singhals wrote: > I know some of you are using GPS units to locate graves, cemeteries, old > homesteads, and the like. > > I'd like one to use for exactly those purposes. > > Which models in which brands will allow me to retrieve lat/lon a week > after I mark the spot? Not all of 'em do, apparently. > > > > Cheryl My Garmin Etrex does, but, if you want a full answer I'd suggest posting to : alt.satellite.gps A very knowledgeable group which, unlike many technical groups, does not eat Newbies alive!

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:fjrm54$2en$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu... > Bob Velke wrote: > > Doug said: > > > >> Will FTM and TMG agree to change their basic workings so they are the > >> same? > > > > If they did, what would be the point in having two of them? Both > > programs are successful because their features cater to researchers who > > have different needs and standards for genealogical data. GEDCOM > > likewise has its own agenda which is why it does such a poor job of > > accommodating the universe of genealogy programs. > > > >> In genealogy there really is only one single absolute given, at least, > >> if one attributes the meaning of "is" to mean > >> "born before DNA technology on people". That is, a given person, going > >> back in time, has a binary > >> tree of ancestors, exactly two per generation, with possible coelescence. > > > > That is certainly the foundation of PAF and other programs that were > > designed 20 years ago. > > > > More modern programs are slowing coming around to the realization that > > genealogy is not about recording facts. I for myself is only recording facts. For that the current programs are sufficient. As I am a Swede, I have the church books for births, weddings and deaths as primary sources. They were written at the time of the event. When there is no church books, I stop. That makes it possible for me to get to around 1650 for some lines, but mostly to around 1700. I leave the going back 6-700 years to the novelists. Not to mention the crackpots who have the ancestors Adam and Eve. Kurt F > Genealogy is about recording parentage. It tells who begat whom. > That is the core. Nothing can change this, it is the absolute > basis. > > > > It is about recording and > > evaluating _evidence_. And evidence doesn't play by such neat and tidy > > rules. > > > > > > Recording evidence is secondary. And yes, it does not play by > neat rules. Therein lies the problem. There is really only > one ultimate solution: a "person" has properties. These > are described in an unstructured text file. At any point in one of these, > a reference to another point in any other file can be inserted. This > other file can be a file of a person, or just a "floater". There exist > two "key words", equivalent to "this references points to a parent > of this person" or "this reference points to a child of this person", > that apply to the links. These two words are modified by a > binary flag that says "official link for official tree" or "this > link is qualified in some way, see text". The "text" could be > right there in the that file, or could reference an external file. > > This will always work. However, it's a bit unstructured for most > tastes. And, because of this, the commercial (or freeware) wars > begin and will never end :-) > > Doug McDonald >

Scripsit Doug McDonald: > Genealogy is about recording parentage. It tells who begat whom. > That is the core. Nothing can change this, it is the absolute > basis. Unless you possess godly omniscience, it's absurd to claim you can possibly just record "parentage". How on earth would you know? >> It is about recording and evaluating _evidence_. And evidence >> doesn't play by such neat and tidy rules. > > Recording evidence is secondary. Evidence is what you can record, because it's all you have. How you analyse said evidence and what you conclude when weighting the strength of your information, that you can secondarily record as probable, possible, or perhaps almost definite parentage - all with proper humility towards the fact, that neither you nor your personal instruments were ever marginally close to any given ovum at the time and place of conception. -- Regards Lars Erik Bryld

"Bob Velke" <bvelke@whollygenes.com> wrote in message news:mailman.667.1197558601.4586.gencmp@rootsweb.com... > Doug said: > >>Will FTM and TMG agree to change their basic workings so they are the >>same? > > If they did, what would be the point in having two of them? Both programs > are successful because their features cater to researchers who have > different needs and standards for genealogical data. GEDCOM likewise has > its own agenda which is why it does such a poor job of accommodating the > universe of genealogy programs. > >>In genealogy there really is only one single absolute given, at least, if >>one attributes the meaning of "is" to mean >>"born before DNA technology on people". That is, a given person, going >>back in time, has a binary >>tree of ancestors, exactly two per generation, with possible coelescence. > > That is certainly the foundation of PAF and other programs that were > designed 20 years ago. > > More modern programs are slowing coming around to the realization that > genealogy is not about recording facts. It is about recording and > evaluating _evidence_. And evidence doesn't play by such neat and tidy > rules. > > Bob Velke > Wholly Genes Software Very well said Bob. And, JD, a nice clear explanation. I have a question. Is Evidence an attribute of Facts? This movement for an XML version of GEDCOM has been going on for years. It is too bad that some organization or coalition doesn't or can't come to an agreement on a specification. Yes, it will take some training and programming for every genealogy software vendor's to write new code. But, it seems to me that it is only a short run problem that should pay off in the long run. Gordo

In message of 13 Dec, Bob Velke <bvelke@whollygenes.com> wrote: <snip> > More modern programs are slowing coming around to the realization > that genealogy is not about recording facts. It is about recording > and evaluating _evidence_. And evidence doesn't play by such neat > and tidy rules. At least this was well understood by researchers of over a hundred years ago. I have recently been reading some articles where some researchers, each in their own study, were attempting to make sense of the slender evidence that has survived in the seven or more hundred years since the relevant people lived. Their conclusions were inevitably hesitant and with reservations. They usually ended their articles with a family tree of sorts, summarising their reasonings. But instead of solid lines to denote relationships, they had dotted ones to indicate those for which the evidence was not categoric. Perhaps one could have dots of different densities to denote different strengths of argument? Is this a direction that modern programs could usefully move to? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

I know some of you are using GPS units to locate graves, cemeteries, old homesteads, and the like. I'd like one to use for exactly those purposes. Which models in which brands will allow me to retrieve lat/lon a week after I mark the spot? Not all of 'em do, apparently. Cheryl

Kurt said: >I for myself is only recording facts. For that the current programs >are sufficient. >As I am a Swede, I have the church books for births, weddings and >deaths as primary sources. They were written at the time of the event. So that makes them facts? I'm glad that you have found a genealogy program which apparently thinks of genealogy data the same way you do. Bob Velke Wholly Genes Software -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1182 - Release Date: 12/12/2007 11:29 AM

Doug said: > > More modern programs are slowing coming around to the realization that > > genealogy is not about recording facts. > >Genealogy is about recording parentage. It tells who begat whom. >That is the core. Nothing can change this, it is the absolute >basis. You may be using different kinds of sources but the ones I consult rarely contain parentage. They contain evidence of parentage. >Recording evidence is secondary. We'll just have to agree to disagree -- and in so doing you have the answer to your question about whether any two programs are likely to sacrifice their standards in order to accommodate each other. Bob Velke Wholly Genes Software -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1182 - Release Date: 12/12/2007 11:29 AM

Bob Velke wrote: > Doug said: > >> Will FTM and TMG agree to change their basic workings so they are the >> same? > > If they did, what would be the point in having two of them? Both > programs are successful because their features cater to researchers who > have different needs and standards for genealogical data. GEDCOM > likewise has its own agenda which is why it does such a poor job of > accommodating the universe of genealogy programs. > >> In genealogy there really is only one single absolute given, at least, >> if one attributes the meaning of "is" to mean >> "born before DNA technology on people". That is, a given person, going >> back in time, has a binary >> tree of ancestors, exactly two per generation, with possible coelescence. > > That is certainly the foundation of PAF and other programs that were > designed 20 years ago. > > More modern programs are slowing coming around to the realization that > genealogy is not about recording facts. Genealogy is about recording parentage. It tells who begat whom. That is the core. Nothing can change this, it is the absolute basis. > It is about recording and > evaluating _evidence_. And evidence doesn't play by such neat and tidy > rules. > > Recording evidence is secondary. And yes, it does not play by neat rules. Therein lies the problem. There is really only one ultimate solution: a "person" has properties. These are described in an unstructured text file. At any point in one of these, a reference to another point in any other file can be inserted. This other file can be a file of a person, or just a "floater". There exist two "key words", equivalent to "this references points to a parent of this person" or "this reference points to a child of this person", that apply to the links. These two words are modified by a binary flag that says "official link for official tree" or "this link is qualified in some way, see text". The "text" could be right there in the that file, or could reference an external file. This will always work. However, it's a bit unstructured for most tastes. And, because of this, the commercial (or freeware) wars begin and will never end :-) Doug McDonald

Doug said: >Will FTM and TMG agree to change their basic workings so they are the same? If they did, what would be the point in having two of them? Both programs are successful because their features cater to researchers who have different needs and standards for genealogical data. GEDCOM likewise has its own agenda which is why it does such a poor job of accommodating the universe of genealogy programs. >In genealogy there really is only one single absolute given, at >least, if one attributes the meaning of "is" to mean >"born before DNA technology on people". That is, a given person, >going back in time, has a binary >tree of ancestors, exactly two per generation, with possible coelescence. That is certainly the foundation of PAF and other programs that were designed 20 years ago. More modern programs are slowing coming around to the realization that genealogy is not about recording facts. It is about recording and evaluating _evidence_. And evidence doesn't play by such neat and tidy rules. Bob Velke Wholly Genes Software -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1182 - Release Date: 12/12/2007 11:29 AM

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: XML is like ISO 9000/9001: it it form without meaning or purpose. It is basically meaningless. It is in the same category as "proofs" that a computer program is "correct" ... based on some "requirement" that itself could be buggy as can be. What matters is not the form but the meaning. And I seriously doubt that the genealogy community will agree to one straitjacket format for meaning, that is, structure. Will FTM and TMG agree to change their basic workings so they are the same? That will be necessary of they are to share data in an exact perfect match manner. In genealogy there really is only one single absolute given, at least, if one attributes the meaning of "is" to mean "born before DNA technology on people". That is, a given person, going back in time, has a binary tree of ancestors, exactly two per generation, with possible coelescence. (Now, these days, of course, a person can have two mothers: the autosomal/X mother and the mitochondrial mother .. and this doesn't fit with that model!). Beyond that some programs may tie things to "events" or "extra types of so-called 'parents'", etc. and they are just not going to agree on how. The whole idea of portability of dats is impossible. Doug McDonald

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in news:jGBMi.1175$P06.1062@trnddc05: > Tony Proctor wrote: >> As a contrived illustration, consider some free-form notes that >> wanted to reference a person's name, address during a particular >> year, and the date they moved there: >> >> <Person("Anthony Proctor")> lives in <Person("Tony >> Proctor").Address("2007-10-01").Country> and moved there in >> <Event("ProctorMove").Year> >> >> All this sample serves to show is the generality of the use of a >> mark-up language, and how those tags can generate both display text >> (for reading) and a hyperlink to the associated in-memory object, or >> to other references to it. What you see on the screen might be >> simply: >> >> Tony Proctor lives in Ireland and moved there in 2002 > > I and many others have thought about ways to tag words and phrases > in free-form text with XML tags and attributes to carry the linking > information. But as far as I know, none of us have ever actually > produced a working implementation. > Hi all. A quick background- I spent my life in the automotive industry, as a tech as well as a technical training editor. My last 5 years were spent trying to understand & use XML as it related to getting technical info in this format and then publishing training course materials. I see a lot of discussion about XML here, and wanted to share my thoughts about it. I see XML as a complex subject, but usually misunderstood. I don't claim to understand it completely myself, but what I have learned gives me a LOT of respect for how brilliant it is in it's concept... simplicity and flexibility. The discussions I see here are similar to industry experience of having to adopt XML when dealing with U.S. government processes & regulations that require it. What it forces (in a nutshell) is one to think about what information they deal with, from whom, and what they want to finally use it for. It forces organization & categorization that isn't restrained by any one use. It does it by the standardization of a)the raw data format (ASCII text and use of "tags" <> and </> ) and b)a structure that requires the definition of it's elements be shared (by a schema, or document definition... the "rules"). I think that the key to using XML is to make sure that ALL of the data can be "tagged" with at least enough structure that nothing can be "lost" (unless someone wants to loose it!). What everyone struggles with is their own "subset" of tag requirements, but usually there is enough agreement among everyone about a core set of tags that everything will fit into. That's where the beauty of XML and schemas come into play.. anyone can define their own "tags" and even share them as long as they share their "schema". You either use their schema, or you produce a subset that at least conforms to the basic set of tags. In order to use data that is only broadly defined & tagged, you need to then create your own schema, based on your well thought out & DEFINED criteria. XML authoring, presentation and storage software is designed to "force" your rules on the data set while keeping the core tags and/or ensuring that your data can be "remapped" back into the core set without loss. What's being discussed are actually several "fine points", all of which are a bit irrelevant to XML itself (ahh.. the beauty again!). Some are discussing XML as a transport (which it can be called), some as a storage method (which it can be), some as a language (which it can also be), some as an organization structure (yup, that too). But really what it IS, is meta-data.. literally data about data. Labels and attributes. A system to attach labels and attributes to data, at their simplest as well as most complex levels of use. If you don't categorize and use data like I do, then at least we can share it if we both agree on it's most basic & common meaning. Obviously if I spend time in refining my data in great details, and you think it's just swell that way and saves you a lot of effort, then I've already tagged it for you to use right out of the box. If not, you can just use the data with my more broadly defined tags. You can even "remap" my tags with your own schema and rules. XML at LEAST provides a structure for sharing & understanding how someone's data is organized, and allows for sharing it without loss or regard to how someone else wants to use it. Hee, hee.. the RULES. THAT's the hard part. XML is the easy, logical part. (I think XML may be the key to the universe if we can only understand it, rather than just use it) :-)

WIKIPEDIA vs "The Good Old Days" and Use of encyclopedias as a source Please note: The Genealogical Proof Standard http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/standard.html "Acceptable conclusions, therefore, meet the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS). The GPS consists of five elements:" FIRST LISTED: "a reasonably exhaustive search" A reasonably exhaustive search must now include WIKIPEDIA, because: (1) According to Alexa, it is Global #8 http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500 (2) Wikipedia Trend History is up http://www.google.com/trends?q=wikipedia&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 (3) For the United States alone, 12/10/07 - Nielsen Online Reports Topline U.S. Data for November 2007 http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_071210.pdf Wikipedia had a Unique Audience of 49,617,000, with average time per person 17 minutes 17 seconds. (4) Articles cited from the Internet must be credible, reliable and current. Key word: "current", makes Wikipedia indispensable. It is the responsibilty of the professional researcher to make proper "analysis and correlation of the collected information" and "bring to resolution" "any conflicting evidence". Cyndi's List.com is hurting bad, according to the recent information she sent out to her readers. RootsWeb.com is subject to the powers that be, changing all the time. On the other hand, there is Wikipedia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy Wikibooks, at: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Genealogy Wikibooks is as "naked as a jaybird". http://www.answers.com/topic/naked-as-a-jaybird?nr=1&lsc=true Wiki, in its various forms, allows the genealogist and family historian to potentially create for free, an independent niche in the world, outside of being "the glove in the hand of the historian", as an auxiliary science thereto; with added access to a worldwide audience. We serve only those with whom we can actively communicate. If other current resources fail, what is next? ANSWER: Wikipedia (obviously); the hand that can honor the profession. I am not interested in nitpicking. Evaluate the Internet, re: professional genealogy, as a whole. I repeat: There appears a clear usage trend, indicating Wikipedia will over time, become central to higher education curriculum and teaching methods, in all language formats, worldwide. As an example of research potential, note: Surnames & Names http://academic-genealogy.com/archives.htm#Surnames Look For: SURNAME GENEALOGY SEARCH: . . . note: * Wikipedia(R) - Category: Surnames A to Z Sample: Mills (surname) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills_%28surname%29 English plurals http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mills mill - Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mill >From the List of most common surnames, I might find it of value, if family records indicated Hispanic connections, that: " Molina - 99,000 (0.25%) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molina (Mill, place with mills; toponymic) Elizabeth (Given Name) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth And of course, the research tool: Wikipedia articles: All pages beginning with Elizabeth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/Elizabeth Let us try that with "genealogy" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Genealogy&namespace=0 Let us try that with "Mills" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=mills&namespace=0 Quite powerful if you are looking for a place and don't know the full location or setting. Perhaps the real problem is the fact that so many individuals on this list are biased, to the point that they have really not taken the time to find out what is available and how it can be used effectively. It would be wonderful to see some group take on the Wikipedia "elephant" and provide a state of the art, excellent serial article in "x" Journal(s). This could provide the future framework of integration into the submission process, bringing together societies and organizations, as well as individual professionals, for meaningful lasting contributions. With proper ongoing over site, the information will remain credible over time, from generation to generation. OBSERVATIONS ON CREDIBILITY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility . . . (a) perceptions of credibility differ across web site "genres": news organization web sites are rated highest in terms of message, sponsor, and overall site credibility, and personal web sites lowest; . . . http://www.credibility.ucsb.edu/past_research.php This observation weighs heavily against the family history profession having online credibility, and should be a first area of change. . . . [Second, traditional notions of credibility as coming from a centralized authority (e.g., a teacher, expert, or author) and individualized appraisal processes are challenged by digital technologies. Electronic networks make it easier to rely on the collective to assess information. Credibility assessments as constructed through collective or community efforts (e.g., wikis, text messaging via cell phones, or social networking applications) emerge as a major theme in recent discussions, and phrases like "distributed" and "decentralized" credibility, the "democratization of information," and "collectively versus institutionally-derived credibility" are common. At core is the belief that digital media allow for the uncoupling of credibility and authority in a way never before possible. . . .] Please evaluate the real world, and stop attacking the information messenger. Respectfully yours, Tom Tinney, Sr. Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004 Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions] Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory http://www.academic-genealogy.com/

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:19:25 GMT, David Harper <devnull@obliquity.u-net.com> wrote: >vctinney@sbcglobal.net wrote: >> WIKIPEDIA is now politically correct to use as a reference resource >> http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/12/07/can-you-trust-wikipedia/ > >It is perhaps appropriate to point out that wikimedia.org belongs to the >Wikimedia Foundation, which is the parent organisation of Wikipedia, and >therefore has an interest in promoting the use of Wikipedia. > >Wikipedia is like the curate's egg: good in parts. I use it myself >occasionally, but I don't regard it as an authoritative source, and when >I'm seeking information in a professional capacity, I always seek >independent confirmation of anything I read at Wikipedia. > >David Harper >Cambridge, England It's also useful, under your limitations, for those of us who refuse to be politically correct. Hugh

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 06:15:55 -0800 (PST), "vctinney@sbcglobal.net" <vctinney@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >WIKIPEDIA is now politically correct to use as a reference resource >http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/12/07/can-you-trust-wikipedia/ > >8th December 2007, ResearchBuzz notes: >"OCLC Hooks Up With Wikipedia" >. . . " search over a billion items in >over 10,000 libraries around the world." >http://www.academic-genealogy.com/melvyluniversityofcaliforniagenealogyfamilyhistory.htm#research >" Now the xISBN service has been hooked up >with Wikipedia! That means you can enter a URL >and have xISBN generate a list of related URLs, >and then check those URLs against the ISBNs >on Wikipedia." >http://www.researchbuzz.org/wp/2007/12/08/oclc-hooks-up-with-wikipedia/ In what way is it politically correct? Which political bosses do you think it will please? And don't multi-post - it marks you as a spammer. -- Steve Hayes E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work) Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/

vctinney@sbcglobal.net wrote: > WIKIPEDIA is now politically correct to use as a reference resource > http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/12/07/can-you-trust-wikipedia/ It is perhaps appropriate to point out that wikimedia.org belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the parent organisation of Wikipedia, and therefore has an interest in promoting the use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is like the curate's egg: good in parts. I use it myself occasionally, but I don't regard it as an authoritative source, and when I'm seeking information in a professional capacity, I always seek independent confirmation of anything I read at Wikipedia. David Harper Cambridge, England

Gerry wrote: > I have read many of the opinions expressed here about this product. > > I am now getting a lot of offers for FTM 2008 to which they have 'made > improvements'. > Anyone get the new improved model yet. > How do you rate it? > > Thanks > > Gerry > > Look at http://boards.rootsweb.com/topics.software.famtreemaker/3869/mb.ashx This comment is maybe 2 weeks old... Paul

WIKIPEDIA is now politically correct to use as a reference resource http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/12/07/can-you-trust-wikipedia/ 8th December 2007, ResearchBuzz notes: "OCLC Hooks Up With Wikipedia" . . . " search over a billion items in over 10,000 libraries around the world." http://www.academic-genealogy.com/melvyluniversityofcaliforniagenealogyfamilyhistory.htm#research " Now the xISBN service has been hooked up with Wikipedia! That means you can enter a URL and have xISBN generate a list of related URLs, and then check those URLs against the ISBNs on Wikipedia." http://www.researchbuzz.org/wp/2007/12/08/oclc-hooks-up-with-wikipedia/ November 2007, Amazon Kindle, an electronic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Kindle book (e-book) service is launched in the United States by Amazon.com. The Official Kindle product page notes: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FI73MA/ " Includes free wireless access to the planet's most exhaustive and up-to-date encyclopedia-- Wikipedia.org." November 27, 2007, Inside Higher Education News adds, under . . . New Ways to Collaborate . . . "How does the university develop its academic enterprise?" . . . "And now that both Microsoft and Google offer tools that allow students to publish their work -- and edit it, in real time, with others -- the adoption of these Web services presents an opportunity for universities to evolve their approaches in the classroom as well" . . . such as "posting term papers on Wikipedia to be peer-edited by classmates" . . . http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/11/27/email October 29, 2007, Inside Higher Education News suggests: "The shift to thinking about placing the term paper as a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry allows for another level of peer review," . . . http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/29/wikipedia August 27, 2007, the Taipei Times noted: Academics debate Wikipedia's value . . . . . . "For S.T. Huang . . . , associate professor of the National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, the online encyclopedia, with its use of the open-source software "Wiki," can be used to preserve "disappearing local knowledge." Huang and some local activists in southern Taiwan have been dedicated to the task of accumulating local knowledge for more than 10 years. He said that Wikipedia will help the team establish a local knowledge database for Taiwan that can be accessed by people all over the world." http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/08/14/2003374123 Earlier reference: A Case Study on the Veracity of the "Wiki" concept . . . http://www.journalism.org/node/1676 MULTI-SOURCE REFERENCE using WIKIPEDIA: Regional Genealogy and Local History Research: Local History and Genealogy Portals to the World. http://www.academic-genealogy.com/regionalgenealogy.htm Regional genealogy and local history research includes: areas, countries, directories, ethnic group populations, organizations, local ancestry and local history studies. Respectfully yours, Tom Tinney, Sr. Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004 Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions] Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ Professional worldwide humanities and social sciences mega portal, connected directly to thousands of related sub-sets, with billions of primary or secondary database family history and genealogy records. It encompasses all other key worldwide genealogy and surname sites.

Paul Blair wrote: > Gerry wrote: > >> I have read many of the opinions expressed here about this product. >> >> I am now getting a lot of offers for FTM 2008 to which they have 'made >> improvements'. >> Anyone get the new improved model yet. >> How do you rate it? >> >> Thanks >> >> Gerry >> > > Look at > http://boards.rootsweb.com/topics.software.famtreemaker/3869/mb.ashx > > This comment is maybe 2 weeks old... better in flat view http://boards.rootsweb.com/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=3869&p=topics.software.famtreemaker Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Gerry wrote: > I have read many of the opinions expressed here about this product. > > I am now getting a lot of offers for FTM 2008 to which they have 'made > improvements'. > Anyone get the new improved model yet. yes > How do you rate it? wait and see FTM 16 is easier to use for me you can enter data fom the keyboard without using the mouse just like a spreadsheet a better GUI I have put a blog together with screen shots http://mac-on-intel.blogspot.com/2007/12/family-tree-maker-comparing-16-and-2008.html FTM 2008 has more features like geocoding to a modern map unfortunately I use original place names and adminstrative details - - historical counties from the census for example great for newbies with small trees two "NO-NO"s 1) never merge more than two individuals or import and add a new database with more than one common individual 2) never imbed images in FTM16 or FTM 2008 main file store them in a safe place back them up out of house If you need images for a book or tree - then to make an illustrated book or tree first export a file and work with copies of the file and the images The major advantage of working in FTM 16 is easier data entry filling up a Family View can be done as easily as using a spread sheet all from the kyboard Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG