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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Jun 6, 2010
      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 2 of 17 , Jun 6, 2010
        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 3 of 17 , Jun 6, 2010
          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 4 of 17 , Jun 6, 2010
            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 5 of 17 , Jun 7, 2010
              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 6 of 17 , Jun 7, 2010
                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 7 of 17 , Jun 7, 2010
                  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 8 of 17 , Jun 7, 2010
                    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 9 of 17 , Jun 8, 2010
                      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 10 of 17 , Jun 8, 2010
                        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 11 of 17 , Jun 8, 2010
                          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 12 of 17 , Jun 11, 2010
                            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.