Interesting. Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? I carry no brief for Custodian and I am trying to approach this with a open mind, but what I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript, because it is more accurate than any other transcript. I cannot trust the census transcripts available as the error rate is so high, so I use my more accurate transcripts. How do I digitalise those? Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 01 March 2012 17:34 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies <<snipped>> ... All genealogical software seems to concentrate on adding individuals to "your family" and there is no way to first record all the references to your surname in the parish registers of parish X and then work through identifying and allocating individuals to their appropriate place within the family and on the tree. ... <<snipped>> Actually, as far as FH goes, it's up to you which way round you do it. The way I work when doing occasional one-name-in-one-place reconstructions is to record the source(s) first, with the transcript in the "Text from Source" on the source record. No individuals yet. (I get the feeling lots of people create individuals first, with their facts, then create source records after. I _always_ create a source record first. Apart from anything, there's then no temptation to forget to indicate the source of something.) What happens next tends to depend on whether I can easily identify the contents of the source record to an individual already in the "database". If it can be identified, then I'll record the reason why it's who I think it is in the Note on the source record and add the fact. If there's no obvious candidate - or several - I'll create a new individual, with the facts justified by that source record. So, if I have a marriage of John Doe in Northwich, and it could be John Doe from Davenham or John Doe from Hartford, I'll create a 3rd individual named John Doe. This is useful where the Northwich John has other facts clearly linked to him. When I have enough evidence to "prove" that Northwich John is one of the others, then I'll document that "proof" in a separate note record, link it to one and merge the 2 John individuals. (That "proof" is a separate note record to enable its easy disconnection if the proof later turns out to be wrong. Unfortunately, splitting the facts off, if the proof is wrong, is trickier). What I'm not sure is how easy it is to use FH to "shuffle the cards" of the source records to see matches as, to be honest, I summarise the records in a spreadsheet and use filtering to find candidates there, not in FH. I've never used Custodian but was influenced by someone who said that there was no point in using it because, in essence, the crucial stuff was duplicated between Custodian and FH. Excel suffices for me. Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- 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

<<snipped>> Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? <<snipped>> Because I know how to filter the columns of my spreadsheet... For baptisms, the parents get put into one column, the abode into another, etc. Then it's simple filtering in Excel if I want to pull off all Doe family members in Davenham (say). I'm unclear how easy similar queries would be in FH. (Translation - I'm too lazy to try to find out????) <<snipped>> Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? <<snipped>> Because my _impression_ (like I say, I've never used Custodian) was that it was for managing the full content of a document, whereas I just wanted a quick and dirty index to transcripts elsewhere. <<snipped>> I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript <<snipped>> I would suggest that first of all you need to think what you mean by this. It sounds to me like you want something more than just a Word transcript???? Do you want indexing on it, for instance? Do you want an exact transcript of the text? Or is it a reformatted version of that text? (See http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~cprdb/ for the Cheshire Parish Register Project as an example of what I mean. Each record contains (errors and omissions excepted) all the data in the original, but since it is reformatted it's not actually a transcript in the correct sense of that word. Not a criticism - this is a brilliant project done with a lot of care!) <<snipped>> Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. <<snipped>> I'm not sure what you think is missing - Source records can be entered into Family Historian as exact transcripts without creating any people (menu option Add/Source). What may be (is?) more difficult is filtering and indexing those transcripts in order to recreate the families. Adrian B

Thanks Adrian I think I need to dig a little deeper into FH and try entering some "complete" sources not linked to individuals. As you say it is the filtering and indexing that may be the challenging bit. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 01 March 2012 23:25 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies <<snipped>> Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? <<snipped>> Because I know how to filter the columns of my spreadsheet... For baptisms, the parents get put into one column, the abode into another, etc. Then it's simple filtering in Excel if I want to pull off all Doe family members in Davenham (say). I'm unclear how easy similar queries would be in FH. (Translation - I'm too lazy to try to find out????) <<snipped>> Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? <<snipped>> Because my _impression_ (like I say, I've never used Custodian) was that it was for managing the full content of a document, whereas I just wanted a quick and dirty index to transcripts elsewhere. <<snipped>> I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript <<snipped>> I would suggest that first of all you need to think what you mean by this. It sounds to me like you want something more than just a Word transcript???? Do you want indexing on it, for instance? Do you want an exact transcript of the text? Or is it a reformatted version of that text? (See http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~cprdb/ for the Cheshire Parish Register Project as an example of what I mean. Each record contains (errors and omissions excepted) all the data in the original, but since it is reformatted it's not actually a transcript in the correct sense of that word. Not a criticism - this is a brilliant project done with a lot of care!) <<snipped>> Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. <<snipped>> I'm not sure what you think is missing - Source records can be entered into Family Historian as exact transcripts without creating any people (menu option Add/Source). What may be (is?) more difficult is filtering and indexing those transcripts in order to recreate the families. Adrian B ------------------------------- 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

<<snippet>> Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. <<snippet>> Family Historian follows the GEDCOM standard that has Records for each Individual, Family, Source, Repository, and Multimedia entry. You can enter Source Records with plain text transcripts, and linked Multimedia images of documents, and a Repository reference. These do not need any Individual or Family Records. By using 'labelled' text and Source Types there are many possibilities for searching using the Query facilities. With FH Version 5 available soon there is a programmable Plugin capability that perform further search, sort, and index functions providing that the Source data is suitably consistently organised. Hope that helps convince you. But if not, then find out why Family Historian came top in the Which? Computing test of 9 Family History software packages and download the free 30-day trial of FH V4. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Blue and White China Andrew Pye Sent: 01 March 2012 22:18 To: abruce@madasafish.com; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies Interesting. Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? I carry no brief for Custodian and I am trying to approach this with a open mind, but what I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript, because it is more accurate than any other transcript. I cannot trust the census transcripts available as the error rate is so high, so I use my more accurate transcripts. How do I digitalise those? Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 01 March 2012 17:34 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies <<snipped>> ... All genealogical software seems to concentrate on adding individuals to "your family" and there is no way to first record all the references to your surname in the parish registers of parish X and then work through identifying and allocating individuals to their appropriate place within the family and on the tree. ... <<snipped>> Actually, as far as FH goes, it's up to you which way round you do it. The way I work when doing occasional one-name-in-one-place reconstructions is to record the source(s) first, with the transcript in the "Text from Source" on the source record. No individuals yet. (I get the feeling lots of people create individuals first, with their facts, then create source records after. I _always_ create a source record first. Apart from anything, there's then no temptation to forget to indicate the source of something.) What happens next tends to depend on whether I can easily identify the contents of the source record to an individual already in the "database". If it can be identified, then I'll record the reason why it's who I think it is in the Note on the source record and add the fact. If there's no obvious candidate - or several - I'll create a new individual, with the facts justified by that source record. So, if I have a marriage of John Doe in Northwich, and it could be John Doe from Davenham or John Doe from Hartford, I'll create a 3rd individual named John Doe. This is useful where the Northwich John has other facts clearly linked to him. When I have enough evidence to "prove" that Northwich John is one of the others, then I'll document that "proof" in a separate note record, link it to one and merge the 2 John individuals. (That "proof" is a separate note record to enable its easy disconnection if the proof later turns out to be wrong. Unfortunately, splitting the facts off, if the proof is wrong, is trickier). What I'm not sure is how easy it is to use FH to "shuffle the cards" of the source records to see matches as, to be honest, I summarise the records in a spreadsheet and use filtering to find candidates there, not in FH. I've never used Custodian but was influenced by someone who said that there was no point in using it because, in essence, the crucial stuff was duplicated between Custodian and FH. Excel suffices for me. Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- 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

I welcome and appreciate all these views. In case of doubt, I have used FH since version 3, upgraded at every opportunity and look forward with total patience to 5. After research I decided it was probably the best software on the market and am a member of FHUG. I am not an outsider looking in! I do find it an amazingly complex piece of software and it seems that those with a computer background really love it and the rest of us do our best. I run my own business and have financial software, bespoke mail-order software, management reporting software, website content management software, taxation software and SQL coming out of my ears, but nothing in my business life offers the computing challenges of FH. I look at the structure of some of those queries and think what is that all about? Thanks for the pointer on Sources. I was not aware of this facility before. I have taken a look and am not sure it really fits the bill. I would like to digitise parish register transcripts for 100 parishes in a consistent format. I have manorial records from numerous manors. I have probate transcripts in various formats. All on paper. Doing a one place study I need the entire contents of each source available to me, so I can gradually index, locate and insert individuals into their respective families. It works, sort of on paper, but I would prefer a digital solution, especially as it makes sharing with other so much easier. I am working on 300+ families and so far my approach with FH is to take a family at a time and enter the data/sources for each individual within a family, one by one. My sources are there in FH in terms of "this birth came from a baptismal entry in the parish register for parish X", I can copy the wording of the actual entry into FH, but my source in reality, the entire parish registers from start to finish, is still on paper sitting on my desk. Can I really digitise all this information in FH, not per person, but in its entirety? Obviously, in any user group you value all the help that people offer in their own unpaid time, but there are times when I read responses and think a degree in computer science would be a great help unravelling that one! I sense I am not alone? Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl & Mike Tate Sent: 02 March 2012 00:14 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [KEYWDCHK] - Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies - Found word(s) list error in the Text body <<snippet>> Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. <<snippet>> Family Historian follows the GEDCOM standard that has Records for each Individual, Family, Source, Repository, and Multimedia entry. You can enter Source Records with plain text transcripts, and linked Multimedia images of documents, and a Repository reference. These do not need any Individual or Family Records. By using 'labelled' text and Source Types there are many possibilities for searching using the Query facilities. With FH Version 5 available soon there is a programmable Plugin capability that perform further search, sort, and index functions providing that the Source data is suitably consistently organised. Hope that helps convince you. But if not, then find out why Family Historian came top in the Which? Computing test of 9 Family History software packages and download the free 30-day trial of FH V4. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Blue and White China Andrew Pye Sent: 01 March 2012 22:18 To: abruce@madasafish.com; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies Interesting. Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? I carry no brief for Custodian and I am trying to approach this with a open mind, but what I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript, because it is more accurate than any other transcript. I cannot trust the census transcripts available as the error rate is so high, so I use my more accurate transcripts. How do I digitalise those? Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 01 March 2012 17:34 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies <<snipped>> ... All genealogical software seems to concentrate on adding individuals to "your family" and there is no way to first record all the references to your surname in the parish registers of parish X and then work through identifying and allocating individuals to their appropriate place within the family and on the tree. ... <<snipped>> Actually, as far as FH goes, it's up to you which way round you do it. The way I work when doing occasional one-name-in-one-place reconstructions is to record the source(s) first, with the transcript in the "Text from Source" on the source record. No individuals yet. (I get the feeling lots of people create individuals first, with their facts, then create source records after. I _always_ create a source record first. Apart from anything, there's then no temptation to forget to indicate the source of something.) What happens next tends to depend on whether I can easily identify the contents of the source record to an individual already in the "database". If it can be identified, then I'll record the reason why it's who I think it is in the Note on the source record and add the fact. If there's no obvious candidate - or several - I'll create a new individual, with the facts justified by that source record. So, if I have a marriage of John Doe in Northwich, and it could be John Doe from Davenham or John Doe from Hartford, I'll create a 3rd individual named John Doe. This is useful where the Northwich John has other facts clearly linked to him. When I have enough evidence to "prove" that Northwich John is one of the others, then I'll document that "proof" in a separate note record, link it to one and merge the 2 John individuals. (That "proof" is a separate note record to enable its easy disconnection if the proof later turns out to be wrong. Unfortunately, splitting the facts off, if the proof is wrong, is trickier). What I'm not sure is how easy it is to use FH to "shuffle the cards" of the source records to see matches as, to be honest, I summarise the records in a spreadsheet and use filtering to find candidates there, not in FH. I've never used Custodian but was influenced by someone who said that there was no point in using it because, in essence, the crucial stuff was duplicated between Custodian and FH. Excel suffices for me. Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- 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

Hello Andrew, <<snippet>> Can I really digitise all this information in FH, not per person, but in its entirety? <<snippet>> Yes, I would be extremely surprised if you cannot digitise all the information. Transcripts are only text, and computers as I am sure you know, can hold a lot of text in relatively little space compared to images, audio, and video. There are many FH users with many thousands of Individual Records and Source Records and Multimedia Records. My own small FH data has over 500 Individuals, 650 Sources, and 1,000 Multimedia. <<snippet>> ...nothing in my business life offers the computing challenges of FH. I look at the structure of some of those queries and think what is that all about? <<snippet>> I accept that a weakness of FH is its user interface, and Query language, but it is improving. However, it must be recognised that the genealogy software market is tiny compared to most of the other software you mention. So Calico Pie (Simon Orde) can only devote the effort to FH development that the market can stand. Also, for various reasons, FH is tied closely to the GEDCOM structure, which influences much of the structure of FH. I have found that understanding GEDCOM helps with understanding FH. <<snippet>> ...there are times when I read responses and think a degree in computer science would be a great help unravelling that one! I sense I am not alone? <<snippet>> FH is its own worst enemy here. By offering such a highly customisable product it inevitably involves much technical detail. If you are prepared to tolerate what FH offers out of the box, which is a lot, then much of that technical detail is irrelevant. It's a bit like Windows and Microsoft Office that both have unplumbed depths, that most of us steer clear of, until we need to break through a particular brick-wall. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Blue and White China Andrew Pye Sent: 02 March 2012 19:54 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies I welcome and appreciate all these views. In case of doubt, I have used FH since version 3, upgraded at every opportunity and look forward with total patience to 5. After research I decided it was probably the best software on the market and am a member of FHUG. I am not an outsider looking in! I do find it an amazingly complex piece of software and it seems that those with a computer background really love it and the rest of us do our best. I run my own business and have financial software, bespoke mail-order software, management reporting software, website content management software, taxation software and SQL coming out of my ears, but nothing in my business life offers the computing challenges of FH. I look at the structure of some of those queries and think what is that all about? Thanks for the pointer on Sources. I was not aware of this facility before. I have taken a look and am not sure it really fits the bill. I would like to digitise parish register transcripts for 100 parishes in a consistent format. I have manorial records from numerous manors. I have probate transcripts in various formats. All on paper. Doing a one place study I need the entire contents of each source available to me, so I can gradually index, locate and insert individuals into their respective families. It works, sort of on paper, but I would prefer a digital solution, especially as it makes sharing with other so much easier. I am working on 300+ families and so far my approach with FH is to take a family at a time and enter the data/sources for each individual within a family, one by one. My sources are there in FH in terms of "this birth came from a baptismal entry in the parish register for parish X", I can copy the wording of the actual entry into FH, but my source in reality, the entire parish registers from start to finish, is still on paper sitting on my desk. Can I really digitise all this information in FH, not per person, but in its entirety? Obviously, in any user group you value all the help that people offer in their own unpaid time, but there are times when I read responses and think a degree in computer science would be a great help unravelling that one! I sense I am not alone? Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl & Mike Tate Sent: 02 March 2012 00:14 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [KEYWDCHK] - Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies - Found word(s) list error in the Text body <<snippet>> Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. <<snippet>> Family Historian follows the GEDCOM standard that has Records for each Individual, Family, Source, Repository, and Multimedia entry. You can enter Source Records with plain text transcripts, and linked Multimedia images of documents, and a Repository reference. These do not need any Individual or Family Records. By using 'labelled' text and Source Types there are many possibilities for searching using the Query facilities. With FH Version 5 available soon there is a programmable Plugin capability that perform further search, sort, and index functions providing that the Source data is suitably consistently organised. Hope that helps convince you. But if not, then find out why Family Historian came top in the Which? Computing test of 9 Family History software packages and download the free 30-day trial of FH V4. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Blue and White China Andrew Pye Sent: 01 March 2012 22:18 To: abruce@madasafish.com; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies Interesting. Why do you use a spreadsheet, if FH does do it all? Why not use Custodian rather than a spreadsheet? I carry no brief for Custodian and I am trying to approach this with a open mind, but what I think I need to be able to do is create a complete digital record of my Steeple Morden parish registers transcript, because it is more accurate than any other transcript. I cannot trust the census transcripts available as the error rate is so high, so I use my more accurate transcripts. How do I digitalise those? Family history software records individuals and does not appear to offer means to records sources in their entirety. Please convince me I am wrong. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 01 March 2012 17:34 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies <<snipped>> ... All genealogical software seems to concentrate on adding individuals to "your family" and there is no way to first record all the references to your surname in the parish registers of parish X and then work through identifying and allocating individuals to their appropriate place within the family and on the tree. ... <<snipped>> Actually, as far as FH goes, it's up to you which way round you do it. The way I work when doing occasional one-name-in-one-place reconstructions is to record the source(s) first, with the transcript in the "Text from Source" on the source record. No individuals yet. (I get the feeling lots of people create individuals first, with their facts, then create source records after. I _always_ create a source record first. Apart from anything, there's then no temptation to forget to indicate the source of something.) What happens next tends to depend on whether I can easily identify the contents of the source record to an individual already in the "database". If it can be identified, then I'll record the reason why it's who I think it is in the Note on the source record and add the fact. If there's no obvious candidate - or several - I'll create a new individual, with the facts justified by that source record. So, if I have a marriage of John Doe in Northwich, and it could be John Doe from Davenham or John Doe from Hartford, I'll create a 3rd individual named John Doe. This is useful where the Northwich John has other facts clearly linked to him. When I have enough evidence to "prove" that Northwich John is one of the others, then I'll document that "proof" in a separate note record, link it to one and merge the 2 John individuals. (That "proof" is a separate note record to enable its easy disconnection if the proof later turns out to be wrong. Unfortunately, splitting the facts off, if the proof is wrong, is trickier). What I'm not sure is how easy it is to use FH to "shuffle the cards" of the source records to see matches as, to be honest, I summarise the records in a spreadsheet and use filtering to find candidates there, not in FH. I've never used Custodian but was influenced by someone who said that there was no point in using it because, in essence, the crucial stuff was duplicated between Custodian and FH. Excel suffices for me. Adrian Bruce ------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------- 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

Hello Mike Thanks for your continuing encouragement. I need to try loading a "complete" source and see how I can extract the people and facts into their respective families and other relationships via FH. Regards Andrew Andrew J Pye Lovers of Blue & White Steeple Morden ROYSTON Hertfordshire SG8 0RN England Website www.blueandwhite.com Email andrew@blueandwhite.com Telephone >From UK 01763 853 800 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 800 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 800 Facsimile >From UK 01763 853 700 >From USA/Canada 011 44 1763 853 700 >From Elsewhere +44 1763 853 700 -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Beryl & Mike Tate Sent: 02 March 2012 20:49 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [KEYWDCHK] - Re: [FHU] Using Family Historian for one place studies - Found word(s) list error in the Text body Hello Andrew, <<snippet>> Can I really digitise all this information in FH, not per person, but in its entirety? <<snippet>> Yes, I would be extremely surprised if you cannot digitise all the information. Transcripts are only text, and computers as I am sure you know, can hold a lot of text in relatively little space compared to images, audio, and video. There are many FH users with many thousands of Individual Records and Source Records and Multimedia Records. My own small FH data has over 500 Individuals, 650 Sources, and 1,000 Multimedia. <<snippet>> ...nothing in my business life offers the computing challenges of FH. I look at the structure of some of those queries and think what is that all about? <<snippet>> I accept that a weakness of FH is its user interface, and Query language, but it is improving. However, it must be recognised that the genealogy software market is tiny compared to most of the other software you mention. So Calico Pie (Simon Orde) can only devote the effort to FH development that the market can stand. Also, for various reasons, FH is tied closely to the GEDCOM structure, which influences much of the structure of FH. I have found that understanding GEDCOM helps with understanding FH. <<snippet>> ...there are times when I read responses and think a degree in computer science would be a great help unravelling that one! I sense I am not alone? <<snippet>> FH is its own worst enemy here. By offering such a highly customisable product it inevitably involves much technical detail. If you are prepared to tolerate what FH offers out of the box, which is a lot, then much of that technical detail is irrelevant. It's a bit like Windows and Microsoft Office that both have unplumbed depths, that most of us steer clear of, until we need to break through a particular brick-wall. Regards, Mike Tate