Hi, I will have a test today, note the time, I've been chasing elusive ancestors again so I'll get a round tuit sometime after lunch. David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lorna Craig via Sent: 05 January 2016 00:27 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Go Back feature of Propety Box seems to be random Hi Gillian, Yes, that's a good point. It's the numerical equivalent of the alphabetical problem that existed with the V5 search system. Perhaps David could confirm whether his problems with the 'go back' arrow only arise after he has located a record via its ID number (or by typing the name in the 'Find' box if using V5). Lorna On 04/01/2016 23:23, gw3190 via wrote: > 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? ------------------------------- 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 Gillian, Yes, that's a good point. It's the numerical equivalent of the alphabetical problem that existed with the V5 search system. Perhaps David could confirm whether his problems with the 'go back' arrow only arise after he has located a record via its ID number (or by typing the name in the 'Find' box if using V5). Lorna On 04/01/2016 23:23, gw3190 via wrote: > 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?

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 >

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 >

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

On 03/01/2016 18:51, ColeValleyGirl via wrote: > 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. > > If someone is in the position of having the rights and capability to make > perfect images of all your sources available to everyone who is interested > in their research, then it might not be necessary to record the relevant > (e.g. census) reference -- although perhaps naming convention for images > might include it? Or some other method be used to duplicated images of the > same record/duplicate entries for the same source? > > However, my research is published online, and I don't have the rights to > publish all the source images I have (either because of copyright > restrictions, or under the terms and conditions of the image providers). So > it's essential to provide detailed information about the source and where I > accessed it, so that other researchers can review if they wish and decide if > they agree with my assessment of the evidence and resulting conclusion. > > However, even when I can publish an image, there are many instances where it > won't be good enough on its own to lead another researcher to the same > source. > > You suggest the 1939 example is an extreme one (although there are plenty of > examples of differing derivative sources from the same original providing > different information) but I disagree that digital census images are > "without question accurate and complete representations of the originals". > I suspect many of us can quote examples where the census images provided by > different online providers have come via different routes and have differing > quality and/or completeness -- usually pages missed by the scanner either at > the microfilm stage if the digital images were taken from microfilm or at > the digitisation stage. In additional, I'm pretty sure there's at least one > example where a provider has made significant efforts to make available > images of pages deemed too damaged by other providers (I can't remember > exactly what districts but think it's in the industrial North-West). > > A single page *may* be a good representation of an original -- or it might > be totally illegible. The same caveats about missing or badly digitised > pages apply to parish registers -- I've seen images of parish registers > pages where it's totally impossible to read the start of the page, so you > can only guess what time period it covers or which parish it relates to if > you're looking at it in isolation. > > And then you have the circumstance where an ostensibly identical source is > actually two different sources, such as the digitised tithe maps of Wales. > The tithe maps digitised by The Genealogist are based on the originals held > at TNA; the LLGC (National Library of Wales) are also digitising Welsh tithe > maps, but based on originals held in the NLW collection. The different > originals have damage in different places so are missing different pieces of > information. > > So, I'll always err on the side of recoding as much information as possible > about the source I've personally used -- it only takes a few moments to do > so and it could potentially be very valuable to others (as well as to myself > if I'm ever re-tracing my tracks to find out where I went wrong). > > ColeValleyGirl > Helen Wright > > As someone who digitises books & manuscripts everyday I feel I am qualified to say that not all scans are equal. A scan of a manuscript may return a photo accurate copy of the original document but if not scanned correctly may exclude certain colours or pencil notes. For instance depending on the scanning software a black and white scan of a page which includes red text may omit all the red text from the result, in a similar way a black and white scan mat not show the more feint pencil notes that a greyscale or a colour scan will bring out. In some cases such as a red headline this will be obvious but on something like the 1939 Register the additional marriage dates in red could have been excluded if the scanning had been done in black and white. Whilst most of the more experienced digitising companies understand this and advise accordingly some of the smaller groups who scan their own material do not understand that parts of the image can be lost or at best be illegible if scanned incorrectly. I would also point out that unless each image is optimised before being digitised the resultant scan may be over or under exposed leading to an illegible image. I would therefore suggest that references point to the original source rather than any digital resource unless the text or image is clear on the digital copy. Cheers Guy

David Banks wrote: I’d just like to say how useful I’ve found this whole exchange - sitting here with just 4 main family files with no structure within, I think there is room for improvement! Nice ================== I, too, have greatly enjoyed the discussion on the merits and otherwise of full reference citations. There is clearly a fundamental difference in view between those who thrive on the rigour and discipline imposed by working to a strict citation standard, and those who see it as a tiresome and unnecessary chore. Each to his/her own, I think. On page 186 of her excellent book "Genealogy: Essential Research Methods", noted British genealogist Helen Osborn encapsulates the dilemma thus: --------------- Citation standards appear very complex, pernickety even, and this has proved a double-edged sword for their supporters. Complexity puts people off, and they simply reject the whole idea of citation standards unless they can be persuaded of the underlying principles. --------------- Helen Osborn's book was published in 2012 by Robert Hale Ltd, London. Personally, I am certainly persuaded of the value of citation standards, but I find that in practice I end up with a compromise. While I do try to adhere to high standards of citation, my efforts often fail. IMy most frequent excuse is that I don't have time. Kind regards, John ------------- John Ball Brecon, Powys Email: john@jlb2011.co.uk Website: www.jlb2011.co.uk Blog: johnofbrecon.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I’d just like to say how useful I’ve found this whole exchange - sitting here with just 4 main family files with no structure within, I think there is room for improvement! Nice > On 3 Jan 2016, at 21:15, D C Banks via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > But Lorna, did you have homemade apple sauce with clove and nutmeg seasoning > and a splash of Calvados thrown in? > Now the apples were Sourced from ASDA, Married together with the other three > Individual ingredients just as my Family like, placed in a ceramic > Repository, the conCENSUS was that it was a very good meal. Note, I am > keeping to topic :-) > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lorna > Craig via > Sent: 03 January 2016 17:34 > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] Storing digital data - was References > > David, we must be having the same dinner this evening! > Lorna > > On 03/01/2016 17:16, D C Banks via wrote: >> David (with roast pork, roast potato and roast parsnip smells wafting >> towards me from the kitchen) >> > > ------------------------------- > 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

This sounds so familiar! It must be a disease with a name surely?? 8>) Lesley On 03/01/2016 17:16, D C Banks via wrote: > Hi Adrian > > I tend to things in 'splurges', is that a real word? I get to be chasing an > ancestor then get side-tracked on to another interesting avenue and by the > time it gets to 2am I have completely lost track of why I sat down at the > computer after the News at 10 - or was it 6? So I just keep downloading as I > weave my way through the centuries and across the country and then I might > spend a Sunday afternoon catching up on my downloads - after all there are > no 'black and white' movies worth watching on Sunday afternoons these days! > I then get into a tangle over what all these 'alien' people are doing in my > pending folders and good old 'ole' timers disease takes over and I have to > retrace my steps - which then takes me down another avenue and........ > > As to your first comment, 'vive la difference'. Maybe one day someone will > drag me screaming and kicking towards AS! > > David (with roast pork, roast potato and roast parsnip smells wafting > towards me from the kitchen) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian > Bruce via > Sent: 03 January 2016 16:19 > To: Family Historian UG Mailing List > Subject: Re: [FHU] Storing digital data - was References > > ... > >>> I always place the download immediately into, say, the 1851 folder. >>> Only when I have entered it onto FH do I drop it to the 'Entered' >>> folder. This means I can keep track of downloads I have made. >> > ... > A man after my own heart (on this topic, at least!). > > I don't use AS simply because I developed my own methods way before AS was > introduced and - given that there were inevitable differences - I never felt > the need to spend the time working out how to change methods. So I can't say > how AS would deal with images. > > But I initially download my images into one set of folders that are designed > just for pending images. Only as part of the entry process, will I move them > into the other set of folders that are designed for holding entered images. > That way I can always immediately see which stuff I've downloaded and never > got round to entering. And which stuff has been done. > It's a distinction I find invaluable, particularly if, like me, you download > stuff for distant relatives that you will get round to entering one day, > some time, soon, honestly - except never mind them, what about these guys > that went out to South Africa in 1820?! Aren't they lots more interesting? > > Well, at least I can tell what the outstanding work is. > > Adrian > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Just imagine if all the stuff you downloaded was still on paper - you'd be buried under it, like me! I'd have reams of the stuff all of no particular use to me, just trying to be helpful. I now have a folder labelled 'downloaded for others' so that I can see what's for my tree & what isn't. I haven't tried AS yet either, but I intend to (another thing on my 'to do' list). Regards Lesley On 03/01/2016 16:18, Adrian Bruce via wrote: > ... > >>> I always place the download immediately into, say, the 1851 folder. Only >>> when I have entered it onto FH do I drop it to the 'Entered' folder. This >>> means I can keep track of downloads I have made. >> > ... > A man after my own heart (on this topic, at least!). > > I don't use AS simply because I developed my own methods way before AS was > introduced and - given that there were inevitable differences - I never > felt the need to spend the time working out how to change methods. So I > can't say how AS would deal with images. > > But I initially download my images into one set of folders that are > designed just for pending images. Only as part of the entry process, will I > move them into the other set of folders that are designed for holding > entered images. That way I can always immediately see which stuff I've > downloaded and never got round to entering. And which stuff has been done. > It's a distinction I find invaluable, particularly if, like me, you > download stuff for distant relatives that you will get round to entering > one day, some time, soon, honestly - except never mind them, what about > these guys that went out to South Africa in 1820?! Aren't they lots more > interesting? > > Well, at least I can tell what the outstanding work is. > > Adrian > > ------------------------------- > 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 > . >

Good point Victor - a little tweak may be necessary. I think Year, Location, Family Name/Head of Household might be sufficient for a census filename, with the addition of a birth year for the head of household if there are too many families with the same name. I'm glad you pointed this out before I started on my new regime. Regards Lesley On 03/01/2016 14:40, Victor Markham via wrote: > Hi David > > I take it that you don't use AS. The way you have set up census images > wont work with AS. > > I have all the census images stored in each year folder and named for > example in 1881 census RG11-288_Fo-41_Page-25 Joseph Gunyon 1824 > You have put the census image under one particular name. What about the > other names in the same household? > > The important thing is to be consistent in how you store things. Bear in > mind other members of you family and descendants wont be able to read > your mind in how things are done. > > Using AS you just prompt the census year and it takes you to the folder > where you have stored that years census. You then download it from that > folder and it is then saved in the Project Folder of FH. > > Victor > > On 03/01/2016 2:29 PM, D C Banks via wrote: >> Hi Lesley >> >> I am going to put my system analysis and database design hats on! Apologies >> to those that think all this chat is a waste of time, I am responding to a >> question from another reader, you can hit the delete key now! >> >> First of all filenames. You should choose one of two options, not a mix. The >> first option can be using totally misleading names such as random >> name/number or the original file names as it was downloaded. The second >> option is to 'describe' the contents in some way, but simply. >> I favour the latter, an example is all my census images are named as: >> Year/Surname/Forename/DoB/Birthplace/Other. So, an example is '1851 Banks >> Charles 1843 Uckfield'. I make a lot of distinction here because I have over >> 50 Charles Banks. On the other hand '1851 Siggory Hezekiah' is quite enough >> as he is unique. Where there is a maiden name I would use '1851 Bloggs Jane >> nee Banks', although her name is now Bloggs she will get filed in the BANKS >> folder - because that is how she is known in FH. >> >> Now to the folder structure. I put everything like images, pictures etc. in >> a master folder called 'Media' which is in my 'banks.fh_data' folder. Then I >> have sub-folders in the Media folder for Census, Probate, Wills, >> Certificates, Photos, Directories, Maritime, BMD etc. One only, the Census >> sub-folder, is further divided into years. >> I have divided the next layer of folders into prominent names such as BANKS, >> GURR, PATTENDEN, COTTINGTON etc., these names have a high percentage of my >> total database names. The last one is named 'OTHERS'. >> >> Phew, you say. So, a picture: (I hope it comes out right) >> >> Media (master images folder) >> ......Census (folder) >> ............Banks (folder) >> ..................1851 (folder) >> ........................[1851 banks Peter 1813.jpg] >> ........................Entered (folder) >> ...............................[1851 Banks Charles 1843 Uckfield.jpg] >> ..................1861 (folder) >> ........................[1861 Banks Charles 1844 Uckfield.tiff] >> ........................Entered (folder) >> ...............................[1861 Banks Charles 1844 Uckfield.jpg] >> ......Census (folder) >> ............Pattenden (folder) etc. >> ......Census (folder) >> ............Others (folder) etc. >> ..................1851 (folder) >> ........................[1851 Bloggs Jane 1918.jpg] >> ......Wills folder >> ..................Banks (folder) >> ..................Pattenden (folder) >> ......Certificates (folder) >> Etc. >> >> Note the additional layer of 'Entered' for Census. You may not need this but >> I always place the download immediately into, say, the 1851 folder. Only >> when I have entered it onto FH do I drop it to the 'Entered' folder. This >> means I can keep track of downloads I have made. Also, I know I must NEVER >> move an 'entered' file as this will muck up the 'map' held in FH of where >> files are kept. Just 'belts and braces'. >> Note I have used the .jpg version in 1861 in FH but left the .tiff version >> as 'not entered'. >> >> For my BANKS database of 5000 individuals I have 2500 census images alone so >> you can see why I have gone to the trouble of a hierarchical structure, >> folders don't cost anything. >> >> Lastly. Move all 'finished' files out of Paintshop, Piccassa etc, use these >> applications only as temporary stores for manipulating the image, only when >> it is finalised move it to FH. >> >> Hope this helps - and remember this is only my way, there are many others >> but probably they are only a variation on this theme! >> >> David >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lesley >> Baxendale via >> Sent: 03 January 2016 10:08 >> To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [FHU] Storing digital data - was References >> >> Hi David, >> >> I'm trying to get all my scanned family photos into some sort of order and >> I'm struggling to define what should go where. Could I pick your >> experienced IT brain please? >> >> I don't have fancy photographic software, but I do have Paintshop and >> Picassa. I'm not sure I like Picassa - it's a bit to secretive about what >> it's doing. >> >> In your experience, is it better to keep all the photos with the filenames >> they started with and just keep them in one place with tags to indicate what >> they are, or should I be a bit more creative and try and split them into >> categories/families/subject? The original scans are in .tiff format, but I >> think .jpg is probably better to attach to FH. >> Should I keep these with the originals or separately? >> >> Currently, they are driving me nuts because they are spread around a bit and >> I'm sure that's going to result in multiple duplications long term. >> >> I also have a large collection of downloaded documents, which I think I will >> put into directories indicating their purpose (BMD etc) split down again >> into family branches where possible. >> >> What do you think? Any advice gratefully received. >> >> Lesley >> >> On 03/01/2016 09:33, D C Banks via wrote: >>> Hello Adrian >>> >>> Mounts soapbox >>> >>> I have been in 'IT' for 35 years and anathema is the very word I have >>> been looking for. I have spent countless hours convincing people NOT >>> to hold the same data in more than one place. Whilst we are all using >>> FH (and any other >>> software) for family history we should accept the principles of the >>> software system and how it handles data collection. After all, that's >>> all family history is at it's lowest level, a database. This does not >>> mean you have to abandon the foibles, sheer nonsense, duplication, >>> untruths, misleading transcriptions etc etc. which all go to make >> genealogy 'fun'. >>> Additionally, how many times do you see the term 'ibid' in a book - >>> every occurrence of ibid = many Citations, one Source. >>> >>> Regarding GEDCOM, the Citation/Source conforms to the basic principles >>> so on this point it is correct how they are handled. It is the users >>> that are choosing to 'mishandle' by duplicating data. >>> >>> Dismounts soapbox >>> >>> Happy New Year to everyone, 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 Victor, Sounds like you have a good system sorted for your images (for you). As you say, everyone develops their own way of doing things. I started out by putting my photos in folders in a similar pattern to yours, however, It got very confusing, especially with group photos. I'm going to try David's method, which sounds as though it will be more suitable for the way my mind works. At least I should be able to find things later! Regards Lesley On 03/01/2016 12:42, Victor Markham via wrote: > Hi Mike > > To be honest I have never really looked at this knowledge bas about > photos so thought it was time I did. > > Basically what you have said is what I do. > > I have over 40,000 photos on my computer. Relax most of them are holiday > photos. I do not use long file names as mentioned on your link. > > What I do is have a folder for each surname followed by a sub folder for > each person > e.g. Smith sub folder John Smith. If there are 2 John Smith names I add > the birth year to each of them. > If I have a photo of a group of people then I open a folder for each and > copy a photo in each. > If I have lots of photos of one person I open another sub folder under > that persons name and add generation (e.g. 1990-1999) > > I do the census images like you have stated on the knowledge base. I > list the census reference for each ending with the name of the head of > household and year of birth. If it is just one person (say a servant) in > the household I just put that persons name and year of birth. > > All the above are in separate folders, which I list under 'family > information' away from the Project Folder. I then copy the images into > the project folder using AS or just copy directly into the persons name > in FH. This means I have two copies of each image. One in the family > information file and another in the Project file under FH. > > In addition to the photos I have added the names of the people directly > onto the photo. If needed these names can be added outside the photo by > adding a border to the photo using photo software > > We all have our way of doing things and that is how I do it. I have not > come across a better way of doing it. > > As to my holiday photos they are all listed under the year and place > where it took. > > All my photos are also available on my mobile and lap top via One Drive > > Victor > > > > On 03/01/2016 11:20 AM, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: >> Hi Lesley, this is Mike. >> >> There is advice about organising Media images in the FHUG > Knowledge Base > Organise Your Files: >> http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:organise_your_files >> >> Also understand that Media images should be stored within your Project folder, not elsewhere on your disk. >> Otherwise, sooner or later, when you need to move from PC to PC it will be a nightmare. >> http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:v4:understanding_projects >> >> Do not spend too much effort on naming, tagging, cropping images as that is best handled within FH Media records. >> >> DO experiment with the "Family Historian Sample Project" and "Ancestral Sources" to gain an understanding of how Media is handled in >> Individual, Family, Source, and Media records, and in Diagrams, and in Reports. Only then can you make rational decisions of how to >> handle your Media. >> >> Regards, Mike Tate >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lesley Baxendale >> via >> Sent: 03 January 2016 10:08 >> To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [FHU] Storing digital data - was References >> >> Hi David, >> >> I'm trying to get all my scanned family photos into some sort of order and I'm struggling to define what should go where. Could I >> pick your experienced IT brain please? >> >> I don't have fancy photographic software, but I do have Paintshop and Picassa. I'm not sure I like Picassa - it's a bit to >> secretive about what it's doing. >> >> In your experience, is it better to keep all the photos with the filenames they started with and just keep them in one place with >> tags to indicate what they are, or should I be a bit more creative and try and split them into categories/families/subject? The >> original scans are in .tiff format, but I think .jpg is probably better to attach to FH. >> Should I keep these with the originals or separately? >> >> Currently, they are driving me nuts because they are spread around a bit and I'm sure that's going to result in multiple >> duplications long term. >> >> I also have a large collection of downloaded documents, which I think I will put into directories indicating their purpose (BMD etc) >> split down again into family branches where possible. >> >> What do you think? Any advice gratefully received. >> >> Lesley >> >> On 03/01/2016 09:33, D C Banks via wrote: >>> Hello Adrian >>> >>> Mounts soapbox >>> >>> I have been in 'IT' for 35 years and anathema is the very word I have >>> been looking for. I have spent countless hours convincing people NOT >>> to hold the same data in more than one place. Whilst we are all using >>> FH (and any other >>> software) for family history we should accept the principles of the >>> software system and how it handles data collection. After all, that's >>> all family history is at it's lowest level, a database. This does not >>> mean you have to abandon the foibles, sheer nonsense, duplication, >>> untruths, misleading transcriptions etc etc. which all go to make genealogy 'fun'. >>> >>> Additionally, how many times do you see the term 'ibid' in a book - >>> every occurrence of ibid = many Citations, one Source. >>> >>> Regarding GEDCOM, the Citation/Source conforms to the basic principles >>> so on this point it is correct how they are handled. It is the users >>> that are choosing to 'mishandle' by duplicating data. >>> >>> Dismounts soapbox >>> >>> Happy New Year to everyone, 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 Mike, I have hundreds of images which will not go into FH, so David's advice will be used for those. I'll also follow a similar pattern with the FH orientated ones, but I'll duplicate them as jpg or pdf files in the FH project folder. Best of both worlds! Regards Lesley On 03/01/2016 11:20, Beryl & Mike Tate via wrote: > Hi Lesley, this is Mike. > > There is advice about organising Media images in the FHUG > Knowledge Base > Organise Your Files: > http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:organise_your_files > > Also understand that Media images should be stored within your Project folder, not elsewhere on your disk. > Otherwise, sooner or later, when you need to move from PC to PC it will be a nightmare. > http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:v4:understanding_projects > > Do not spend too much effort on naming, tagging, cropping images as that is best handled within FH Media records. > > DO experiment with the "Family Historian Sample Project" and "Ancestral Sources" to gain an understanding of how Media is handled in > Individual, Family, Source, and Media records, and in Diagrams, and in Reports. Only then can you make rational decisions of how to > handle your Media. > > Regards, Mike Tate > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lesley Baxendale > via > Sent: 03 January 2016 10:08 > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] Storing digital data - was References > > Hi David, > > I'm trying to get all my scanned family photos into some sort of order and I'm struggling to define what should go where. Could I > pick your experienced IT brain please? > > I don't have fancy photographic software, but I do have Paintshop and Picassa. I'm not sure I like Picassa - it's a bit to > secretive about what it's doing. > > In your experience, is it better to keep all the photos with the filenames they started with and just keep them in one place with > tags to indicate what they are, or should I be a bit more creative and try and split them into categories/families/subject? The > original scans are in .tiff format, but I think .jpg is probably better to attach to FH. > Should I keep these with the originals or separately? > > Currently, they are driving me nuts because they are spread around a bit and I'm sure that's going to result in multiple > duplications long term. > > I also have a large collection of downloaded documents, which I think I will put into directories indicating their purpose (BMD etc) > split down again into family branches where possible. > > What do you think? Any advice gratefully received. > > Lesley > > On 03/01/2016 09:33, D C Banks via wrote: >> Hello Adrian >> >> Mounts soapbox >> >> I have been in 'IT' for 35 years and anathema is the very word I have >> been looking for. I have spent countless hours convincing people NOT >> to hold the same data in more than one place. Whilst we are all using >> FH (and any other >> software) for family history we should accept the principles of the >> software system and how it handles data collection. After all, that's >> all family history is at it's lowest level, a database. This does not >> mean you have to abandon the foibles, sheer nonsense, duplication, >> untruths, misleading transcriptions etc etc. which all go to make genealogy 'fun'. >> >> Additionally, how many times do you see the term 'ibid' in a book - >> every occurrence of ibid = many Citations, one Source. >> >> Regarding GEDCOM, the Citation/Source conforms to the basic principles >> so on this point it is correct how they are handled. It is the users >> that are choosing to 'mishandle' by duplicating data. >> >> Dismounts soapbox >> >> Happy New Year to everyone, 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 >

Thanks very much David, That's just what I was hoping for - instructions! I'm great at following instructions, but not so good at being creative off the top of my head! I can understand the hierarchical structure no problem. I was just a bit stuck at what should go where, but you've made it much easier than I thought it might be. I already follow a process of not moving downloaded images until I've dealt with them (ie. put the information on them into my tree database). I now have another method of following that same process but also knowing what's been attached as a media file & what hasn't. Your method should suit me fine & I'm sure it will be informative for lots of other FH users on the list. Thanks again. Lesley On 03/01/2016 14:29, D C Banks wrote: > Hi Lesley > > I am going to put my system analysis and database design hats on! Apologies > to those that think all this chat is a waste of time, I am responding to a > question from another reader, you can hit the delete key now! > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lesley > Baxendale via > Sent: 03 January 2016 10:08 > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] Storing digital data - was References > > Hi David, > > I'm trying to get all my scanned family photos into some sort of order and > I'm struggling to define what should go where. Could I pick your > experienced IT brain please? >

But Lorna, did you have homemade apple sauce with clove and nutmeg seasoning and a splash of Calvados thrown in? Now the apples were Sourced from ASDA, Married together with the other three Individual ingredients just as my Family like, placed in a ceramic Repository, the conCENSUS was that it was a very good meal. Note, I am keeping to topic :-) David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lorna Craig via Sent: 03 January 2016 17:34 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Storing digital data - was References David, we must be having the same dinner this evening! Lorna On 03/01/2016 17:16, D C Banks via wrote: > David (with roast pork, roast potato and roast parsnip smells wafting > towards me from the kitchen) > ------------------------------- 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 3 January 2016 at 18:51, ColeValleyGirl via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > ... > I suspect many of us can quote examples where the census images provided by > different online providers have come via different routes and have > differing > quality and/or completeness ... In additional, I'm pretty sure there's at > least one > example where a provider has made significant efforts to make available > images of pages deemed too damaged by other providers (I can't remember > exactly what districts but think it's in the industrial North-West). > > At least part of the 1871 census of Canada was filmed twice - the schedule I used in one case was on Ancestry but was taken from a 1975 refilming of higher quality. I think I only found that information by chance on the LAC site. I've amended my publication data for this source to say 'digital image of original published in "1871 Census of Canada [database on-line]", citing microfilm reel C-9968 (1975 refilming)' because I'd hate for someone to go and look at the illegible version. A big chunk of Manchester's 1851 census was very badly water(?) damaged (please leave out the jokes about Manchester and rain! For our American correspondents, I believe Seattle has a similar reputation for weather.) Ancestry carried out some special photographic efforts on those pages, getting some reasonable results. Ancestry has also re-photographed a number of pages of the 1841, going back to the originals. (Fortunately, we still have the original enumerators' copies of all our English & Welsh censuses up to 1921.) Adrian

On 3 January 2016 at 19:08, Jan Murphy via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Adrian -- could you explain what you meant when you said "why *do* so many > Americans record the microfilm number of a census when they've downloaded > it from Ancestry?" ? > > Jan - I did mean the NARA microfilm number. It seemed odd to me that it was thought necessary to quote such an item, when it had played no part in obtaining the image. However, as I sort of indicated, I was presuming that it was possible to use jurisdictional details, enumeration districts, etc., and the various forms of page number(s) to locate the "same" page in another company's images. If it isn't, or if the NARA film number simply makes it easier to find the image, then that's a good reason. I'm also assuming (oops) that each census was only filmed once... Your use of the NARA Reference Information Papers sounds an excellent reason for using the NARA film number (I think we've had this bit of the conversation before in another place). Adrian

Happy New Year All Quite independently of Trevor and like minds, I similarly decided that family Media Images and all original family documentation had nowadays to be digitised asap and pref with 2/3 copy images of each. Raison d'etre, entirely that there was NO other way of ensuring that the entire family archive material could be passed complete down to next generations across the globe, Nor frankly could we rely on any single chosen successor be 100% relied upon to have sufficient space, family interest, time, own descendants and so on uand inless I found a way of phot- replicating much of my work over past 60 odd years could be dissipated and lost. Also having started on the digital trail before MS was even invented let alone digitised app and so on, I found it a complete and unnecessary bore to throw out my own home grown system of record keeping and also my short code phonetic coding for tagging and so forth in order to pursue oversystemmised time consuming methods which didn't even really meet the needs. I had published a complete recording manual system of my own back in 1970 etc so knew what I was doing. Still use its fundamentals even now. Recently I decided th Ancestral Quest had some features which I find far more practical fast and widespread easy to use than many others. Of prtaicular interest is its Timeline which produces very fast not only many associated family facts in the usual way, but more of them faster AND with masses of addional Notes and special Filed contents in the form of Gedcom printouts of each close person mentioned in that key persons time line. Also its Media and scrapbook capability seem highly compatible easy and fast... I still, yes still, use my original dos based Pedigree as my WIP Master Copy Fam Tree file and export every fewmonths via GEDCOM to my latest editions of FH6, RM7, Leg8, AQ14 and so on, all of which, each in their oen way, are excellent modern Family History programs. Recent demises sadly include FTM, TMG and so on. Why do I use so many and do so without fear or favour ? Because each is important, reliable and pretty secure, BUT they are all commercial and as we all well know even great commercial concerns get taken over, go bust or whatever; and I want to ensure that all my work of the past 60 odd years survives !! I also use a string of media progs like Faststone, ACD, PhotOshop14, Zoner, MS Live Gallery (Various names) ETC. I use my dos Pedigree' original RIN's, my own DEAKIN kinskip code number, DoB and Surname with Given names as the Key column or Field identifiers. There are sme 13000 folk over around 35/50 generations, and some 25000 photo media items in so far, Lots more media items to deal with. Facial recog is imperative and can work beautifully from cradle to grave for many key people. Photos stretch from the 1850's ro 2016; Documents from early medieavil thru to 2016; Artifacts invenyory ( which allocate whose was what as it were) and of course Location photos maps and plans. With each media image it is fairly easy to oraganise tags or fields to take relevant indexable information and thus to do the necessary search linkage. Trevor has it right, no doubt about it. MOST current Fam His Progs, as have the photo prog firms, have got quite a lot of catching up to do in the field of using their mobile phones as scanners and providing facilities for integrating and organising their taken images into the databsases and spreadsheets and so forth in a modern manner. They are still running to catch up.. all of them !! But its all moving and advancing in the right direction... Incuidentally my Gedcoms copies go back years and ar a marvellous back up sys in theoir own right. Hope this diatribe helps spark ideas and interest Happy New Year to you all and of course particularly to Trevor and to FHU Best wishes Tim Deakin Forgive my straying fingers and typos !! -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Trevor Rix via Sent: 03 January 2016 17:37 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] References Thanks for taking the time to reply. I respect all points of view even when I don't agree. I was expressing my opinion and preferences because I had not seen in this thread any radical alternatives to being a slave to what I consider to be unnecessary out of date methods. I am extremely rigorous in my research and exhaust the viability of all potentially conflicting information that I can find before making my decision on what is correct. The digital images that I was referring to were in the main of parish registers and census returns which are indeed without question accurate and complete representations of the originals. My post was discussing digital images of original source records, not transcriptions such as your example of 1939 Register transcriptions which with respect was an extreme example. I cannot think of another similar example. The few Findmypast 1939 Register images that I have downloaded will be replaced with versions that are less redacted as they become available which will in time be better than your transcriptions purchased some time ago. I agree that in your example you should record your information as being from a transcription rather than being from the original. My post was trying to highlight for example the unnecessary manual transcription of "RG11-288_Fo-41_Page-25" as the reference of a census image, when that information is visible when the uncropped digital image is viewed. In the days before digital census images were available it was indeed necessary to electronically record that reference, but not now or in the future. I have been researching for over 50 years and am a stickler for accuracy. I don't however find it productive to waste time manually recording information that is already available digitally at the click of the mouse. As Martin mentioned family history should be fun, so long as the conclusions reached are 100% accurate in accordance with the information currently available. I am always mindful however that new technology such as DNA testing can disprove at a stroke even the most carefully reseached and sourced pedigree. Trevor Rix > Nobody is forcing you to do anything -- if you want to rely on images > that may or may not be accurate and complete representations of the > originals and not analyse the reliability of the evidence you're > using, then carry on doing so if it gives you most pleasure. However, > some of us get more enjoyment out of more rigour , which doesn't make > us right and you wrong or vice versa. > > But I think you're doing beginners a disservice if you lead them to > believe that all versions of the same source are equally accurate or > complete. For example, I have transcriptions of the 1939 register > (bought before Findmypast got involved) that have significantly more > info (less redactions and better transcription) than the FIndmypast > equivalent. If I just quote > "1939 register" and let them find their own version, they won't find > what I've seen and they won't understand why I've documented what I have. > > And while some beginners (I wouldn't presume to say how many) want to > keep things simple and won't much worry about citing their sources > accurately, others will value the opportunity to do so (especially if > they ever have their conclusions challenged and need to understand why they reached them). > So you're doing them another disservice if you don't show them the > tools they might use and let them decide for themselves what's enough rigour. > > ColeValleyGirl ------------------------------- 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

The only reasons I transcribe any of the *content* of a source is: (1) if there's a need to draw attention to it as part of an analysis of the information, like a variant name that needs recording, or a birth date that I've decided is unreliable -- like the extremely precise birth date quoted in a newspaper article about an ancestor of mine that might be a really exciting piece of information, except it's mentioned in the same sentence as the details from his gravestone and almost certainly calculated from that gravestone by somebody 50 years younger than him, a long time after he died, let alone was born (2) if it's a hand-written source and there might be some question as to whether I've read it correctly (3) if it's a foreign language source and I need to record a translation (4) I can't publish an image of the source but need to make the content available (5) a tool like Ancestral Sources automatically generates the transcription for me. All of which makes it more likely than not that I'll end up with a transcription. ColeValleyGirl Helen Wright -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce via Sent: 03 January 2016 18:19 To: Family Historian UG Mailing List <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] References Trevor - I wholly agree that pointless transcription of details available at the click of a button is a waste of time. I gave up transcribing censuses long ago once I could download images - my exception to that being that I transcribe the age and place of birth to go into the "citation" against the *birth* so that I have the full sorry story of misdirection and mistakes about someone's birth details available in one spot. Another for-instance - why *do* so many Americans record the microfilm number of a census when they've downloaded it from Ancestry? (Actually - is that because it's the only robust referencing system they have to define which image they're looking at??? Don't know.) My concern would be that people don't go from one extreme, of recording everything, to the other, of recording nothing. Clearly, your expanded response above shows you have no intention of going to the nothing end. We will all do this thing one way or another and hopefully enjoy it. I happen to like doing it one way, not least because of the challenge. I'm fond of saying that there are no rules in this game - but there are inevitable consequences. And the point I'd like to get over to other readers is one that I'm sure you understand - if someone doesn't actually think a bit about where a source-document comes from, and record that somewhere, either in a notebook or on the digital image, the inevitable consequence is that when a clash of information occurs, they won't know where to go or what to believe. Adrian ​ ------------------------------- 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

Just to give a balanced perspective, you cannot perform a text search on an image, but you can on a textual transcript. That can help when looking for some unusual data you remember seeing on say a Census, but cannot remember which one, and scanning the images would be a daunting prospect. One of the advantages of AS is that having entered the essential key details, it can produce a draft transcript, that is easily edited to create a full transcript. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References Trevor - I wholly agree that pointless transcription of details available at the click of a button is a waste of time. I gave up transcribing censuses long ago once I could download images - my exception to that being that I transcribe the age and place of birth to go into the "citation" against the *birth* so that I have the full sorry story of misdirection and mistakes about someone's birth details available in one spot. Another for-instance - why *do* so many Americans record the microfilm number of a census when they've downloaded it from Ancestry? (Actually - is that because it's the only robust referencing system they have to define which image they're looking at??? Don't know.) My concern would be that people don't go from one extreme, of recording everything, to the other, of recording nothing. Clearly, your expanded response above shows you have no intention of going to the nothing end. We will all do this thing one way or another and hopefully enjoy it. I happen to like doing it one way, not least because of the challenge. I'm fond of saying that there are no rules in this game - but there are inevitable consequences. And the point I'd like to get over to other readers is one that I'm sure you understand - if someone doesn't actually think a bit about where a source-document comes from, and record that somewhere, either in a notebook or on the digital image, the inevitable consequence is that when a clash of information occurs, they won't know where to go or what to believe. Adrian