information with someone else I email them a pdf of the relevant portion of the diagram together with copies of important source images. So far I have not created any specific website for my family history, but agree that if I did that would bring its own challenges regarding copyright of digital source images, so will probably not go down that route. I have a public bare bones pruned tree on Ancestry to link with my DNA test there plus an (unsourced) complete private tree on Ancestry mainly to attract enquiries. And several other irons in the fire too numerous to mention. Trevor Rix > I think we may be agreeing violently about the need to identify our sources > unambiguously but differing about what is necessary to achieve that goal. >

I use V6 and have noticed that this happens when you go to a record by typing its ID number. If your record number is 2576, for example, the program takes you to record 2 then record 25 then 257 and finally 2576. If you hit the back arrow it will return to record 2 via 257 and 25. Gillian -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lorna Craig via Sent: Tuesday, 5 January 2016 9:11 AM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Go Back feature of Propety Box seems to be random I forgot to ask, which version of FH are you using? The discussion in FHUG dates from V5. The Filter search was introduced in V6. So the 'alphabetical chaining' explanation won't apply in V6. I have not been aware of any real problems with the forward/back arrows in V6, although there may have been an occasional glitch. Lorna On 04/01/2016 21:05, Lorna Craig via wrote: > I had some problems with this back in 2013 and raised a topic in FHUG. > I think the issues were resolved but if you think there is anything > still wrong maybe you should report it to Calico Pie. (Note that at > the very end of the thread I did discover the explanation for > something that had been puzzling me!) See > http://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=10893 > > On 04/01/2016 19:33, D C Banks via wrote: >> Hi >> >> I have attempted to use the two arrows at the top of the Property Box >> many times and it appears to be random and you have to do a few hits >> of the 'go back' arrow before you get to the one you want. One >> particular occasion I was only two screens away but it took 14 steps >> back to get to it. I did a check and some of the records I went >> through on the way 'back' hadn't been used for over 5 years. Does anybody else get this problem? >> >> David >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message