Date   

Re: Printing tree on one page

Genie O'Neil <genieoneil@...>
 

Hi--was out of town so just getting back to this.  These are great!  Thanks so much.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 7:06 AM Jane Taubman <janetaubman@...> wrote:
There are also a couple of compact diagrams available for download from the Knowledge base





--
Genie 


Unsubscribe?

Genie O'Neil <genieoneil@...>
 

At this point, I would prefer to no longer receive emails as I've figured out my problems and don't plan to do anything further with my family history.  Can you please let me know how I go about removing my email from the list?

Thanks so much for all your help,

--
Genie 


Re: Printing tree on one page

Genie O'Neil <genieoneil@...>
 

I've been away for a few days so just getting back to this.  Thanks very much.  This seems to get things on one page although a little hard to read!  Hopefully the young generation can decipher!!  Thanks again.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:28 AM Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:

I guess the Diagram you want to print is about the same complexity as your screenshot with 4 generations of ancestors.

 

One option is to use the Focus Window that opens when you first open FH.

With root person in focus select the Ancestors tab that shows 4 ancestral generations with names and life dates.

If necessary close or shrink the Property Box on the right to make the display wider.

Take a screenshot of that display and print it.

 

Alternatively, use the Ancestor Diagram option in the toolbar.

You can obtain a right to left orientation like your screenshot as follows.

Use Diagram > Options > General tab and set Orientation: Right-left and click OK.

 

Now use Diagram > Save Diagram As > PDF File (.pdf) and accept the default option of Adjust PDF File Page Size so that Diagram fits into One Page and click OK.

In the Print dialogue ensure the Printer Name is Family Historian PDF and click OK.

In the Family Historian PDF – Save PDF File As dialogue click OK.

That should open a single page PDF file displaying your Diagram that can be printed.

 

I hope those two alternatives give you what you want.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Genie O'Neil
Sent: 05 March 2020 13:02
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Printing tree on one page

 

Great. Thanks so much Mike. I reverted back and figured out how to get rid of the married and changed to unmarried couple (my sister was adamant!!).   

 

I’ve yet to figure out the “easy” way to print on one page!!!  This is what I’m looking for.   Where is the easy button!!?  😁



On Mar 5, 2020, at 5:50 AM, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:



Genie,

Having upset your family group and put them all back in, I am concerned you may now have several duplicated entries.

Please use the Records Window and on the Individuals tab click on the Individual Records column heading, to sort into name order.

Check that there are any duplicated entries for your eldest sibling’s husband, children, or grandchildren.

 

If there are duplicates, may I suggest your restore back to the Snapshot taken on Monday or Tuesday.

That actually might be a better option even if no duplicates, as you will learn how to fix married/unmarried couple status.

Use File > Backup/Restore > Revert to Snapshot and choose one taken just before you deleted your eldest sibling’s husband.

 

When that is all sorted out we can get back to your original problem of printing a diagram on one page, which should be quite easy.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Genie O'Neil
Sent: 04 March 2020 19:50
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Printing tree on one page

Sorry but one more question--I swear!  I goofed.  My oldest sibling is divorced but has a partner.  Somehow it got both as unmarried couple and married and kept coming up as being married.  I deleted him and when I put him back in, it still had as married couple.  So I really goofed and deleted her!!  Out went her husband and their 4 children & 6 grandchildren!!!!  That's okay--I've put them all back in but she comes up as the 7th child instead of the 1st.  Any way I can get her to the top of the list!?

 

Virus-free. www.avast.com



--
Genie 


Re: Unsubscribe?

Jane Taubman
 

Click the Unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email you get from the list.


On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 15:52, Genie O'Neil <genieoneil@...> wrote:
At this point, I would prefer to no longer receive emails as I've figured out my problems and don't plan to do anything further with my family history.  Can you please let me know how I go about removing my email from the list?

Thanks so much for all your help,

--
Genie 



Linking Images

Bob Brown
 

I have been an FH user for many years, but have just returned to it after a two year break, owing to other commitments.  In that time I have forgotten a lot and I suspect that a few marbles have also escaped!  I have been tidying my database and would like some input on linking images.  I have a number of images associated with a single person and a single Fact/Event.  Examples are inscriptions in books where the inscription may be the only example that I have of a person’s handwriting, newspaper and other reports which simply say something like ‘The vote of thanks was given by Fred Bloggs’ or ‘The fete was opened by Fred Bloggs’, with no other useful/helpful information.  The only useful information is that the person is still alive at the time.  I tend to use Method 1 for this type of data because inscriptions in books and newspaper reports can often have multiple references.  What I am looking for is some advice on whether to link images of the examples that I have mentioned, and others like them, to the Source or to the Fact (or possibly to both).  Also, under what circumstances would an image be linked to a Fact?

 

I have tried searching the Knowledge Base without success.  I am using Version 6.2.7.

 

Bob Brown


Re: Linking Images

Mike Tate
 

Hi Bob,

Yes, Media images can be linked in various positions and different users have different guidelines, but the following are popular criteria:

  • Pictures of people are linked to the Individual record Property Box > Media tab (or sometimes the Family record) it is also common to use Face Frames to pick out individuals from a group photo.
  • Pictures of a place can be linked to a Place record, but they often do not identify a particular address.
  • Pictures of an event such as a Marriage or a Graduation or maybe a Residence could be linked to a Fact.
  • Source document images can be linked to a Citation usually in conjunction with lumper Method 2 Source records.
  • Source document images are most often linked to a splitter Method 1 Source record.

 

I would say your examples fall into the last category, even though they don’t contribute much that is factual.

 

Interesting examples include a picture of a graveyard and a picture of a gravestone.

The former might be linked to a Burial event, but the latter has an inscription which is effectively a source document so link it to a Source record.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Bob Brown
Sent: 09 March 2020 16:13
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Linking Images

 

I have been an FH user for many years, but have just returned to it after a two year break, owing to other commitments.  In that time I have forgotten a lot and I suspect that a few marbles have also escaped!  I have been tidying my database and would like some input on linking images.  I have a number of images associated with a single person and a single Fact/Event.  Examples are inscriptions in books where the inscription may be the only example that I have of a person’s handwriting, newspaper and other reports which simply say something like ‘The vote of thanks was given by Fred Bloggs’ or ‘The fete was opened by Fred Bloggs’, with no other useful/helpful information.  The only useful information is that the person is still alive at the time.  I tend to use Method 1 for this type of data because inscriptions in books and newspaper reports can often have multiple references.  What I am looking for is some advice on whether to link images of the examples that I have mentioned, and others like them, to the Source or to the Fact (or possibly to both).  Also, under what circumstances would an image be linked to a Fact?

 

I have tried searching the Knowledge Base without success.  I am using Version 6.2.7.

 

Bob Brown


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Linking Images

Lorna Craig
 

Bob,

You asked in what circumstances an image would be linked to a Fact.  Mike has given the examples of pictures of a marriage or graduation linked to the corresponding events, or a picture of a house linked to a residence fact.   These types of image "illustrate" the fact rather than adding specific information to it.  An advantage of linking them direct to a fact is that those images will then appear in the main body of the text in a report. 

The marriage certificate,  the graduation certificate or the house deeds, on the other hand, are source documents which supply information about the facts and are better linked to a Source record.  This is especially true if the source is cited several times, as they only need to be linked once. Images linked to Sources can be included in reports but they will be in the Sources section at the end of the report. 

Lorna

On 09/03/2020 18:56, Mike Tate wrote:

Hi Bob,

Yes, Media images can be linked in various positions and different users have different guidelines, but the following are popular criteria:

  • Pictures of people are linked to the Individual record Property Box > Media tab (or sometimes the Family record) it is also common to use Face Frames to pick out individuals from a group photo.
  • Pictures of a place can be linked to a Place record, but they often do not identify a particular address.
  • Pictures of an event such as a Marriage or a Graduation or maybe a Residence could be linked to a Fact.
  • Source document images can be linked to a Citation usually in conjunction with lumper Method 2 Source records.
  • Source document images are most often linked to a splitter Method 1 Source record.

 

I would say your examples fall into the last category, even though they don’t contribute much that is factual.

 

Interesting examples include a picture of a graveyard and a picture of a gravestone.

The former might be linked to a Burial event, but the latter has an inscription which is effectively a source document so link it to a Source record.

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Bob Brown
Sent: 09 March 2020 16:13
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Linking Images

 

I have been an FH user for many years, but have just returned to it after a two year break, owing to other commitments.  In that time I have forgotten a lot and I suspect that a few marbles have also escaped!  I have been tidying my database and would like some input on linking images.  I have a number of images associated with a single person and a single Fact/Event.  Examples are inscriptions in books where the inscription may be the only example that I have of a person’s handwriting, newspaper and other reports which simply say something like ‘The vote of thanks was given by Fred Bloggs’ or ‘The fete was opened by Fred Bloggs’, with no other useful/helpful information.  The only useful information is that the person is still alive at the time.  I tend to use Method 1 for this type of data because inscriptions in books and newspaper reports can often have multiple references.  What I am looking for is some advice on whether to link images of the examples that I have mentioned, and others like them, to the Source or to the Fact (or possibly to both).  Also, under what circumstances would an image be linked to a Fact?

 

I have tried searching the Knowledge Base without success.  I am using Version 6.2.7.

 

Bob Brown


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Linking Images

Adrian Bruce
 

And to tweak what Lorna said - if I run off reports, I seldom print
the images linked to the source records - my reports are long enough
as it is. But the one type of image (in my files) that gets both
linked to a source **and** to an event is an image of a gravestone.
It's linked to the source record that documents the monumental
inscription over a grave because it's a "proof" of that MI. But for
me, I also link the same media image of the gravestone to the Burial
Fact because, to use Lorna's nice description, it illustrates that
fact.

Again, I would emphasise that I do this because I don't print those
images linked to source records - if I did print them then I wouldn't
want the same gravestone to be printed twice. Lots of people will do
things differently.

Adrian


Re: Sources vs. Citations

ShaneB
 

Hi

As I understand it, copyright varies according to the nature of the object and the national laws in place.


As a photography enthusiast, I can say that in regard to photographs in Australia:
  • Generally, copyright in photos lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years.
  • Copyright has expired in photos taken prior to 1 January 1955.
  • Ownership of a photo varies depending on the circumstances under which it was taken.
  • You will not own copyright just because you own the camera.
  • Photographers also have moral rights in relation to their works.
On the internet in general, there seems to be little respect for copyright on photographs. I suspect most photographers who have posted images on line would be happy for their "fair use" provided they are acknowledged as the creator.

Apologies if this is burrowing way too deep into a complex subject.

Regards

Shane Baker
Perth, Western Australia


On 9 Mar 2020, at 07:46, Victor Markham <victor@...> wrote:

I have been following this discussion

Those who download images posted by others only do so because it is part of their family tree search. That is how things develop and trees grow due to this providing connections to others.

Downloading census images from Ancestry etc is because they are available. No one would be able to build their tree unless the image is copied to it. There are errors in transcription of these trees. Ancestry gives people a chance to correct these errors  and give a reason why the transcription is wrong. I have done this quite a few times and read others comments when they have corrected an error. I do not know if Find My Pass allows this. I do not include the source for these census images as I don't see any point. I always add the census reference.

Anyone who posts photos onto Ancestry do so because they want others searching the same people to be aware of them. Strictly speaking copy right really belongs to those who up loaded them and no one else.

I once saw a photo which interested me so contacted the person direct and ask what his relationship was with those in the photo. His reply was that he gave me permission to copy it and said his cousin was related to them. The joke here was the photo in question was my own. It was of my mum and dad! Since we had found a connection I asked him for more details. He didn't reply. Instead I checked FreeBMD and gathered the required information. I then sent this to him and told him he was born in 1948 married. Gave his wife's name and and year of marriage plus the years his2 kids were born. Guess he got a shock with my giving him that information. He never replied. BMD on Ancestry goes much further, to 2007, than what is available on FreeBMD. UKBMD , in areas where it is available gives details of where a marriage took place. Register Office or name of church. I know people don't want to submit living person details but these are available on the above BMD sites so I search them out

Family Search claiming copy right is a joke as they get the stuff from others. From what they said it actually means no one can copy the information to their tree.

People who submit images do so to build their tree and to connect with others to have discussions on these matters

Victor

On 08/03/2020 4:44 pm, colevalleygirl@... wrote:
And some ancillary questions.
 
If you’ve downloaded an image, do you have the right to share it with others?  Ancestry (for example) says not necessarily: 
 

Ancestry Content: The Services contain photos, videos, documents, records, indexes of content, and other content that are owned by or are licensed to Ancestry. We refer to this content as “Ancestry Content.” Except for WebSearch records, which are governed by the third parties that host the records, all Ancestry Content is owned by or licensed to us and may be used only in accordance with these Terms. You may use the Ancestry Content only as necessary for your personal use of the Services or your professional family history research, and download the Ancestry Content only as search results relevant to that research or where expressly permitted by Ancestry.

With respect to Ancestry Content, you agree:

·             To keep all copyright and other proprietary notices on any Ancestry Content you download or print; and
·             Not to distribute, republish, or sell significant portions of any Ancestry Content.

 

At the very least it would appear you need to record where the image came from.

 
FamilySearch has even more draconian restrictions:  see https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/15946/familysearch-terms-of-use-2018-and-ownership-of-information/ For an inconclusive but alarming discussion.
 
And so, when you pass on your research, you may not be entitled to pass on your images. But perhaps you’ll take the position that it doesn’t matter/nobody will check. And you will probably maybe get away with it.
 
From: colevalleygirl@... <Colevalleygirl@...> 
Sent: 08 March 2020 15:56
To: 'family-historian@groups.io' <family-historian@groups.io>
Subject: RE: [family-historian] Sources vs. Citations
 
Trevor, I wholeheartedly disagree with you, but will defend your right to do what you do if it’s good enough for you.
 
Myself, I use ESM-style citations so that I know exactly where something came from.  I do not obsess about italics and punctuation – but I do want to record exactly where my information came from and why I believe it’s sound (which includes assessing the reliability and completeness of the source I’ve used).
 
I doubt I will convince you, but bear with me for a while; it might give you food for thought, or at least explain why some people don’t follow your example.
 
This example is taken from a friend’s tree.
 
He has many ancestors in the village (small town) he grew up in going back 300 years.
 
He started his research at age 14 in 1960 (so has 60 years of work in his tree). He knelt on the floor in the vicar’s living room writing down in pencil in a lined notebook what his mother read out from the original parish registers. They were only interested at that point in the H surname (for an American cousin) so nothing else was transcribed. And there are several places where his record reads ‘too wet’ or ‘too burned’ (the PRs were even then not in good condition, although the vicar was happy to produce them, at least to the local organist and her son). His mother knew the local families and history well, so could interpret some entries that others would struggle with. I have images of his notebook (plus the original), but they wouldn’t be of any use to anyone else without meta-data (source-identifying information).  Let’s call these the “H transcripts” although they’re not publicly available.
 
Five years later an individual (J) in the same village transcribed all the extant parish registers onto index cards.  The number of readable records had decreased, plus J was not as familiar with local history so there are some laughable errors… and the index cards have vanished since (I’m lucky enough to have images), although there are genealogies that still refer to them (the “J cards”.) No public images (as far as I know) exist.
 
Five years later, another (unnamed) individual produced a spreadsheet from the J cards.  Some people cite this as the “J cards”. Some people cite this as the “J spreadsheet.”  There are clear discrepancies between this and the “H transcripts”, plus some more clear nonsense where transcription of transcription errors have crept in.  (A child recorded as her own mother?) You have to know the individual who holds the spreadsheet privately to get a copy. (I have one).
 
Halleluiah! The incumbent passed the PRs to the local Archive.  Which won’t produce them for inspection because they’ve deteriorated too much, but did let Ancestry image them.  Well, some pages. Even more pages than in the 60s weren’t fit to be imaged, so there are big gaps in what Ancestry has reproduced. Good luck if the George D you’re looking for shows up, assuming he’s one of 4 George D cousins born within a 5 year timeframe in the early 1800s with a father Joshua D… who were also all cousins. Most of them don’t show up on Ancestry... so just reproducing an image of the baptism of the one you’ve found is … hmmm.. I’ll say it: hopeful, and needs a load of caveats.
 
Ah, but there are Bishops’ Transcripts to cross-check against.  Yes, held in a different archives, and I have laboriously held every page of the originals flat as they were photographed.  Again not published. And also (as we all know) not frightfully consistent with the PRs… There are George Ds who appear in the PRs but not in the BTs and also 2 extra George Ds in the BTs who aren’t in the PRs.
 
In the case of 6 (maybe) George Ds:
 
None of them shows up in the ‘H transcripts’ (wrong surname).
4 turn up on the J cards, some of them with weird name variants.
2 turn up in the ‘J spreadsheet.
1 shows up in the Ancestry PR records.
6 show up in the BTs (one of whom is on Ancestry, and 3 more of whom are in the J spreadsheet, and 2 of whom spring unheralded out of the ground).
 
Ok.  Some questions:
  1. I only have one supposed ancestor with a publicly published image (the Ancestry one, which I know is wrong, by reference to other sources.)  I should disregard that source – would you attach it based on the image? Or look elsewhere first. And if you found the ’best source’ but it didn’t have an image, what would you do?
  2. I have images of things nobody else will ever see – should I attach them without commentary, when nobody else will be able to judge their accuracy?
  3. Distinguishing between all the George D’s has depended on sources that aren’t online – leases, wills, land tax records. How would you deal with these?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Trevor Rix
Sent: 08 March 2020 12:07
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Sources vs. Citations
 
Thank you everyone for contributing.

@uhkh3tsccmz9 David
For census images I use Ancestral Sources to record the census year, census place, names ages occupations and places of birth for the people in the household. AS links the downloaded census image to those people. Switching back to FH, each person has the relevant census flag which in turn switches on the relevant census icon in diagrams. I have a routine that ensures that the census image shows in the property box media tab for all of the people concerned.

For images of baptisms, I name the downloaded image for example "1859 Frederick-Joe Bloggs & Sarah Smith". I link the image to the person baptised, recording the date and parish of the baptism. I assign a flag 'baptism image'. If there are images available of the baptism both from the parish register and from bishop's transcript and/or archdeacons transcript I download and link in all of those images. The flag switches on the relevant icon in diagrams.

@Mike
For a birth and death events, if the information was from a GRO index I use for example "Q3 1873" for the date and say "Sudbury registration district" for the place, but do not assign a flag or icon. If the information was from a birth or death certificate I record the exact date and place as in parish/county/country (if outside the UK), link in a photograph of the certificate, assign a flag 'birth certificate' or 'death certificate' that in turn switches on the appropriate icons in diagrams. I have a complete collection of BMD certificates 1837 onwards for my ancestors.

I use a text scheme that displays birth baptism marriage death and burial dates and places in diagrams. So viewing that information and the associated icons for each person I can see at a glance in diagrams what I have and have not discovered which in turn prompts me where to research next.
"Can you easily corroborate from your images who their parents are?"
Yes, the linked in photographs of the certificates contain that information.

Yes, I intend handing on my research. Currently it will be digitally as in Family Historian projects that contain everything including the images. I have multiple copies on both physical media and in the cloud. My family are tech savvy so would easily understand the structure that I have described.

I see many topics and threads where people worry and fret about how to record sources and citations to conform with standards such as those promoted by Elizabeth Shown Mills. What I am saying is that such methods are now in my opinion old hat and unnecessary. Where source images are readily available people would do better to spend their time researching rather than spend hours/months/years trying to conform to those old standards.

@Jan
For the my reasons above I consider that the whole concept of standards in Evidence Explained are now out of date and waste oodles of time that would be better spent researching. Yes, the content of websites may change and the images may be moved or disappear, but I have downloaded my source images so those concerns are not relevant.

Trevor





Re: Setting a Private Flag that links to Living Flag

James Pam
 

David many thanks. It worked. 

The Reason why I needed to make 'private' my 'living' relatives was because when creating a website I discovered that individual summary reports made reference to living relatives and I wanted to completely exclude that group.


James 




Re: Setting a Private Flag that links to Living Flag

Mike Tate
 

James,

There are other ways of achieving that if you are interested, by ‘sanitising’ the living person details.

That involves making Names anonymous and hiding BMD details, etc.

The Clean Living Persons Plugin will do that triggered by the Living Flag as well as other criteria.

See the FHUG Knowledge Base for Exporting a Family Tree with/without Media under its Export to Website Without Sensitive Data section:

https://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:exporting_gedcom_with_multimedia#export_to_website_without_sensitive_data

 

Have you considered each ISR Sources section that may include Census details, etc, that may identify living relatives?

 

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of James Pam
Sent: 10 March 2020 11:25
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Setting a Private Flag that links to Living Flag

 

David many thanks. It worked. 

 

The Reason why I needed to make 'private' my 'living' relatives was because when creating a website I discovered that individual summary reports made reference to living relatives and I wanted to completely exclude that group.

 

 

James 

_._,_


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Sources vs. Citations

colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

Shane,

it isn't only copyright that's an issue (although it can be).

It is also the Terms of Service of various websites. If you download an image from (say) Findmypast, you probably do not have the right to publish that image elsewhere, even if it is out of copyright (because by signing up to a website, you accepted Terms of Service that forbade you from sharing reproducing any downloaded images.)

Some people will shrug and assume they'll never be found out.

I choose not to publish any images of sources -- which is one reason why I take great care with my citations, so that others can locate images that I don't have the right to reproduce.


Re: Sources vs. Citations

colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

Trevor, not that unusual.

I can provide a laundry-list of facts that depend on records for which images are not available -- both here in the UK and in the US and Canada,

I am envious of anyone who can do their research depending only on online records!


Re: Sources vs. Citations

racingtortoise@...
 

I rarely comment, but sources & citations are one reason that caused me to take a holiday from FH.

 

The example described by colevalleygirl isn’t that unusual and certainly I have some in my tree.

 

I would add the following:

 

  1. It’s vital that sources & citations should be understandable by anyone coming fresh to your tree (after all, you may not be around).
  2. Sources & Citations must be carefully chosen to stand the test of time. I fell foul of this when the Record Office I was using decided, without warning, to re-catalogue the BMD records I was referencing. Moreover, the records are now on Ancestry, who in turn present the records by decade rather than the original document. Perhaps a good case for having a private copy of the images?
  3. Where there is ambiguity in the records, the reasons for your conclusions must be included. It’s nice if you can develop conclusions which are beyond all reasonable doubt (as the judge might say to the jury), but that isn’t always possible where old records are involved, so doubly important your reasoning is recorded.
  4. Taking Jane’s initial post I’d hazard a guess that many users start by being “lumpers” and then when the research bug really bites, want to change to be splitters (not my favourite terms, but hey-ho…). I wish I’d started as a splitter, as that brings me to my final point. Deciding the formats of your splitter citations is not straightforward as later research may mean the initial formats you choose may no longer fit the bill. I did suggest the wider use of user-defined templates (in AS), as that would be an obvious aid to consistency. I wrote my own plugin and that worked to a degree, but of course has its own challenges with an editor I find increasingly tedious to use (scrolling through yards of code without line numbers and no facility to collapse sections of code).

 

Lessons learnt:

  • Changing from lumper to splitter isn’t straightforward if you have a sizeable tree and the work can be tedious. So the initial decision is very important. A migration aid would be a boon, but of course requires detailed knowledge of your lumps.
  • Think carefully about the readability of your sources / citations. Something which might suit you personally might not always be the best for others, or those who might later look at your efforts.
  • This entire topic took a lot of effort for yours truly (and is still incomplete). Advice saying “whatever works for you” only added intensely to my frustration. I would far rather my effort could have been directed at continuing research. Not ideal.

Dave.

 


Re: Sources vs. Citations

Trevor Rix
 

@colevalleygirl Helen

Agreed, there are extraordinary quantities of records that are not on the internet. I spent cumulative months/years of my life consulting some of those records around the country.

But now I am spoilt. I have a huge backlog of images on the internet that keep coming way faster than I can evaluate them. Enough to keep me going for at least a decade. Until I get stuck on a particular line or need extra resources to prove or disprove a theory in which case I need to go visiting again. For example, two of us recently spent a whole day in a local record office photographing hundreds of frames/pages of court rolls/books of my village containing lots of reference to two lines of my ancestors.

Trevor


Re: Sources vs. Citations

Adrian Bruce
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 17:40, <racingtortoise@outlook.com> wrote:
It’s vital that sources & citations should be understandable by anyone coming fresh to your tree
and
Think carefully about the readability of your sources / citations.
Absolutely - I seem to end up squeezing more and more text into the
publication part of the Source Record - and also into the Author part.
Thus a will in a book of copy-wills is recorded as Author =
"Consistory Court, Diocese of Chester (copyist)", just to illustrate
that this isn't the original will. And the same source's Publication
data is
"Digital image of original published in FamilySearch "Wills and
administrations of Lancashire only, 1558-1857" image-only collection
(no download), LDS film 89395, DGS 4421605, images 93-95 of 463,
filmed in 1954 at Lancashire RO (Preston)"

Note that I'm actually saying "published in...", not leaving you to
work that out. But it's also an "image-only collection" with "no
download" - that impacts on how you access the will should you want to
look at it yourself (or more likely perhaps, look at a similar one).
And I note that it's "filmed in 1954 at Lancashire RO (Preston)" - it
*might* be useful to know that - no idea if it ever will be, but it's
there. (This stuff started out at Chester, at the Diocesan Archives,
and only headed north later).

Sources & Citations must be carefully chosen to stand the test of time. I fell foul of this when the Record Office I was using decided, without warning, to re-catalogue the BMD records I was referencing. Moreover, the records are now on Ancestry, who in turn present the records by decade rather than the original document. Perhaps a good case for having a private copy of the images?
I guess that's partly why I always download a copy (except when, as
per the copy-will above, I can't!). In my case, I got slightly
battered early on when Scottish Origins turned into ScotlandsPeople -
the differences were only minor but disconcerting. One lesson from
this is not to rely only on the RO's reference but always,
additionally, to try and map through to the original paper (or
parchment) - one test that I lliked was: "Could you use this citation
to go and order the orginal document from its repository?" (allowing
for a check in their catalogue, of course).

I wish I’d started as a splitter
I did - perhaps accidentally. To start with, I was going to record
sources on the basis of the original physical object. Thus, a
microfilm of a parish register of marriages was going to be one source
record with "Where within Source" defining the actual marriage entry.
Then I realised that I already had physical copy certificates for some
of them. The physical copy certificates were clearly one physical
object, so would be a Source Record in their own right. But those
entries on the microfilm would be accessed through "Where within
Source" . Two different methods did not compute with my tidy mind.

I did suggest the wider use of user-defined templates (in AS), as that would be an obvious aid to consistency.
Trouble is, the more templates you have, the more consistency you get
until you start forgetting and getting lost in them. I remember
someone who I considered very precise in her use of source formats (on
another list) saying that when she loaded a clean version of her
software, she immediately deleted many of the templates provided
because she really couldn't see the need for 3 dozen (or whatever)
source template formats for a book!!

Adrian


Re: Sources vs. Citations

Mike Tate
 

Adrian,
Presumably, the "image-only collection" can be viewed on-screen, so why not take a screenshot, or is that forbidden?
Or is it that that image can only be viewed by visiting the organisation in person?
Regards, Mike Tate


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Re: Sources vs. Citations

Adrian Bruce
 



On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 22:32 Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:
Adrian,
Presumably, the "image-only collection" can be viewed on-screen, so why not take a screenshot, 

Generally speaking, Mike, you may say that, I couldn't possibly comment!

More to the point, while it's possible to screenshot baptisms etc, it sure ain't feasible to screen shot a multipage will without dying of boredom! 

Adrian


Re: Sources vs. Citations

kiwipete
 

Could one not print the pages to a PDF file. I use CUTEPDF writer. 


Re: Sources vs. Citations

Adrian Bruce
 

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 23:07, kiwipete <peter@tsnz.co.nz> wrote:
Could one not print the pages to a PDF file. I use CUTEPDF writer.
No - the problem is that you can't see the whole of the page without
shrinking the document down too small for legibility of the text. A
PDF print just shows what visible on your screen - it can't access the
underlying image, only the browser window. And Right Click / Save As
only shows the bit of the image on the screen - logically, again
that's what you're accessing.

Of course, if you had a wall sized screen, you would see it all at a
legible font size, in which case, *then* you could screen shot it!

261 - 280 of 3655