JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote: >JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote: > >> Imo, if starting "from scratch", or starting anew, FTM 2008 and >> Ancestry is a winner if you have a good internet connection and even >> if you only use it for six months and then go freebie. >> > >Almost forgot the one major annoyance of Ancestry.com... > >Their search sometimes needs "consideration", to put it nicely! They have >in some ways mucked it up lately, but in some ways improved it. It could >certainly be better, but even right "out of the box" it's good but not >stellar. > >On the whole though, it's (the search) great because of the large amount of >source databases, but in some cases you'll have to play with spellings and >combinations of advanced search fields to get your hits. Thanks for those posts. I currently have FTM 2006 (Help|About calls it 'version 16) so 2008 would be an upgrade. I did use Ancestry in 2005, and it was OK overall. As mentioned up-thread, have now subscribed to The Genealogist. -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > Almost forgot the one major annoyance of Ancestry.com... > > Their search sometimes needs "consideration", to put it nicely! They have They ask you for various filtering criteria (dates, places, etc.) and then they ignore it and list everyone with a similar name who is mentioned anywhere in any database they have. When I put 1891 for year of death, and Illinois for place to search, it's pretty stupid to suggest that I look at the 1930 Census for Los Angeles. -- Wes Groleau Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana! http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/

Is there a mailing list for discussing specifics of the GENTECH Genealogical Data Model? Or is s.g.c the appropriate forum? -- Dennis

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:59:19 GMT, "Jim" <jim@..com> wrote: >I'm using a pc with Windows Vista. >Would the program 'Brother's Keeper' run on it, has anyone some experience >with it? >Thanks, >Jim > I had a slight problem with a back up. I emailed John Steed and had a most helpful reply from him within 24 hours -- Peter Thomas Researching: Hone - Oxfordshire & Glamorgan; Samuel(s) - Swansea & Llanelli & Gower; Thomas - Morriston & Clydach; Harris - Aberdare & Gloucester, Pope - Shropshire; Parker, Shropshire; Broome - Shropshire. "Reply to address is a spam trap - replies to the group please

> >I'm using a pc with Windows Vista. > >Would the program 'Brother's Keeper' run on it, has anyone some experience > >with it? > >Thanks, > >Jim > > I had a slight problem with a back up. I emailed John Steed and had a > most helpful reply from him within 24 hours > -- > Peter Thomas That is one of the huge advantages of shareware (which Brother's Keeper is). The authors are so readily available and are always anxious to help you with a problem. They don't tend to "space off" your request for assistance as many commercial software packages do. Don

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:51:06 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> > declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing: > > >>Thanks! I've been hunting Cousin Lucy!!! >> > > You've traced your family back to Australopithicus? <G> Well, yeah ... all but the bit up to 1856? (g) Cheryl

JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote: > Imo, if starting "from scratch", or starting anew, FTM 2008 and > Ancestry is a winner if you have a good internet connection and even > if you only use it for six months and then go freebie. > Almost forgot the one major annoyance of Ancestry.com... Their search sometimes needs "consideration", to put it nicely! They have in some ways mucked it up lately, but in some ways improved it. It could certainly be better, but even right "out of the box" it's good but not stellar. On the whole though, it's (the search) great because of the large amount of source databases, but in some cases you'll have to play with spellings and combinations of advanced search fields to get your hits.

Terry Pinnell <terrypin@dial.pipex.com> wrote: > "Copper" <none@none.com> wrote: > >>The Genealogist has most of the census transcribed and you have access >>to the scans of the originals. >> >>Findmypast has some census available but less than The Genealogist. >> >>I have a sub out for The Genealogist. Sadly no transcription is >>perfect so when I can't find somebody on The Genealogist site, I use >>the Findmypast site. I just buy units as and when I need them for >>Findmypast. >> >>Copper >> > > Thanks. As you've probably seen from my last post, my first money has > gone on The Genealogist. > > Wish there was some clever scanning-cum-AI software that could display > successive registry pages and alert me when it finds a match for my > specified text string ! > > Sorry I didn't chime in on this sooner.. but imo if you are doing 20th century stuff I'd STRONGLY suggest FTM 2008 and Ancestry.com. Admittedly I'm in the U.S. and haven't "gone across the pond" just yet, but when I'm ready (soon) I'll give Ancestry abut a year of eval as a first choice, then decide from there. The main reason I'm so gung-ho about FTM 2008 and Ancestry is due to the integration of the web source databases and the PC software. The Ancestry databases are huge as well as all in one place. And, the auto-search and auto-source and media entry from the web into FTM 2008 is fantastic... as well as being a relatively new feature (at least as comprehensively as it is within the last 6 months). Imo, if starting "from scratch", or starting anew, FTM 2008 and Ancestry is a winner if you have a good internet connection and even if you only use it for six months and then go freebie.

"Kerry Raymond" <kraymond@iprimus.com.au> wrote: >> But, I'd venture to suggest that out of any 100 genealogists at least >> 51% _still_ want a program to record their conclusions so they can >> print it out. This doesn't mean that 49% is insignificant, it just >> means it's the minority. > > I agree with the sentiment. I think your statistics are overly hopeful > though :-) When I look through the GEDs that people sent me, it is > very rare indeed to find any source information (I'd put it at less > than 5%). Obviously almost everyone has boxes and filing cabinets of > letters and certificates and so forth, so they do have source material > but rarely do they enter any of it into their software program of > choice. I think there are a lot of reasons for this. > > Firstly, most people think in terms of "facts" not "evidence and > conclusions and confidence levels" -- that's simply their world view. > So they don't see the importance of sources after the "facts have been > extracted from the sources". They are not professional researchers. > > Second, even if people think it is important to record sources, it can > be mighty tedious to do so, both in terms of the volume of data to be > entered and the fact that a lot of the software out there just doesn't > make it very easy (lots of clicks to get to the right screen, weird > data models, confusing screen layouts etc). So that's another reason > sources don't get added. > > I doubt the people in this newsgroup having this conversation are > representative of the broader genealogy community. A number of people > have mentioned their "day jobs" and it sounds to me like most of us > are university-educated and quite a number of us are IT professionals > and scientists (or at least reasonably well-informed about such > topics). While we clearly have some strong views on how genealogy > should be done and how the genealogy software should be built, we > constitute some tiny proportion of the market for genealogy software. > So if most people just want to record facts and print out trees, the > software will be built to support their "world view" not ours > (sadly!). > > Kerry > > > Amen. I, for one, have decided to only support efforts to clean this mess up by making "doing the right thing" (entering and passing on sources) as easy and as accurately as possible for the largest amount of people. I applaud FTM 2008 and Ancestry.com for doing just that, and am eagerly looking to see how quickly LDS and others follow suit. Praise the computer, and pass the records. :-)

> But, I'd venture to suggest that out of any 100 genealogists at least 51% > _still_ want a program to record their conclusions so they can print it > out. This doesn't mean that 49% is insignificant, it just means it's the > minority. I agree with the sentiment. I think your statistics are overly hopeful though :-) When I look through the GEDs that people sent me, it is very rare indeed to find any source information (I'd put it at less than 5%). Obviously almost everyone has boxes and filing cabinets of letters and certificates and so forth, so they do have source material but rarely do they enter any of it into their software program of choice. I think there are a lot of reasons for this. Firstly, most people think in terms of "facts" not "evidence and conclusions and confidence levels" -- that's simply their world view. So they don't see the importance of sources after the "facts have been extracted from the sources". They are not professional researchers. Second, even if people think it is important to record sources, it can be mighty tedious to do so, both in terms of the volume of data to be entered and the fact that a lot of the software out there just doesn't make it very easy (lots of clicks to get to the right screen, weird data models, confusing screen layouts etc). So that's another reason sources don't get added. I doubt the people in this newsgroup having this conversation are representative of the broader genealogy community. A number of people have mentioned their "day jobs" and it sounds to me like most of us are university-educated and quite a number of us are IT professionals and scientists (or at least reasonably well-informed about such topics). While we clearly have some strong views on how genealogy should be done and how the genealogy software should be built, we constitute some tiny proportion of the market for genealogy software. So if most people just want to record facts and print out trees, the software will be built to support their "world view" not ours (sadly!). Kerry

Thanks a lot for your answers, I'll try it. Jim

I am using it during the last ten years and I am very pleased with it. According to me it is a complete programme. Best regards Sjaak Brunt http://members.chello.nl/jacbrunt "Jim" <jim@..com> schreef in bericht news:b93kj.34534$oy.2676974@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > I'm using a pc with Windows Vista. > Would the program 'Brother's Keeper' run on it, has anyone some experience > with it? > Thanks, > Jim > >

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:51:06 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> >> Thanks! I've been hunting Cousin Lucy!!! > You've traced your family back to Australopithicus? <G> Several submissions to the LDS Ancestral File trace my ancestry back to Adam. -- Wes Groleau ------ "The reason most women would rather have beauty than brains is they know that most men can see better than they can think." -- James Dobson

Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote: >Terry Pinnell wrote: > >snip >> >> Thanks to all for the follow-ups. I should have made the point in my >> OP that I'm starting the current project in the 20th Century. At great >> cost to my eyes, I spent most of yesterday laboriously searching >> 1935-1945 BMD register scans for my first data. For this I bit the >> bullet and plumped my first subscription on The Genealogist, >> http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk. >> > >were you using the horrible fiche? > >I find the images on >http://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/rectype/vital/freebmd/bmd.aspx easier >to read > >you can enlarge them or change the screen resolution to make things >easier still > >Hugh W Yes, I think they must have been fiche images. They appear as PDFs, so I can change size. But it's the high contrast that gets to me. And I find I'm concentrating so hard that I don't blink much. -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK

"Jim" <jim@..com> schreef in bericht news:b93kj.34534$oy.2676974@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > I'm using a pc with Windows Vista. > Would the program 'Brother's Keeper' run on it, has anyone some experience > with it? > Thanks, > Jim > No Problem, it works perfect. Daan

Terry Pinnell wrote: snip > > Thanks to all for the follow-ups. I should have made the point in my > OP that I'm starting the current project in the 20th Century. At great > cost to my eyes, I spent most of yesterday laboriously searching > 1935-1945 BMD register scans for my first data. For this I bit the > bullet and plumped my first subscription on The Genealogist, > http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk. > were you using the horrible fiche? I find the images on http://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/rectype/vital/freebmd/bmd.aspx easier to read you can enlarge them or change the screen resolution to make things easier still Hugh W

Jim Yes it will according to their website at http://www.bkwin.org/ Regards Bill ======================================================================== * This Mail was sent WITHOUT attachments* Bill Harrison's Genealogy Pages can be found online at http://www.harrisongenealogy.co.uk Also BMSGH Webmaster - URL = http://www.bmsgh.org The Staffordshire BMD can be found at http://www.staffordshirebmd.org.uk and the West Midlands BMD at http://www.westmidlandsbmd.org.uk ======================================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim" <jim@..com> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.benelux,soc.genealogy.computing To: <gencmp@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:59 PM Subject: Brother's Keeper > I'm using a pc with Windows Vista. > Would the program 'Brother's Keeper' run on it, has anyone some experience > with it? > Thanks, > Jim > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENCMP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

I'm using a pc with Windows Vista. Would the program 'Brother's Keeper' run on it, has anyone some experience with it? Thanks, Jim

In article <13p0mfhsgm1cm03@corp.supernews.com>, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:51:06 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> >declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing: > >> >> Thanks! I've been hunting Cousin Lucy!!! >> > You've traced your family back to Australopithicus? <G> Wildly different group, but a bit of fun on ancestry back to the great^100 trillion grandparents: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul02.html -- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

"Copper" <none@none.com> wrote: >The Genealogist has most of the census transcribed and you have access to >the scans of the originals. > >Findmypast has some census available but less than The Genealogist. > >I have a sub out for The Genealogist. Sadly no transcription is perfect so >when I can't find somebody on The Genealogist site, I use the Findmypast >site. I just buy units as and when I need them for Findmypast. > >Copper > Thanks. As you've probably seen from my last post, my first money has gone on The Genealogist. Wish there was some clever scanning-cum-AI software that could display successive registry pages and alert me when it finds a match for my specified text string ! -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK