Hi Joe -- & others on this topic, I don't wish to unnecessarily upset people - and I have hesitated about voicing my opinion on this - but as I've watched comments on this topic of managing multiple data bases and being a PAF user since the beginning I have tried to think of any advantages to this process. And I can think of none - even after watching the previous posts. Just why anyone would wish to do this is beyond me. It can only breed problems --- exactly how your single data base is split --- how on earth you manage to recombine it to pass on to your children --- how you deal with any ancestral lines that occur in multiple databases -- the duplication of data/sources between the generations where the split occurs --- never being able to do a complete ancestral or descendancy analysis --- and what if your children want to follow your example and have 4 databases based on their grandparents, which of course are your parents - the merging and de-merging is enough to give anyone a permanent headache. My unreserved recommendation is - don't do it. Keep a single database for your family - you, your spouse and your children. When your children (eventually) move on with their spouse and want to inherit the family database - simply (!) merge yours and their spouses together. The old IT slogan of KISS has a lot going for it. Good luck, Stewart -----Original Message----- From: thehornguy [mailto:thehornguy@bellsouth.net] Sent: 08 July 2005 14:57 To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Dividing my PAF Files Hello, Walt an others!! I very much appreciate your comments in the message with that subject line shown above!! One of my own 'stumbling places' (after I had got a considerable amount of data already in-put) with FTW was that I later decided I wanted to operate with at least four data-base groups, as one person suggested, with my four sets of GP couples. Now, I have also decided to take the FTW GEDCOM (In separate parts, if possible) and transfer them into the PAF 5.2, one of the four GP couples (plus the data for their ancestor group) at a time. I have not become very familiar with the PAF in-putting process, yet, so there is still a good bit of 'learning curve' for me to get through. Is it better to do the GEDCOM, import it, and then split it into four separate data-bases, or to split them into four before making the GEDCOM files for transport?? Or, perhaps, the real question is, at which point in the import process do (should) I make the four data-bases separate?? And will that be easy to work with, or not, in the PAF system?? I appreciate all this chatting about the PAF, and am saving the entries which seem to be most useful for me, so that I can go back and look them over, as I go along. Thanks for your comments below, and before, and also now!! Joe DUKE ----- Original Message ----- From: <PAF-5-USERS-D-request@rootsweb.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-D@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:04 AM Subject: PAF-5-USERS-D Digest V05 #134 ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service http://www.familysearch.org/

Stewart I would agree with you for normal use of all of your personal family, except when maintaing a ONS (One Name Study). In my case I have all of my personal family on one database consisting of over 8000 records. But since I maintain a COTTON ONS for the entire world I have at least 10 other databases with some 40,000 records, divided up by geographical areas. Ross GH Cotton, Burlington ON CAN 905)639-2929 Genealogy of the COTTON surname is my Enigma. I haven't sent an attachment if the details are not mentioned above. Check out my Genealogy Web Page at www.skylinc.net/~rgcotton GOONS member responsible for tracking the family name COTTON, #1437 Coordinator for Cotton DNA testing Project, Worldwide ----- Original Message ----- From: Stewart Millar To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 11:19 AM Subject: RE: [PAF-5] Dividing my PAF Files Hi Joe -- & others on this topic, I don't wish to unnecessarily upset people - and I have hesitated about voicing my opinion on this - but as I've watched comments on this topic of managing multiple data bases and being a PAF user since the beginning I have tried to think of any advantages to this process. And I can think of none - even after watching the previous posts. Just why anyone would wish to do this is beyond me. It can only breed problems --- exactly how your single data base is split --- how on earth you manage to recombine it to pass on to your children --- how you deal with any ancestral lines that occur in multiple databases -- the duplication of data/sources between the generations where the split occurs --- never being able to do a complete ancestral or descendancy analysis --- and what if your children want to follow your example and have 4 databases based on their grandparents, which of course are your parents - the merging and de-merging is enough to give anyone a permanent headache. My unreserved recommendation is - don't do it. Keep a single database for your family - you, your spouse and your children. When your children (eventually) move on with their spouse and want to inherit the family database - simply (!) merge yours and their spouses together. The old IT slogan of KISS has a lot going for it. Good luck, Stewart -----Original Message----- From: thehornguy [mailto:thehornguy@bellsouth.net] Sent: 08 July 2005 14:57 To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Dividing my PAF Files Hello, Walt an others!! I very much appreciate your comments in the message with that subject line shown above!! One of my own 'stumbling places' (after I had got a considerable amount of data already in-put) with FTW was that I later decided I wanted to operate with at least four data-base groups, as one person suggested, with my four sets of GP couples. Now, I have also decided to take the FTW GEDCOM (In separate parts, if possible) and transfer them into the PAF 5.2, one of the four GP couples (plus the data for their ancestor group) at a time. I have not become very familiar with the PAF in-putting process, yet, so there is still a good bit of 'learning curve' for me to get through. Is it better to do the GEDCOM, import it, and then split it into four separate data-bases, or to split them into four before making the GEDCOM files for transport?? Or, perhaps, the real question is, at which point in the import process do (should) I make the four data-bases separate?? And will that be easy to work with, or not, in the PAF system?? I appreciate all this chatting about the PAF, and am saving the entries which seem to be most useful for me, so that I can go back and look them over, as I go along. Thanks for your comments below, and before, and also now!! Joe DUKE ----- Original Message ----- From: <PAF-5-USERS-D-request@rootsweb.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-D@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:04 AM Subject: PAF-5-USERS-D Digest V05 #134 ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service http://www.familysearch.org/ ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service http://www.familysearch.org/