To all who responded to my query re offering services for a charity auction. Each of you offered some good advice and experience, which I will use as I try to craft an "offering" by next year. Thanks, Pat Dunford -----Original Message----- From: transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Dave Liesse Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 5:42 PM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Low Hanging Fruit? I routinely donate gift certificates for raffles and silent auctions (well, maybe not as often as that makes it sound -- I've given three so far). They're for a specific dollar amount, and the winner has the option to use it for my tax services or my genealogy services. Logically enough, the ones who get it at the genealogy seminar are interested in the genealogy aspect. The first one hasn't come by to use it, yet, and the second one just won it two days ago. She'll be having me help find a marriage record, but at this point I don't know anything more. This is a good way to support the cause and build your client base at the same time, without annoying people by trying to push your business in an inappropriate venue. Dave Liesse Skingco Services, LLC The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Looking at other citations from Googling this, it appears to come from some version of "Virginia Census, 1607-1890" at Ancestry. The name has changed, but the data appears to be mostly the same. However, I suspect the "original" (i.e. "Continental Census") had scanned pages, or otherwise references to a book, as there are page references in the citations I found. The current version is just the "information" out of context. "Source Information: Jackson, Ron V., Accelerated Indexing Systems, comp.. Virginia Census, 1607-1890 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 1999. Original data: Compiled and digitized by Mr. Jackson and AIS from microfilmed schedules of the U.S. Federal Decennial Census, territorial/state censuses, and/or census substitutes." Another site refers to "Colonial America, 1607-1789 VA Census, but with similar tax record information." The original source for this appears to be the Library of Virginia: "Tax Records While there are some extant colonial tithable records, the collection generally begins in 1782 and is composed of personal property and land tax lists arranged by county/city, which are stored on microfilm up to the year 1900. These include counties now in West Virginia. They are unindexed and contain the names and/or numbers of taxable persons. An in-house guide to tithable records is available. Personal property tax lists for 1787 were published in The 1787 Census of Virginia (1988), compiled by Netti Schreiner-Yantis and Florene S. Love." Pat Dunford -----Original Message----- From: transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charles S. Mason, Jr. Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:14 PM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Continental Census Has anyone ever heard of a Continental Census of 1782? I have a friend that found a reference to it and some of her ancestors are suppose to be included in it in Virginia. The message referenced an index on Ancestry.com, but she could not actually find the census. Thanks for any help you can give. Chuck Mason Charles S. Mason, Jr., CG Past President of the Fairfax and Mt. Vernon Genealogical Societies. Certified Genealogist and CG are Service Marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists and used here under license. The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Working on a wiki, I asked about the source of information someone had provided. She couldn't find the info, but added this: "I believe the info is correct as several people entered it, even though some of the dates are different." I feel so much better knowing this. Phew. Jillaine Smith Bringing Your Ancestors to Life ancestors2life.wordpress.com

LOL Jo ----- Original Message ----- From: <historyhunter@q.com> To: "Jillaine Smith" <jillainedc@yahoo.com> Cc: <transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [TGF] Favorite quote of the day > If this was on Facebook I would have 'liked' it! > > Rosalie > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jillaine Smith <jillainedc@yahoo.com> > To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com > Sent: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:20:14 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: [TGF] Favorite quote of the day > > Working on a wiki, I asked about the source of information someone had > provided. She couldn't find the info, but added this: > > "I believe the info is correct as several people entered it, even though > some of the dates are different." > > I feel so much better knowing this. Phew. > > Jillaine Smith > Bringing Your Ancestors to Life > ancestors2life.wordpress.com > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message

Two Books that I found helpful for publishing as I was new to this also. Hatcher, Patricia Law. 1996. "Producing a quality family history." Salt Lake City: Ancestry. She does an excellent job of setting of styles and gives many choices. Carmack, Sharon DeBartolo. 2005. "Carmack's guide to copyright & contracts: a primer for genealogists, writers & researchers." Baltimore, Md: Genealogical Pub. There probably are more choices but in 2007 these were available. Connie's suggestion is good but .rtf goes to a Word software package is easier than WordPerfect. Also if I do it from RootsMagic into the MSword document, then I have plenty of room to add comments and proof statements which I don't usually keep in RM. They are in my Research Report which is a word document. -----Original Message----- From: transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jeannette Maxey Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 9:49 AM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM Digest, Vol 6, Issue 573 Replying to Michael I sent him an early draft off line of one of the 11 generation books as I don't know how to otherwaise explain the Gen-book Set up but will not post it here. In the information with the Gen-book software - it describes itself as Modified Register. With the soft ware you choose either a Descendant format or an Ancestor format. I don't understand what difference it makes if you number down for Descendants or reverse the process to make a book with the numbers going from person A to their parents, grandparents etc. It seems an arbitray decision not an impossible feat to accomplish so I was also asking "why" it has been decided that way - what is the reasoning that it is not approved.. It seems so very clear, easy way to follow and 'pretty ' way to do a book. Why is it only approved for the Descendants?. 2. Not being versed in publishing - Nor do I know how I would take my data from my genealogy software and put it into a word processing document but it seems if you convert to using Microsoft Word (or the Word Perfect I use) that you are then stuck coding everything to be able to create your table of contents and indexes etc. Gen- Book was an easy way to get a nice format with all of my data which I would have used again if it was compatible with the currents softwares. Jeannette The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks to everyone for your help. I will address it in an opening statement, use the most common form for the subject, and note variances in quotes. I like the var. method rather than the slash. As ESM notes, it is more readable. Steve Dahlstrom Sent from my iPad On Oct 20, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Rondina Muncy <rondina.muncy@gmail.com> wrote: > Steve, > > When I run into that situation, I spell the name as it is normally spelled by a family in the text body unless I am referring to a specific document with another spelling. For that instance, I use the spelling the document does. If the spelling is bizarre then I place the usual spelling after it in brackets. You can also put the variations in quote marks. If it is for a citation, you may want to consider bracketed spellings, but this also can become cumbersome. > > I point out at the beginning of every work-product that spellings will be kept as they are in documents and in document references. I state this clearly in italics with space around it and sometimes discuss the fact that spellings were fluid in earlier times. > > In a recent case, the normal spelling was Ryan. I found Rian, Rhine, Rhines, Rine, and Renn (thank you German clerks) among others. 'Roan' had to be investigated, but alas, he was a Rine. > > Rondina > _______________________ > Rondina P. Muncy > Ancestral Analysis > 4008 Linden Avenue > Fort Worth, Texas 76107 > 682.224.6584 > rondina.muncy@gmail.com > www.ancestralanalysis.com > > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Steve Dahlstrom <genealogy@stevedahlstrom.com> wrote: > > I am working on a client report. The family surname is found with various spellings: Wait/Waitt/Waite/etc. in the report I have tried to use the spelling that appears in the record I am describing, but this tends to be confusing when referring to the same person. Should I do this, or adopt a consistent spelling and make a comment that the actual records may vary? > > How have you handled similar situations? > > Steve Dahlstrom > > Sent from my iPhone > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I routinely donate gift certificates for raffles and silent auctions (well, maybe not as often as that makes it sound -- I've given three so far). They're for a specific dollar amount, and the winner has the option to use it for my tax services or my genealogy services. Logically enough, the ones who get it at the genealogy seminar are interested in the genealogy aspect. The first one hasn't come by to use it, yet, and the second one just won it two days ago. She'll be having me help find a marriage record, but at this point I don't know anything more. This is a good way to support the cause and build your client base at the same time, without annoying people by trying to push your business in an inappropriate venue. Dave Liesse Skingco Services, LLC

Elizabeth wrote (to Rondina): > When I submitted a report for the NGS American Genealogy: Home Study Course in which I referred to a surname as you have suggested, I was called out by the person who graded the report. I was told to refer to the name in all variant forms, separated by a forward slash (solidus) throughout the document. There are so many differing opinions on these issues, it is confusing. I referred to Professional Genealogy. Name variants are not covered. Elizabeth, You are right that this issue is one of many on which genealogists have differing opinions--most of them based on "how we were taught" or "how we've always done it." NGS's evaluators also face the same problem that BCG faced before its adoption of standards and rubrics for evaluating portfolios. The evaluators want to be helpful and, in that spirit, see endless ways they can offer advice. That's good. The problem happens when one evaluator's *opinion* differs from another. To my knowledge, NGS has not adopted a standard for this matter, other than that followed by its journal (see my later comment). With regard to ProGen, it does indeed address the issue in two places: - Page 295, second bullet, covers the treatment of names in abstracts and transcripts. - Page 458, last paragraph ("Standardized Spellings") covers the treatment of names in our narratives. If one accepts ProGen as an authority, then Rondina's advice is on solid grounds. Another helpful practice in matters of punctuation and style is to observe how things are handled in standard writing manuals and our field's top-tier journals and textbooks. In my observation, slashes are not liberally used in these venues. Given a choice between the two options below, which would you find the most readable? - William Timmons is said to have married Anna Maria Reifschneider (var. Reifsnider, Reffschneider, Reffsnyder, Rayschneider). - William Timmons is said to have married Anna Maria Reifschneider/Reifsnider/Reffschneider/Reffsnyder/Rayschneider. Elizabeth ------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG www.HistoricPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com www.Facebook.com/EvidenceExplained

Jeannette, Perhaps what you seek is in the book _Numbering Your Genealogy: Basic Systems, Complex Families, and International Kin_ by Curran, Crane and Wray and revised in 2008 by Elizabeth Mills, Editor (first published in 1999). Available from the National Genealogical Society (and other outlets), it is a small $15 book that explains both descending and ascending genealogy systems. There is no need to reinvent the wheel or go outside of standard usage or terminology. You have said that the program you are using is a bit on the old side. Terminology does get refined and updated. What used to be Modified Register system is now referred to as the NGSQ system, a system refined from the Register system which refers to the _NEHGS Register_ and was devised in 1870. (_Numbering Your Genealogy_, p. 5) These are for numbering a genealogy from the ancestor down through his descendants. For ascending numbering there is the Sosa-Stradonitz System (or Ahnentafel system) which starts at an individual and goes up their pedigree numbering the parents, grandparents, and all the greats in the way that each person's number doubled is the father and doubled plus one is the person's mother. This system was first developed in the 17th century by Sosa and applied in the late 19th century by Stradonitz. (_Numbering Your Genealogy_, p. 13) So you can see that some thought, tradition, and the establishment of a standard way of numbering genealogies has occurred over centuries of time. Perhaps your software follows these systems but does not use the same names. I know I appreciate standard systems. There is a level of frustration when opening up a family history book at a library in which the author invented their own system and having to search for the meaning in the author's numbering (if indeed they explained it at all). Standards are for everyone. They help us drive on the established side of the road and they help us in our genealogy so that we can concentrate on the content and not the format. -- Elissa Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL www.PowellGenealogy.com www.GRIPitt.org CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are Service Marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluations by the Board and the board name is a trademark registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. > -----Original Message----- > From: On Behalf Of Jeannette Maxey > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:49 AM > Subject: Re: [TGF] TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM Digest, Vol 6, Issue > 573 > > Replying to Michael I sent him an early draft off line of one of the 11 generation books > as I don't know how to otherwaise explain the Gen-book Set > up but will not post it here. In the information with the Gen-book > software - it describes itself as Modified Register. With the soft ware you choose either a > Descendant format or an Ancestor format. > > I don't understand what difference it makes if you number down for Descendants or > reverse the process to make a book with the numbers going from person A to their > parents, grandparents etc. It seems an arbitray decision not an impossible feat to > accomplish so I was also asking "why" it has been decided that way - what is the > reasoning that it is not approved.. > It seems so very clear, easy way to follow and 'pretty ' way to do a book. > Why is it only approved for the Descendants?. > > Gen- Book was an easy way to get a nice format with all of my data which I would have > used again if it was compatible with the currents softwares.

Jeannette, Thank you for sharing the book. What you sent does not use the Modified Register System. Quite simply, Gen-Book was wrong. The book uses the Ahnentafel numbering system, which is recommended for books of this nature. It has created the genealogical summaries in a format similar to that used by the Modified Register System, but does not use their numbering system--it can't. It would be a bit too difficult to explain what the difference is in a short note. If you are a member of NGS, take a look at Warren Bittner's article in the most recent issue of NGSQ. The family history uses the Modified Register System. I would also strongly recommend that you purchase and read the book *Numbering Your Genealogy: Basic Systems, Complex Families, and International Kin*, by Curran, Coen, and Wray, published by the National Genealogical Society and available at http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/cs/publications/ngs_special_publications/current_publications. To answer your question as to "what difference it makes if you number down for Descendants or reverse the process to make a book with the numbers going from person A to their parents, grandparents etc.": The NGSQ/Modified Register System starts at number 1 for the earliest ancestor, and numbers each of his children in order, then continuing with their children. For example: 1. John Smith . . . His children: 2. John Smith Jr. 3. Mary Smith 4. Joseph Smith 5. Elizabeth Smith [Next Generation] 2. John Smith Jr. . . . His children: 6. Isaac Smith 7. Ann Smith 8. Margaret Smith 3. Mary Smith married Joseph Brown . . . Her children: 9. John Brown 10. Elizabeth Brown 11. Mary Brown ... and so on. There are a few other details to the format, but this is the general format of the numbering scheme. Every single person is numbered. As you can see, this is a numbering system that was created specifically for descending genealogies. There simply is no way to "reverse the process" and go the other direction. It doesn't work like that. It was not an "arbitrary decision"--it is a fundamental aspect of the system. Any attempt to "reverse the process" would basically be the creation of a completely different numbering system. As for using Microsoft Word, yes, you would have to tag the Table of Contents and index entries. This can be time-consuming if you have a lot of names, but you also have full control over exactly how they are indexed. You also have full control over everything else in the book. So this is my preference. Michael Hait, CG(sm) michael.hait@hotmail.com http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com "Planting the Seeds" Blog: http://michaelhait.wordpress.com CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: Jeannette Maxey Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:48 AM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM Digest, Vol 6, Issue 573 Replying to Michael I sent him an early draft off line of one of the 11 generation books as I don't know how to otherwaise explain the Gen-book Set up but will not post it here. In the information with the Gen-book software - it describes itself as Modified Register. With the soft ware you choose either a Descendant format or an Ancestor format. I don't understand what difference it makes if you number down for Descendants or reverse the process to make a book with the numbers going from person A to their parents, grandparents etc. It seems an arbitray decision not an impossible feat to accomplish so I was also asking "why" it has been decided that way - what is the reasoning that it is not approved.. It seems so very clear, easy way to follow and 'pretty ' way to do a book. Why is it only approved for the Descendants?. 2. Not being versed in publishing - Nor do I know how I would take my data from my genealogy software and put it into a word processing document but it seems if you convert to using Microsoft Word (or the Word Perfect I use) that you are then stuck coding everything to be able to create your table of contents and indexes etc. Gen- Book was an easy way to get a nice format with all of my data which I would have used again if it was compatible with the currents softwares. Jeannette The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Replying to Michael I sent him an early draft off line of one of the 11 generation books as I don't know how to otherwaise explain the Gen-book Set up but will not post it here. In the information with the Gen-book software - it describes itself as Modified Register. With the soft ware you choose either a Descendant format or an Ancestor format. I don't understand what difference it makes if you number down for Descendants or reverse the process to make a book with the numbers going from person A to their parents, grandparents etc. It seems an arbitray decision not an impossible feat to accomplish so I was also asking "why" it has been decided that way - what is the reasoning that it is not approved.. It seems so very clear, easy way to follow and 'pretty ' way to do a book. Why is it only approved for the Descendants?. 2. Not being versed in publishing - Nor do I know how I would take my data from my genealogy software and put it into a word processing document but it seems if you convert to using Microsoft Word (or the Word Perfect I use) that you are then stuck coding everything to be able to create your table of contents and indexes etc. Gen- Book was an easy way to get a nice format with all of my data which I would have used again if it was compatible with the currents softwares. Jeannette

Jeannette, Specific to your question about how to convert from your genealogy program (RootsMagic?) to WordPerfect, all you need to do is select the type of narrative report you wish (two types of Ancestor reports and five types of Descendant reports - one of which is NGSQ/modified register - are available), make sure you have the Indexes checked, then save as an RTF file.  You should then be able to open the file in WordPerfect, and make any changes you like. I'm not certain, as I prefer to write from scratch, but you should not have to recode everything for the indexes unless you make significant additions. If you run into difficulties, the RM message boards or mailing list should be able to help. Connie

It does seem impractical to carry around all that baggage and deposit it at every reference to the associated person or place. I could be out on a limb here but I handle people and places in a similar way since they have many common aspects (e.g. concurrent name variants, colloquialisms, name changes over time). I have a single normalised reference for each one (usually the most common name but not always), and then have a list of the name variants under a dedicated heading for that person or place. It's more of a separate heading than either a footnote or endnote. For places, in particular, I can then include notes on boundary changes, parishes, etc., under the respective heading rather than scattered all over. Of course, in the context of a specific record then I also include the actual transcription of the name if it was questionable or unusual in anyway, just as others have suggested. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fredric Z. Saunders" <fzsaund@ix.netcom.com> To: "'Transitional genealogists forum'" <transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [TGF] Name variants >I do the same as Michael stated. The only slight addition I would make is > that if I have copies of an original signature (and they are consistent) I > would use that as the "standard spelling" for **that** individual when > referring to them, even if there are "more" records under a different > spelling as written by clerks. > > Of course there are exceptions to everything. One that comes to mind is a > German immigrant who signed his name with one spelling, but appeared in > all > American records under a different spelling. An example is an ancestor > Henrich Weidemann (as signed) who was Henry Wideman in all American > records. > I would start the discussion of him with that while he appeared in all > American records as Henry Wideman, he consistently signed his name as > Henrich Weidemann, and then use Henry Wideman as the "standard" spelling. > > Rick Saunders > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Hait > Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 8:05 AM > To: Elizabeth Banas; Transitional genealogists forum > Subject: Re: [TGF] Name variants > > I generally will use the most-frequent or most-common spelling when > referring to the person in general, but when referring to a record, I will > use that spelling, in quotation marks. Citations always use the spelling > on > the record. Alternatively if there is a standardized spelling I will use > that. <snip> > > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message

Before addressing your questions, I would like to clarify a few things: 1. The Modified Register System--also called the NGSQ System--is a numbering system for descending genealogies. It can only be used to number beginning with the earliest generation and coming forward in time, by design. (Perhaps I do not understand what you mean when you say the software used this system for "both Ancestor stories and Descendant stories.") 2. The Modified Register System, as noted above, is also called the NGSQ System. This is the numbering system that is used in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly. Therefore, by implication, it is exactly the system that NGS recommends for genealogies. Unless, of course, you mean an ascending family history ("narrative pedigree") by your term "Ancestor book." If that is the case, then the NGSQ System cannot be used. It is not designed to work in that direction. To more directly answer your question about what software to use for your book, my personal recommendation would be to use Microsoft Word. In my opinion, there are no genealogy database software programs that can automatically create a well-written family history without significant editing. Michael Hait, CG(sm) michael.hait@hotmail.com http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com "Planting the Seeds" Blog: http://michaelhait.wordpress.com CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: Jeannette Maxey Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:30 PM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] making a book-publishing I made a 5 generation Family History book using a program called "Gen-book" which has not been up-dated since 1997. So is no longer useful as the software it connects with to download the data have changed so much in the 15 years since. It used the Modified register format for both Ancestor stories and Descendant stories which I like very much . It imported all the data and then I could add addtional background and stories. It created the table of contents, numbered all the people for the index and ended up with a professional work with little addtional typing or fuss. I have learned that NGS does not support using Modified Register for an Ancestor book. Why is that? It does not make any sense to me since I have seen how it can work. I don't like the format of my Roots Magic publishing forms or several others I have looked at. Are there any other suggestions I might check out? Thanks, Jeannette The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Connie - good questions. Personally I trust nothing told to me by the client. So, if the quest pertains to the client, then I always obtain the birth certificate of the client, together with the certificates of marriage and birth (and death if appropriate) of the parents - and back as far as possible. So - in answer to your questions: 1) Low hanging fruit. Yes - but be aware of possible red-herrings. 2) Immediate client family - yes (see above) 3) Potentially irrelevant data. Gather and store for possible future work. In asking (1), you asked whether you should gather even if it took up most of the time. I suggest that, if gathering low-hanging fruit takes such as high percentage of the time, then the time you quoted is not enough. My understanding of low-hanging fruit is that it wouldn't take more than a couple of days (max) to harvest. In saying the above, I may have miss-understood what you said. If so - I apologise. Chris

I made a 5 generation Family History book using a program called "Gen-book" which has not been up-dated since 1997. So is no longer useful as the software it connects with to download the data have changed so much in the 15 years since. It used the Modified register format for both Ancestor stories and Descendant stories which I like very much . It imported all the data and then I could add addtional background and stories. It created the table of contents, numbered all the people for the index and ended up with a professional work with little addtional typing or fuss. I have learned that NGS does not support using Modified Register for an Ancestor book. Why is that? It does not make any sense to me since I have seen how it can work. I don't like the format of my Roots Magic publishing forms or several others I have looked at. Are there any other suggestions I might check out? Thanks, Jeannette

I did this last with our church ladies group for their Winter Gala. Last year I offered three "gift certificates", each for two hours of research time. All three that were won, contacted me and we met at the local library in the genealogy section as it worked into our schedules. I asked them to bring what information they had / knew. A couple were very "green" and one had a fair amount, but didn't know where else to go. After I found out what they had / knew, I took them to the computers and showed them how they could find more information using the usual - Family Search and Ancestry. Most of the families were out of the local area, which is why I showed them Family Search and Ancestry. If the families had been local, I would have used the local resources instead of Family Search and Ancestry. Depending on what we were looking for, we could find a lot or very little. I showed them census records, a couple of WWI draft records and any other number of records where they could find information. I enjoyed the experience and I think they learned a little bit more about their families. I'm considering doing it again this year as a request for donations was out in our church bulletin this morning. Cheryl Cheryl Brown Abernathy The Past Lane www.thepastlane.com Fredericksburg, OH Member APG & Great Lakes APG, Ohio Genealogical Society, National Genealogical Society Join us in Cincinnati 25-27 April 2013 for the Ohio Genealogical Society Conference, “Expanding Your Ancestry through Technology”, at the Millennium Hotel. >Pat wrote > >Must be something in the desert air, but I have a similar "issue." And, >maybe this isn't a good idea. > >Last week, at a function that included a "silent auction," I noticed >that some people were offering up "services" for bid. > >It occurred to me (as an inveterate genealogist recruiter) that I could >offer up some "genealogy related" service, that does not involve travel. >As I thought, issues such as Connie mentioned came to me. > >How would the auction item read? In time elements? What is "an hour's >worth of basic research" (or two hours, whatever) -- spending the time >scouring the usual suspect websites (Ancestry.com, GenealogyBank, etc.) >for "low hanging fruit", or, spending significant time interviewing the >winner, and then doing the research? How about "product" -- It's hard >to specify a specific, say "three generations" report, without knowing >the back story of the bidder. > >Even though, as the donor, I'm not receiving anything (other than the >experience, invaluable) for this, the winner, having expended "much" >money on the donation, expects "much" in return. Maybe more than "much." > >I know I can specify the services -- "using available internet resources >and the basic information provided by the winner, I will provide a >report, including cited sources, of information on the family . . . " -- >and there I stop. What parameters are appropriate here? Without putting >in two pages of "where-as"s. > >I want to do something here, to support the charity, but I really don't >want hard feelings if someone, say my friend Mary Anne, who immigrated >from Germany about forty years ago, wins the auction, and I have no >particular expertise in, or access to, German records. I don't want >someone to request a connection to Charlemagne, or "prove" a family >myth. > >Has anyone ever done this? If so, how? > >Pat Dunford >Tucson > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com >[mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf >Of Connie Sheets >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:34 AM >To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com >Subject: [TGF] Research Planning for Clients and the Internet > >As I take on more projects for others, I'm discovering that there is >much to be found on the Internet specific to their family that they have >not found. I'm also discovering that most do not have a specific >research goal. >My prior profession prepared me well for discussing what they know and >pinpointing what they want to find out, but I find I'm struggling a bit >with how best to approach the research. Most of my potential clients >live locally and are searching in areas far removed from where we live, >which may be the opposite situation from many of you.. . . . > >Connie Sheets >Phoenix > > > > > > > >The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive >environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition >to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this >list. >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL- >GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Nicole, I don't know how to isolate which Sandberg, but I've had luck finding German town names in church records of US German churches. Were they Catholic or Lutheran? Also who were their friends? They might have more information about their hometowns and they may have come from the same place. Lisa Gorrell On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Nicole La Rue <nikkisbc@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I always seem to find myself in a rut when a family line I'm following > takes me to Germany, and it's happened again. I was working on a family > from Germany and was trying to find out where in Germany they were from but > all the usual suspects (marriage recs from the children, death records of > all, obits, etc.) were telling me was "Germany". This week, I was able to > locate the two passenger lists, one for the husband and one for the wife > (with family), stating they left Bremen and arrived in 1905 and 1906 > respectively before settling in Cleveland, OH. Both lists name the last > residence as Sandberg, Germany. When I entered a general Yahoo search for > Sandberg, Germany, just to see what popped up, I found a Wikipedia entry > for a Sandberg municipality within Bavaria. However, when I tried to get > some additional information on Sandberg entries in Meyers Orts, I ran into > half a page's worth of entries. I don't generally do German research and > have probably only > used Meyers Orts maybe 6 times in the past, but I've never come across so > many entries for a place name. I'm lost. Where do I go from here to try and > isolate the correct location for this family? It looks like entry 1 in > Meyers Orts is the area in Bavaria that I've seen on Wikipedia, but there > are so many more, I'm not sure what to do. > > Thanks for any info! > Nikki LaRue > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Apologies to the list for my mis-send earlier! I was on my iPad trimming the message and changing the subject line when the evil iPad (or perhaps my fat finger) sent the message. What I meant to say in regard to Eva's question was that I have been in a couple of conversations where Paula-Stuart Warren was describing her course plans for SLIG. The course sounded awesome--research planning, guided research on assigned projects. Paula is a really great teacher and very easy to talk to. I have no doubt that she would address your needs, especially if you chat with her about your goals. I also had excellent feedback from several friends who took her SLIG course. I'm glad you put your name on the list for ProGen. I was in ProGen 5 and had a great experience. There are ProGen alumni gatherings at institutes and national conferences that provide a great way to meet other ProGen participants beyond your own cohort. If you do the institutes and the ProGen group, you'll soon develop a pretty large peer group across the country you can connect with at conferences and correspond with. I also endorse the idea of joining APG and participating in either a local APG chapter or the Second Life virtual chapter. And, of course, volunteering for your local or state genealogical society. Good luck! Lois Lois Abromitis Mackin, Ph.D. Plymouth, Minnesota President, Northland chapter, APG Director and Education chair, Minnesota Genealogical Society On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:06 AM, transitional-genealogists-forum-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 06:01:32 -0700 (PDT) > From: Nicole La Rue <nikkisbc@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [TGF] next steps? > > First off, I am the Waiting List Coordinator for ProGen and woke up this morning to find your application in my Inbox. Congrats on deciding to join!? > > Second, re the two institutes. While I've only taken the Advanced Methodology course at SLIG, I can tell you that from what I have heard, Paula Stuart Warren's Course 1 may be what you are searching for as it is not a basic course as, say the beginner's course at IGHR, but rather more of an intermediate-level track. I have not taken it however, so hopefully you will get a better idea of what is covered and whether it is right for you from others who have taken it here. ?As to IGHR, take Lloyd's Intermediate class!! This class is one of those that people talk about, a lot. Every time I go to Samford I hear people saying how much they loved it and that they would love to be able to take it again. So this one is a must! > > Finally, don't forget those message boards. They really can offer you some of that extra experience from time to time. You experience there can even give you that case study that would be perfect for your CG portfolio. I got this advice from a really wonderful member of this list and while it's not exactly panning out perfectly for me at the moment, you may find a hidden gem in your own locale/area of expertise. > > Hope this helps you, and that you get a bit more clarification on SLIG's Course 1. (And if not, you could always ask Paula herself :) ) > > Nikki

> -----Original Message----- > From: On Behalf Of Eva Goodwin > Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 2:51 AM > > I do have a question about the SLIG and IGHR institutes. In looking at the courses/tracks, > it is hard to identify which ones are appropriate for me. > Can anyone speak to these? > Eva, It sounds like you are on the right "track" <g>. As a co-director of the Genealogical Research Institute of Pittsburgh (GRIP) I can also tell you that Paula Stuart-Warren, CG, will be doing an Intermediate course in July 2013 in Pittsburgh. Exact topics should be up on the website next month but you can still see the website for what was done in last year's course (along with photos). There are also other courses in various topics at this and the other institutes taught by top-notch instructors. What is your focus? What are your strengths and weaknesses in knowledge and learning styles? What kind of time can you devote to learning? Budget? These are all considerations that should be explored. The APG Professional Management Conference (PMC) in March will have a session on how to put the answers to these questions into a personal educational plan that makes sense to your abilities and limitations in all these areas. It is an update and workshop (where you take away your plan) to the video lecture on the APG website that I did for them at a previous PMC. This is a question that plagues us all: how can I be most efficient (time and budget) in my educational plan with so many opportunities out there? Which ones overlap? Which ones are sequential? Which ones lead to my personal goals? There is no one answer for everyone but we all do need to explore the opportunities. Best, Elissa in Pittsburgh Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL www.PowellGenealogy.com www.GRIPitt.org CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are Service Marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluations by the Board and the board name is a trademark registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office.