Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FHCNET] Entering Sources in nFS -- Tips & Improvements

Expand Messages
  • Gary Templeman
    It does seem that until the sourcing is improved perhaps a more minimalist approach could be used at nFS. So rather than spend 30-45 minutes to properly
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 5, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      It does seem that until the sourcing is improved perhaps a more minimalist
      approach could be used at nFS. So rather than spend 30-45 minutes to
      "properly" document a source, how about for example simply stating
      "Minnesota birth records 1927" or "1880 US Census for Sebastopol, Sonoma,
      California", and leave it to those who want the exact page number,
      enumeration district or whatever to take the initiative to request it. I
      would have a much greater comfort level looking at a record with even a
      small indication that the submitter actually reviewed some records than one
      with nothing at all.

      Gary Templeman

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Maureen Lake" <arespooch@...>
      To: <FHCNET@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 6:38 PM
      Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Entering Sources in nFS -- Tips & Improvements


      > My sugestion (several times now over the las 2+years) has been to link the
      > source input screen to the FHL catalogue. We have the single largest
      > repository of genealogical materials in the world, we've already linked
      > several sources together to create the database for nFS, so how hard could
      > it be to make sourcing a little easier on us.
      >
      > I'm afraid I'm one of those that doesn't take the time to source on nFS.
      > If I spent the 30-45 minutes it would take me per person to properly
      > document my entries no temple work would ever get done. My personal
      > database IS properly documented, and I freely share with anyone who
      > contacts me for the information. I'm afraid this will continue until the
      > FS people make documentation a priority. And, at least according to the
      > people I spoke with at NGS in April, that's just not very high on the
      > list.
      >
      > My two cents, for what they're worth.
      >
      > Maureen Lake
      > Las Vegas, Nevada
    • Venita Roylance
      Hi Kathy and all, I commisserate!! The source feature in nFS is clumsy at best, and I, too, have made my opinions known to those in charge. The good news is
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 6, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Kathy and all,

        I commisserate!! The source feature in nFS is clumsy at best, and I, too, have made my opinions known to those in charge. The good news is that they are aware of the problem and working on it. I suspect that someplace down the road there will be a way to link an event to a digital copy of the original record. Trouble is, the digital images and the data records will need to be in the same 'pot' to guarantee that the link will continue to be active. Linking to records on another website is always iffy. Websites are continually changing. Perhaps what is now Record Search Pilot will eventually become the source for digital record images for linking.

        In the meantime, I personally have resorted to entering limited information into the source template. From the "Select a source" dropdown, I choose the proper category, then click the "Source details" button. In the source template, I choose the type of source from the "Source detail" drop down, ie "Christening record or certificate." I skip the Media type, and in the "Title" field I type the name of the record, ie: Parish Records, Church of England, Gisburn Parish, Gisburn Yorkshire, England, 1695 - 1837. I ignore the other fields all the way down to the "Page Number" field. In there I type (or paste) the FHL film number (FHL film #123456), or other brief info about where I saw the data. If I have the actual text of the particular record in my database, I may copy and paste it into the "Actual Text" or "Comment" field, especially if it is pertinent to identying the particular individual in question. The program automatically adds my name and makes a usable source statement out of what I typed.

        If you care to see an example, go to Robert Dodgshon, PID LQR7-6R6, click the "Individual sources" link at the bottom of his individual details window, then scroll down through the sources till you come to "Sources about Events," then Burial Date.

        Hope this helps.

        Venita


        On Jun 5, 2010, at 2:17 PM, kgrant100@... wrote:

        > Hi Friends,
        >
        > The other day I had one of those miracles we all love--information spanning
        > five generations fell into my lap. I have been carefully validating each
        > name with additional sources and entering everything in nFS. And that's
        > what's killing me--adding sources! It is literally taking hours (time I'd
        > rather be spending on research) to enter the same sources in nFS over and over
        > and over again for different individuals. I do it because I know how
        > valuable and important sources are, but it's no wonder most patrons enter
        > incomplete sources or no sources at all.
        >
        > Along the way I've picked up a few tips to speed things up, which I wanted
        > to share:
        > * I use the browser's form-completion feature (which remembers past
        > entries and gives you a dropdown list from which you can select).
        > * I've also created a document with frequently-used sources so that
        > if form-completion doesn't work or gets cleared, I can cut and paste from
        > the document.
        > * I no longer enter sources when I add a name. Instead, I go back and
        > enter all sources as Individual Sources (rather than associating them with
        > a specific event). Then in the Comments box, I indicate which event(s) the
        > source supports (often a source will support multiple events, of course).
        > Not only is it faster, but the list of sources is cleaner as well.
        >
        > Incidentally, I wondered if this approach would go against nFS guidelines.
        > But I looked in the Knowledge Base and article 100343 (dated 2007) on
        > source guidelines says... there are no guidelines.
        > What I'd really like is for nFS to
        > * Provide a list of standard sources from which I can select (maybe
        > all US/British/Canadian censuses and all other sources in Family Search
        > Record Search?). In functionality, it could be similar to the place name
        > suggestion feature in nFS. Once a source is selected, it would populate relevant
        > fields on the source form.
        > * Allow me to re-use sources I have entered.
        > * Streamline the source entry process.
        > * Streamline the source entry form.
        > Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? I understand that none of the desktop FH
        > software can upload sources to nFS. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) By
        > the way, since someone will probably suggest that I submit feedback on this
        > topic directly to nFS, I've already done that... several times :) I can
        > understand that other things have had to take priority, but this one is moving
        > up near the top, in my mind! :)
        >
        > Look forward to your input!
        >
        > Kathy
        > Memphis TN FHC
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Autumn
        Finally --- something that I believe will work! I am going to give this a try right away. Part of my problem that I keep getting --- I don t think a lot of
        Message 3 of 17 , Jun 6, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Finally --- something that I believe will work! I am going to give this a
          try right away. Part of my problem that I keep getting --- I don't think a
          lot of people are looking for the notes. They just disagree with what they
          see, nor do they have a "Contact" address or email.
          THANK YOU!!!
          Autumn in Coeur d'Alene Idaho
        • Gaylon Findlay
          Just a thought on sources in NFS -- Remember the days of PAF 2.31 -- before sources could be entered in PAF? We simply entered source information in Notes. I
          Message 4 of 17 , Jun 6, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Just a thought on sources in NFS --

            Remember the days of PAF 2.31 -- before sources could be entered in PAF?
            We simply entered source information in Notes.

            I think it may be less important that the information is entered in
            "Sources", and more important that the information is at least entered
            somewhere. Typing the source information into notes may not be as
            elegant as entering it into sources, but it does the job, and is much
            quicker at present. You can just copy and paste the entire source as a
            bibliographical entry rather than deal with the special fields for
            "title", "author", etc.

            If this is a workable solution for you, you might also consider this: If
            you are using a local software program like PAF, AQ, RM or other, and
            put the source info into notes, you should then be able to quickly
            upload the notes from your local file into NFS. I can't speak
            authoritatively about the other products, but I know that AQ can let you
            copy your PAF or AQ notes into notes for NFS records (and visa versa).
            So you'd only need to enter the notes in one system, and easily copy
            them to the other system.

            I expect that better methods of handling sources are being developed,
            but until that happens, notes may be a reasonable short term solution.

            Gaylon Findlay


            kgrant100@... wrote:
            > Hi Friends,
            >
            > The other day I had one of those miracles we all love--information spanning
            > five generations fell into my lap. I have been carefully validating each
            > name with additional sources and entering everything in nFS. And that's
            > what's killing me--adding sources! It is literally taking hours (time I'd
            > rather be spending on research) to enter the same sources in nFS over and over
            > and over again for different individuals. I do it because I know how
            > valuable and important sources are, but it's no wonder most patrons enter
            > incomplete sources or no sources at all.
            >
            > Along the way I've picked up a few tips to speed things up, which I wanted
            > to share:
            > * I use the browser's form-completion feature (which remembers past
            > entries and gives you a dropdown list from which you can select).
            > * I've also created a document with frequently-used sources so that
            > if form-completion doesn't work or gets cleared, I can cut and paste from
            > the document.
            > * I no longer enter sources when I add a name. Instead, I go back and
            > enter all sources as Individual Sources (rather than associating them with
            > a specific event). Then in the Comments box, I indicate which event(s) the
            > source supports (often a source will support multiple events, of course).
            > Not only is it faster, but the list of sources is cleaner as well.
            >
            > Incidentally, I wondered if this approach would go against nFS guidelines.
            > But I looked in the Knowledge Base and article 100343 (dated 2007) on
            > source guidelines says... there are no guidelines.
            > What I'd really like is for nFS to
            > * Provide a list of standard sources from which I can select (maybe
            > all US/British/Canadian censuses and all other sources in Family Search
            > Record Search?). In functionality, it could be similar to the place name
            > suggestion feature in nFS. Once a source is selected, it would populate relevant
            > fields on the source form.
            > * Allow me to re-use sources I have entered.
            > * Streamline the source entry process.
            > * Streamline the source entry form.
            > Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? I understand that none of the desktop FH
            > software can upload sources to nFS. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) By
            > the way, since someone will probably suggest that I submit feedback on this
            > topic directly to nFS, I've already done that... several times :) I can
            > understand that other things have had to take priority, but this one is moving
            > up near the top, in my mind! :)
            >
            > Look forward to your input!
            >
            > Kathy
            > Memphis TN FHC
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > List owner: ileenjohnson@...
            > Unsubscribe: FHCNET-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > Subscribe: Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FHCNET
            > or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Leslie Vaughn
            That is what I do. In one of the older versions of newfamilysearch, there was a limit on the number of characters you could input in the notes, but it appears
            Message 5 of 17 , Jun 6, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              That is what I do.


              In one of the older versions of newfamilysearch, there was a limit on the number of characters you could input in the notes, but it appears that there is no longer any limit and I have put all my notes there.

              It is very easy to sync the notes from AQ to nfs.

              I do agree this is not as neat and nice as it could be but it is there for anyone to see

              Leslie


              From: Gaylon Findlay
              Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 4:23 PMnTo: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Entering Sources in nFS -- Tips & Improvements



              Just a thought on sources in NFS --

              Remember the days of PAF 2.31 -- before sources could be entered in PAF?
              We simply entered source information in Notes.

              I think it may be less important that the information is entered in
              "Sources", and more important that the information is at least entered
              somewhere. Typing the source information into notes may not be as
              elegant as entering it into sources, but it does the job, and is much
              quicker at present. You can just copy and paste the entire source as a
              bibliographical entry rather than deal with the special fields for
              "title", "author", etc.

              If this is a workable solution for you, you might also consider this: If
              you are using a local software program like PAF, AQ, RM or other, and
              put the source info into notes, you should then be able to quickly
              upload the notes from your local file into NFS. I can't speak
              authoritatively about the other products, but I know that AQ can let you
              copy your PAF or AQ notes into notes for NFS records (and visa versa).
              So you'd only need to enter the notes in one system, and easily copy
              them to the other system.

              I expect that better methods of handling sources are being developed,
              but until that happens, notes may be a reasonable short term solution.

              Gaylon Findlay

              kgrant100@... wrote:
              > Hi Friends,
              >
              > The other day I had one of those miracles we all love--information spanning
              > five generations fell into my lap. I have been carefully validating each
              > name with additional sources and entering everything in nFS. And that's
              > what's killing me--adding sources! It is literally taking hours (time I'd
              > rather be spending on research) to enter the same sources in nFS over and over
              > and over again for different individuals. I do it because I know how
              > valuable and important sources are, but it's no wonder most patrons enter
              > incomplete sources or no sources at all.
              >
              > Along the way I've picked up a few tips to speed things up, which I wanted
              > to share:
              > * I use the browser's form-completion feature (which remembers past
              > entries and gives you a dropdown list from which you can select).
              > * I've also created a document with frequently-used sources so that
              > if form-completion doesn't work or gets cleared, I can cut and paste from
              > the document.
              > * I no longer enter sources when I add a name. Instead, I go back and
              > enter all sources as Individual Sources (rather than associating them with
              > a specific event). Then in the Comments box, I indicate which event(s) the
              > source supports (often a source will support multiple events, of course).
              > Not only is it faster, but the list of sources is cleaner as well.
              >
              > Incidentally, I wondered if this approach would go against nFS guidelines.
              > But I looked in the Knowledge Base and article 100343 (dated 2007) on
              > source guidelines says... there are no guidelines.
              > What I'd really like is for nFS to
              > * Provide a list of standard sources from which I can select (maybe
              > all US/British/Canadian censuses and all other sources in Family Search
              > Record Search?). In functionality, it could be similar to the place name
              > suggestion feature in nFS. Once a source is selected, it would populate relevant
              > fields on the source form.
              > * Allow me to re-use sources I have entered.
              > * Streamline the source entry process.
              > * Streamline the source entry form.
              > Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? I understand that none of the desktop FH
              > software can upload sources to nFS. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) By
              > the way, since someone will probably suggest that I submit feedback on this
              > topic directly to nFS, I've already done that... several times :) I can
              > understand that other things have had to take priority, but this one is moving
              > up near the top, in my mind! :)
              >
              > Look forward to your input!
              >
              > Kathy
              > Memphis TN FHC
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > List owner: ileenjohnson@...
              > Unsubscribe: FHCNET-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > Subscribe: Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FHCNET
              > or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Miles Meyer
              That is what I do also. I always transcribe my sources into my notes in AQ, word for word. Then when I sync the AQ file with nFS I import those notes so people
              Message 6 of 17 , Jun 6, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                That is what I do also. I always transcribe my sources into my notes in AQ,
                word for word. Then when I sync the AQ file with nFS I import those notes so
                people who are interested can read what I think the document said. This
                includes the full families in census records, newspaper articles,
                biographical info, military records, etc., all in chronological order.

                Miles Meyer
                Jacksonville, FL




                On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Leslie Vaughn <Leslievaughn@...>wrote:

                >
                >
                > That is what I do.
                >
                > In one of the older versions of newfamilysearch, there was a limit on the
                > number of characters you could input in the notes, but it appears that there
                > is no longer any limit and I have put all my notes there.
                >
                > It is very easy to sync the notes from AQ to nfs.
                >
                > I do agree this is not as neat and nice as it could be but it is there for
                > anyone to see
                >
                > Leslie
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Carol Egg
                I have been using individual notes or family notes for my sources. I just copy and paste from my notes in PAF. There so far seems to be no limit on
                Message 7 of 17 , Jun 6, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have been using "individual notes" or "family notes" for my sources. I just copy and paste from my notes in PAF. There so far seems to be no limit on space. I haven't seen any comments on doing this so maybe I've been wrong, but it is a comfort to have my sources there for all to read.

                  The source fields in the various database programs have always been a problem for me. They are too complicated and time consuming for me and they do not transfer between programs very well.

                  Just a thought, hopefully helpful.

                  Carol
                  Fallbrook, CA



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Venita Roylance
                  Not to put too fine a point on it ... OK, I ll admit I m putting a fine point on it. In the genealogy world at large there is a big difference between notes
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jun 7, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Not to put too fine a point on it ... OK, I'll admit I'm putting a fine point on it.

                    In the genealogy world at large there is a big difference between notes and sources. Notes are meant to explain or expand the genealogical data you put into the name, dates, places fields. They are also to provide supporting data such as exact quotes, extracted census data, obituaries, etc., etc.

                    Sources, on the other hand, are meant to be concise references to where you found the data you put in the name, dates and places fields. Ideally, a source will tell the reader where to find the exact information (the original document) that you found, fifty years and more from now. That's why there are fields for notes and fields for sources.

                    Editorial comment: Church members in general have a weak reputation in the genealogy world at large because we choose to not follow the research rules that other family historians adhere to. While our ultimate goal is to free the prisoners by doing proxy temple work for them, it would be a laudible bonus if we would also be excellent researchers, recorders, and sourcers of their personal data. We would surely also gain more respect among our peers outside the church membership rolls if we did so.

                    Venita

                    On Jun 6, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Carol Egg wrote:

                    > I have been using "individual notes" or "family notes" for my sources. I just copy and paste from my notes in PAF. There so far seems to be no limit on space. I haven't seen any comments on doing this so maybe I've been wrong, but it is a comfort to have my sources there for all to read.
                    >
                    > The source fields in the various database programs have always been a problem for me. They are too complicated and time consuming for me and they do not transfer between programs very well.
                    >
                    > Just a thought, hopefully helpful.
                    >
                    > Carol
                    > Fallbrook, CA
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • singhals
                    ... There s a big difference between the two just about anywhere. Back in the day, when we wrote long reports in, er, long-hand, or paid a clever typist to do
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jun 7, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Venita Roylance wrote:
                      > Not to put too fine a point on it ... OK, I'll admit I'm putting a fine point on it.
                      >
                      > In the genealogy world at large there is a big difference between notes and sources. Notes are meant to explain or expand the genealogical data you put into the name, dates, places fields. They are also to provide supporting data such as exact quotes, extracted census data, obituaries, etc., etc.
                      >

                      There's a big difference between the two just about anywhere.

                      Back in the day, when we wrote long reports in, er, long-hand, or paid a
                      clever typist to do it, one put both sources and text into (a) the
                      narrative or (b) a footnote. (a) was more popular, because it meant
                      people would read it. Seems to me, these days, if putting the Source in
                      the NOTES raises the odds of the Source being read by others, This Would
                      Be A GOOD Thing. And, candidly, I don't often USE the source template
                      for a variety of reasons -- people not reading 'em is #2.

                      > Sources, on the other hand, are meant to be concise references to where you found the data you put in the name, dates and places fields. Ideally, a source will tell the reader where to find the exact information (the original document) that you found, fifty years and more from now. That's why there are fields for notes and fields for sources.

                      Again, concise references would NOT include Actual Text.

                      And, telling someone in a source citation that this is from Image 1245
                      on Ancestry.com isn't going to be whole whale of a lot of help 20 years
                      from now after Ancestry.com has re-imaged and re-numbered everything,
                      let alone 50 years from now when Ancestry.com is a faded memory. Or
                      even, day after tomorrow, to someone who has no access to Ancestry.com's
                      image 1245.

                      And may I add, there must be 25 different large citation style manuals
                      out there, plus a style-sheet for every publication known to man. NONE
                      of them are /wrong/ and none of them are universally /definitive./ Use
                      the one you grew up using, even if your source is "I think I remember
                      reading something about that somewhere." (copyright by someone else
                      whose name eludes me as does the book it's in.)

                      > Editorial comment: Church members in general have a weak reputation in the genealogy world at large because we choose to not follow the research rules that other family historians adhere to. While our ultimate goal is to free the prisoners by doing proxy temple work for them, it would be a laudible bonus if we would also be excellent researchers, recorders, and sourcers of their personal data. We would surely also gain more respect among our peers outside the church membership rolls if we did so.

                      Amen.

                      Cheryl
                    • L. L. Scott
                      In RootsMagic I use the Source - Free Form. It has 1. Source Name & Details 2. Free Form is Footnote & Bibligraphy 3. Source Text & comments 4. Detail Text
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jun 7, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In RootsMagic I use the Source - Free Form.

                        It has
                        1. Source Name & Details
                        2. Free Form is Footnote & Bibligraphy
                        3. Source Text & comments
                        4. Detail Text & comments

                        I do a lot of cut & paste
                        >
                        >> Sources, on the other hand, are meant to be concise references to where you found the data you put in the name, dates and places fields. Ideally, a source will tell the reader where to find the exact information (the original document) that you found, fifty years and more from now. That's why there are fields for notes and fields for sources.
                        >
                        > Again, concise references would NOT include Actual Text.
                        >
                        > And, telling someone in a source citation that this is from Image 1245
                        > on Ancestry.com isn't going to be whole whale of a lot of help 20 years
                        > from now after Ancestry.com has re-imaged and re-numbered everything,
                        > let alone 50 years from now when Ancestry.com is a faded memory. Or
                        > even, day after tomorrow, to someone who has no access to Ancestry.com's
                        > image 1245.
                      • Margaret Thompson
                        I like to use the source feature because you can attach the digital image of the record, you can also put the text of the document into the source. Sources can
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jun 7, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I like to use the source feature because you can attach the digital image of
                          the record, you can also put the text of the document into the source.
                          Sources can be attached/sent with any of the files just like the notes.
                          Sources are easy to sort and search and attach to several different people.
                          You can even attach the images when you create a report. It is important to
                          me to use the source feature. When I get a GEDCOM file and they have sources
                          in the notes I have to try to transfer them to the source feature.

                          Margaret

                          --------------------------------------------------
                          From: "singhals" <singhals@...>
                          Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:51 PM
                          To: <FHCNET@yahoogroups.com>
                          Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re:Entering Sources in nFS -- Tips & Improvements

                          > Venita Roylance wrote:
                          >> Not to put too fine a point on it ... OK, I'll admit I'm putting a fine
                          >> point on it.
                          >>
                          >> In the genealogy world at large there is a big difference between notes
                          >> and sources. Notes are meant to explain or expand the genealogical data
                          >> you put into the name, dates, places fields. They are also to provide
                          >> supporting data such as exact quotes, extracted census data, obituaries,
                          >> etc., etc.
                          >>
                          >
                          > There's a big difference between the two just about anywhere.
                          >
                          > Back in the day, when we wrote long reports in, er, long-hand, or paid a
                          > clever typist to do it, one put both sources and text into (a) the
                          > narrative or (b) a footnote. (a) was more popular, because it meant
                          > people would read it. Seems to me, these days, if putting the Source in
                          > the NOTES raises the odds of the Source being read by others, This Would
                          > Be A GOOD Thing. And, candidly, I don't often USE the source template
                          > for a variety of reasons -- people not reading 'em is #2.
                          >
                          >> Sources, on the other hand, are meant to be concise references to where
                          >> you found the data you put in the name, dates and places fields.
                          >> Ideally, a source will tell the reader where to find the exact
                          >> information (the original document) that you found, fifty years and more
                          >> from now. That's why there are fields for notes and fields for sources.
                          >
                          > Again, concise references would NOT include Actual Text.
                          >
                          > And, telling someone in a source citation that this is from Image 1245
                          > on Ancestry.com isn't going to be whole whale of a lot of help 20 years
                          > from now after Ancestry.com has re-imaged and re-numbered everything,
                          > let alone 50 years from now when Ancestry.com is a faded memory. Or
                          > even, day after tomorrow, to someone who has no access to Ancestry.com's
                          > image 1245.
                          >
                          > And may I add, there must be 25 different large citation style manuals
                          > out there, plus a style-sheet for every publication known to man. NONE
                          > of them are /wrong/ and none of them are universally /definitive./ Use
                          > the one you grew up using, even if your source is "I think I remember
                          > reading something about that somewhere." (copyright by someone else
                          > whose name eludes me as does the book it's in.)
                          >
                          >> Editorial comment: Church members in general have a weak reputation in
                          >> the genealogy world at large because we choose to not follow the research
                          >> rules that other family historians adhere to. While our ultimate goal is
                          >> to free the prisoners by doing proxy temple work for them, it would be a
                          >> laudible bonus if we would also be excellent researchers, recorders, and
                          >> sourcers of their personal data. We would surely also gain more respect
                          >> among our peers outside the church membership rolls if we did so.
                          >
                          > Amen.
                          >
                          > Cheryl
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > List owner: ileenjohnson@...
                          > Unsubscribe: FHCNET-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subscribe: Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FHCNET
                          > or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo!
                          > Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • singhals
                          Well, yes, of course, you /can/, but then you lose the concise part of the definition. Worse -- images have to be pretty big to be legibly printable. I keep
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jun 8, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Well, yes, of course, you /can/, but then you lose the "concise" part of
                            the definition.

                            Worse -- images have to be pretty big to be legibly printable. I keep
                            one .paf file that has web-sized (ie, 100 dpi, and about 1in by 1 in)
                            photos for most of the last 5 generations. That file is nearly twice as
                            large as the same file w/o the images. There are about 10,000 names in
                            that file, and I have images for probably 120 of them. More, the
                            image.paf takes forever while navigating through, even on my new faster
                            machine.

                            If I were to add images and transcriptions of the birth, death, marriage
                            certificates, of the deeds, and wills ... I might have to leave that
                            file on it's own computer.

                            And I can't imagine what would happen if I started putting images into
                            the 35,000 name database!

                            HOWEVER -- if anyone's still with me here -- what do you do about
                            images, such as a newspaper article on a wedding or an obit, which
                            contain information on 20 or 30 different persons? Or, a record book
                            which has a single line across two Folio-size pages on each of 50
                            couples 6 or 7 of which are yours? To whom do you attach the image and
                            what's the rationale behind the choice?

                            Cheryl


                            Margaret Thompson wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > I like to use the source feature because you can attach the digital
                            > image of
                            > the record, you can also put the text of the document into the source.
                            > Sources can be attached/sent with any of the files just like the notes.
                            > Sources are easy to sort and search and attach to several different people.
                            > You can even attach the images when you create a report. It is important to
                            > me to use the source feature. When I get a GEDCOM file and they have
                            > sources
                            > in the notes I have to try to transfer them to the source feature.
                            >
                            > Margaret
                            >
                            > --------------------------------------------------
                            > From: "singhals" <singhals@... <mailto:singhals%40erols.com>>
                            > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:51 PM
                            > To: <FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>>
                            > Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re:Entering Sources in nFS -- Tips & Improvements
                            >
                            > > Venita Roylance wrote:
                            > >> Not to put too fine a point on it ... OK, I'll admit I'm putting a fine
                            > >> point on it.
                            > >>
                            > >> In the genealogy world at large there is a big difference between notes
                            > >> and sources. Notes are meant to explain or expand the genealogical data
                            > >> you put into the name, dates, places fields. They are also to provide
                            > >> supporting data such as exact quotes, extracted census data,
                            > obituaries,
                            > >> etc., etc.
                            > >>
                            > >
                            > > There's a big difference between the two just about anywhere.
                            > >
                            > > Back in the day, when we wrote long reports in, er, long-hand, or paid a
                            > > clever typist to do it, one put both sources and text into (a) the
                            > > narrative or (b) a footnote. (a) was more popular, because it meant
                            > > people would read it. Seems to me, these days, if putting the Source in
                            > > the NOTES raises the odds of the Source being read by others, This Would
                            > > Be A GOOD Thing. And, candidly, I don't often USE the source template
                            > > for a variety of reasons -- people not reading 'em is #2.
                            > >
                            > >> Sources, on the other hand, are meant to be concise references to where
                            > >> you found the data you put in the name, dates and places fields.
                            > >> Ideally, a source will tell the reader where to find the exact
                            > >> information (the original document) that you found, fifty years and
                            > more
                            > >> from now. That's why there are fields for notes and fields for sources.
                            > >
                            > > Again, concise references would NOT include Actual Text.
                            > >
                            > > And, telling someone in a source citation that this is from Image 1245
                            > > on Ancestry.com isn't going to be whole whale of a lot of help 20 years
                            > > from now after Ancestry.com has re-imaged and re-numbered everything,
                            > > let alone 50 years from now when Ancestry.com is a faded memory. Or
                            > > even, day after tomorrow, to someone who has no access to Ancestry.com's
                            > > image 1245.
                            > >
                            > > And may I add, there must be 25 different large citation style manuals
                            > > out there, plus a style-sheet for every publication known to man. NONE
                            > > of them are /wrong/ and none of them are universally /definitive./ Use
                            > > the one you grew up using, even if your source is "I think I remember
                            > > reading something about that somewhere." (copyright by someone else
                            > > whose name eludes me as does the book it's in.)
                            > >
                            > >> Editorial comment: Church members in general have a weak reputation in
                            > >> the genealogy world at large because we choose to not follow the
                            > research
                            > >> rules that other family historians adhere to. While our ultimate
                            > goal is
                            > >> to free the prisoners by doing proxy temple work for them, it would
                            > be a
                            > >> laudible bonus if we would also be excellent researchers, recorders,
                            > and
                            > >> sourcers of their personal data. We would surely also gain more respect
                            > >> among our peers outside the church membership rolls if we did so.
                            > >
                            > > Amen.
                            > >
                            > > Cheryl
                          • emregister
                            With PAF or AQ the image can be linked to many, many people, yet the image is stored only once. The record merely contains a link to the image. Eric HOWEVER
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jun 8, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              With PAF or AQ the image can be linked to many, many people, yet the image
                              is stored only once. The record merely contains a link to the image.

                              Eric

                              HOWEVER -- if anyone's still with me here -- what do you do about
                              images, such as a newspaper article on a wedding or an obit, which
                              contain information on 20 or 30 different persons? Or, a record book
                              which has a single line across two Folio-size pages on each of 50
                              couples 6 or 7 of which are yours? To whom do you attach the image and
                              what's the rationale behind the choice?

                              Cheryl


                              Margaret Thompson wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > I like to use the source feature because you can attach the digital
                              > image of
                              > the record, you can also put the text of the document into the source.
                              > Sources can be attached/sent with any of the files just like the notes.
                              > Sources are easy to sort and search and attach to several different
                              people.
                              > You can even attach the images when you create a report. It is important
                              to
                              > me to use the source feature. When I get a GEDCOM file and they have
                              > sources
                              > in the notes I have to try to transfer them to the source feature.
                              >
                              > Margaret
                              >
                              > --------------------------------------------------
                              > From: "singhals" <singhals@... <mailto:singhals%40erols.com>>
                              > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:51 PM
                              > To: <FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>>
                              > Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re:Entering Sources in nFS -- Tips & Improvements
                              >
                              > > Venita Roylance wrote:
                              > >> Not to put too fine a point on it ... OK, I'll admit I'm putting a
                              fine
                              > >> point on it.
                              > >>
                              > >> In the genealogy world at large there is a big difference between
                              notes
                              > >> and sources. Notes are meant to explain or expand the genealogical
                              data
                              > >> you put into the name, dates, places fields. They are also to provide
                              > >> supporting data such as exact quotes, extracted census data,
                              > obituaries,
                              > >> etc., etc.
                              > >>
                              > >
                              > > There's a big difference between the two just about anywhere.
                              > >
                              > > Back in the day, when we wrote long reports in, er, long-hand, or paid
                              a
                              > > clever typist to do it, one put both sources and text into (a) the
                              > > narrative or (b) a footnote. (a) was more popular, because it meant
                              > > people would read it. Seems to me, these days, if putting the Source in
                              > > the NOTES raises the odds of the Source being read by others, This
                              Would
                              > > Be A GOOD Thing. And, candidly, I don't often USE the source template
                              > > for a variety of reasons -- people not reading 'em is #2.
                              > >
                              > >> Sources, on the other hand, are meant to be concise references to
                              where
                              > >> you found the data you put in the name, dates and places fields.
                              > >> Ideally, a source will tell the reader where to find the exact
                              > >> information (the original document) that you found, fifty years and
                              > more
                              > >> from now. That's why there are fields for notes and fields for
                              sources.
                              > >
                              > > Again, concise references would NOT include Actual Text.
                              > >
                              > > And, telling someone in a source citation that this is from Image 1245
                              > > on Ancestry.com isn't going to be whole whale of a lot of help 20 years
                              > > from now after Ancestry.com has re-imaged and re-numbered everything,
                              > > let alone 50 years from now when Ancestry.com is a faded memory. Or
                              > > even, day after tomorrow, to someone who has no access to
                              Ancestry.com's
                              > > image 1245.
                              > >
                              > > And may I add, there must be 25 different large citation style manuals
                              > > out there, plus a style-sheet for every publication known to man. NONE
                              > > of them are /wrong/ and none of them are universally /definitive./ Use
                              > > the one you grew up using, even if your source is "I think I remember
                              > > reading something about that somewhere." (copyright by someone else
                              > > whose name eludes me as does the book it's in.)
                              > >
                              > >> Editorial comment: Church members in general have a weak reputation in
                              > >> the genealogy world at large because we choose to not follow the
                              > research
                              > >> rules that other family historians adhere to. While our ultimate
                              > goal is
                              > >> to free the prisoners by doing proxy temple work for them, it would
                              > be a
                              > >> laudible bonus if we would also be excellent researchers, recorders,
                              > and
                              > >> sourcers of their personal data. We would surely also gain more
                              respect
                              > >> among our peers outside the church membership rolls if we did so.
                              > >
                              > > Amen.
                              > >
                              > > Cheryl




                              ------------------------------------

                              List owner: ileenjohnson@...
                              Unsubscribe: FHCNET-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              Subscribe: Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FHCNET
                              or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo!
                              Groups Links
                            • Sue Maxwell
                              Using RootsMagic, which also allows an image to be linked to as many people/facts as you want, I add the link to that obit, newspaper etc as a file. (images,
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jun 8, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Using RootsMagic, which also allows an image to be linked to as many
                                people/facts as you want, I add the link to that obit, newspaper etc as
                                a file. (images, videos, document files and sound files can be added) I
                                can then link that file to as many people/facts as I want. What this
                                does is allow me to keep tract of these files and also to view them
                                while I am inside of RootsMagic. They do not display in a report or add
                                them to the scrapbook feature.

                                For me, it's a great way to track everything I have for that person,
                                family, place, etc.

                                SueM



                                On 6/8/2010 2:10 PM, emregister wrote:
                                >
                                > With PAF or AQ the image can be linked to many, many people, yet the image
                                > is stored only once. The record merely contains a link to the image.
                                >
                                > Eric
                                >
                                > HOWEVER -- if anyone's still with me here -- what do you do about
                                > images, such as a newspaper article on a wedding or an obit, which
                                > contain information on 20 or 30 different persons? Or, a record book
                                > which has a single line across two Folio-size pages on each of 50
                                > couples 6 or 7 of which are yours? To whom do you attach the image and
                                > what's the rationale behind the choice?
                                >
                                > Cheryl
                                >
                                > Margaret Thompson wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > I like to use the source feature because you can attach the digital
                                > > image of
                                > > the record, you can also put the text of the document into the source.
                                > > Sources can be attached/sent with any of the files just like the notes.
                                > > Sources are easy to sort and search and attach to several different
                                > people.
                                > > You can even attach the images when you create a report. It is important
                                > to
                                > > me to use the source feature. When I get a GEDCOM file and they have
                                > > sources
                                > > in the notes I have to try to transfer them to the source feature.
                                > >
                                > > Margaret
                                >



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Norma McClain
                                Excellent point! It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts - John Wooden ... From: singhals Subject: Re: [FHCNET]
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jun 11, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Excellent point!


                                  "It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts" - John Wooden

                                  --- On Mon, 6/7/10, singhals <singhals@...> wrote:


                                  From: singhals <singhals@...>
                                  Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re:Entering Sources in nFS -- Tips & Improvements
                                  To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                  Date: Monday, June 7, 2010, 4:51 PM


                                   



                                  Venita Roylance wrote:
                                  > Not to put too fine a point on it ... OK, I'll admit I'm putting a fine point on it.
                                  >
                                  > In the genealogy world at large there is a big difference between notes and sources. Notes are meant to explain or expand the genealogical data you put into the name, dates, places fields. They are also to provide supporting data such as exact quotes, extracted census data, obituaries, etc., etc.
                                  >

                                  There's a big difference between the two just about anywhere.

                                  Back in the day, when we wrote long reports in, er, long-hand, or paid a
                                  clever typist to do it, one put both sources and text into (a) the
                                  narrative or (b) a footnote. (a) was more popular, because it meant
                                  people would read it. Seems to me, these days, if putting the Source in
                                  the NOTES raises the odds of the Source being read by others, This Would
                                  Be A GOOD Thing. And, candidly, I don't often USE the source template
                                  for a variety of reasons -- people not reading 'em is #2.

                                  > Sources, on the other hand, are meant to be concise references to where you found the data you put in the name, dates and places fields. Ideally, a source will tell the reader where to find the exact information (the original document) that you found, fifty years and more from now. That's why there are fields for notes and fields for sources.

                                  Again, concise references would NOT include Actual Text.

                                  And, telling someone in a source citation that this is from Image 1245
                                  on Ancestry.com isn't going to be whole whale of a lot of help 20 years
                                  from now after Ancestry.com has re-imaged and re-numbered everything,
                                  let alone 50 years from now when Ancestry.com is a faded memory. Or
                                  even, day after tomorrow, to someone who has no access to Ancestry.com's
                                  image 1245.

                                  And may I add, there must be 25 different large citation style manuals
                                  out there, plus a style-sheet for every publication known to man. NONE
                                  of them are /wrong/ and none of them are universally /definitive./ Use
                                  the one you grew up using, even if your source is "I think I remember
                                  reading something about that somewhere." (copyright by someone else
                                  whose name eludes me as does the book it's in.)

                                  > Editorial comment: Church members in general have a weak reputation in the genealogy world at large because we choose to not follow the research rules that other family historians adhere to. While our ultimate goal is to free the prisoners by doing proxy temple work for them, it would be a laudible bonus if we would also be excellent researchers, recorders, and sourcers of their personal data. We would surely also gain more respect among our peers outside the church membership rolls if we did so.

                                  Amen.

                                  Cheryl











                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.