Date   

Re: Buying FH Version 6

Brian Horridge
 

I checked My History before I posted my question and, although Ver 6 is listed on the website, it also says "out of stock" (and is also unavailable on Amazon).

Brian

On 15/05/2021 08:12, Trevor Rix wrote:

Yes, FH v6 is still available to purchase.

https://www.twrcomputing.co.uk/acatalog/Family-Historian-V5-Full-Retail-Box-CPFH6.html#SID=17


Virus-free. www.avg.com


Re: Buying FH Version 6

Trevor Rix
 

Yes, FH v6 is still available to purchase.

https://www.twrcomputing.co.uk/acatalog/Family-Historian-V5-Full-Retail-Box-CPFH6.html#SID=17


Buying FH Version 6

Brian Horridge
 

Hello

Is it still possible to by FH Version 6.  I believe it's still possible to download a 30-day trial copy of Ver 6 but it does not appear that you could then buy a full Version 6 licence after the 30 days.

The reason for buying Version 6 is that I am using my Ver 6 to do some research for a friend who is a complete beginner and wants to buy the same software as I am using to  do the work for him (and I can help him in his early learning days). 

As I am using Ver 6 and, with the structural changes to the Gedcom format between Ver 6 and Ver 7, it would be better if we are both using the same version.  I understand that if he sent me a Ver 7 file I could not open it in Ver 6 (unless he sent me an "exported" Gedcom rather than the native FH7 Gedcom file).  At this stage I'm not intending to upgrade my software to Ver 7.

Does FH7 have a specific "export to FH6" option??  If there is only a generic "export to Gedcom", would any of the FH custom attributes / features be lost.

Many thanks

Brian



Re: Installing version 6.2.7 on a new computer

colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 


Installing version 6.2.7 on a new computer

Rodney Inglesfield
 

I have installed Family Historian on my new computer by going through the process of installing my original version 5 from the CD and then using my version 6 upgrade CD. I now have version 6.0.0 on the new computer. I want to upgrade to 6.2.7. FHUG Copy and Migration Guide advises  downloading from thr Family Historian Download Archive. I have tried this, but it only offers downloads of version 7 upgrades. How do I upgrade to the latest version of 6?
Any help would be appreciated..

Rodney


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Dennis
 

Jan. 

I agree with you from an analytical standpoint. I, too, come from a highly scientific/analytical background. In college I was studying Marine Biology then went off into the Computer field (+/- 1980) as a computer systems programmer, systems analyst so I too have a deep scientific approach to every day life. Of course, this tends to overthinking or being so nick picking that I can be so obsessive about how to solve a problem. This is why I obsess over these genealogical debates. Even as a “hobbyist”, I want whatever I do in this family history endeavor to be as “perfect” as I can.

Due to health issues, I can’t travel to physical archives and such, so either the original documents in my possession and/or the online world is my study hall.

With that I’ll say Cheers.


--
Regards, Dennis.
Surnames of interest: Beatley & Evans originating in Great Britain ->> Colonial US New York / Maryland / Virginia


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Jan Murphy
 

Hi, Dennis --

Re: your comment:

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 8:56 AM Dennis <dpb.genealogy@...> wrote:

 This is purely a hobby to keep busy in my retirement and if those that follow have to do more in-depth research to find the source , then so be it. In a decade the internet as we know it may not even exist. EE/GPS may be eclipsed by another take on the subject.

I am a hobbyist, too, but I'm also a fallen-away academic and a researcher, so I can't help digging deeper into things.  I bring my love of jigsaw puzzles and logic puzzles along with me.  But just because I like 1000 piece jigsaws doesn't mean that everyone has to do them.  Choose whatever level of work you're comfortable with!  

I like to look at that quote from the beginning of EE to remind myself not to get caught up into the fine details of templates, but rather to think about whether I understand what I'm looking at.  

As for the GPS, my motto is simple. If the pros have a tool I can use to keep from shooting myself in the foot, why shouldn't I use it, too?  I break the five elements down into simpler language, like this:

- you don't want to search so narrowly that you miss out finding the goodies about your people
- understand your sources; make notes about what you saw and how you found it
- look at all the sources you find as a group, not just one by one
- if sources disagree, try to figure out why that might be
- write up what you concluded and why, so you can remember what you were thinking

Put in those terms, does the GPS sound that bad?    

The same goes for the Evidence Analysis Process Map.  It seems intimidating at first, but once you start using the process enough, it becomes easier to think about.  It answers the question "How do you know what you know?"

One more link from the Evidence Explained website: EAM & GPS: Newsflash! Siblings, not Twins

Even if you don't want to do a full-out deep dive, a simple thing we can do for analysis is to make a timeline for a person by putting all the sources we have for a person on a timeline in the order the records were created, not in the order of the events described inside. Delayed birth records -- birth certificates issued in the USA in the 20th century, for people who were born before statewide registration began --  may have been issued later in life, and listing them when they were applied for or granted shows at a glance how far removed they are from the person's actual birth.  

Hobbyists may not want to use the GPS and the Evidence Analysis all the time (though keeping a research journal to record your thoughts may be useful).  But if you have a hard problem to crack, why not use tools that can help?  That's the way I see it, anyway.  Personally, I think Mills' approach for evidence analysis is sound and will hold up for a long time. 

Cheers,

Jan


Jan Murphy
Moderator Pro Tempore


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Dennis
 

Jan. 

Point well taken. I usually dump a cut-n-paste of the full citation (such as ancestry) into the notes so I have a record of the original citation.

--
Regards, Dennis.
Surnames of interest: Beatley & Evans originating in Great Britain ->> Colonial US New York / Maryland / Virginia


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Dennis
 

Jan. 

First thanks for the detailed information. Regarding the kindle EE, I canceled the order once I realized it was “print replica”. Amazon has a fair cancellation/return policy for e-books. 

I know of the EE website and have read through many of the “quick lessons” to help clarify this in my own methodology and why I’ve embarked on this endeavor of my family history. However, once I start reading up on the GPS, the evidence-based vs conclusion-based debate, splitters vs lumper and all the rest of it, as an amateur just trying to document some fam-history for those that come after me, (although it just may end up in trash 😀) I came away more confused that it’s worth.
At this point, I’m going with FH7 as-is template wise and attempt to get a source/citation as close as possible to ideal. This is purely a hobby to keep busy in my retirement and if those that follow have to do more in-depth research to find the source , then so be it. In a decade the internet as we know it may not even exist. EE/GPS may be eclipsed by another take on the subject.

-- 

Regards, Dennis.
Surnames of interest: Beatley & Evans originating in Great Britain ->> Colonial US New York / Maryland / Virginia


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Jan Murphy
 

Whichever template you decide to use with FH7, if you're considering purchasing Evidence Explained, I'd like to offer some information about EE so you can make an informed decision about whether to buy it.  

First: take a look at the (free) Evidence Explained website and forum, where you can access samples from the book, read Quicklessons, and see discussions about how to write citations: https://www.evidenceexplained.com/  For your question, this recent Quicklesson may help:  QuickLesson 25: ARKs, PALs, Paths & Waypoints (Citing Online Providers of Digital Images)

EE on the Kindle is what they call "Print Replica" format, which means, you get the image of the book pages in PDF format. You can't read it on an e-ink Kindle; you have to have a Kindle Fire tablet or use the Kindle app on your computer.  Check Amazon's advice on Print Replica items before you buy.  The book may be difficult to read on smaller Fire tablets without zooming in on the image.  (I have two e-editions and one print edition.) 

There are also Quicksheets derived from EE, if you're on a budget or need something more portable than the hardcover EE, such as the Quicksheet:  Your Stripped-Bare Guide to Citing Sources. 1st Edition Revised

Michael Hait's two blog posts about EE show why EE is important. It isn't just a collection of templates. It's a research guide, to help us understand what we're looking at. 
2) … but we do need Evidence Explained.

I consider it to be an essential reference work like Mark Herber's Ancestral Trails.  

This may not affect your citations directly, but users consulting EE and using Mills' Evidence Analysis Process Map (printed on the endpapers of EE) should be aware that the usage of some terms differs in the US and the UK.  See this article to understand why:

Mills, Elizabeth Shown. “Working with Historical Evidence: Genealogical Principles and Standards.” Evidence: A Special Issue of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly 87 (September 1999): 165–84. PDF download. Elizabeth Shown Mills. Historic Pathways. https://www.historicpathways.com : [accessed 12 May 2021].  https://www.historicpathways.com/download/workwthhistevidence.pdf

To me, the most important sentence from EE is this (page 8 of the 3rd revised edition, page 10 of the 3rd edition).

We identify our sources -- and their strengths and weaknesses -- so we can reach the most reliable conclusions.

I encourage you to keep any information like the access date that doesn't make it into your final citation in research notes in case you need it later.  You could, if you wanted, write out your reasons why you didn't follow the template or any other questions about the source that you weren't able to resolve. That way if you do need to revisit the source, you'll have a record of what you were thinking when you collected it or added it to Family Historian.

Hope this helps. 

Jan Murphy
Moderator Pro Tempore


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Dennis
 

Morning folks!
First, it was nice that nobody mentioned me being “Boneheaded” in that error. 💀💀😎

Kai, I will most definitely check out those links. Thanks ever so much. 

Andrain, thank you for that analysis. I’m just glad I haven’t started my genealogy do-over yet - been doing a lot of research into these topics in the hope I get it somewhat “correct“ - even though correct is very subjective. 

cheers
--
Regards, Dennis.
Surnames of interest: Beatley & Evans originating in Great Britain ->> Colonial US New York / Maryland / Virginia


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Kai Chandler
 

On 12/05/2021 09:13, Adrian Bruce wrote:


On Wed, May 12, 2021, 04:38 Dennis <dpb.genealogy@...> wrote:

.... But this does beg the question as to why 2 different online databases would put forth entirely different citations. 

Remember that even academic citation styles differ - Harvard, Chicago, APA, etc... All different. Different companies include or emphasize different things on their genealogy sites. Ancestry tends to tell you how many reels there are in the microfilm publication, eg. But there is also a fundamental difference between the FS and Ancestry citations that you quoted - FS take you right in to the individual document / image in the one citation. Ancestry do theirs differently - one part of their citation just goes down to the film or collection (maybe). The individual detail is on a separate tab for want of a better term. If you look at the Ancestry citation you quoted, it just goes down to the film (number 2). The details of the individual are there on Ancestry (I'd guess) but on a different tab (?).

Another stylistic difference (if you care to batter your head any more) is that Ancestry give you two citations for the price of one. Firstly, they cite their film (say), including a reference to the original source but then they give you an independent citation for the original source as well. 

Another difference - quite justifiable - is that if you notice, the start date of the collection varies - Ancestry starts theirs on 1917, FS on 1906. One might *guess* that the Ancestry collection is closer to the collection at the original archives, whereas I'd guess that FS have bundled more than one collection from the original archives into just one collection on FS. It's a perfectly legitimate tactic but it pays to be aware of it if you ever start thinking back to what the original data looked like. This sort of thing really is important, whereas the (often tongue in cheek) discussions about whether it's a semicolon or a full stop, might not be... 


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Adrian Bruce
 



On Wed, May 12, 2021, 04:38 Dennis <dpb.genealogy@...> wrote:

.... But this does beg the question as to why 2 different online databases would put forth entirely different citations. 

Remember that even academic citation styles differ - Harvard, Chicago, APA, etc... All different. Different companies include or emphasize different things on their genealogy sites. Ancestry tends to tell you how many reels there are in the microfilm publication, eg. But there is also a fundamental difference between the FS and Ancestry citations that you quoted - FS take you right in to the individual document / image in the one citation. Ancestry do theirs differently - one part of their citation just goes down to the film or collection (maybe). The individual detail is on a separate tab for want of a better term. If you look at the Ancestry citation you quoted, it just goes down to the film (number 2). The details of the individual are there on Ancestry (I'd guess) but on a different tab (?).

Another stylistic difference (if you care to batter your head any more) is that Ancestry give you two citations for the price of one. Firstly, they cite their film (say), including a reference to the original source but then they give you an independent citation for the original source as well. 

Another difference - quite justifiable - is that if you notice, the start date of the collection varies - Ancestry starts theirs on 1917, FS on 1906. One might *guess* that the Ancestry collection is closer to the collection at the original archives, whereas I'd guess that FS have bundled more than one collection from the original archives into just one collection on FS. It's a perfectly legitimate tactic but it pays to be aware of it if you ever start thinking back to what the original data looked like. This sort of thing really is important, whereas the (often tongue in cheek) discussions about whether it's a semicolon or a full stop, might not be... 


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Dennis
 

Kai. 

I think we both need sleep😎. The second citation I was referring to is from Ancestry and not FamilySearch!!!!!
We both didn’t catch it.
For my formatted citation I used the advanced derivative Databases, Online. I’m also going to see what the advanced Documents: Digitized gives me. Both are as is - no modifications.
Regardless, I used the same archive for both. For that rogue ancestry citation, i stumbled across  a resource that allows you to search NY State archives at Ancestry for free although the collections you can search are somewhat limited. NYS has some sort of arrangement with Ancestry to enable this free access.  It was ancestry that generated that second citation. Color me embarrassed for the error. But this does beg the question as to why 2 different online databases would put forth entirely different citations. 

And yes, your equating CP’s breakdown of the citation to the EE ones is correct, at least IMHO. 

Thanks for your thoughts from the resident bonehead. 💀

--
Regards, Dennis.
Surnames of interest: Beatley & Evans originating in Great Britain ->> Colonial US New York / Maryland / Virginia


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Kai Chandler
 

Dennis,

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVJY-NCWM still takes me to the citation you saw in early May, ie.

"New York Records of the State National Guard, 1906-1954," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVJY-NCWM : 8 March 2021), Wm Frederick Beatley, 29 Jan 1937; citing Military Service, Brooklyn, , New York, United States, New York State Archives, Albany.

How did you get to "the citation as this 10:54"?

Which EE model are you using for your citation?

I'm pleased that you found the Advanced derivative template (Databases, Online) of use. Remember that you can clone and edit it as needed so you can get the exact Footnote, Short Footnote and Bibliography you are aiming for.

By the way, I assume that Footnote, Short Footnote and Bibliography are Calico Pie's terms for what EE calls the First Reference Note, Subsequent Note and Source List Entry.  Anyone reading this is welcome to correct me! 

Kai

On 11/05/2021 16:05, Dennis wrote:
Hi All - again
After thinking about the discussion, so far, I went back to Family-search to reexamine this source. Either FS changed/updated the citation or they have multiple entries/citations for the identical document. I suspect the latter? This is the citiation as this 10:54 this date.

Citation as per FamilySearch 10:54 11-05-2021

New York State Archives; Albany, New York; Collection: New York, New York National Guard Service Cards, 1917-1954 ; Series: B2001 ; Film Number: 2
Source Information Ancestry.com.  New York, U.S., New York National Guard Service Cards, 1917-1954 [database on-line].  Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2015.

Original data: New York Guard Service Cards and Enlistment Records, 1917-1954.  Series B2001.  Microfilm, 49 reels.  New York (State).  Division of Military and Naval Affairs.  New York State Archives, Albany, New York.

The citation no longer states the URL of the image/document; the name attached to the document; nor the "citing" section. Anyone have a clue as to why there is this discrepancy? As the saying goes, "the game is afoot".

FamilySearch Citation 1: Early May 2021

 "New York Records of the State National Guard, 1906-1954," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVJY-NCWM : 8 March 2021), Wm Frederick Beatley, 29 Jan 1937; citing Military Service, Brooklyn, , New York, United States, New York State Archives, Albany.

Again, thanks, appreciate the input.

--
Regards, Dennis.
Surnames of interest: Beatley & Evans originating in Great Britain ->> Colonial US New York / Maryland / Virginia


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Dennis
 

Hi All - again
After thinking about the discussion, so far, I went back to Family-search to reexamine this source. Either FS changed/updated the citation or they have multiple entries/citations for the identical document. I suspect the latter? This is the citiation as this 10:54 this date.

Citation as per FamilySearch 10:54 11-05-2021

New York State Archives; Albany, New York; Collection: New York, New York National Guard Service Cards, 1917-1954 ; Series: B2001 ; Film Number: 2
Source Information Ancestry.com.  New York, U.S., New York National Guard Service Cards, 1917-1954 [database on-line].  Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2015.

Original data: New York Guard Service Cards and Enlistment Records, 1917-1954.  Series B2001.  Microfilm, 49 reels.  New York (State).  Division of Military and Naval Affairs.  New York State Archives, Albany, New York.

The citation no longer states the URL of the image/document; the name attached to the document; nor the "citing" section. Anyone have a clue as to why there is this discrepancy? As the saying goes, "the game is afoot".

FamilySearch Citation 1: Early May 2021

 "New York Records of the State National Guard, 1906-1954," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVJY-NCWM : 8 March 2021), Wm Frederick Beatley, 29 Jan 1937; citing Military Service, Brooklyn, , New York, United States, New York State Archives, Albany.

Again, thanks, appreciate the input.

--
Regards, Dennis.
Surnames of interest: Beatley & Evans originating in Great Britain ->> Colonial US New York / Maryland / Virginia


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Dennis
 

Wow! I think I just opened Pandora’s box here. But getting back to my original question (disclaimer: I’m not a professional genealogist - I’m doing this for my own personal knowledge and enjoyment in my retirement) - I filled out the above referenced "template “ as-is as defined in FH7. No clones, no modifications nada. I was asking if that particular template was suitable for that source or if I should be utilizing another of the EE based advanced templates. Derivative section of the advanced templates. 

I respect all the opinions/debates here but I believe my original query went astray somewhere. Be that as it may, many thanks to all that responded. 

cheers 🍻🍻
--
Regards, Dennis.
Surnames of interest: Beatley & Evans originating in Great Britain ->> Colonial US New York / Maryland / Virginia


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Curtis Hermann
 

I modified all the EE style templates for online images by removing the {access date:yesrs} and  adding a new source level field titled {YEARS} where I put in the year(s) I looked/researched at the online source. Not exactly EE style, but must remember EE styles work well in publishing, but not necessarily in genealogy software.


On May 11, 2021, at 4:02 AM, "colevalleygirl@..." <colevalleygirl@...> wrote:

Adrian, I’ve always considered the Access Date as telling people ‘well, it was there when **I** looked at it’, having been burned in the past by vanishing websites and people complaining that my sources were wrong as a result.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce

Personally, I wouldn't put the Year of Access in either. We had a discussion about this in the User Group, IIRC, and some people said that the Access Date was an analogy for the Edition of a book and should appear by that analogy. My own view is that's a misleading analogy because I can go and consult a different edition (sometimes) whereas there is no way that I can consult that collection in anything other than the current year, so the Year of Access is useless data. But if it's in the ESM format, you may want to stick to that! 

 


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

Adrian Bruce
 



On Tue, May 11, 2021, 09:02 colevalleygirl@... <colevalleygirl@...> wrote:

Adrian, I’ve always considered the Access Date as telling people ‘well, it was there when **I** looked at it’, having been burned in the past by vanishing websites and people complaining that my sources were wrong as a result.

Ah! That's an understandable point of view and, considered that way, makes a lot of sense. 
Adrian


Re: FH7 Evidence Based (Source-driven Data Entry) Templates

colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

Adrian, I’ve always considered the Access Date as telling people ‘well, it was there when **I** looked at it’, having been burned in the past by vanishing websites and people complaining that my sources were wrong as a result.

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce

Personally, I wouldn't put the Year of Access in either. We had a discussion about this in the User Group, IIRC, and some people said that the Access Date was an analogy for the Edition of a book and should appear by that analogy. My own view is that's a misleading analogy because I can go and consult a different edition (sometimes) whereas there is no way that I can consult that collection in anything other than the current year, so the Year of Access is useless data. But if it's in the ESM format, you may want to stick to that! 

 

481 - 500 of 4160