FH7 and One-name Studies


Robert
 

I am looking into doing a one-name study, and was wondering whether FH7 could be used for this purpose. Has anyone any idea or experience of this? I have been directed to the Custodian software, but don’t see the point if FH7 can do the same job.

Robert

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


Trevor Rix
 

Family Historian 7 is great for one-name studies, and even one-place studies.


Robert
 

How would you use it Trevor? I already have a massive FH7 Project with multiple names for my existing family research. What would be the best way to ‘filter’ out the one-name, would it be better to open another project for just that one name?

On Wednesday, February 10, 2021, 09:21, Trevor Rix <trevor@...> wrote:

Family Historian 7 is great for one-name studies, and even one-place studies.


John Hanson
 

Robert
On a survey of members of the Guild of One-name studies a couple of years ago FH came out top of the list
But you are comparing two different things – Custodian is a record recording system (a bit like a sophisticated excel spreadsheet) whereas FH is a means of drawing your trees
To do a one-name study properly you probably need both and to an extent will depend on the potential size of the study
I use FH for my own study (currently about 5000 names) but also for the Halstead study (35,000 and about 1,000 pools of families simply because I can’t find the record to link them!)

Regards
John Hanson - researching the Halstead/Holstead/Alstead names
Researcher, the Halsted Trust - https://www.halsted.org.uk
Research website - https://www.halstedresearch.org.uk

2021 Family History Conference - https://www.elizabethanancestors.org.uk

 

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert via groups.io
Sent: 10 February 2021 09:19
To: Family Historian Groups.io Mailing List <family-historian@groups.io>
Subject: [family-historian] FH7 and One-name Studies

 

I am looking into doing a one-name study, and was wondering whether FH7 could be used for this purpose. Has anyone any idea or experience of this? I have been directed to the Custodian software, but don’t see the point if FH7 can do the same job.

Robert

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


Trevor Rix
 

Robert, If you choose to keep your one-name research in the same FH project as your own family, you can identify the separate one-name families by using the Search For Orphans query. That will identify the separate families as Pools.


Sinebeg
 

Of course, Robert

I might suggest that you give each family some sort of identifier - I used the Group/Caste Membership attribute

Jay

On 10/02/21 20:19, Robert via groups.io wrote:
I am looking into doing a one-name study, and was wondering whether FH7 could be used for this purpose. Has anyone any idea or experience of this? I have been directed to the Custodian software, but don’t see the point if FH7 can do the same job.

Robert

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


Sinebeg
 

Sorry, hit Send too soon.

If you give each person in a family the identifier, then you can use it to select the family, for example, in an export.

Jay

_______________

Of course, Robert

I might suggest that you give each family some sort of identifier - I used the Group/Caste Membership attribute

Jay

On 10/02/21 20:19, Robert via groups.io wrote:
I am looking into doing a one-name study, and was wondering whether FH7 could be used for this purpose. Has anyone any idea or experience of this? I have been directed to the Custodian software, but don’t see the point if FH7 can do the same job.

Robert

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


Trevor Rix
 

It is not necessary to give each family an identifier. The Search For Orphans query does that for you automatically. You can then select a person in a particular Pool to work on that family.


Debbie Kennett
 

I’ve been using Family Historian for my one-name study since the very early days of Family Historian. I’ve never seen the point of using Custodian as anything you can enter into Custodian can be entered into Family Historian instead.

 

I keep all my family history data including my one-name study data in one big Family Historian project. In the Record Window you can display all the people in your database in a spreadsheet-like display with sortable and customisable columns. It therefore becomes very easy to see at a glance how many people you have in your database with the same name born at the same time. That can sometimes be very helpful for elimination purposes. For example, if there are only two people with the same name born at the same time and you’ve already “killed off” one of them, you will know that all the records after the death date must relate to the other person.

 

Groups of unrelated individuals are assigned by Family Historian into pools. I find it useful to add a column in the Records Window for my pools and you can then sort by pool to see all the people in each group. Pool 1 is everyone in my own family tree. I have a total of 108 pools. Some of them only consist of three or four people. If I research a family I find it easier just to record all the information in Family Historian in the hope that one day I will be able to join the dots up to one of the bigger trees.


Debbie Kennett

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert via groups.io
Sent: 10 February 2021 09:19
To: Family Historian Groups.io Mailing List <family-historian@groups.io>
Subject: [family-historian] FH7 and One-name Studies

 

I am looking into doing a one-name study, and was wondering whether FH7 could be used for this purpose. Has anyone any idea or experience of this? I have been directed to the Custodian software, but don’t see the point if FH7 can do the same job.

Robert


 


johnfirr@...
 

I to use FH for both my one name study and my own family history. When I embarked on my one namer I convinced myself that I needed seperate software and messed about with both access and custodian ( which is in fact just a preprepared access database). I found Custodian to be very clunky .
I turned to FH which I was alreday using but at the time I think I saw it more in the way that Trevor suggesta earlier ie "for drawing diagrams" and it is very good at this.
However under the hood id a fully functioning database which can do absolutely everything you need for your ONS ( Particularly now V7 incorporates your research logs!).

the difference is that for an ONS I find myself working much more with the list views and only rarely with the diagrams. Its great for both. I keep eveything in one big project and just set up two flags (ONS and family History), individuals are flagged as one or both and makes it easy for me to seperate if I need to.

My advice would be get to know FH, use it for your ONS and only have one project.

Debbie I,m interested in your "pools" could you perhaps expand a bit on what you mean and how its done as I think I,m usinf families as pools but of course that misses all of the "orphans"
John Firr


Robert
 

Thanks very much for all of the feedback, which has led me to decide to stay solely with FH7. I am finding that the greater number of programmes I am using, the greater amount of duplicated time and effort I'm having to put in, and mistakes will be made! - I also use Reunion on my Mac, and trying to sync that with FH7 on my Windows 'puter is a nightmare, so that will have to go!

I have spent the last day or so getting to grips with the Query system, and it looks very much that that is all I need to achieve my aims, and that a flat database is the way forward for ONS.

I also like the idea of using flags to separate my actual direct family line from the ONS. I have 9,162 individuals, and 2880 families in my current 'Master' project.  The thing is, how do I set about flagging them, obviously doing one by one will take an eternity! 

Looking at it logically, I would like to be able to create a Query which extracts all my confirmed relations, and then flags them to be so as "Family" say; and then flag the rest (only the one name) as "ONS". I would then still be able to use the Orphan and Pool system independently, for whatever reason.

Any ideas on creating such a query please?

Robert

On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 07:21:08 GMT, johnfirr via groups.io <johnfirr@...> wrote:


I to use FH for both my one name study and my own family history. When I embarked on my one namer I convinced myself that I needed seperate software and messed about with both access and custodian ( which is in fact just a preprepared access database). I found Custodian to be very clunky .
I turned to FH which I was alreday using but at the time I think I saw it more in the way that Trevor suggesta earlier ie "for drawing diagrams" and it is very good at this.
However under the hood id a fully functioning database which can do absolutely everything you need for your ONS ( Particularly now V7 incorporates your research logs!).

the difference is that for an ONS I find myself working much more with the list views and only rarely with the diagrams. Its great for both. I keep eveything in one big project and just set up two flags (ONS and family History), individuals are flagged as one or both and makes it easy for me to seperate if I need to.

My advice would be get to know FH, use it for your ONS and only have one project.

Debbie I,m interested in your "pools" could you perhaps expand a bit on what you mean and how its done as I think I,m usinf families as pools but of course that misses all of the "orphans"
John Firr


David Wilkinson
 


I do this by using a Flag, which I called "Of Interest", then using the query All Relatives and choosing the right starting person -  say the root. Under the cog there is an option "Set Flag on Row Records" (just make sure you choose the right flag) and Bob's your uncle job done. I always take a small back-up first before doing such an exercise just in case.

Hope that helps.

David Wilkinson

On 11/02/2021 08:07, Robert via groups.io wrote:
Thanks very much for all of the feedback, which has led me to decide to stay solely with FH7. I am finding that the greater number of programmes I am using, the greater amount of duplicated time and effort I'm having to put in, and mistakes will be made! - I also use Reunion on my Mac, and trying to sync that with FH7 on my Windows 'puter is a nightmare, so that will have to go!

I have spent the last day or so getting to grips with the Query system, and it looks very much that that is all I need to achieve my aims, and that a flat database is the way forward for ONS.

I also like the idea of using flags to separate my actual direct family line from the ONS. I have 9,162 individuals, and 2880 families in my current 'Master' project.  The thing is, how do I set about flagging them, obviously doing one by one will take an eternity! 

Looking at it logically, I would like to be able to create a Query which extracts all my confirmed relations, and then flags them to be so as "Family" say; and then flag the rest (only the one name) as "ONS". I would then still be able to use the Orphan and Pool system independently, for whatever reason.

Any ideas on creating such a query please?

Robert
On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 07:21:08 GMT, johnfirr via groups.io <johnfirr@...> wrote:


I to use FH for both my one name study and my own family history. When I embarked on my one namer I convinced myself that I needed seperate software and messed about with both access and custodian ( which is in fact just a preprepared access database). I found Custodian to be very clunky .
I turned to FH which I was alreday using but at the time I think I saw it more in the way that Trevor suggesta earlier ie "for drawing diagrams" and it is very good at this.
However under the hood id a fully functioning database which can do absolutely everything you need for your ONS ( Particularly now V7 incorporates your research logs!).

the difference is that for an ONS I find myself working much more with the list views and only rarely with the diagrams. Its great for both. I keep eveything in one big project and just set up two flags (ONS and family History), individuals are flagged as one or both and makes it easy for me to seperate if I need to.

My advice would be get to know FH, use it for your ONS and only have one project.

Debbie I,m interested in your "pools" could you perhaps expand a bit on what you mean and how its done as I think I,m usinf families as pools but of course that misses all of the "orphans"
John Firr

Virus-free. www.avg.com


Mike Tate
 

Assuming there is no overlap between your Family and the ONS records you may not need Flags at all.

As has been suggested earlier, use the Relationship Pool number instead.

e.g.

Run the standard ‘Query > Relatives and Relationships > Search For Orphans’ which lists Individuals grouped into their Pool number.

Your large Family will be in Pool number 1 and all other unrelated groups will be in higher-numbered Pools.

The Pool number is shown by the =RelationPool() function that can be used anywhere an Expression is allowed in Queries, Diagrams, Reports, etc.

 

On the Records Window for Individuals, you can configure a column with =RelationPool() so it is always available.

It can also be configured into the Property Box on the Main tab or in the Caption above.

 

If you find you do need Record Flags then the Search For Orphans query Result Set menu lets you ‘Set Flag on Row Records’ you have selected.

 

Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert via groups.io
Sent: 11 February 2021 08:07
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] FH7 and One-name Studies

 

I also like the idea of using flags to separate my actual direct family line from the ONS. I have 9,162 individuals, and 2880 families in my current 'Master' project.  The thing is, how do I set about flagging them, obviously doing one by one will take an eternity! 

 

Looking at it logically, I would like to be able to create a Query which extracts all my confirmed relations, and then flags them to be so as "Family" say; and then flag the rest (only the one name) as "ONS". I would then still be able to use the Orphan and Pool system independently, for whatever reason.

 

Any ideas on creating such a query please?

 

Robert


Robert
 

Brilliant! Thanks Mike, I’ll give that a go!


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

On Thursday, February 11, 2021, 10:23, Mike Tate <post@...> wrote:

Assuming there is no overlap between your Family and the ONS records you may not need Flags at all.

As has been suggested earlier, use the Relationship Pool number instead.

e.g.

Run the standard ‘Query > Relatives and Relationships > Search For Orphans’ which lists Individuals grouped into their Pool number.

Your large Family will be in Pool number 1 and all other unrelated groups will be in higher-numbered Pools.

The Pool number is shown by the =RelationPool() function that can be used anywhere an Expression is allowed in Queries, Diagrams, Reports, etc.

 

On the Records Window for Individuals, you can configure a column with =RelationPool() so it is always available.

It can also be configured into the Property Box on the Main tab or in the Caption above.

 

If you find you do need Record Flags then the Search For Orphans query Result Set menu lets you ‘Set Flag on Row Records’ you have selected.

 

Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert via groups.io
Sent: 11 February 2021 08:07
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] FH7 and One-name Studies

 

I also like the idea of using flags to separate my actual direct family line from the ONS. I have 9,162 individuals, and 2880 families in my current 'Master' project.  The thing is, how do I set about flagging them, obviously doing one by one will take an eternity! 

 

Looking at it logically, I would like to be able to create a Query which extracts all my confirmed relations, and then flags them to be so as "Family" say; and then flag the rest (only the one name) as "ONS". I would then still be able to use the Orphan and Pool system independently, for whatever reason.

 

Any ideas on creating such a query please?

 

Robert


Brian Horridge
 

Robert

One problem I found with just relying on a traditional family history programme for One Name research is that you can end up with multiple entries for the same person when trawling for all instances of your surname.  For example, different record sets sometimes have different snippets of information recorded for the same basic event and usually at first you are not always 100% sure who is who.  I used to used Custodian to record any information I found (transcribed literally as seen) and then later I would try and allocate then to a person (using the FH ID to show I'd "found" who they were).  Nowadays I used spreadsheets as I found Custodian a bit flaky (especially Custodian 4)  and spreadsheets have improved a lot in usability.  It's also easier to download bulk data extracts such as FBMD BMDs direct into a spreadsheet to work on before building them into trees.

Because of major hassles I've had in the past trying to combine duplicated individuals, I now generally only add new people into FH when I'm reasonably certain they are not already in there.   It's not too bad if you've only a few duplicated people but is a real headache if you've hundreds of them.

FH has the inbuilt Pool feature which identifies every separate groups (use =RelationPool() in the one of the Record Window columns) .  The Pool number is generated within FH (on loading the GEDCOM I think) so is automatically worked out.

Brian

On 11/02/2021 08:07, Robert via groups.io wrote:
Thanks very much for all of the feedback, which has led me to decide to stay solely with FH7. I am finding that the greater number of programmes I am using, the greater amount of duplicated time and effort I'm having to put in, and mistakes will be made! - I also use Reunion on my Mac, and trying to sync that with FH7 on my Windows 'puter is a nightmare, so that will have to go!

I have spent the last day or so getting to grips with the Query system, and it looks very much that that is all I need to achieve my aims, and that a flat database is the way forward for ONS.

I also like the idea of using flags to separate my actual direct family line from the ONS. I have 9,162 individuals, and 2880 families in my current 'Master' project.  The thing is, how do I set about flagging them, obviously doing one by one will take an eternity! 

Looking at it logically, I would like to be able to create a Query which extracts all my confirmed relations, and then flags them to be so as "Family" say; and then flag the rest (only the one name) as "ONS". I would then still be able to use the Orphan and Pool system independently, for whatever reason.

Any ideas on creating such a query please?

Robert
On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 07:21:08 GMT, johnfirr via groups.io <johnfirr@...> wrote:


I to use FH for both my one name study and my own family history. When I embarked on my one namer I convinced myself that I needed seperate software and messed about with both access and custodian ( which is in fact just a preprepared access database). I found Custodian to be very clunky .
I turned to FH which I was alreday using but at the time I think I saw it more in the way that Trevor suggesta earlier ie "for drawing diagrams" and it is very good at this.
However under the hood id a fully functioning database which can do absolutely everything you need for your ONS ( Particularly now V7 incorporates your research logs!).

the difference is that for an ONS I find myself working much more with the list views and only rarely with the diagrams. Its great for both. I keep eveything in one big project and just set up two flags (ONS and family History), individuals are flagged as one or both and makes it easy for me to seperate if I need to.

My advice would be get to know FH, use it for your ONS and only have one project.

Debbie I,m interested in your "pools" could you perhaps expand a bit on what you mean and how its done as I think I,m usinf families as pools but of course that misses all of the "orphans"
John Firr

Virus-free. www.avg.com


Robert
 

Brian,

I usually just dump any names I find straight into FH, with a cursory look for a match. I do this with the knowledge that I can easily merge records later if need be. I have a spreadsheet I use to try and keep track of BDM certificates I own, which includes bulk data I have downloaded like yourself - incidentally, the GRO index often has entries that can be found on sites, such as FreeBMD, missing from their database.

On Thursday, February 11, 2021, 10:44, Brian Horridge via groups.io <brian.horridge@...> wrote:

Robert

One problem I found with just relying on a traditional family history programme for One Name research is that you can end up with multiple entries for the same person when trawling for all instances of your surname.  For example, different record sets sometimes have different snippets of information recorded for the same basic event and usually at first you are not always 100% sure who is who.  I used to used Custodian to record any information I found (transcribed literally as seen) and then later I would try and allocate then to a person (using the FH ID to show I'd "found" who they were).  Nowadays I used spreadsheets as I found Custodian a bit flaky (especially Custodian 4)  and spreadsheets have improved a lot in usability.  It's also easier to download bulk data extracts such as FBMD BMDs direct into a spreadsheet to work on before building them into trees.

Because of major hassles I've had in the past trying to combine duplicated individuals, I now generally only add new people into FH when I'm reasonably certain they are not already in there.   It's not too bad if you've only a few duplicated people but is a real headache if you've hundreds of them.

FH has the inbuilt Pool feature which identifies every separate groups (use =RelationPool() in the one of the Record Window columns) .  The Pool number is generated within FH (on loading the GEDCOM I think) so is automatically worked out.

Brian

On 11/02/2021 08:07, Robert via groups.io wrote:
Thanks very much for all of the feedback, which has led me to decide to stay solely with FH7. I am finding that the greater number of programmes I am using, the greater amount of duplicated time and effort I'm having to put in, and mistakes will be made! - I also use Reunion on my Mac, and trying to sync that with FH7 on my Windows 'puter is a nightmare, so that will have to go!

I have spent the last day or so getting to grips with the Query system, and it looks very much that that is all I need to achieve my aims, and that a flat database is the way forward for ONS.

I also like the idea of using flags to separate my actual direct family line from the ONS. I have 9,162 individuals, and 2880 families in my current 'Master' project.  The thing is, how do I set about flagging them, obviously doing one by one will take an eternity! 

Looking at it logically, I would like to be able to create a Query which extracts all my confirmed relations, and then flags them to be so as "Family" say; and then flag the rest (only the one name) as "ONS". I would then still be able to use the Orphan and Pool system independently, for whatever reason.

Any ideas on creating such a query please?

Robert
On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 07:21:08 GMT, johnfirr via groups.io <johnfirr@...> wrote:


I to use FH for both my one name study and my own family history. When I embarked on my one namer I convinced myself that I needed seperate software and messed about with both access and custodian ( which is in fact just a preprepared access database). I found Custodian to be very clunky .
I turned to FH which I was alreday using but at the time I think I saw it more in the way that Trevor suggesta earlier ie "for drawing diagrams" and it is very good at this.
However under the hood id a fully functioning database which can do absolutely everything you need for your ONS ( Particularly now V7 incorporates your research logs!).

the difference is that for an ONS I find myself working much more with the list views and only rarely with the diagrams. Its great for both. I keep eveything in one big project and just set up two flags (ONS and family History), individuals are flagged as one or both and makes it easy for me to seperate if I need to.

My advice would be get to know FH, use it for your ONS and only have one project.

Debbie I,m interested in your "pools" could you perhaps expand a bit on what you mean and how its done as I think I,m usinf families as pools but of course that misses all of the "orphans"
John Firr

Virus-free. www.avg.com


Brian Horridge
 

Robert

I started my research before so many records were so easily available online and often were not fully transcribed and I've just kept using the same methodology.

The one thing I have learnt (usually the hard way) is that no one online supplier has them all and/or recorded the same.  I use both Find My Past and Ancestry (and Family Search etc) and often find they differ in what they have (usually due to transcribing errors). I enter both (all) versions into my spreadsheets and then use value judgements to decide which is the better one to use.

Brian


On 11/02/2021 11:16, Robert via groups.io wrote:
Brian,

I usually just dump any names I find straight into FH, with a cursory look for a match. I do this with the knowledge that I can easily merge records later if need be. I have a spreadsheet I use to try and keep track of BDM certificates I own, which includes bulk data I have downloaded like yourself - incidentally, the GRO index often has entries that can be found on sites, such as FreeBMD, missing from their database.

Robert


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

On Thursday, February 11, 2021, 10:44, Brian Horridge via groups.io <brian.horridge@...> wrote:

Robert

One problem I found with just relying on a traditional family history programme for One Name research is that you can end up with multiple entries for the same person when trawling for all instances of your surname.  For example, different record sets sometimes have different snippets of information recorded for the same basic event and usually at first you are not always 100% sure who is who.  I used to used Custodian to record any information I found (transcribed literally as seen) and then later I would try and allocate then to a person (using the FH ID to show I'd "found" who they were).  Nowadays I used spreadsheets as I found Custodian a bit flaky (especially Custodian 4)  and spreadsheets have improved a lot in usability.  It's also easier to download bulk data extracts such as FBMD BMDs direct into a spreadsheet to work on before building them into trees.

Because of major hassles I've had in the past trying to combine duplicated individuals, I now generally only add new people into FH when I'm reasonably certain they are not already in there.   It's not too bad if you've only a few duplicated people but is a real headache if you've hundreds of them.

FH has the inbuilt Pool feature which identifies every separate groups (use =RelationPool() in the one of the Record Window columns) .  The Pool number is generated within FH (on loading the GEDCOM I think) so is automatically worked out.

Brian

On 11/02/2021 08:07, Robert via groups.io wrote:
Thanks very much for all of the feedback, which has led me to decide to stay solely with FH7. I am finding that the greater number of programmes I am using, the greater amount of duplicated time and effort I'm having to put in, and mistakes will be made! - I also use Reunion on my Mac, and trying to sync that with FH7 on my Windows 'puter is a nightmare, so that will have to go!

I have spent the last day or so getting to grips with the Query system, and it looks very much that that is all I need to achieve my aims, and that a flat database is the way forward for ONS.

I also like the idea of using flags to separate my actual direct family line from the ONS. I have 9,162 individuals, and 2880 families in my current 'Master' project.  The thing is, how do I set about flagging them, obviously doing one by one will take an eternity! 

Looking at it logically, I would like to be able to create a Query which extracts all my confirmed relations, and then flags them to be so as "Family" say; and then flag the rest (only the one name) as "ONS". I would then still be able to use the Orphan and Pool system independently, for whatever reason.

Any ideas on creating such a query please?

Robert
On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 07:21:08 GMT, johnfirr via groups.io <johnfirr@...> wrote:


I to use FH for both my one name study and my own family history. When I embarked on my one namer I convinced myself that I needed seperate software and messed about with both access and custodian ( which is in fact just a preprepared access database). I found Custodian to be very clunky .
I turned to FH which I was alreday using but at the time I think I saw it more in the way that Trevor suggesta earlier ie "for drawing diagrams" and it is very good at this.
However under the hood id a fully functioning database which can do absolutely everything you need for your ONS ( Particularly now V7 incorporates your research logs!).

the difference is that for an ONS I find myself working much more with the list views and only rarely with the diagrams. Its great for both. I keep eveything in one big project and just set up two flags (ONS and family History), individuals are flagged as one or both and makes it easy for me to seperate if I need to.

My advice would be get to know FH, use it for your ONS and only have one project.

Debbie I,m interested in your "pools" could you perhaps expand a bit on what you mean and how its done as I think I,m usinf families as pools but of course that misses all of the "orphans"
John Firr

Virus-free. www.avg.com



Mike Tate
 

Brian,

Did you regularly run the ‘Find Duplicate Individuals’ plugin so the number of duplicates did not get excessive?

 

It is important when using Edit > Merge/Compare Records for duplicate Individuals to review and merge their Family records too.

 

Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian Horridge via groups.io
Sent: 11 February 2021 10:44
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] FH7 and One-name Studies

 

Robert

Because of major hassles I've had in the past trying to combine duplicated individuals, I now generally only add new people into FH when I'm reasonably certain they are not already in there.   It's not too bad if you've only a few duplicated people but is a real headache if you've hundreds of them.


Debbie Kennett
 

John

 

The pools are automatically assigned by Family Historian. As soon as you have a new individual or a group of people who have no connections with an existing pool a new pool is created. For example, if you are only using Family Historian to store your own personal family tree, you might find that you mistakenly marry someone off to the wrong person. If you unlink this person and their children from your family tree then they will appear as a separate pool. If you add a column for the pool then you can sort by pool and see how many different pools you have.

 

I haven’t used flags but if I were to do so then my pool 1 would be my own family history, a subset of which is part of my one-name study. The remaining 107 pools are nearly all part of my one-name study.

 

If I get marriage certificates from the Guild marriage challenges and I can’t fit the people into any of my existing trees I will still research the couple and add all their children to my database so they will exist as a small separate pool but I might eventually eventually be able to add them to an existing tree as more data comes in. That means the number of pools is always changing.

 

Like you I do most of my work in the Records Window looking at long lists of people and I have lots of columns for sorting the data in different ways.

 

Debbie Kennett

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of johnfirr via groups.io
Sent: 11 February 2021 07:21
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] FH7 and One-name Studies

 

I to use FH for both my one name study and my own family history. When I embarked on my one namer I convinced myself that I needed seperate software and messed about with both access and custodian ( which is in fact just a preprepared access database). I found Custodian to be very clunky .
I turned to FH which I was alreday using but at the time I think I saw it more in the way that Trevor suggesta earlier ie "for drawing diagrams" and it is very good at this.
However under the hood id a fully functioning database which can do absolutely everything you need for your ONS ( Particularly now V7 incorporates your research logs!).

the difference is that for an ONS I find myself working much more with the list views and only rarely with the diagrams. Its great for both. I keep eveything in one big project and just set up two flags (ONS and family History), individuals are flagged as one or both and makes it easy for me to seperate if I need to.

My advice would be get to know FH, use it for your ONS and only have one project.

Debbie I,m interested in your "pools" could you perhaps expand a bit on what you mean and how its done as I think I,m usinf families as pools but of course that misses all of the "orphans"
John Firr


Brian Horridge
 

Mike

When I started with FH (FH2 I think) plugins were not available and anyway I've always been cautious about not adding someone till I've a fair degree of confidence (after recording the basic event details in Custodian / spreadsheets). 

I suppose I preferred to work on locally-help data in spreadsheets because what little online access that was available was painfully slow (dial-up modems etc).  Also, most of my initial research had been done in person at record offices from microfilms etc so one had to transcribe the data by hand.   I quickly learnt to simply record everything that might be vaguely relevant and sort it out later at home.

Because of these early lessons (and methodology), I've never had to deal with large numbers of duplicated entries but the few I have had often caused me a long time to resolve each one.

Brian


On 11/02/2021 13:07, Mike Tate wrote:

Brian,

Did you regularly run the ‘Find Duplicate Individuals’ plugin so the number of duplicates did not get excessive?

 

It is important when using Edit > Merge/Compare Records for duplicate Individuals to review and merge their Family records too.

 

Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian Horridge via groups.io
Sent: 11 February 2021 10:44
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] FH7 and One-name Studies

 

Robert

Because of major hassles I've had in the past trying to combine duplicated individuals, I now generally only add new people into FH when I'm reasonably certain they are not already in there.   It's not too bad if you've only a few duplicated people but is a real headache if you've hundreds of them.


Virus-free. www.avg.com