How to save an image on Ancestry -- Once you are within the New image viewer, looking at an image you want to save, here's what you do. Method 1: Using the Green SAVE button in the upper right-hand corner: 1. Click the green SAVE button 2. Choose "save image". A new tab should appear with the image in it. 3. Right-click on the image and choose "save image as". The image should save as a *.jpg file. (In the test case I chose, 004113835_00544.jpg) Method 2: Using the tools widget. 1. On the right-hand side of the screen, find the column of icons. Select the Tools Icon, which looks like a crossed wrench-and-hammer. 2. Click the icon and choose "Download". A new tab should open. 3. Right-click on the image and choose "save image as". The image should save as a *.jpg file. (In the test case I chose, 004113835_00544.jpg) >From the Tools menu, you can also choose Print and choose to print the image to a PDF with or without source citation information. I generally do both -- save the JPG and print to PDF to capture the source information. Yes, Ancestry has made this process so cumbersome that many people don't realize you can still save the images. It was much more straightforward in the old viewer, where the command to download the image actually started a download. Jan Murphy packrat74@gmail.com On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Ian Thirlwell via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Good tip that, Mike. I've found it a boon for snipping relevant articles > from the newspaper images on the British Newspaper Archive. > Ian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Beryl & Mike Tate via > Sent: Friday, January 1, 2016 4:38 PM > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] References > > If you enlarge the browser display as much as possible, and use the free > Windows Snipping Tool to cut out just the part you need, then it is both > higher resolution and saves the photo editing step that may add distortion. > > Happy New Year, Mike Tate > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks Mike I've now created a couple of Named Lists using a query and understand how to add individuals to each list. Now to experiment with using a Named List to create a GEDCOM file and export it to update my own website. It's clear that Family Historian 6 is going to take a while to fully understand, but it looks like it will do what I need to maintain the numerous trees on my website. This is only my third day using the program, but I am beginning to understand how it works. Norman --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

'Named Lists' are the way to go. You can have as many as you like, and include whichever records you want. Then whatever command you use to select the records it is easy to pick the desired 'Named List' for inclusion. Are you using the FH 'Publish > Create a Website' command or FILE > Import/Export > Export > GEDCOM File? Either way there are Plugins that may enhance your output. BTW: I suggest you join for free at FHUG http://www.fhug.org.uk/. Where there are Forums, a Knowledge Base, video tutorials, free downloads, companion programs, expert advice, and tips for newcomers. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: [FHU] Selective GEDCOM files As a new user I have been attempting to find the most efficient (and straightforward) method for selecting individuals to include in a GEDCOM file for export to my website. Generally this will be the ancestors of a root individual but I then need to manually add some spouse records where required. I have been experimenting with setting flags for the individuals included in each GEDCOM so that I can reuse the list for subsequent updates but then wondered about Named Lists. Advice most welcome. Norman --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

My first question is "What Date sequence?" How & where does a 'Date' get associated with a 'Note Record'? If you mean the 'Updated' date, then just click on its column heading. You could add a serial number to the 'Custom Id' field, perhaps based on numerical Date format yyyy/mm/dd and then sort on the 'Custom Id'. If not already shown, the 'Custom Id' field can quickly be added to the 'Property Box' and a 'Records Window Column': Use 'Property Box > Menu > Customize' command to add 'Custom Id', and 'Lists > Configure Record Window Columns' to add 'Custom Id'. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: [FHU] Re-ordering Note records My Note Records are by default arranged in alphabetical order. How can I re-order them, for example, in date sequence? The Move up/down arrows in the toolbar are always greyed out. What am I missing? Paddy Buckley --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

As a new user I have been attempting to find the most efficient (and straightforward) method for selecting individuals to include in a GEDCOM file for export to my website. Generally this will be the ancestors of a root individual but I then need to manually add some spouse records where required. I have been experimenting with setting flags for the individuals included in each GEDCOM so that I can reuse the list for subsequent updates but then wondered about Named Lists. Advice most welcome. Norman --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

My Note Records are by default arranged in alphabetical order. How can I re-order them, for example, in date sequence? The Move up/down arrows in the toolbar are always greyed out. What am I missing? Paddy Buckley

Brilliant Mike, Thanks. Lesley On 30/12/2015 11:31, Beryl and Mike Tate via wrote: > I would create a Source record with me as Author, and enter any appropriate > details just like any other Source, including dates, times, places, people, > events, photos, etc. > > It is similar to a Source for say an interview with a relative, where you > would record the relative as the Author and what they said in Text From > Source. > > Then for any associated Fact you cite that Source record, just like any > other Source. > > Regards, Mike Tate > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [FHU] Evidence > > BTW - how do you record a date source or citation if you were actually > there yourself at the event? In the past, I've put something like > 'personally known fact' against it, but I don't think that's good enough > really. > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------- > 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 would create a Source record with me as Author, and enter any appropriate details just like any other Source, including dates, times, places, people, events, photos, etc. It is similar to a Source for say an interview with a relative, where you would record the relative as the Author and what they said in Text From Source. Then for any associated Fact you cite that Source record, just like any other Source. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] Evidence BTW - how do you record a date source or citation if you were actually there yourself at the event? In the past, I've put something like 'personally known fact' against it, but I don't think that's good enough really. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

That's a very good explanation of what I do too Paul. I've followed this thread with interest and was starting to think I might be missing out a lot of necessary citations & sources. I think, if you were doing very important research into something not yet proven, or were doing research on a professional basis, then all the extra detail is most certainly necessary. But for general purposes, your descendants are only going to want to know where you got the salient information from, not how many different ways you compared & checked it before arriving at your conclusion. Be as accurate as you can and do check your information against more than one source if possible. I don't think citing/recording/listing every little nuance is going to make much difference in the long run. Everyone has their own way of doing things & that's great. It makes for some very interesting discussion and a lot of shared knowledge. The trick is to select what you really need and anything else which would make your tree more accurate and easily understandable for your descendants. The FH programme is capable of doing much more than most of us need it to. You are not obliged to use it all. Having used the older versions of Family Tree Maker for many years, changing to FH has been a steep learning curve for me & I'm still getting to grips with it. I've discovered that keeping it simple is a much easier way to go - for me. It means I can spot irregularities much more easily and there are not too many things to adjust as a result. Regards & a very happy New Year to you all. Lesley Baxendale BTW - how do you record a date source or citation if you were actually there yourself at the event? In the past, I've put something like 'personally known fact' against it, but I don't think that's good enough really. On 26/12/2015 04:00, Paul via wrote: > Well, Gents, that has been a most entertaining exchange for me. Thanks for > your attention. > > I'll make just a couple of final remarks and leave the last word to you > others, if you will. > > Curiously my training focused on concepts like the axiomatic approach, > logical deduction, etc., etc. > > By contrast my genealogy recording is disgracefully pragmatic. > > I view the accumulated data for a person or family as a whole, for example > the complete set of available census ages. > > Then, in the absence of better data, I am content to pick a year of birth > that best fits - no need for explicit justification. > > Any individual age discrepancies are highly visible and need no comment - we > all know these things happen. > > (Though occasionally I might record a note to the effect that, for example, > it could be an enumerator's TE.) > > In similar vein, I would never dream of trying to create citations for every > variant of a birthplace. > > A "best guess" from the totality of reports (ignoring apparent errors) is > good enough for me. > > I don't lose any sleep over the prospect that any of these details can be > off the mark and welcome any later correction by better data. > > Neither am I concerned about name spelling variants. It is good enough to > *record* the name forms shown for each event. > > How someone's name is spelled (pre-20th century) has everything to do with > the scribe and usually little to do with the person/family. > > For that reason (horror of horrors) I hardly ever give more weight to a > registration or baptismal name form than to others. > > And, to top it all (sacrilege!), I normalise headline given names (and often > family names, where they dither or mutate). > > That way, I get a beautifully integrated records list view sorted by > surname, first given and birth date/year. > > Which means I can actually find people easily and spot the all-too-frequent > potential duplicates. > > Happy New Year. > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

OK, I see. In that case I think you will need to start with an Ancestors diagram with the father as diagram root, using Left-Right orientation, then use Insert into Diagram> Ancestor Tree and select the mother as the root, using Right-Left orientation. You can then position the second tree do that the two diagram roots (father and mother) are aligned, leaving a gap between them. Into the gap you can then insert a Text Box containing the name of the person who is the root of the whole 'Bow Tie'. Lorna On 29/12/2015 16:40, Pedro wrote: > Hi Lorna, > > I believe I made myself not clear before. :-) > > I was actually looking for a bow tie chart that shows ancestors split > to oposite sides. > Like father ancestors to one side and mother ancestors to the other side.. > > The options you mentioned allow ancestors to one side and descendents > to the other, right? > Or am I missing something? > > Thanks!!! > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Lorna Craig via > <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > <mailto:family-historian-users@rootsweb.com>> wrote: > > Hi Pedro, > > There are two Bow-Tie style diagrams available, under View>Standard > Diagram Types. The first (Bow Tie 4-4) displays up to four > generations > on each side. The second (Bow Tie - All) displays all known > generations. Both give a choice of an Individual or a Couple as the > Diagram root. > > Lorna > > On 29/12/2015 15:47, Pedro via wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > is there any practical way of making bow tie charts with family > historian? > > I tried using the left-right to select an option, but I could > not find any > > solution... > > > > Is there any plugin available? > > > > Regards, > > Pedro > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com > <mailto: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 > <mailto:FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com> with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of > the message > >

Hi Pedro, There are two Bow-Tie style diagrams available, under View>Standard Diagram Types. The first (Bow Tie 4-4) displays up to four generations on each side. The second (Bow Tie - All) displays all known generations. Both give a choice of an Individual or a Couple as the Diagram root. Lorna On 29/12/2015 15:47, Pedro via wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > is there any practical way of making bow tie charts with family historian? > I tried using the left-right to select an option, but I could not find any > solution... > > Is there any plugin available? > > Regards, > Pedro > > ------------------------------- > 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 Lorna! It works! It is not as intuitive and practical as I would expect. Maybe that would be a great plugin to be created in the future. :-) Regards and thanks! Pedro On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Lorna Craig <l.m.craig@ntlworld.com> wrote: > OK, I see. In that case I think you will need to start with an Ancestors > diagram with the father as diagram root, using Left-Right orientation, then > use Insert into Diagram> Ancestor Tree and select the mother as the root, > using Right-Left orientation. You can then position the second tree do > that the two diagram roots (father and mother) are aligned, leaving a gap > between them. Into the gap you can then insert a Text Box containing the > name of the person who is the root of the whole 'Bow Tie'. > > Lorna > > > On 29/12/2015 16:40, Pedro wrote: > > Hi Lorna, > > I believe I made myself not clear before. :-) > > I was actually looking for a bow tie chart that shows ancestors split to > oposite sides. > Like father ancestors to one side and mother ancestors to the other side.. > > The options you mentioned allow ancestors to one side and descendents to > the other, right? > Or am I missing something? > > Thanks!!! > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Lorna Craig via < > family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> Hi Pedro, >> >> There are two Bow-Tie style diagrams available, under View>Standard >> Diagram Types. The first (Bow Tie 4-4) displays up to four generations >> on each side. The second (Bow Tie - All) displays all known >> generations. Both give a choice of an Individual or a Couple as the >> Diagram root. >> >> Lorna >> >> On 29/12/2015 15:47, Pedro via wrote: >> > Dear Colleagues, >> > >> > is there any practical way of making bow tie charts with family >> historian? >> > I tried using the left-right to select an option, but I could not find >> any >> > solution... >> > >> > Is there any plugin available? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Pedro >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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 Lorna, I believe I made myself not clear before. :-) I was actually looking for a bow tie chart that shows ancestors split to oposite sides. Like father ancestors to one side and mother ancestors to the other side.. The options you mentioned allow ancestors to one side and descendents to the other, right? Or am I missing something? Thanks!!! On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Lorna Craig via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > There are two Bow-Tie style diagrams available, under View>Standard > Diagram Types. The first (Bow Tie 4-4) displays up to four generations > on each side. The second (Bow Tie - All) displays all known > generations. Both give a choice of an Individual or a Couple as the > Diagram root. > > Lorna > > On 29/12/2015 15:47, Pedro via wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > is there any practical way of making bow tie charts with family > historian? > > I tried using the left-right to select an option, but I could not find > any > > solution... > > > > Is there any plugin available? > > > > Regards, > > Pedro > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 >

Dear Colleagues, is there any practical way of making bow tie charts with family historian? I tried using the left-right to select an option, but I could not find any solution... Is there any plugin available? Regards, Pedro

On 26 December 2015 at 04:00, Paul via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > ... > How someone's name is spelled (pre-20th century) has everything to do with > the scribe and usually little to do with the person/family. ... > > And, to top it all (sacrilege!), I normalise headline given names (and > often > family names, where they dither or mutate). > > That way, I get a beautifully integrated records list view sorted by > surname, first given and birth date/year. > ... > Me too, Paul - my classic case is the "Healow" family of Barthomley in the 1700s, where the PRs use (from memory) "Healoh" "Healah", etc, indiscriminately. Originally I recorded each person under their baptised name - but then I got "William Healah" before "Thomas Healow" in the alphabetical list, which is most off-putting and inefficient. Eventually I settled on "Healow" as the most common variant, used that in their names, and recorded the actual spelling in the Source-Record and the notes to the Baptism event. My justification is that the different spellings tell me about the parish clerks of Barthomley, not about the Healows. There are times, however, when I find it useful to record variants as Alias names - "Healow" actually transitions into "Heler", so at some point I'll need aliases to show the gradual change. Also, recording "Spode" with an alias of "Spord" reminds me to search on both variants. Adrian

Well, Gents, that has been a most entertaining exchange for me. Thanks for your attention. I'll make just a couple of final remarks and leave the last word to you others, if you will. Curiously my training focused on concepts like the axiomatic approach, logical deduction, etc., etc. By contrast my genealogy recording is disgracefully pragmatic. I view the accumulated data for a person or family as a whole, for example the complete set of available census ages. Then, in the absence of better data, I am content to pick a year of birth that best fits - no need for explicit justification. Any individual age discrepancies are highly visible and need no comment - we all know these things happen. (Though occasionally I might record a note to the effect that, for example, it could be an enumerator's TE.) In similar vein, I would never dream of trying to create citations for every variant of a birthplace. A "best guess" from the totality of reports (ignoring apparent errors) is good enough for me. I don't lose any sleep over the prospect that any of these details can be off the mark and welcome any later correction by better data. Neither am I concerned about name spelling variants. It is good enough to *record* the name forms shown for each event. How someone's name is spelled (pre-20th century) has everything to do with the scribe and usually little to do with the person/family. For that reason (horror of horrors) I hardly ever give more weight to a registration or baptismal name form than to others. And, to top it all (sacrilege!), I normalise headline given names (and often family names, where they dither or mutate). That way, I get a beautifully integrated records list view sorted by surname, first given and birth date/year. Which means I can actually find people easily and spot the all-too-frequent potential duplicates. Happy New Year. Paul

I always have multiple Citations to a Source. I start a new record with an 'origin' source/citaion which I attach to the whole data item i.e. an Individual, Family etc. Included in this original entry is everything I can glean from the Source of the original data - if it's the IGI then it could be a Name, Surname, place of baptism, birth, burial dates etc. all in one go. I don't cite each Fact separately initially. If I receive a bit of information that corrects or adds to an already existing Fact then I create a new Citation to indicate the new or amended data. If I receive new Fact data then I create a new Citation. So, if I have a census derived birth year then initially it will be Cited using my '18** Census Image' Source. If I find the actual birth year/date later I will add a new Citation, say 'Birth Certificate', to 'correct' the original census calculated date. I also use a 'Change Source' where I want to preserve old data like a name change i.e. she is Ellen on 4 census but when I get the Birth Certificate she is actually Helen. I will add a 'Change' Source and the Citation will describe the change from Ellen to Helen thus preserving the traceability of information for later users of my data. This method I might use for corrected Birth Years etc. David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl & Mike Tate via Sent: 25 December 2015 22:38 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Evidence Yes, I do often have such multiple Citations of one Source, and if done manually then it is a chore, but I use Ancestral Sources that semi-automates the process for the most common Sources of Census, Birth, Baptism, Marriage, Death & Burial. Merry Christmas, Mike Tate Sent from my Hudl Paul via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: >Hi, Mike. > >With respect, are you being devil's advocate, or do you really create >multiple citations along those lines? > >It's as much as I can bear to enter a single citation with text from source >along the lines of "Alfred J DENIS, Son, Wheelwright, 15, b. St John's, >Jersey (father b. St John's, Jersey)". > >And that's without repeating all the other stuff like address details, other >household members present (and absent!), proximity to other relevant HHs, >and so on - all of which I may choose to record in an event (not citation) >note if considered relevant. > >Sure, it's maybe more logical - but a "cite" more than a rod for my back, >more like a real flogging. > >Merry Christmas > > > >Sent from my over-worked laptop > > > > >------------------------------- >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

Yes, I do often have such multiple Citations of one Source, and if done manually then it is a chore, but I use Ancestral Sources that semi-automates the process for the most common Sources of Census, Birth, Baptism, Marriage, Death & Burial. Merry Christmas, Mike Tate Sent from my Hudl Paul via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: >Hi, Mike. > >With respect, are you being devil's advocate, or do you really create >multiple citations along those lines? > >It's as much as I can bear to enter a single citation with text from source >along the lines of "Alfred J DENIS, Son, Wheelwright, 15, b. St John's, >Jersey (father b. St John's, Jersey)". > >And that's without repeating all the other stuff like address details, other >household members present (and absent!), proximity to other relevant HHs, >and so on - all of which I may choose to record in an event (not citation) >note if considered relevant. > >Sure, it's maybe more logical - but a "cite" more than a rod for my back, >more like a real flogging. > >Merry Christmas > > > >Sent from my over-worked laptop > > > > >------------------------------- >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, Mike. With respect, are you being devil's advocate, or do you really create multiple citations along those lines? It's as much as I can bear to enter a single citation with text from source along the lines of "Alfred J DENIS, Son, Wheelwright, 15, b. St John's, Jersey (father b. St John's, Jersey)". And that's without repeating all the other stuff like address details, other household members present (and absent!), proximity to other relevant HHs, and so on - all of which I may choose to record in an event (not citation) note if considered relevant. Sure, it's maybe more logical - but a "cite" more than a rod for my back, more like a real flogging. Merry Christmas Sent from my over-worked laptop

OK, Jan, I admit to using "Est" myself occasionally, for practically the same reasons. The thing is, we arrive at a birth date in one of two ways (or a combination of both): - Calculating from age(s) at a reported event (most of the time, in the absence of a birth record) - Value judgment of one or more specifically reported dates And the point of recording a date (and place) at all is to help us and others to distinguish the person of interest from others. The precise way we arrived at a particular value is arguably of little interest to your "tree" readership as a whole. For you and close collaborators on that individual, the research notes tell you all that needs to be known. Therefore "App" seems to me usually a better choice as it translates by default to the widely-understood "circa", and does not imply a particular derivation method. If we wanted to capture/record every line of argument for one birth event, we would have to record multiple births and the supporting citations for each. That last would next to pointless and anyway have limited visibility in non-FH systems. Sorry to be a pain. Paul