Date   

Re: Backup & Restore Family Historian Settings

Mike Tate
 

It is nothing to do with installing the latest version of the Plugin.

See the Help page: Notes on Upgrading to Version 7 that explains about re-enabling Plugins.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Trevor Rix
Sent: 07 May 2021 18:38
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Backup & Restore Family Historian Settings

 

You need to download and install the latest version of that plugin, which is now compatible with both FH v6 and FH v7.


Re: Backup & Restore Family Historian Settings

Dennis
 

Hi Anne. 

when I went from FH 6 to FH7 Igor a message to upgrade my v6 to v7. All my settings were transferred over. Maybe the plug-in when you received that message/warning glitched. Anyway, did you receive the upgrade message I referred to?

I would delete the project from v7 and reload your v6 directly into 7. It should load/convert normally. At least it did for me. 

regards Dennis 


Re: Backup & Restore Family Historian Settings

Mike Tate
 

You cannot use backups of FH v6 settings to restore into FH v7 as they are different.

They are only useful if you wanted to return to using FH v6.

 

When FH v7 is installed over FH v6 it automatically inherits most of your settings.

There is a Help page in FH v7 that explains how to recover Property Box tabs.

See Help > Family Historian Help > Notes on Upgrading to Version 7:

https://www.family-historian.co.uk/help/fh7/hh_start.htm#notesforupgradingusers.html

Important Notes on Restoring Property Box Customizations

 

Mike Tate

 


Re: Backup & Restore Family Historian Settings

Trevor Rix
 

You need to download and install the latest version of that plugin, which is now compatible with both FH v6 and FH v7.


Backup & Restore Family Historian Settings

Anne Algar
 

I downloaded the above plugin at the end of April and ran it this week before upgrading from FH6 to FH7 and applying the 7.0.5. upgrade.  Today I've opened FH7 for the first time and went to run the plugin again to restore my settings but am getting a message that starts "The selected plugin has been disabled as the technology it uses .... ". 

​Some of my settings are still displayed, e.g. columns added to Individual Records list, but others aren't e.g. fields / tabs added to the Property Box. Does this mean I've lost all other settings, and will need to try and remember what I had set, or what?


Anne


Re: Duplicate Citations

Jane Taubman
 

It's probably some anomaly in the citation format I have not allowed for.

If you can send me a small gedcom which causes the plugin to fail I can take a look or you could try using the debug tools in the plugin editor to track the problem, by adding a breakpoint on line 57 


Re: Duplicate Citations

Mike Tate
 

That will need to be investigated and fixed by the Plugin Author who is Jane Taubman.

You can contact her via the FHUG Forums or Leave a Reply against that Plugin in the Plugin Store.

Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of David Hodgson-Brown
Sent: 07 May 2021 13:47
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Duplicate Citations

 

Hi All

 

I know I have lots of duplicate citations in my tree that I imported from RootsMagic. When I run the ‘Duplicate Citations’ plugin I get the following message

 

[string ‘c;\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl…]’:57: attempt to index a nil value (field ‘?’). No changes have been made to the data records.

 

Is there a way of tweaking the code to get around this problem? Can anyone suggest where to look in the GEDCOM for the offending data?  

 

Thanks

 

David Hodgson-Brown

 


Duplicate Citations

David Hodgson-Brown
 

Hi All

 

I know I have lots of duplicate citations in my tree that I imported from RootsMagic. When I run the ‘Duplicate Citations’ plugin I get the following message

 

[string ‘c;\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Pl…]’:57: attempt to index a nil value (field ‘?’). No changes have been made to the data records.

 

Is there a way of tweaking the code to get around this problem? Can anyone suggest where to look in the GEDCOM for the offending data?  

 

Thanks

 

David Hodgson-Brown

 


Re: Relationship Report

1399ducksbury@...
 

Thanks so much guys, just what I needed to show relationships.

Never had any reason to do queries before, but will explore in the future.

Dave


Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

David Hodgson-Brown
 

Hi All

 

Just another perspective. I lump items if I am going to use it for 1 fact/event such as Birth/Death/Marriage. If I am going to use it to support multiple facts/events such as a residence record which is attached to multiple people for a census then I have create a source using the Census Source. This is so I can alter only one record and it will affect all the people.

 

Regards

 

David

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of johnfirr via groups.io
Sent: 04 May 2021 16:50
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Lumper or Splitter for one name study

 

Thanks everyone,
that confirms where i think I am. I wouldnt want to do anything other than split where I have a specific source such as a certificate and image but it does seem to feel like splitting an index is perhaps a step too far so interesting that others have taken this approach.
John F.


Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

johnfirr@...
 

Thanks everyone,
that confirms where i think I am. I wouldnt want to do anything other than split where I have a specific source such as a certificate and image but it does seem to feel like splitting an index is perhaps a step too far so interesting that others have taken this approach.
John F.


Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

Lorna Craig
 

Like Adrian, I am a splitter for most things but a ‘lumper’ for indexes, where the information is minimal and there are no images involved.  So for the GRO England and Wales indexes I have one source for the births index, one for marriages and one for deaths. (Unlike Adrian I don’t distinguish which website I searched the index on).  The dates and index references go in the citations.

 

Only when I obtain a more detailed source, usually a certificate, do I create a separate ‘split’ source. An image of the certificate is attached to the split source.

 

Lorna

 

From: Adrian Bruce
Sent: 04 May 2021 16:10
To: Family Historian Groups.io mailing list
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Lumper or Splitter for one name study

 

I don't do an ONS but I am an ardent splitter. However, my unscientific gut feeling is that

 - (a) virtually every splitter will actually lump **some** source records;

 - (b) the classic source records that we (including me) lump are BMD **indexes** such as FreeBMD or the GRO online indexes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

Adrian Bruce
 

I don't do an ONS but I am an ardent splitter. However, my unscientific gut feeling is that
 - (a) virtually every splitter will actually lump **some** source records;
 - (b) the classic source records that we (including me) lump are BMD **indexes** such as FreeBMD or the GRO online indexes.

I have a single source record for all of the FreeBMD indexes, another for the GRO Online indexes, another for the Ancestry BMD indexes for England & Wales, one for CheshireBMD, one for LancashireBMD, etc, etc.

My reason was quite simple - I felt that the payload of repeated data in the source-record made it easier for me to reuse the same source record and the actual varying detail could easily go into the "citation" details. This gives only a couple of repeats for a citation for a single BMD index entry, unlike the number of repeats for a birth certificate, say, given that tends to support many more facts. (Normally I dislike repeats).

Adrian









Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

David Wilkinson
 

John,

I lump for things like birth, death, marriage indexes and certificates, each census e.g. lumped for 1841, 1851 etc and record the detail in the "where within source", "text from source" and "note" fields, thus they become unique under a lumped heading. The key to me is adopt a strategy then stick to it.

If I split everything I would 100,000s of entries in the Source table which seems daft to me.

The purpose of a citation is the the reader can understand where the data came from and find it easily if they wish.

David Wilkinson

On 04/05/2021 14:57, johnfirr via groups.io wrote:
Just a question out of interest really. I started using FH for family history research and adopted wnat I believe to be a "splitter" technique for recording sources i.e I raise an individual source for every record for every individual. This has the advantage that it allows me to record lots of detail and its very specific when searching, however it is relatively slow as there is lots of data entry for just one event ( say a Birth index entry).
Last year I transferred into carrying out a one name study and have continued to "split" which has not been a huge problem since the main name is very rare so if wanted to enter say all of the births on Findmypast for that name in the UK since 1837 I only have a couple of hundred.

However I have now started on one of the variants which whilst not huge is an order of magnitude higher so for instance I have just pulled all of the UK births for that variant from Free BMD and have a list of over a thousand. Entering these using splitting means also originaltng 1500 or so sources as well. This is a bit daunting and I am toying with becoming a "lumper" and creating one source for the CSV list arising from that search, only the perfectionist in me is stopping me at the moment.

Just interested in what other one namers do when you have a large list - is lumping the answer?

regards
John Firr


Re: Lumper or Splitter for one name study

Paul Sillitoe
 

Hi John

Whatever the dataset, I always find myself having to split it into granular detail in the end, to enable any sensible analysis.  In fact, I'm sitting here now trying to persuade myself that all the extra effort won't be necessary for a new task I'm about to start, but knowing in my heart that it will 😄

All best

Paul



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone but not so smart as to usefully auto-correct the typos from my large fingers 🙂


-------- Original message --------
From: "johnfirr via groups.io" <johnfirr@...>
Date: 04/05/2021 15:16 (GMT+00:00)
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Lumper or Splitter for one name study

Just a question out of interest really. I started using FH for family history research and adopted wnat I believe to be a "splitter" technique for recording sources i.e I raise an individual source for every record for every individual. This has the advantage that it allows me to record lots of detail and its very specific when searching, however it is relatively slow as there is lots of data entry for just one event ( say a Birth index entry).
Last year I transferred into carrying out a one name study and have continued to "split" which has not been a huge problem since the main name is very rare so if wanted to enter say all of the births on Findmypast for that name in the UK since 1837 I only have a couple of hundred.

However I have now started on one of the variants which whilst not huge is an order of magnitude higher so for instance I have just pulled all of the UK births for that variant from Free BMD and have a list of over a thousand. Entering these using splitting means also originaltng 1500 or so sources as well. This is a bit daunting and I am toying with becoming a "lumper" and creating one source for the CSV list arising from that search, only the perfectionist in me is stopping me at the moment.

Just interested in what other one namers do when you have a large list - is lumping the answer?

regards
John Firr


Lumper or Splitter for one name study

johnfirr@...
 

Just a question out of interest really. I started using FH for family history research and adopted wnat I believe to be a "splitter" technique for recording sources i.e I raise an individual source for every record for every individual. This has the advantage that it allows me to record lots of detail and its very specific when searching, however it is relatively slow as there is lots of data entry for just one event ( say a Birth index entry).
Last year I transferred into carrying out a one name study and have continued to "split" which has not been a huge problem since the main name is very rare so if wanted to enter say all of the births on Findmypast for that name in the UK since 1837 I only have a couple of hundred.

However I have now started on one of the variants which whilst not huge is an order of magnitude higher so for instance I have just pulled all of the UK births for that variant from Free BMD and have a list of over a thousand. Entering these using splitting means also originaltng 1500 or so sources as well. This is a bit daunting and I am toying with becoming a "lumper" and creating one source for the CSV list arising from that search, only the perfectionist in me is stopping me at the moment.

Just interested in what other one namers do when you have a large list - is lumping the answer?

regards
John Firr


Re: Relationship Report

Trevor Rix
 

Select Query Window on the Toolbar, select "Relations and 5 Nearest Relationships" from the dropdown list of queries that are already provided in Family Historian.


Re: Relationship Report

Trevor Rix
 

In the Records Window, right click a blank area in a column header > Configure Columns...

If "Relationship To Root" is not already showing in the left pane, scroll down to the bottom, select Other, click the > in the centre, enter Relationship To Root in the Header box, and enter =Relationship(FileRoot(),,TEXT,1) in the Expression box. Add. Move Relationship To Root up to your preferred position. OK.


Re: Relationship Report

gen@malmail.co.uk
 

I’ve not used expressions before, is there a step by step idiots guide to adding a “Relationship to Root” column?

Or the “ Relations & 5 nearest

Thanks

Malchal


Re: Relationship Report

Trevor Rix
 

Use the "Relations and 5 Nearest Re3lationships" query, OR add a "Relationship To Root" column in the Records Window using expression =Relationship(FileRoot(),,TEXT,1)

501 - 520 of 4131