On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 05:58:33 -0700, Zev wrote: > I recently downloaded the GEDCOM Torture Test files. Looking at the HEAD > record source corporation address, it seems to be in error. > > According to the 5.5 spec, the ADDR and ADR1 tags should contain the > same information, as should the first CONT and ADR2 tags. (See page 37, > ADDRESS_LINE, ADDRESS_LINE1, and ADDRESS_LINE2). The spec implies that > ADR1 and ADR2 can be used *instead* of ADDR and CONT. The spec says > nothing about using them simultaneously or about a data clash. Perhaps it's intentional??? After all, the file *is* intended to test a program's ability to properly import gedcom files. If the program doesn't flag the error, it'd fail the test, right? Todd

I recently downloaded the GEDCOM Torture Test files. Looking at the HEAD record source corporation address, it seems to be in error. According to the 5.5 spec, the ADDR and ADR1 tags should contain the same information, as should the first CONT and ADR2 tags. (See page 37, ADDRESS_LINE, ADDRESS_LINE1, and ADDRESS_LINE2). The spec implies that ADR1 and ADR2 can be used *instead* of ADDR and CONT. The spec says nothing about using them simultaneously or about a data clash.

Anyone care to venture an opinion? This may be an upgrade from FTM 2005 for an older person. Paul

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:58:54 +0200, Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: >I am thinking of creating a database for people to record strays on these >sites, and thought I would ask for advice on what to include in such a >database, especially from those who may have had some experience of strays >indexes. > >The Yahoogroups databases are limited to 10 fields, so one needs to give some >thought to what should go in them. I am thinking of the following: > >1. Name of the principal person (Surname, Firstnames) >2. Date (of record or event, in YYYY-MM-DD format) >3. Place (of record or event) >5. Place of origin of the person (if mentioned) >6. Relations of the person (if mentioned) >7. Source (newspaper, tombstone, church record etc.) >8. Notes (any other information about the person or record) >9. Informant (name of person who entered record, and contact info) >10. Date record entered. On reading this initially my first thought was that possibly 6. and 8. could be included in the one field (8.) leaving a spare, for use as; 6. Nature of event - Birth/baptism, Marriage, Death/burial or Other. This would facilitate an only B or M or D or O data input being allowed and allow a degree of sorting if needed. -- Robert G. Eldridge Toronto NSW Australia http://www.eldridgegenealogy.org Now researching ELDRIDGE families world wide 1000s at my Web site *Wanted* Any Eldridge related information This newsgroup post is not an invitation to reply by email.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:22:51 +1000, Robert G Eldridge <[email protected]> wrote: >On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:58:54 +0200, Steve Hayes ><[email protected]> wrote: > >>I am thinking of creating a database for people to record strays on these >>sites, and thought I would ask for advice on what to include in such a >>database, especially from those who may have had some experience of strays >>indexes. >> >>The Yahoogroups databases are limited to 10 fields, so one needs to give some >>thought to what should go in them. I am thinking of the following: >> >>1. Name of the principal person (Surname, Firstnames) >>2. Date (of record or event, in YYYY-MM-DD format) >>3. Place (of record or event) >>5. Place of origin of the person (if mentioned) >>6. Relations of the person (if mentioned) >>7. Source (newspaper, tombstone, church record etc.) >>8. Notes (any other information about the person or record) >>9. Informant (name of person who entered record, and contact info) >>10. Date record entered. > >On reading this initially my first thought was that possibly 6. and 8. >could be included in the one field (8.) leaving a spare, for use as; > >6. Nature of event - Birth/baptism, Marriage, Death/burial or Other. >This would facilitate an only B or M or D or O data input being >allowed and allow a degree of sorting if needed, thoubh it could be covered by 8. Thanks, that's useful and bears thinking about. I'm not sure that it would need to be sorted on, but -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

"Paul Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > Anyone care to venture an opinion? > > This may be an upgrade from FTM 2005 for an older person. > I've just installed it (also upgrading from 2005) - so far, so good. I especially like the fact that it didn't over-write 2005, which I wanted to keep for the "everyone in" database. Despite a couple of the reviews on Amazon.co.uk, I had no trouble installing. The screen looked a bit cluttered at first, but I've got used to it. The main thing I've missed thus far is the lack of dates on the index - it's harded to see which of half a dozen "James Robertson"s is which. That may be fixable, but I haven't got around to reading the handbook file yet. More quibbles may arise as I use it more. The included free time on Ancestry.co.uk merged easily with my current subscription, postponing my renewal date. That pretty much covered the cost of the software! One thing, if you decide to get it, check prices before you buy. I got mine on amazon.co.uk in one of their regular software sales and it was less than half price. Lesley Robertson

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:58:12 +1200, "Dave C" <[email protected]> wrote: >So there we are - many thanks to all, for better or worse, I seem to be >going to become a Family Historian user! > >Now I'm sure there was a day job round here somewhere.... > >Dave I guess I won't be using FH. I dl'ed the program, installed and got the message that my trial period had expired. I don't recall but I must have tried it before and decided not to use it. I may get a son or grandson to dl and port it to me. C'est la vie. Hugh

"Baldy Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > Having been partly responsible for the recommendation of FH4, I was > going to reply that the charts are very comprehensive and are fully > customisable. If there is a fault of FH it is that you can change > pretty much everything about the way the programme looks and the > output it produces. > > You only have to look at the active user group (which is an absolute > must to join - for free) to see that 99% of the postings are How Do I > Do.....? There are not many occassions when the answer is you can't. > The Group has more helpful people than you can wish for... > > Welcome to the Family.... Yes, it somehow just felt right, engineered for want of a better term. Once I have it up and running I will be frequenting the "user group" I am sure. Dave --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [email protected] ---

"Robin Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]m... Dave - don't worry - you can customise the Family Historian charts to be as clean-looking as you could wish for. ============== Robin Price (satisfied Family Historian user) Thanks Robin - I suspected as much given the degree to which other things can be personalised, just haven't spent enough time with the thing yet. In the end I surmise that the "initial" learning curve might be enough to put many off, however I also suspect the issues relating to learning curve might be what tip the balance in its favour once you have climbed the first step or two. Time will tell I suppose.... Dave --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [email protected] ---

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:58:12 +1200, "Dave C" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>So there we are - many thanks to all, for better or worse, I seem to be >>going to become a Family Historian user! > > I think you have put me to work since I already have the paid versions > of RM and Legacy. > > When the charts I produce are 200+ printed pages, charting is not my > greatest concern except MAYBE once a year. And I can reproduce in text > and edit as I choose. > > I prefer the navigation screen of Legacy to RM but the speed of RM is > really superior. > > It's good to hear from one who has not used any of the three programs > before. Thankee. > > Hugh <grin>, I am concious that I have only done a scratch the surface evaluation, and on this machine at least no discernable "speed" differences can be picked up. Very Large, or multiple databases open together may well do so.... good luck ;-) Dave --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [email protected] ---

"Dave C" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > Many thanks to all those who responded. I appreciate your time and > knowledge. Currently investigating a short list of three possibilities. > Three being about the maximum number below the threshold where screaming > and kicking the cat start to be noticed by others! > > Legacy > RootsMagic > Family Historian > > I will post again once I get it down to one <G> > > Dave > > --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to > [email protected] --- Well, I have spent a little time with each of the packages, and I am beginning to understand why so many of you are using more than one program! All three packages imported the data flawlessly, but because my FTM was so old only at the GEDCOM level. Family Historian alerted on "Non Standard" gedcom implementation with FTM and asked if I wanted to see the particular data concerned as each record was imported. I thought this was clever, and it allowed this data for the three individuals concerned to be directed to the correct field(s) on import. Both the other two programs just made their own default decisions. The task IS complicated by the fact that both the RootsMagic and Legacy software were the free download versions, so both had some reduced capacity. I initially liked RootsMagic, it seemed capable, and the "not available in the free version" notices I kept coming across hinted that there were other bells if not whistles if I would but pay for it. I thought the default look was quite well designed, and the degree to which various views /screens can be customised seemed pretty well thought out. The negative for me was charting. I realise that options are "greyed" out and will leap to life in the full version, however from what I can tell with this version I would not call printed output a strength. The RootsMagic to go (Genealogy on a USB stick) function was interesting, I eventually decided it was a nice to have not an essential. Legacy, was also interesting. The default look was fairly uninspiring, I was eventually moved to work out how to inprove it by adjusting colours a bit, but the look grates every time I open the program, seems to get between me and the information. Once I built a bridge and got over it I was impressed. Seemed to be able to do pretty much everything, and the print output leaves what I can manage with RootsMagic for dead. Family Historian. This has the cleanest default look of the three. It also has the advantage of being a one month - time limited fully functional beast. I found it very capable, and VERY personalisable. I do understand why some might find it "not for them". Compared to Legacy I have to say printed output is not as good. The default charts are heavy on shadowing and so far I haven't been able to wind this back - although I am quite willing to admit this could be because I have yet to find the right option screen! The formatting of Legacy Charting by comparison is simply clean and fuss free. Family Historian is the one I like most however, it has a modern and fresh feel, appears to be able to do pretty well everything and has an acceptable printed output standard. I have a sneaking worry that I might end up buying the legacy charting module, just to get those clean charts.... So there we are - many thanks to all, for better or worse, I seem to be going to become a Family Historian user! Now I'm sure there was a day job round here somewhere.... Dave --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [email protected] ---

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:51:49 -0700 (PDT), Robin Price <[email protected]> wrote: >Dave - don't worry - you can customise the Family Historian charts to >be as clean-looking as you could wish for. > >============== >Robin Price >(satisfied Family Historian user) > Having been partly responsible for the recommendation of FH4, I was going to reply that the charts are very comprehensive and are fully customisable. If there is a fault of FH it is that you can change pretty much everything about the way the programme looks and the output it produces. You only have to look at the active user group (which is an absolute must to join - for free) to see that 99% of the postings are How Do I Do.....? There are not many occassions when the answer is you can't. The Group has more helpful people than you can wish for... Welcome to the Family....

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:58:12 +1200, "Dave C" <[email protected]> wrote: >So there we are - many thanks to all, for better or worse, I seem to be >going to become a Family Historian user! I think you have put me to work since I already have the paid versions of RM and Legacy. When the charts I produce are 200+ printed pages, charting is not my greatest concern except MAYBE once a year. And I can reproduce in text and edit as I choose. I prefer the navigation screen of Legacy to RM but the speed of RM is really superior. It's good to hear from one who has not used any of the three programs before. Thankee. Hugh

Dave - don't worry - you can customise the Family Historian charts to be as clean-looking as you could wish for. ============== Robin Price (satisfied Family Historian user) On Jun 21, 1:58 pm, "Dave C" <[email protected]> wrote: > Family Historian. This has the cleanest default look of the three. It also > has the advantage of being a one month - time limited fully functional > beast. I found it very capable, and VERY personalisable. I do understand why > some might find it "not for them". Compared to Legacy I have to say printed > output is not as good. The default charts are heavy on shadowing and so far > I haven't been able to wind this back - although I am quite willing to admit > this could be because I have yet to find the right option screen!

John, I just wrote a short LifeLines program that prunes the contents of a database made up of GEDCOM records and creates a GEDCOM file that holds only the person and family records for an initial person, all that persons ancestors, all spouses of all ancestors, and all children of all ancestors. You would have to install LifeLines (on many Linux distributions), load it with your master GEDCOM file, and then run this program. proc main () { indiset(persons) getindi(person, "Enter person to base a GEDCOM file around.") addtoset(persons, person, 0) set(persons, union(persons, ancestorset(persons))) set(persons, union(persons, spouseset(persons))) set(persons, union(persons, childset(persons))) "0 HEAD\n" gengedcomstrong(persons) "0 TRLR\n" }

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:00:23 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:06:54 -0400, singhals<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> The problem with always making your own decisions is that you never >>>> have anyone else to blame. >>>> >>> >>> I /hear/ that! (g) OTOH, you'n'I can always blame one >>> another -- as the saying goes, I didn't say it was your >>> fault, I said I was going to blame you. >>> >>> [snip] >> >> I gotcher back, Louisiana Lady! >> > >Messy buckets, chou. > >>>> everyone may not need all the bells and whistles available in some >>>> programs. >> >>> Then again, maybe I'm just jaded? >>> >>> Cheryl >> >> I trust your hubby thinks jade is priceless. It's all in the attitude, >> mon cheri. > >(G) And how's the better half doin'? > >Cheryl

Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: >And if you see it asserted on a web site, but you cannot even see WHO >asserted it (as happens on Mundia) then the site does NOT facilitate >genealogical networking and communication. > >I can see a family tree on line that shows A descneding from B and C, and I >can switch to pedigree chart view to see the same thing, but I cannot see WHO >posted there, and if I don't know who posted it, how can I communicate with >them to find the source of their information? I just logged into Mundia, having determined that it would allow me to use my ancestry id. If you are looking at a tree, then there is an arrow on the right that is clickable to see an abbreviated profile. Under the "picture" there is a selection window that says "more". Clicking on that lets you select "View Profile" (I believe that you can also get there directly from the search results). Viewing the profile for one random person, I see that each of the facts for this person: birth, marriage, death has to the right a note 1977 Redcar and Cleveland, Cleveland, England Posted by xyz. If you move your cursor over xyz's name, it gives a popup with the person's location and whether they are an ancestry member, and there is a little envelope icon marked "contact". Clicking on that lets you send an email through ancestry's connection service (which shows only user ids and not personal information). There is also a link at the bottom to contact the person who created the profile (who is usually the one who adds the data, but in a collaborative tree that might not be the case). Also on the profile screen in the upper right is a "sources" tab, that will tell you what ancestry may know about the sources (which usually isn't worth much. I've verified for my own (well-sourced) trees that it does show some useful information, but it mostly isn't worth much unless you have an ancestry account to actually look at the sources. For most of the trees that are on there now, not created under Mundia, that is pretty much all that you can do. If someone is part of Mundia, it seems that you could click on their name (rather than using the popup to contact them), and their own profile and/or tree will come up. But since ancestry has over 2 billion people in their trees and probably only a few thousand yet using Mundia, the odds will be rather slim for a while. I note in passing on the search screen that they have a rudimentary "persona" filter. If you enter a name with insufficient data, you will get numerous hits, but those personas which seem to refer to the same person are listed together. This is an improvement over ancestry's current tree search. You are correct that you may see a dozen trees, all with 10692 people in them (though usually there are some with a different number), and the only way you will be able to tell them apart is to look at them. It is pretty clear that the site is NOT intended for serious genealogists, unless said genealogists are looking to get their family members involved collaboratively. It does let the non-ancestry subscriber search the gamut of public trees for free, though, and that could be worth something to those opposed to financially supporting ancestry, but who want access to the data. lojbab --- Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist [email protected] Lojban language www.lojban.org

And before you sign off, have a peek at http://webtrees.net/demo This is set up on a web host. The basic software is free, hosting is not, but usually cheap. The ability to share (and maybe get feedback) is attractive. Paul

singhals <[email protected]> wrote: >Steve Hayes wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:15:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Steve Hayes<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> You see this list of trees that all have things like "10472 >>>> individuals" - so which one is the original and which ones are the copies? >>> >>> Why would it matter? The data is the same. > >I can't find the post where someone wrote the last line above. > >ONE of the reasons it matters is to trace the earliest >assertion to assess the potential accuracy. > >If a family in New Orleans says their daughter married Gen. >Benjamin Butler's son in 1876, they're only saying it >because it's true and they can't plausibly deny it. If the >General says it, same thing. But if the great-granddaughter >of the New Orleans girl married a Connecticutite whose >family history in 1995 says it -- probably wants looking into. In the case of online trees that are undated and that do not have the sources included, you won't be able to tell the earliest assertion. But that is true of most online trees, Rootsweb being the only exception I know of. With more recent ancestry trees, I can often tell a copy, because the profile in question lists another "ancestry family tree" as a source. But you have to actually look at the profile to see this (actually, I think that is true of Rootsweb dates as well - it doesn't list dates on the search results, only on the actual pages for the various people). lojbab --- Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist [email protected] Lojban language www.lojban.org

Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:15:09 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: >>>You see this list of trees that all have things like "10472 >>>individuals" - so which one is the original and which ones are the copies? >> >>Why would it matter? The data is the same. > >And the errors are the same and the unexplained sources are the same. > >And you need to find the first person who entered the data , rather than those >who just mindlessly copied and pasted it, which they made A sn B the parents >of C, rather than D and E, and what sources they used. In many cases, that first person is long gone. Rootsweb trees have been online since back in the 90s, and seldom is an email address still valid for that long.. Furthermore, most people simply don't keep records of their sources. That may be improving recently, but anyone who relies on tree data is best off assuming sources are unknown unless explicitly mentioned. >>>There is no point in trying to make contact with the "owner" of a tree that is >>>apparently exactly the same as five or six others if they have just copied the >>>whole thing and havent done the research. >> >>The obvious thing to do is to ASK them. The whole point of a >>social-network based genealogy system is to get people communicating, >>not just looking at other people's data and trying to read their mind >>to determine why they entered what they did before copying it. >>Ancestry has been trying to felicitate cooperative genealogy for >>years, not generally with much success. Older trees and those created >>solely by massive GEDCOM uploads (that frequently do not specify >>sources) will tend not to be designed for use by others. > >And that is precidely the thing that Mundia makes so difficult. If it made >that easier, I might take it more serriously. Ancestry usually assumes that the initial contact will be made through their privacy-screened connection service, and the parties can choose to exchange "real" email addresses in their screened exchanges. I don't know if Mundia has changed this paradigm. Rootsweb trees I believe allow connection service contacts, but they also often show the real email in a noisy picture. But again, that has seldom worked for me for any tree more than a year or two old. lojbab --- Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist [email protected] Lojban language www.lojban.org