John Cardinal wrote: > To help prevent link rot, I do not include the full Find-A-Grave URL > in my CDs. Instead, I include a two-part CD where the memorial number > is in part 2. The Find-A-Grave "base" URL is in the source. When FindAGrave changed the URL format in 2018 I used John's invaluable TMG Utility to Find/Change all the formats in my CDs. However, his method of a two-part CD is so much better I am changing all my references to use that method. Thanks for the idea, John. Michael

John is absolutely correct; his address of https://findagrave.com/memorial/ works with the memorial ID# (which is my case is [CD5] because I cite the people who put the page online as well as the photographer, if any. So, my earlier more complicated FAG basic address was the one that didn't work. Bless TMG for having easy-to-change templates (which have saved my life more than once)! Toby

Toby Turner wrote: > It would be nice if I were wrong. Toby, If you use the URL format that I described, your links should work. Mine do. I've tested both the "old" URL I described first and the "new" URL I described in a follow-up. Be very careful with the URLs. The devil is in the details. John

John, I used a similar system to separate out the ID#, but when I clicked on an example yesterday, I got a 404 error. I doublechecked the web address, no joy. When I went to the relevant page, I found the addition of the name at the end of the ID#. I did not check more than the one person, but my theory is that when ancestry.com bought  FAG they may have changed the coding. It would be nice if I were wrong. Toby

Update to the URL in my last post... Evidently, Find-A-Grave now supports a simpler URL format: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/NNN ... where "NNN" should be replaced by the memorial number which will usually have more digits. Ex: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/114989516 I'm going to update my TMG source record to use the simpler URL because I think the URL above is the "new" preferred form. The old one still works, but that may not last forever. Some of Find-A-Grave's URLs include the person's name after the memorial ID number, but you can omit the name and the URL will still work. John

Toby, As far as I can tell, it is not necessary to include a person's name to link to a Find-A-Grave memorial. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/40926 To help prevent link rot, I do not include the full Find-A-Grave URL in my CDs. Instead, I include a two-part CD where the memorial number is in part 2. The Find-A-Grave "base" URL is in the source. Source URL: http://www.findagrave.com Source Footnote (partial): <; Memorial Number: \<a href="http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=[CD2]"\>[CD2]\</a\>> Example CD: name || 40926 Note that the footnote includes HTML, and the < and > characters that are part of the HTML are escaped by the "\" character. You can see an example of my system on this person entry in a web site built with Second Site: https://bezansons.com/g1/p1361.htm#i27208 If the Find-A-Grave URL changes in the future but still supports the ability to link to a memorial page given a memorial ID, then all I have to do is adjust the footnote template and short footnote template in the source. Those two edits will fix hundreds of citations. John

It never ends! By accident, I discovered that all of my direct links to Find A Grave memorial pages no longer worked. It seems FAG has changed the way its memorial pages are accessed by adding the name of each individual to the web address.  Although I've downloaded a number of grave photos, I did not download gravestone photos of 4th and 5th cousins, etc. Given that I have 29,047 citations which point to various memorial pages, there is no way I'm going to go back and change them all. Therefore, I changed the FAG template to remove the ability for a viewer click to the revelant memorial page. Now, a viewer will have to access FAG and input the provided memorial ID #.  Not as useful, but c'est la vie. Regards, Toby Turner

List of Citations report, filtered for Source number equals.

Well John's previous post on APIDs now has me on a project to change all of my uses of Ancestry as a source. Fortunately I only use a single source, #336, for all of my Ancestry citations. How can I find all 234 times I have used it?

On 8/1/2019 4:42 PM, jaleo5344--- via TMG wrote: > I have 95 persons from my main project that I have exported to a Gedcom. I have another independent project that I would like to add these persons to. When I tried to do this via an import of that Gedcom, all of those records became numbered in a format like 3-xyz and all of the original projects records became numbered in a format like 2-abc. I want these added records to be numbered as part of the original data set and not set apart with a separate data set nomenclature. Any suggestions would be appreciated When you import data, either from a Gedcom or from another TMG Project, it is imported to a separate Data Set, as you found. There is no way to avoid that. If you want it put in the same Data Set as your existing data you then need to merge the data sets. Doing so is not as obvious as it sounds. Please see my article at https://tmg.reigelridge.com/merging.htm#datasets for details. However, you should not be transferring people from one TMG Project to another via Gedcom. Much data can be lost this way. Instead, use the Secondary Output of the List of People report to create a new Project from the original TMG Project. Then Merge that new Project into your Second Project, and finally Merge the resulting Data Set into your working Data Set. My article above covers merging Projects too. Terry Reigel

I have 95 persons from my main project that I have exported to a Gedcom. I have another independent project that I would like to add these persons to. When I tried to do this via an import of that Gedcom, all of those records became numbered in a format like 3-xyz and all of the original projects records became numbered in a format like 2-abc. I want these added records to be numbered as part of the original data set and not set apart with a separate data set nomenclature. Any suggestions would be appreciated

John, yes the example I sent was what I supposed it should look like. Normally I put the info in the CD field. I was wrong about the placement of the APID:H data If I understand your instructions now I should leave the info in the CD but must put the APID and H values in the Reference field. Jim iSent from my iPhone; iTypos, iApologize. > On Aug 1, 2019, at 2:43 PM, John Cardinal <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jim, > > It's hard for me to answer that question because you didn't provide both "before" and "after" for your example citation. You have text in the "Citation Memo" field that most TMG users put in the "Citation Detail" field. Perhaps that is how you usually enter it. If you usually have the text shown in the Citation Memo example in the Citation Detail field, leave it there and enter the APID in the Citation Reference field. > > In general, I recommend that you use the "Citation Reference" field (shown with the label "Reference" in your screenshot) for the Ancestry.com APID value. > > John > > From: James Holcombe <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 2:02 PM > To: The Master Genealogist Rootsweb Email List <[email protected]> > Subject: [TMG] Re: Ancestry.com "APID" and TMG citations > > So is this what I should adjust my citations to? > <image001.png> > > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Jim, It's hard for me to answer that question because you didn't provide both "before" and "after" for your example citation. You have text in the "Citation Memo" field that most TMG users put in the "Citation Detail" field. Perhaps that is how you usually enter it. If you usually have the text shown in the Citation Memo example in the Citation Detail field, leave it there and enter the APID in the Citation Reference field. In general, I recommend that you use the "Citation Reference" field (shown with the label "Reference" in your screenshot) for the Ancestry.com APID value. John From: James Holcombe <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 2:02 PM To: The Master Genealogist Rootsweb Email List <[email protected]> Subject: [TMG] Re: Ancestry.com "APID" and TMG citations So is this what I should adjust my citations to?

So is this what I should adjust my citations to? [image: image.png] On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:32 AM John Cardinal <[email protected]> wrote: > Terry, > > In the "Check of All Online Source Web Addresses" thread, you described > entering "generic" URLs for online records and I understand the rationale. > I mostly do the same, with one (recent) exception. > > For Ancestry.com records, I now record the "APID" value and store it in > the Citation Reference field. An APID includes a database number and a > record number in the format "database::record", for example, > "7602::2771226". > > Ancestry's web pages do not make those values obvious, but they are > usually present in URLs for record pages using the "dbid=" and "h=" > parameters. For example: > > https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?dbid=7602&indiv=1&h=2771226 > > My upcoming "TMG to GEDCOM" tool will detect Ancestry.com sources where > the citation includes an APID. The result will be that GEDCOMs imported > into Ancestry.com will have very useful links from citations to the > Ancestry.com source records. I know some people do not include sources when > publishing to Ancestry.com for various reasons, but for those that do, this > feature will be useful. > > I will also be publishing a web page with some utilities for both > extracting APIDs from Ancestry.com URLs and for creating links to records > based on the APID. The former is for help when entering citations, and the > latter is for verifying APIDs and/or getting to the record of interest > quickly. > > I have been aware of APID values for a long time, but TMG-L member Dave > Fuller brought it to my attention recently when we were discussing my TMG > to GEDCOM tool. > > I hope other online collections will support similar record IDs but so > far, I am not aware of any where the feature is available. Ancestry.com > does not publicize the existence of APIDs, but I believe it is part of the > API they support internally and publish to authorized third-parties. > > John > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

Jim, You must include the APID in either the citation (for splitters) or the source (for lumpers). TMG to GEDCOM (T2G) will detect it in one of several places: - The Citation Detail (CD) - The Citation Memo (CM) - The Citation Reference (CREF) Or - The "Number" Source Element I recommend using the Citation Reference field. The format must be "123456::123456" where the first number is the "database ID" and the second is the "record number". The number of digits doesn't matter. The database ID tends to have four or five digits and the record number varies from one to ten digits. Do not enter the quotes. The Help pages for TMG to GEDCOM will include some utilities for handling APIDs. I'm tempted to make those public now because I've found them very useful. They prevent mistakes and include some little tricks that make a cumbersome process a little less cumbersome. Unfortunately, the help pages are not public yet, and I'm not ready to publish the whole set of pages because T2G is not finished. Maybe I'll put the APID-related pages somewhere else. John

John, great to know. Exactly what will my source have to look like for TMG to GEDCOM to correctly recognize it? I can start identifying and correcting mine now. Jim iSent from my iPhone; iTypos, iApologize. > On Aug 1, 2019, at 9:32 AM, John Cardinal <[email protected]> wrote: > > Terry, > > In the "Check of All Online Source Web Addresses" thread, you described entering "generic" URLs for online records and I understand the rationale. I mostly do the same, with one (recent) exception. > > For Ancestry.com records, I now record the "APID" value and store it in the Citation Reference field. An APID includes a database number and a record number in the format "database::record", for example, "7602::2771226". > > Ancestry's web pages do not make those values obvious, but they are usually present in URLs for record pages using the "dbid=" and "h=" parameters. For example: > > https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?dbid=7602&indiv=1&h=2771226 > > My upcoming "TMG to GEDCOM" tool will detect Ancestry.com sources where the citation includes an APID. The result will be that GEDCOMs imported into Ancestry.com will have very useful links from citations to the Ancestry.com source records. I know some people do not include sources when publishing to Ancestry.com for various reasons, but for those that do, this feature will be useful. > > I will also be publishing a web page with some utilities for both extracting APIDs from Ancestry.com URLs and for creating links to records based on the APID. The former is for help when entering citations, and the latter is for verifying APIDs and/or getting to the record of interest quickly. > > I have been aware of APID values for a long time, but TMG-L member Dave Fuller brought it to my attention recently when we were discussing my TMG to GEDCOM tool. > > I hope other online collections will support similar record IDs but so far, I am not aware of any where the feature is available. Ancestry.com does not publicize the existence of APIDs, but I believe it is part of the API they support internally and publish to authorized third-parties. > > John > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Hi, I manage https://www.genuki.org.uk/ where we have to deal with urls that fail and those that have moved. So we periodically check every url and produce reports for the individual maintainers to report those that need attention. For re-directs we even have software that for re-directs with a single click it will find the url within the page and replace it with the redirected value. You do though have to be careful and check that the re-direct is valid. Some sites think they are being user friendly and instead of giving you a 404 redirect you to a page that says 'Not found' with a search box. A utility on these lines for TMG would be useful for those with urls in their data.     phil On 01/08/2019 14:44, Toby Turner wrote: > Terry, > > In the case of rootsweb sources, the top level address has changed to > either: > > https://sites.rootsweb.com/~ > > or > > https://freepages.rootsweb.com/ > > If one goes to the base directory of, say, a county, one is met with a > list of almost incomprehensible directories which may have > sub-directories. This is why I went to the trouble of trying to find > the original source. Often, these early sources (along with those at > http://files.usgwarchives have information from local court houses > that are quite difficult to obtain otherwise. I talking to you, Alabama. > > But, I take your point, > > Toby > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY  Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal > RootsWeb community

At 7/31/2019 13:39, Toby Turner wrote >Rootsweb sources (60) and US GenWeb archives >sources (175) had changed web addresses. Some >sources could not be found, including some >really good ones (I’m talking to you >rootsweb.ancestry.com). Some FTM/genealogy.com sites were also deleted. ===clipped=== >All Rootsweb WorldConnect databases had changed >addresses (31), not counting the ones that had >beendeleted. One well-documented database had >changed all its ID#s, and because my template >points directly to an individual, I had to redo >about 600 people. :( Most of the above research had been done prior to 2005. > >An extremely fine German database of people also >had renumbered its people and hundreds had to be re-done. :( ===clipped=== >Nearly all of my 1,502 Wikipedia sources had >made minor web address changes, but usually >redirected the searcher to the new correct page. This just illustrates the need to have multiple Source Citations. On-line Source Citations could be likened to index Source Citations in a way. We are told that index Source Citations are not acceptable. However, I would guess that most of us have used index Source Citations on rare occassions -- with the idea that we find a better Citation soon.44 While an index Source Citation might be used as a temporary pointer to a particular Source, the same could be said for using on-line Source Citations. We need to find the underlying Source, view it, and cite it. Having said this, how many of us will dig for that underlying Source? Probably not many. I include myself here in that I talk a good talk, but if I did the exercise that Toby did, I would find many on-line Source Citations that are out-of-date AND don't have the added support of the underlying Source Citation. One thing is to ensure that the reader has enough information in the on-line Source Citation to do his/her own research and find the Source that is intended. This might be by adding information in the Source Memo field, in the Citation Detail, or by adding added detail in other Source fields. Oh, yes, Don't forget to adjust the Source Templates to insure all fields are referenced in them. Lee

Terry, In the case of rootsweb sources, the top level address has changed to either: https://sites.rootsweb.com/~ or https://freepages.rootsweb.com/ If one goes to the base directory of, say, a county, one is met with a list of almost incomprehensible directories which may have sub-directories. This is why I went to the trouble of trying to find the original source. Often, these early sources (along with those at http://files.usgwarchives have information from local court houses that are quite difficult to obtain otherwise. I talking to you, Alabama. But, I take your point, Toby

John, This is extremely useful information. I have used only the Ancestry database and been annoyed when I could not be more specific. Your information definitely is changing that for the good! Toby