As there seem to be some serious data-collectors on this list, I'd like to pick your brains. What programs do you use, and why? I'm finding out Family TreeMaker's limitations for such ancestors as my Colden Williams. I've collected a lot of data which I'm now just storing in word processing documents because the amount of information goes well beyond FTM's "More about facts" and "Notes" sections. To access related facts quickly and make reports, I'm stuck with whatever I can put together with FTM. And my FTM database has gotten so large that it is really starting to bog down whenever I want to do some of the reports it is supposed to be able to generate. I've had to break down my database into sections so that I don't have much more than 10,000 individuals per file. Now I'm thinking I should break them down further into files with no more than 5,000 individuals. All together, I probably have more than 25,000 individuals among my various files. Some individuals have the bare facts; others have deeds, wills, estate records, census records, biographies, pictures, and more. I'm wondering if I should be using some other kind of database program. I want to be able to start seeing the migration patterns, timelines, religions, etc., more easily. I've heard of some standard database programs, and some specialized ones like Clooz. I've been told also I should switch to something like Master Genealogist. I've been with Family TreeMaker for the five years I've been doing this, and I haven't worked with a basic database program before. Recommendations?? Elizabeth

We may have talked before Elizabeth, but I use The Master Genealogist and find it does everything I want it to and maybe some more. You can either keep in it the information you find or I think it would be better to use another program and put in only what applies to that person. I have mine broken down into 6 different files - but that is because I had originally started in 1985 with different familly files and did not put them together. TMG has a new version out now which I have not yet gotten. It just was released within the past couple of months. You can check out on their website whollygenes.com where you can get a sample database to practice with if you feel like it. I don't have as many as some people, but my Dougherty database has over 4,000 people in it interconnected. I have not yet found any limitations in the notes field, the "memo" field or any other fields. I have some complete wills or obituaries attached to the people. It does have a learning curve, however. But they have good documentation and a helpful website/email site. I also work with the Mormon Church and many, many use their Personal Ancestry File. I have not done any looking at it since several years ago. One problem it had for me then was you could not enter unrelated people. I have occasionally entered famillies whom I have not connected to my main group, but maybe I have a family one or two generations whom I believe will connect. I also use my TMG for research I have done for some friends. TMG permits connects or not. But PAF is supported by the Mormons who are the world's last word in genealogy. As far as Clooz - I use it and just recently got it. It is now based on Access and uses some of the same key strokes (Control-" for copying last field or Control-Z for going back to the original field information if you have not left the field or Control-F2 for editing not replacing a field). I have not used it enough to give a full report, but it is helping me organize my data. I do not use it completely as the writer intended. For instance, I do not use it for my census research. First her set up and reports do not lend themselves to my thinking. Secondly, I have been organizing my census data in other data base programs since 1986(first in PC-File and then when I changed to Windows in Access) and have spent time learning the program and writing my reports. I can now organize on surname, year, location, first name, family or any combination of above. Again, with Clooz you need another program for your files. Clooz gives you reference numbers you can make up. Her suggestions - and this is how her mind thinks - is to put all of one type of record together. Example: All marriage information together, then given numbers like: MAR 0001, MAR 0002, MAR 0003 regardless of who is in it or where it is. (I am going along with this. It seems to work for me, but I have not yet gotten my data moved over. I plan (oh, in the far, far, distant future) to put all my documents scanned into my computer and then I can pull them up and read them without going through my several notebooks. This is for the originals. For notations, I am trying to figure out what to do.) You have to use it with Clooz to find who you have. But they work together. You can then in a word processing program (if you want) or just in your files keep the full document. In Clooz you have either the full information or a precis of it, depending on your preference. I am not comfortable with the reports, yet, but that will come in time I think. I also do not like that you cannot have secondary names for the people in Clooz - you have to remember who they all are, have another reference, or use Clooz with your database genealogy program. What I mean is, you know how many of our people are named John Thomas Somebody but go under the name or Tommy or Skip. Or the woman whom you find in records as Hildegard Frump is really Angeline Casanova. I had my data (on computer) many years ago just typed in in ASCII and then had a program which would sort for up to ten strings but that became lost when I upgraded to Windows. It was DOS based. Would work okay with 3.1 but died on the vine with Windows 95. I have not yet decided fully what to do. I am alternating between using just Word or using Word tables. This is for data which I might someday use but have no idea now what. I could put it into Clooz, but I don't want to because some is just lists I have made say of marriages in a location of the correct surname or tax lists of all the neighbors. Access has a limitation on size even with the super field. And I have not figured out a good way to use it. I had a couple of years before spent some time trying to find a good database program to buy and use - and everyone told me that Access was the be-all and end-all. It is good but has limitations for MY use. You may want to try Clooz first and see how it works for you and your mind. What you do - You have a document, and this can be anything from a full will to a notation of a cemetery record. Give it a number - I use as an example MQWCEM 001 01 which I have found is 3 digits too long to be easily read in the preview window; this is from my MO Cemeteries book, page 1, first sequential record on the page. If it says for example (and I am making this up, not using a real one) "Dougherty, Alice, wife of John, born Jan 1, 1855 died Oct 10, 1921, daughter of Peter and Mary (Callisto) Williams" I would have 4 people to "connect" to the record. They are Alice Williams, John Dougherty, Peter Williams and Mary Callisto. For wives whose maiden name I do not know I use [ ] around the married name as [Williams] if I did not know her name was Callisto. Another example would be one of the probate records Beth copied for us (and since I have lost my computer records for now again I am inventing) PRO 0001 would be my first probate record. It might refernce John Williams, dec'd and heirs Mary Williams now wife of John Evans, Colden Williams, Milton Williams, Ellen Williams now wife of Thomas Thompson, John Williams and Walker Johnson (no relationship given). You would have 9 people to tie in to the record. The link is made and then if you later find out more information on someone, you change the "person" which automatically changes all the links. What I mean is, say above you had just Ellen Thompson listed as an heir and linked her as Ellen Thompson or Ellen [Thompson] she would show on any report or in your database when you looked at the record as Ellen Thompson. Later you find out she was a Williams, change her in the person screen, and then when you look at the Probate record in Clooz it shows her name as Ellen Williams [Ellen Thompson in record]. The record will show both her maiden birth name and the name she uses in the record itself. I would be happy to answer any questions I can about TMG. I have been using it for about 5 years. I accidentally started using it, if you can believe that. When I first started in 1985 I was sold Family Roots a DOS-based program which I liked. When Windows became necessary to all and sundry, the writer was not able to upgrade in time and made a deal with TMG who would make a program to transfer over much of my notes and extra information into TMG. So I started using that. It is more expensive than some of the programs (PAF is free if you download or about $25 if you buy the CD). More than you wanted to know. Carolyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth DuBois Russo" <elizabethrusso@attbi.com> To: <MOHOWARD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 3:03 PM Subject: [MOHOWARD-L] How do you store and sort your data? > As there seem to be some serious data-collectors on this list, I'd like to pick your brains. > > What programs do you use, and why? > > I'm finding out Family TreeMaker's limitations for such ancestors as my Colden Williams. I've collected a lot of data which I'm now just storing in word processing documents because the amount of information goes well beyond FTM's "More about facts" and "Notes" sections. To access related facts quickly and make reports, I'm stuck with whatever I can put together with FTM. And my FTM database has gotten so large that it is really starting to bog down whenever I want to do some of the reports it is supposed to be able to generate. I've had to break down my database into sections so that I don't have much more than 10,000 individuals per file. Now I'm thinking I should break them down further into files with no more than 5,000 individuals. All together, I probably have more than 25,000 individuals among my various files. Some individuals have the bare facts; others have deeds, wills, estate records, census records, biographies, pictures, and more. > > I'm wondering if I should be using some other kind of database program. I want to be able to start seeing the migration patterns, timelines, religions, etc., more easily. > > I've heard of some standard database programs, and some specialized ones like Clooz. I've been told also I should switch to something like Master Genealogist. > > I've been with Family TreeMaker for the five years I've been doing this, and I haven't worked with a basic database program before. > > Recommendations?? > > Elizabeth >

For those who have been asking what I've decided to do--I'm taking several of the suggestions. First, I'm keeping Family TreeMaker as I've used it for so long and am used to it, plus more people I've exchanged info with use it than any other program. I've been reminded that I can put extra data in the program by using the "Book" function and creating new chapters. This will work well with my WordPerfect transcriptions. Second, I'm going to try Clooz. I hope I turn into a disciplined data entry person; right now, I feel lucky if I can wade through my e-mails and cut and paste into Family TreeMaker. But I figure I'll save time in the long run if I'm better organized. Third, I will continue to keep my original documents and hard copies in 3-ring binders using sheet protectors, or else in archive-safe boxes. I have about 20 lineal feet of notebooks at the moment, with 4 boxes of Bibles and precious documents. This does not include the 100s of photographs I have. I hope to be much better about backing up my data to CD's. I also have zip drives that I need to hunt up and transfer to the CDs since I don't use the zip drive any more. I also will keep posting data to various websites to share with others, but also have yet another place to turn to in case everything else crashes, burns, or otherwise fails. Finally, I do hope to get around to learning how to use Access or similar program. Its probably about time! Thank you everyone for your response. Elizabeth