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 -----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

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 ​

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

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) >

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

BTW: The " Check for Unlinked Media " Plugin will list any Media images not linked to Media records, so offers an alternative way of finding un-entered images. It also allows them to be deleted or moved. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- 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

Likewise, I keep images in a 'pending' folder until I link them in FH. But I do use AS (for censuses, anyway). AS knows which folder to look in for each census year, so I simply move each image into the appropriate folder for its census year immediately prior to entering the data in AS. Lorna On 03/01/2016 16:18, Adrian Bruce via wrote: > 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....

... > > 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

Hi Barbara, Yours is a common symptom. What the "X" are saying is that the Linked File path in the Media record is not pointing at where the *.jpg file is stored. The FHUG - Knowledge Base - Changing External File Links has advice on this topic: http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:changing_external_file_links Does the Linked File path say something like Media\filename.jpg ? If so, then that file should exist in the Windows/File Explorer filing system at: My Documents\Family Historian Projects\Name\Name.fh_data\Media\filename.jpg Where Name is the name of your Project. When you added the .jpg files, did you opt to "Copy the media files into the Project Folder" by using "Copy" button? If so, then everything above should apply. But if you chose "Don't Copy" button then the Linked File path will be something like C:\Users\Name\... wherever you had your .jpg files. If you have subsequently moved or deleted those .jpg files then FH can no longer find them, hence the "X". Do either of the above scenarios make sense, and help you resolve the problem? Assuming the .jpg files do still exist on your PC, then the next free update to FH V6.1 offers an automatic search to fix that kind of problem, which has become a recurring theme of late, especially with users migrating from PC to PC, or importing from other products, and getting lots of "X". Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: [FHU] Media I am “brand new” to the program, so my question has probably been answered somewhere, but I can’t find it! When I look at media, I can see a list of things that I imported, but I cannot see the actual pictures. They were all *.jpg, so I would think it would be no problem. All I can see are boxes with an “X” in the middle. When I try to open in editor/player it says “Unable to load object.” Could the import of media failed? Any suggestions? Barbara

Every body has their own way of doing things. The most important thing is to be consistent and to think about how others can understand how you do it. Victor -----Original Message----- From: "ColeValleyGirl via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: ‎03/‎01/‎2016 14:39 To: "trevor@trevorrix.co.uk" <trevor@trevorrix.co.uk>; "family-historian-users@rootsweb.com" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] References Trevor, 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 -----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 14:04 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] References In my opinion most of this discussion regarding references, sources and citations is making life far too complicated and time consuming, taking away much of the enjoyment from researching and recording what has been found. As the permutations of faithfully recording references, sources and citations are complex with many variables, it seems that many users have developed their own methods that are non-standard because there is no absolute agreed standard. So, what is the point in wasting all that time? Now we are in the digital age what matters is having a digital copy of the original source image that can be called up immediately with a click of the mouse. That image contains all of the information that is needed. Why transcribe it? I prefer to keep things simple, not spend hours typing references, sources and citations. In my opinion it is sufficient to link the a copy of the digital source image of the event (the whole page, not cropped) to each of the people concerned, using Ancestral Sources or the Media tab in the Property Box. Again in my opinion it is not necessary to record detail such as where the image was downloaded from be it Ancestry or Findmypast or FamilySearch because the original source has to be the single paper parish register or paper census return etc. the location of which can change just as licences/agreements companies have negotiated with the record holder can change resulting in the image no longer being available from company A or company B at some point in time. Keep it simple. Many beginners would be totaly turned off by all this complexity. Trevor Rix ------------------------------- 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 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

Trevor, 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 -----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 14:04 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] References In my opinion most of this discussion regarding references, sources and citations is making life far too complicated and time consuming, taking away much of the enjoyment from researching and recording what has been found. As the permutations of faithfully recording references, sources and citations are complex with many variables, it seems that many users have developed their own methods that are non-standard because there is no absolute agreed standard. So, what is the point in wasting all that time? Now we are in the digital age what matters is having a digital copy of the original source image that can be called up immediately with a click of the mouse. That image contains all of the information that is needed. Why transcribe it? I prefer to keep things simple, not spend hours typing references, sources and citations. In my opinion it is sufficient to link the a copy of the digital source image of the event (the whole page, not cropped) to each of the people concerned, using Ancestral Sources or the Media tab in the Property Box. Again in my opinion it is not necessary to record detail such as where the image was downloaded from be it Ancestry or Findmypast or FamilySearch because the original source has to be the single paper parish register or paper census return etc. the location of which can change just as licences/agreements companies have negotiated with the record holder can change resulting in the image no longer being available from company A or company B at some point in time. Keep it simple. Many beginners would be totaly turned off by all this complexity. Trevor Rix ------------------------------- 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 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

I agree with Trevor. This is supposed to be fun not torture. The main thing is to be consistent. Others will figure out what you have done..... The most important thing is to preserve the data and not become paralysed by pedantry. All process change over time (it is called progress) so what is correct today may not be correct tomorrow. I have always held the maxim I was told early in training.... Don't let best get in the way of better.

In my opinion most of this discussion regarding references, sources and citations is making life far too complicated and time consuming, taking away much of the enjoyment from researching and recording what has been found. As the permutations of faithfully recording references, sources and citations are complex with many variables, it seems that many users have developed their own methods that are non-standard because there is no absolute agreed standard. So, what is the point in wasting all that time? Now we are in the digital age what matters is having a digital copy of the original source image that can be called up immediately with a click of the mouse. That image contains all of the information that is needed. Why transcribe it? I prefer to keep things simple, not spend hours typing references, sources and citations. In my opinion it is sufficient to link the a copy of the digital source image of the event (the whole page, not cropped) to each of the people concerned, using Ancestral Sources or the Media tab in the Property Box. Again in my opinion it is not necessary to record detail such as where the image was downloaded from be it Ancestry or Findmypast or FamilySearch because the original source has to be the single paper parish register or paper census return etc. the location of which can change just as licences/agreements companies have negotiated with the record holder can change resulting in the image no longer being available from company A or company B at some point in time. Keep it simple. Many beginners would be totaly turned off by all this complexity. Trevor Rix

The short answer is: The principle is to cite what one has actually used. If you've downloaded an image from Ancestry, it's a good idea to also capture the meager source information they provide, and NARA's microfilm number is usually part of the "original information" section. I should also mention that there are some cases where multiple copies of the US Federal Census exist, because copies were made to send to the state *and* to the Federal Government. NARA's copy will be the Federal one; where state copies survive, those will not be the same original source. So yes, we also need to record the jurisdiction and other details in case someone wants to find the equivalent household record in both copies. Jan Jan Murphy packrat74@gmail.com On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Adrian Bruce <abruce6155@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >

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

David wrote: // 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. That's a bit harsh on "users". It is Simon's otherwise awesome program that is flawed in this respect. Firstly, the "sources" box should be called "citations" (where the source to be cited is added to the list box at the top). The remainder of the box is exclusively for citation properties. I'd prefer "Entry Date" and "Where within Source" to come next, as these specify how to find the information. "Text from Source" and "Notes" follow on logically as the real "content" of the citation. Then what's missing is the equivalent of a "Media" tab. To save space this could be a pop-up dialogue. Finally, for my money, you can ditch the (Quality) "Assessment" drop-down and relegate *that* to the Property Box "All" tab. These Primary, Secondary, etc., values have everything to do with the Source entity - a huge GEDCOM mistake. If citations need any kind of "quality" measure, that's more about how much you trust that specific statement *from* the source. Paul

The ESM book doesn't, as you say Mike, relate her advice to GEDCOM structures or even to genealogy software generally. Indeed, she is very specific in saying that her formats, etc., relate to the finished, printed product, and she has said on innumerable occasions that just because it looks like that on her advice for a printed report, doesn't mean it has to be entered like that into your database. She would not, for instance, include "Ancestry" as an author, publisher and repository in a citation - once is enough. However, if you have a good reason for duplication inside a single citation in your database, so be it. The major issues with adapting ESM's approaches to FH are twofold: - the basic structure of GEDCOM sources and citations does not lend itself to degrees of sophistication like "source of a source". Doesn't mean you can't do it - just means you end up with lots of free-format text in arbitrary places. Fine so long as you remember that the free-format text actually should have a format; - the individual items inside (say) the title / description of a source have to be written as a string of text that should have a specific format of items. In other words, the item " title / description" should have sub-items. But, as with the above, in programmatic terms, it's just free-format text and the software can't help you. I usually have templates for various types of sources set up as dummy source records. Inevitably, my templates don't quite fit the latest source.... Some American software allows lots of templates for sources / citations - but I do remember someone who thought deeply about her sources and citations saying once: "Hang on, 36 templates just for books is ridiculous!" Incidentally, John - ESM is *not* universally recognised as the authority on citing sources in the US. Amongst those who regard citing sources formally as important, she pretty much is that authority. But as any blogger who mentions citing sources will testify, a substantial portion of American genealogists regard citing sources as too much like hard work and / or a conspiracy by academia and / or a conspiracy to destroy the worth of great-aunt Mabel's impeccable research of the family back to Adam & Eve. Adrian ​

GEDCOM's handing of sources is lacking in many respects, but it is possible to apply Shown Mills' [ESM] principles using the GEDCOM structures in some measure. My approach is as follows. (A description of the various classifications used and why they're important here: https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-17-evidence-analysis-p rocess-map In the Source record: * use the Title to hold an ESM-compliant citation (formatted for a Source List/Bibliography) * use the Short Title for a day-to-day reference ("Beryl Boggins Baptism 1822") -- use a standardised format for these so you can easily find (e.g.) all Baptism records via the naming convention you've used * ignore Author and Repository as these are covered in Long Title * use Type to record whether the source is Original or Derivative or Authored (this could alternatively go in the Note if you want to use Type for something else) * use Actual Text for a transcription * use Notes to record your observations about the reliability of the source and anything else pertinent to your analysis of it (and the classification as Original/Derivative/Authored if you prefer to save Type for something else) * use Media to hold image or document files of the source When citing the source in support of an assertion ('fact'): * ignore entry date * use Assessment to record whether the information is Primary, Secondary or Undetermined (leave blank). (It's unfortunate that FH uses the phrases Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence when it's actually referring to the Information) -- an alternative approach would be to record the type of information in Note. * Use Where Within Source to record the details needed (in conjunction with the Source Title) for a Reference Note (i.e. the specific part of the source that provided the information) * Use Text From Source if required to transcribe the relevant part of the source * Use Note to record your assessment of the Information as Direct, Indirect or Negative Evidence with your reasoning. ColeValleyGirl (Helen Wright) -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl & Mike Tate via Sent: 03 January 2016 11:29 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] References Elizabeth Shown Mills does crop up regularly in these [FHU] Mailings and in the FHUG Forums. I admit not having read her book, but I recall others saying it does not relate the principals to GEDCOM structures. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Regards, Mike Tate