On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:26:06 -0800 (PST), Bunny wrote: > My Godfather Valentins Evan Reeves (1904-1965) left England at the end > of the 2nd world war and went to and died in the USA. The was a Valet > in England. Where did he go, and what did do in the USA?. How can I > trace him? Thanks. Try soc.genealogy.britain and/or alt.genealogy. This groups is really for matters apertaining to computers such as genealogy programs (and their problems), gedcoms, etc.

Wes Groleau wrote: > singhals wrote: > >> I like the concept (I can hear people falling over in droves) of >> tracking who-said-what-and-when-did-he-say-it. However, let's bring a >> touch of realism in ... I'll even play fair and use one of my smaller >> databases as the example. > > > http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/classdoc.htm (part two) > Thanks! I've been hunting Cousin Lucy!!! Cheryl (Hi, Dick & Bob & Lesley!)

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

"CWatters" <colin.watters@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > >"Terry Pinnell" <terrypin@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message >news:p4dro31t3seo60tkp9okmq6qh99lfdtrq3@4ax.com... >> "CWatters" <colin.watters@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > > >You might be able to get quite a long way just using FreeBMD, the LDS >site >> >at http://www.familysearch.org and buying certificates. >> >> Thanks. How reliable/comprehensive is that? It seems dominated by USA >> sources? My first tests using people whose names and birth dates (in >> England) are beyond question came up with nothing. And using names >> like 'John Smith' in various arbitrary years from 1914 t0 1970 >> produced either zero or just a couple of hits! > >I haven't used it for post 1900 but I've found it very helpful for info >prior to that. They have the 1881 census on there for example. With other >records check to see if they are "Extractions from local records" or "Member >submissions". The former are more reliable. . Founds several records of my >British family in India on there. > >> >> >Your local library may well have an subscription that will give you free >> >access to www.ancestry.co.uk whe you will find census. >> >> I'd be happy to buy a subscription again for the convenience of home >> use. Is Ancestry well regarded? > >Yes Ancestry is well regarded. There are/were reports of people having >problems canceling subscriptions in the past. Not heard that for a year or >so. They quite regularly have offers and free trials and some require you to >take out a sub with a CC then cancel it if you just want the three months >free. > 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. -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK

In article <VZAjj.11359$na4.11178@trnddc05>, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > Robert Grumbine wrote: >> Wes Groleau <groleau+nntp@freeshell.org> wrote: >>> Robert Grumbine wrote: >>>> One interesting thing to me was the mention of the GENTECH >>>> Genealogical Data Model. The sad news there being that, apparently, >>>> nobody actually implements it. Or anything particularly close. >>> I saw a link yesterday to something that _claims_ to implement it. >> >> Where? And can I run it on unix/mac? > > Yesterday is now two days ago. And my memory > cannot answer you. But maybe Google can.... > ... yep, had to scroll around a lot but finally: > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/geneapro/ > But look at the date of the most recent release - GeneaPro PreAlpha 0.0.6 File Release - 12-15-2004. That would indicate to me that the project is either moribund or just flat dead after a year - # GeneaPro Project Kicks Off! 2003-12-15 -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

singhals wrote: > I like the concept (I can hear people falling over in droves) of > tracking who-said-what-and-when-did-he-say-it. However, let's bring a > touch of realism in ... I'll even play fair and use one of my smaller > databases as the example. http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/classdoc.htm (part two) -- Wes Groleau Genealogical Lookups: http://groleau.freeshell.org/ref/lookups.shtml

Robert Grumbine wrote: > Wes Groleau <groleau+nntp@freeshell.org> wrote: >> Robert Grumbine wrote: >>> One interesting thing to me was the mention of the GENTECH >>> Genealogical Data Model. The sad news there being that, apparently, >>> nobody actually implements it. Or anything particularly close. >> I saw a link yesterday to something that _claims_ to implement it. > > Where? And can I run it on unix/mac? Yesterday is now two days ago. And my memory cannot answer you. But maybe Google can.... ... yep, had to scroll around a lot but finally: http://sourceforge.net/projects/geneapro/ -- Wes Groleau He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still. -- Samuel Butler, 1612-1680

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:26:06 -0800 (PST), Bunny <bsreeves@aol.com> wrote: >My Godfather Valentins Evan Reeves (1904-1965) left England at the end >of the 2nd world war and went to and died in the USA. The was a Valet >in England. Where did he go, and what did do in the USA?. How can I >trace him? Thanks. Ellis Island? -- 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

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypin@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:p4dro31t3seo60tkp9okmq6qh99lfdtrq3@4ax.com... > "CWatters" <colin.watters@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > >You might be able to get quite a long way just using FreeBMD, the LDS site > >at http://www.familysearch.org and buying certificates. > > Thanks. How reliable/comprehensive is that? It seems dominated by USA > sources? My first tests using people whose names and birth dates (in > England) are beyond question came up with nothing. And using names > like 'John Smith' in various arbitrary years from 1914 t0 1970 > produced either zero or just a couple of hits! I haven't used it for post 1900 but I've found it very helpful for info prior to that. They have the 1881 census on there for example. With other records check to see if they are "Extractions from local records" or "Member submissions". The former are more reliable. . Founds several records of my British family in India on there. > > >Your local library may well have an subscription that will give you free > >access to www.ancestry.co.uk whe you will find census. > > I'd be happy to buy a subscription again for the convenience of home > use. Is Ancestry well regarded? Yes Ancestry is well regarded. There are/were reports of people having problems canceling subscriptions in the past. Not heard that for a year or so. They quite regularly have offers and free trials and some require you to take out a sub with a CC then cancel it if you just want the three months free.

<cross-posting deleted> In message of 16 Jan, Terry Pinnell <terrypin@dial.pipex.com> wrote: <snip> > Is Ancestry well regarded? Not by me. The last time I used them, though a year or two back, the indexing for both censuses and BMD was poor and I could not find people that were (later) found quickly on FindMyPast. My other objection to Ancestry is that they demand the right to put a direct debit on your credit card. You cannot cancel these like a direct debit on a bank account where you can tell the bank to stop paying; you have to tell Ancestry and then they _should_ stop their debiting, but it is not immediate like telling your bank. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Anne Chambers <anne@privacy.net> wrote: >Terry Pinnell wrote: >> I'm about to resume my family research after a very long break. After >> starting in Nov 2005, I subscribed to several services such as >> Ancestry, BMD, findmypast.com and 1837Online. I let these lapse in >> 2006. >> >> I appreciate that it's a partly subjective matter, but to help me >> decide which service(s) to re-join, I'd appreciate recommendations >> please. I don't suppose there's consensus on the best value, but what >> about 'the most comprehensive single service'? >> >> Is there in fact a case to be made for using entirely *free* services? >> These seemed to be coming on fast by the time my activity finished >> around Feb 2006, so perhaps there are now enough to cover all the >> censuses and other major sources? >> >> Any advice would be greatly welcomed please. >> >> >It really depends on where you left off and what you are looking for. > >Do you want access to census transcriptions and images ? In which case, >both ancestry and findmypast (formerly 1837online) have them. Findmypast >have passenger lists from the UK, ancestry have many other databases >which may/may not be useful to you. > >Do you want access to GRO indexes ? Again, ancestry or findmypast. > >Do you want to be able to do name searches on (incomplete but rapidly >increasing) transcriptions of GRO indexes ? Try FreeBMD, which won't >cost you anything. > >Try this >http://www.genuki.org.uk/gs/ >for a comprehensive overview...or Cyndi's List >http://www.cyndislist.com/uksites.htm > >Many parish registers are being transcribed and published on the >Internet - some are free, some are not. Again, it depends on what you >are looking for. > >Google might be your friend! Genuki certainly will be. Many thanks, Anne, that's very helpful. I'm using the excellent FreeBMD today, and will consider Findmypast or Ancestry. (The latter in particular seem very 'pushy' though, with frequent adverts/promotions. -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Tony H. wrote: > > > Bunny wrote: > >> My Godfather Valentins Evan Reeves (1904-1965) left England at the end >> of the 2nd world war and went to and died in the USA. The was a Valet >> in England. Where did he go, and what did do in the USA?. How can I >> trace him? Thanks. > > > > Valentin E. Reeves (b. 14 Feb 1904 in England) died 22 Dec 1967 in San > Mateo County, California. His death certificate would be a good start > to finding out more information. > > He also had a social security number beginning with the numbers 402, > which is code for Kentucky. It's a good indication that he lived there > when he applied for his social security number, but not a guarantee. One > can apply at any social security office and not necessarily where one > lives. > > Good hunting, > Tony Surprisingly, I found Valentine Reeves' obituary at NewspaperARCHIVE. San Mateo Times (newspaper), Friday, December 29, 1967, page 19 Valentine E. Reeves, 63, butler for Mrs. George Cameron, died last Friday at 815 Eucalyptus Avenue, Hillsborough, where he was employed. He was a native of London, England. His only survivor is a brother, Cyril, Lilliput Pool, Dorset, England. Funeral Services were held this afternoon from Crosby-N Gray Chapel, Burlingame, with inurnment private. ---Tony

Bunny wrote: > My Godfather Valentins Evan Reeves (1904-1965) left England at the end > of the 2nd world war and went to and died in the USA. The was a Valet > in England. Where did he go, and what did do in the USA?. How can I > trace him? Thanks. Valentin E. Reeves (b. 14 Feb 1904 in England) died 22 Dec 1967 in San Mateo County, California. His death certificate would be a good start to finding out more information. He also had a social security number beginning with the numbers 402, which is code for Kentucky. It's a good indication that he lived there when he applied for his social security number, but not a guarantee. One can apply at any social security office and not necessarily where one lives. Good hunting, Tony

My Godfather Valentins Evan Reeves (1904-1965) left England at the end of the 2nd world war and went to and died in the USA. The was a Valet in England. Where did he go, and what did do in the USA?. How can I trace him? Thanks.

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypin@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:q65qo3ha5ktjlifliiq5esoujpsqb5e9j4@4ax.com... > I'm about to resume my family research after a very long break. After > starting in Nov 2005, I subscribed to several services such as > Ancestry, BMD, findmypast.com and 1837Online. I let these lapse in > 2006. > > I appreciate that it's a partly subjective matter, but to help me > decide which service(s) to re-join, I'd appreciate recommendations > please. I don't suppose there's consensus on the best value, but what > about 'the most comprehensive single service'? > > Is there in fact a case to be made for using entirely *free* services? > These seemed to be coming on fast by the time my activity finished > around Feb 2006, so perhaps there are now enough to cover all the > censuses and other major sources? You might be able to get quite a long way just using FreeBMD, the LDS site at http://www.familysearch.org and buying certificates. Your local library may well have an subscription that will give you free access to www.ancestry.co.uk whe you will find census.

I'm about to resume my family research after a very long break. After starting in Nov 2005, I subscribed to several services such as Ancestry, BMD, findmypast.com and 1837Online. I let these lapse in 2006. I appreciate that it's a partly subjective matter, but to help me decide which service(s) to re-join, I'd appreciate recommendations please. I don't suppose there's consensus on the best value, but what about 'the most comprehensive single service'? Is there in fact a case to be made for using entirely *free* services? These seemed to be coming on fast by the time my activity finished around Feb 2006, so perhaps there are now enough to cover all the censuses and other major sources? Any advice would be greatly welcomed please. -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Scripsit Dennis Lee Bieber: >> First off -- PAF, Legacy, Reunion are all lineage-linked databases. >> You'll probably be slightly happier with one of the EVENT-linked >> databases; I know there are at least two, I remember only one name >> (The Master Genealogist). >> > Well, the "other" used to be Ultimate Family Tree (UFT) [the last > version of the ROOTS product line, I believe]; GENBOX (www.genbox.com) would be THE current alternative to TMG as a evidence-based event-driven application, but Windows-only, as usual. -- Regards Lars Erik Bryld

In article <aotpo35ev0q7o4senol8e17hu2eorp25mm@4ax.com>, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote: >Le Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:42:20 -0000, bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) >écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing: > >> One interesting thing to me was the mention of the GENTECH >>Genealogical Data Model. The sad news there being that, apparently, >>nobody actually implements it. Or anything particularly close. >> >> I come to the computing/data from a science field (oceanography) >>and one of the things which has promptly bothered me is that the >>software available (paf, legacy, reunion) seems far too aimed >>at conclusions rather than evidence, and even more poorly aimed >>at representing source information trails. >> >> The evidence trail is something particularly bothersome >>to me. From my field, let's say our original observation is that it >>was 22.2 C. Now, if that was all we had, we'd be ticked, because it >>doesn't tell us when the observation was taken, where it was, or >>how it was taken. All these metadata are important, and usually you can >>get them (with sufficient patience and phone calls, rather like >>genealogy in that, it seems). > >I am currently rewriting a reference database with a lot of people, >so I receive feedback from users but also I explore a lot of books, >articles, databases, etc. to complete my data when vital records are >not enough complete. > >When someone proposes a new link that is "logically" deduced, I >suggest to publish an article in a relevent review so that I will >put a reference to that article in my database instead of >summarizing the path of evidences. An example: > >There is a Hubert family of unknown origin. A descendant found in >one notary record a note about a daughter describing an uncle, making >the link IF there is only one person by that name. The link is >made more solid because of the migration path of this and another >family from a town to another. > >I think it is just impossible to describe this case in a sketchy >way, and to represent it otherwise than with a lot of notes (or a >reference to an article). And, you know what, GEDCOM format allows >notes... > >Whatever the format or chart you define to describe your data, you >will always get something more complex not included in your design. >This is probably why the GENTECH model can't work. I don't think I see the problem with GENTECH in that situation. Easily that I misunderstand one or both. My take is that the article should indeed be written, collecting all the messy details and noting the due cautions as to the strength of the conclusion. That's one of the reasons for scientific publication too, both to document the mess, and to provide a best current answer to the question. Once it's written, can't GENTECH let you cite that paper properly, both in terms of the source reference and in terms of connecting or establishing whichever connections or facts are needed? If not, this is a horrific lapse. >-- > 0 Denis Beauregard - > /\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - >www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ > |\ French in North America before 1722 - >www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ > / | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1770 (Version 2008) >oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1770 (2008 Release) One of these days, I'll be visiting your site for more than tourist purposes. I'm told I have French ancestors, but it appears that they came pretty far back if so. (Also, one alleged ancestor was alledgely of French extraction -- and she was revolutionary era and her claimed parents and grandparents, in the same source that said French extraction, weren't French.) In the mean time, it's been nice to visit. Please do keep up the good work. -- 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

In article <9N-dnW2F5OThdRHanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@rcn.net>, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >Robert Grumbine wrote: > >> Oh well, a new person to the field, with ideas shaped by another, >> to whine some about what's available. Nothing new there. But maybe >> my whining can provide targets (some things I complain about might >> be solved) or, as we continue, some support for doing certain things >> could develop. I could write some suitable software to implement >> certain ideas, if it looked worthwhile. >> >> I've done some back reading as I get into the subject, including >> the gedcom/xml arguments, and am not really trying to go back to those. >> >> One interesting thing to me was the mention of the GENTECH >> Genealogical Data Model. The sad news there being that, apparently, >> nobody actually implements it. Or anything particularly close. >> >> I come to the computing/data from a science field (oceanography) >> and one of the things which has promptly bothered me is that the >> software available (paf, legacy, reunion) seems far too aimed >> at conclusions rather than evidence, and even more poorly aimed >> at representing source information trails. >> >> The evidence trail is something particularly bothersome >> to me. From my field, let's say our original observation is that it >> was 22.2 C. Now, if that was all we had, we'd be ticked, because it >> doesn't tell us when the observation was taken, where it was, or >> how it was taken. All these metadata are important, and usually you can >> get them (with sufficient patience and phone calls, rather like >> genealogy in that, it seems). >> >> But that is only the proverbial tip of the ice berg. Because >> that 22.2 C observation (with rest of support) is almost certainly not >> exactly the number we're going to use for analyzing the air-sea >> heat flux, or sea surface temperature, or whatever it is we're doing. >> The thing is, each observing method has biases. We know this, so >> adjust for them as relevant to our problem at hand. The problem that >> we _could_ run in to is that the 22.2 we now see is not the actual >> original observation. Someone could already have made the adjustment >> for intake temperature bias. How we avoid this is that the data >> (are supposed to be) are given histories. The original observation >> (and its metadata) are augmented by a new value and _its_ metadata >> (22.4 C after George applied John Doe's intake temperature bias >> correction, say), and this additional information then follows along. >> I could decide that John Doe's correction method is not the best, >> and instead apply, myself, Mary Roe's -- to the original 22.2, now >> that I know the 22.4 was after somebody else applied a correction I >> don't like to arrive at it. Not clear to me yet (I've been doing >> some light reading of the data model document, but not carefully >> nor complete) whether the GENTECH supports this sort of consideration. >> >> A different problem is that the typical software treatment seems >> to be that it has little or no ability to track exactly what the >> evidence and sources are. For instance, it seems that if I import a >> file from someone and they cite a census record, I have my choice of >> ignoring that _my_ source was Jane Genealogist, not the orignal record, >> and preserve the census citation, or I can _add_ Jane as a source. >> Now this is a problem, in my mind. When I look later, it will show >> two sources -- the census, and Jane. But my real state of knowledge >> is only that Jane _said_ the census had some information. This isn't >> two independant sources, it's 1 source, 1 step removed from the >> primary document. (Please, no jumping on that usage, I realize that >> there's a trade meaning to the term 'primary document', and census >> isn't an example.) What I want the software to do is, when I import >> a file that has citations, mark that my source is Jane, and her >> sources were ... whatever she said. If I'm making a 20th generation >> copy/import (of a copy of a copy ...), then the software should show >> the prior 19 importers as well as the original person who looked at >> a document. GENTECH seems to support this concern of mine, but >> with no implementation thereof, I'm still sol. > > >First off -- PAF, Legacy, Reunion are all lineage-linked >databases. You'll probably be slightly happier with one of >the EVENT-linked databases; I know there are at least two, I >remember only one name (The Master Genealogist). Thanks. I'll look for that one. Do mention the other if the name comes to you. >Second, when those older programs were being written, a >permanent way to record conclusions is what was wanted. NO >ONE wanted to have to keep handwriting copies for the family >if the computer would print it out for you. TMG came along >later, when computer genealogy wasn't quite as insular as it >had been. 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. > >Now. And probably for at least a while yet. Although plenty of people _could_ set up a proper meteorological enclosure, most people are happy with the official recording station's numbers, or even somebody else's far less than proper stations and their reported figures. This is one reason the gedcom argument(s) struck me as misdirected. It does do a job more or less well -- this one here of representing conclusions. Once I've gotten to some conclusions, there's definitely a big plus to having something that makes up nice pictures of them and would let me pass them on to other people. I also consider it a plus that the gedcom is a plain text format. Give or take some nuisance, you're at least not _worse_ off than having a stack of paper -- just make a text print of the gedcom file itself. (Sure, many pages would be involved. But paper doesn't go technologically obsolete as the usual computer storage media.) >I like the concept (I can hear people falling over in >droves) of tracking who-said-what-and-when-did-he-say-it. >However, let's bring a touch of realism in ... I'll even >play fair and use one of my smaller databases as the example. Actually, data base size is another of my 'issues'. The software (I've seen) seems to have been aimed at being a step up from index cards. It succeeds, but aimed at index card-scale problems. I'd like something that was designed thinking that I might want to work with my last 20 generations of ancestry. (Not that I believe I could actually get them all!) Or, maybe, the last few generations of everybody in a town of 20,000. (And such is probably already happening for some biological research.) >Database L has 2000 names; each name has one source per >datapoint (i.e., a source for the name, for the parent >relationship, for the bd, for the bp, for the spouse, for >the md, for the mp, for the dd, for the dp), which is 10 >sources per name, potentially 20,000 source entries. By >the time that data is re-tagged with each of 20 iterations, >it is going to be unmanageable. The more supporting >documentation (i.e., complete extracts of books, images of >documents, etc etc) you include, the faster it will become >unmanageable. > >I tried doing it manually for one project, but it palled >very quickly. > >I still like the idea of knowing where you got it, but I'm >unconvinced it is worth the programmer's effort or the >user's effort of maintaining the chain-of-evidence. This is one that programmers _can_ deal with easily. At least I can envision a solution, and I only play at being a programmer. (But hard enough that casual observers might not notice that I'm not one.) I'd hate to have to deal with this kind of thing manually. Agreed. That's why we invented computers. I think, for instance, if you're going to take the time to carefully examine and cite 20,000 sources, that your work in doing so should be acknowledged by all later users. As it stands, it's actually hard to do so. There's no reason for this. A program can easily say 'I got this from person A' for each of the 20,000 sources. Doing so in the worst possible way would add only order of 500 kb. (n.b. In my day job I work with data sets in the gigabyte to terabyte range.) I was more thinking the other side, though. If I, as a would-be data importer, see that my currently-attempted source is 20 steps removed from the one who looked at the original document or first made conclusion, I (finally) have the option of tracking down the original person and asking if they still believe what was referenced. As notions of handwriting change (one relative's name was transcribed as Lyda in an online source, but a glance at the image made it obvious, to me, that it was Lydia -- once I got there to see it), we'll revise our conclusions, for instance. The person citing the edition of my conclusions that was made 20 years ago, well, they're behind the times. But at least they can know this upfront, without even writing me. It seems that the standard response in geneaology is 'you should always verify everything yourself'. As an ideal, whether we're talking my day job or geneaology, this might have some merit. But, part of what has made science successful is that we _can_ use (with due citation :-) others' work. I don't have to re-develop all of science before putting some degree of trust in a thermometer reading. How much trust ... depends on what kind of thermometer, and what kind of conclusion I'm trying to draw. So it goes for my thinking regarding geneaology. Almost certainly at some point in the past 200 years some sizeable chunks of my family's tree have been documented fairly well, by somebody, somewhere, somewhen. If I could start with that, well, that's a big help. Not that I'm going to take it as gospel. Some parts of that rendition will be incorrect, for any of many reasons. But, as with the thermometers, some parts of it, I also don't care as much about. My 6th cousin 5 times removed, if that's wrong, I won't lose sleep over it. But I _would_ like the source properly labelled and transmitted so that if somebody ever finds out that my source was wrong, they could tell me of this. (Not that I expect everybody would, or even many, possibly not at all. But I'd like it to be possible, and the audit trail supported by the software by default.) The ones I'm most concerned about are my direct lines (though I've started noting interesting aunts and uncles along the way). _If_ sources could be shared better, then when I nail down who Leonhart Krumbein's parents were (Leonhart being the origin for my name, to the colonies in 1754) then Leonhart Am Weg's descendants (he's two generations further back for me) who aren't Krumbeins could suitably update this part of their tree. Not a prime concern, but it's nice to keep things correct. Can't say you're wrong, as I don't have standing for that. But I'll explain my notions and let you try (it's possible, if perhaps not easy :-) to persuade me that I'm looking at things the wrong way. Better to figure out now, and what the better way is, before I develop a major data set that turns out to be constructed in a way that would make sense if they were oceanographic observations, but not for geneaology. -- 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

America's Darkest Secret ! Pass it on: This web page has been Terminated off the net more then 12 times ! http://www.iwebtool.com/shortcut/20608 PASS IT ON ! IT'S REAL WORLD ! We Must Resist Tyranny ! ENDGAME VID: http://www.iwebtool.com/shortcut/21812