Viewing LDS Ordinance info in Internet IGI

[joshualevy]

I would configure it.
Part of installing the software (or running it) would be a list
of the importance of data in the GENCOM. So I might say
that "name of parents" is the most importand data and "birth
date/place" is second. You could configure it the opposite
way. I might care about University degrees, you might care
about Occupations, someone else may care about something
else......

As for your notepad solution: Sure it would work, but my goal
is to get the computer to do the work, not do the work myself!
That's the whole point of having a computer (in my mind)!

Joshua Levy

[singhals]

joshualevy wrote:

I would configure it.
Part of installing the software (or running it) would be a list
of the importance of data in the GENCOM. So I might say
that "name of parents" is the most importand data and "birth
date/place" is second. You could configure it the opposite
way. I might care about University degrees, you might care
about Occupations, someone else may care about something
else......

As for your notepad solution: Sure it would work, but my goal
is to get the computer to do the work, not do the work myself!
That's the whole point of having a computer (in my mind)!

Joshua Levy

First, what the heck is a GENCOM?

Then, I must've missed the REQ list --

Is it your goal to have the computer extract from your genealogy data
the missing items, rank them by priority according to the
user-customizable criteria, and print out the list by priority?

/OR/

Is it your goal to get a priority-ordered list of Things To Do?

There are several ways to achieve this last one, but so far as I know no
one has yet written the first because it amounts to gnat-hunting with a
gnu gun.

Also, let's face it -- my half-Cherokee friend's daughters will need a
specialized subset, because any data you ask for will be missing in half
their tree. Ditto my son, half whose tree uses Hindu dates and events
and half uses Christian. NOT to mention a French ancestor of mine who
died in the French Revolutionary Calendar.

Cheryl

[Lesley Walker]

Based on Joshua's original post, I'd say the goal is to have the
computer generate an interview script, am I right?

I would tend to agree about the

gnat-hunting with a gnu gun
(love that expression, never seen it before)

Even you there was such a program, you would probably want to
reconfigure the priorities every time you used it.

But RootsMagic could at least extract the list of missing information.
It has many reporting functions, and one of them is a missing
information list. You can select what facts you want included in the
list (and there are a LOT of fact types) and you can also select the
individuals you want to report on.

I'm sure other genealogy programs have similar reports, but RootsMagic
is the one I can tell you about.

Lesley W.

[joshualevy]

The legacy questionnaire is always the same, so it ignores what you
already know about the person. I want something that only asks
questions that you need the answers to.

[Helen Castle]

An alternative is to print out one of the books that has underlining where
there is missing info such as the marriage date and place.

That way the person can see what you have and fill in what they want

Helen
"joshualevy" <joshualevy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129846558.915537.264730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

The legacy questionnaire is always the same, so it ignores what you
already know about the person. I want something that only asks
questions that you need the answers to.

[Jim Dell]

Helen Castle wrote:

An alternative is to print out one of the books that has underlining where
there is missing info such as the marriage date and place.

That way the person can see what you have and fill in what they want

Helen
"joshualevy" <joshualevy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129846558.915537.264730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

The legacy questionnaire is always the same, so it ignores what you
already know about the person. I want something that only asks
questions that you need the answers to.




The way I do it is to record missing dates as ??/??/19?? taking a guess

as to what century they were born in based upon other information (i.e.
Children's birthdays or parents). For missing locations, I always use
???. Then I produce a register report and use a macro I created in Word
to change all the ? to red and replace the ??? with ???Where??? in red.

Now this doesn't catch missing parents, but at least some of the missing
information stands out. Previously I left those blank so the report
showed nothing and most people would skip right over it.

Jim

[joshualevy]

This suggestion (and Helen's before it) are both good, but they gather
the information that the report wants, not the information that I want.

For example, lets say that I want to know what someone's occupation
was, and that was important to me? If I did not have an "Event /
Occupation"
then I would want to ask the person that. However, occupation is not
in the standard reports or questionairres.

I'm sure that printing out reports or questeionairres with blanks or
question marks solves a lot of people's problems, but not mine.

Joshua Levy

[71073511]

Hello Ted,

You may or may not have come across this search engine but it will help you
to locate the plotter that you are looking for.
http://www.globalspec.com/



"Ted Griffin" <griff_39@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2sxbf.2042$p37.1040@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
| Many thanks for your replys, I will be ready for next year's reunion!
| BTW, I just passed 10,000 names FTW tells me, but I surely don't want to
| print them all on a banner! Just a few hundred to open the eyes of
| some of the young'uns.
|
| --
| Griff - Whose clear conscience is undoubtedly the sign of failing memory.
| http://members.tripod.com/tedgriffin/home.htm

[Peter J Seymour]

Doug McDonald wrote:

All genealogy programs lack the one single feature I
want most.

YES, yes, at least in the one I normally use, Legacy,
you can easily kludge parts of it, as I found I could do
in TMG which I am now trying out.

And that is a "surety level" for child-parent connections.
No, I don't mean surety for sources to such connections,
which of course TMG has. I mean directly for the connection itself.
This would be a number you enter by hand.

As I said, this can be kludged. But what I really want
is to USE this info when making ancestor reports and
charts. (And I suppose descendant stuff too.) That is, I want
to indicate for each person in the report what the overall
surety level is that a person is an ancestor of the target person.
This is not absolutely trivial, since two people can be
connected by multiple paths. You would either want to indicate the
maximum surety level of any path, or you could assign percentage
probabilities as the surety (0 to 100) and combine the
probabilities of the many different paths, this latter being quite
non-trivial.

For a text report you would report surety as a number,
and for charts, by drawing unsure lines as dotted or dashed,
or by graying out less that fully (but still above some
tolerance level) sure people.

Doug McDonald
Is your interest in being able to manually assign a value to the

connection or to have the program in some way deduce it from the
supplied evidence? The former might seem simpler, but the latter is more
'correct'.
Showing this on a chart is an interesting but worthwhile problem, in my
view.
I hope to provide facilities along these lines in the forthcoming
Gendatam Suite. (First Beta version out in a few days time I hope).
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/

[Peter J Seymour]

Doug McDonald wrote:

Peter J Seymour wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:

All genealogy programs lack the one single feature I
want most.


And that is a "surety level" for child-parent connections.


Is your interest in being able to manually assign a value to the
connection or to have the program in some way deduce it from the
supplied evidence?

Yes


The former might seem simpler, but the latter is more 'correct'.

No ... we're not talking science here, we are, LITERALLY
in many cases, talking POLITICS ... did Friar X fudge
the genealogy because his King was a bastard?

Doug McDonald
OK, as I see it there are two issues here. Firstly the strength of the

evidence regarding the connection as already mentioned. Also secondly
the nature of both the 'parental relationship' and the 'parentage' can
be categorised. In the example you give, the visible parents would be
'married' (presumably) but the true parents would have a relationship
such as 'informal'. The child's parentage would then be in one case
something such as 'assumed' or 'adopted' and in the latter case 'natural'.
What this is saying is that a genealogy could in principle show one or
the other or both. The compiler should be able to decide. I think that's
where you came in. The main difficulty with all this is that it
complicates the data. Not everyone would like that.
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com

[Doug McDonald]

Peter J Seymour wrote:

Is your interest in being able to manually assign a value to the
connection or to have the program in some way deduce it from the
supplied evidence?


Yes

Uh ... that answer of mine is unclear. I want to manually assign the
surety value to the purported biological connection.

The former might seem simpler, but the latter is more 'correct'.


No ... we're not talking science here, we are, LITERALLY
in many cases, talking POLITICS ... did Friar X fudge
the genealogy because his King was a bastard?

Doug McDonald

OK, as I see it there are two issues here. Firstly the strength of the
evidence regarding the connection as already mentioned. Also secondly
the nature of both the 'parental relationship' and the 'parentage' can
be categorised.

I'm not including non-biological relationships in my file, at least as
actual links. The programs I use can do that, no problem. The problem
I have is that there are links that are problematic, in that we distrust
the available evidence. I can't just "sum up" the "surety" values of
each source, I, or rather, either I or some expert, has to weigh them,
basically by gut feeling.

Doug McDonald

[Peter J Seymour]

Doug McDonald wrote:
....

I'm not including non-biological relationships in my file, at least as
actual links. The programs I use can do that, no problem. The problem
I have is that there are links that are problematic, in that we distrust
the available evidence. I can't just "sum up" the "surety" values of
each source, I, or rather, either I or some expert, has to weigh them,
basically by gut feeling.

Doug McDonald
I'm interested in this as a software developer, so I'm sort of musing on

the problem.
It seems to me that it should be possible to assign a 'confidence' value
to each piece of evidence and then the program could make a stab at
assigning an overall level of confidence to the particular 'fact'
(difficult to do when there are conflicting pieces of evidence, but
never mind). This would indicate the user's view of the evidence and the
reasons could be recorded by a note somewhere. So, for instance, there
could be a parental relationship of 'natural' given by some evidence,
but the user could assign a confidence value of 'doubtful'.
Another approach would be as you suggest, a user-assigned surety value.
This could act as an override on the level of confidence mentioned
above. I'm tending to the view that this should not be necessary, but I
will give it some more thought.
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/

[cecilia]

Peter J Seymour wrote:

[...]
It seems to me that it should be possible to assign a 'confidence' value
to each piece of evidence and then the program could make a stab at
assigning an overall level of confidence to the particular 'fact'
(difficult to do when there are conflicting pieces of evidence, but
never mind). This would indicate the user's view of the evidence and the
reasons could be recorded by a note somewhere. So, for instance, there
could be a parental relationship of 'natural' given by some evidence,
but the user could assign a confidence value of 'doubtful'.
Another approach would be as you suggest, a user-assigned surety value.
This could act as an override on the level of confidence mentioned
above. I'm tending to the view that this should not be necessary, but I
will give it some more thought.

The problem I have is that the evidence is fine for existence but not
for the linkage, for which confidence is often based on absence of
information.

E.g., mid 17C John Vard0n mentions a brother-in-law William Newt0n in
his will. The names of John's sisters' husbands are not Newt0n, so it
is presumed that William is brother to John's wife Mary. There is
only one William Newt0n of the correct age found in the local area,
mentioned as illegitimate in his father's will, which also mentions a
legitimate daughter Mary. One's confidence that one has found Mary's
parents is based on likelihood that John's brother-in-law had the same
father as his wife, that her family came from the same area as John
and that the local records are complete enough to be sure there is
unlikely to have been an undiscovered alternative William Newt0n.

[Hugh Watkins]

Peter J Seymour wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:
...


I'm not including non-biological relationships in my file, at least as
actual links. The programs I use can do that, no problem. The problem
I have is that there are links that are problematic, in that we
distrust the available evidence. I can't just "sum up" the "surety"
values of each source, I, or rather, either I or some expert, has to
weigh them,
basically by gut feeling.

Doug McDonald

I'm interested in this as a software developer, so I'm sort of musing on
the problem.
It seems to me that it should be possible to assign a 'confidence' value
to each piece of evidence and then the program could make a stab at
assigning an overall level of confidence to the particular 'fact'
(difficult to do when there are conflicting pieces of evidence, but
never mind). This would indicate the user's view of the evidence and the
reasons could be recorded by a note somewhere. So, for instance, there
could be a parental relationship of 'natural' given by some evidence,
but the user could assign a confidence value of 'doubtful'.
Another approach would be as you suggest, a user-assigned surety value.
This could act as an override on the level of confidence mentioned
above. I'm tending to the view that this should not be necessary, but I
will give it some more thought.
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/

there is research being done on the semantic web at Brigham Young
University which may have a bearing on htis

Hugh W

[Doug McDonald]

Peter J Seymour wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:
...


I'm not including non-biological relationships in my file, at least as
actual links. The programs I use can do that, no problem. The problem
I have is that there are links that are problematic, in that we
distrust the available evidence. I can't just "sum up" the "surety"
values of each source, I, or rather, either I or some expert, has to
weigh them,
basically by gut feeling.

Doug McDonald

I'm interested in this as a software developer, so I'm sort of musing on
the problem.
It seems to me that it should be possible to assign a 'confidence' value
to each piece of evidence and then the program could make a stab at
assigning an overall level of confidence to the particular 'fact'
(difficult to do when there are conflicting pieces of evidence, but
never mind). This would indicate the user's view of the evidence and the
reasons could be recorded by a note somewhere. So, for instance, there
could be a parental relationship of 'natural' given by some evidence,
but the user could assign a confidence value of 'doubtful'.
Another approach would be as you suggest, a user-assigned surety value.
This could act as an override on the level of confidence mentioned
above. I'm tending to the view that this should not be necessary, but I
will give it some more thought.
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/

There is no alternative to the user giving the value: you could have
4 sources of putative equal unreliability, two saying A was the
mother of B, and two saying C was the mother of B. Dueling sources.
It;s up to the user to decide who is right, and what the probability is.

There is no other choice. This is the nature of "the humanities".

Doug McDonald

[Peter J Seymour]

Doug McDonald wrote:
....

It seems to me that it should be possible to assign a 'confidence'
value to each piece of evidence and then the program could make a stab
at assigning an overall level of confidence to the particular 'fact'
(difficult to do when there are conflicting pieces of evidence, but
never mind). This would indicate the user's view of the evidence and
the reasons could be recorded by a note somewhere. So, for instance,
there could be a parental relationship of 'natural' given by some
evidence, but the user could assign a confidence value of 'doubtful'.
Another approach would be as you suggest, a user-assigned surety
value. This could act as an override on the level of confidence
mentioned above. I'm tending to the view that this should not be
necessary, but I will give it some more thought.
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/


There is no alternative to the user giving the value: you could have
4 sources of putative equal unreliability, two saying A was the
mother of B, and two saying C was the mother of B. Dueling sources.
It;s up to the user to decide who is right, and what the probability is.

There is no other choice. This is the nature of "the humanities".

Doug McDonald
You make a good point. My line of thought is whether the computer can

provide some assistance and if so how much. In your example that might
simple be to summarise that 2 items favour A mother of B and 2 items go
against it. It points up that you have further work to do. Whereas a
situation of 4 items in favour, none against may seem conclusive as far
as it goes. Someone would still have to decide whether an evidence item
is 'for' or 'against', I can't see the computer doing that.
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/

[Peter J Seymour]

cecilia wrote:
....

The problem I have is that the evidence is fine for existence but not
for the linkage, for which confidence is often based on absence of
information.

E.g., mid 17C John Vard0n mentions a brother-in-law William Newt0n in
his will. The names of John's sisters' husbands are not Newt0n, so it
is presumed that William is brother to John's wife Mary. There is
only one William Newt0n of the correct age found in the local area,
mentioned as illegitimate in his father's will, which also mentions a
legitimate daughter Mary. One's confidence that one has found Mary's
parents is based on likelihood that John's brother-in-law had the same
father as his wife, that her family came from the same area as John
and that the local records are complete enough to be sure there is
unlikely to have been an undiscovered alternative William Newt0n.
It's a scenario I sometimes find a bit un-nerving. It is tempting to

conclude that the evidence is 'good enough' but this could later be
shown to be incorrect, at least in principle. I would like to think that
the computer could flag these situations in some way, perhaps by
expecting there to be certain standard items of evidence present.
Ultimately the problem is not one of available evidence as such, but of
establishing identity.
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/

[CWatters]

"Ted Griffin" <griff_39@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2sxbf.2042$p37.1040@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

Many thanks for your replys, I will be ready for next year's reunion!
BTW, I just passed 10,000 names FTW tells me,

I think you're going to need a big plotter!

Try one of the companies that makes sails for yachts

[John]

Doug McDonald wrote:
...

I'm not including non-biological relationships in my file, at
least as actual links. The programs I use can do that, no
problem. The problem I have is that there are links that
are problematic, in that we distrust the available evidence.
I can't just "sum up" the "surety" values of each source, I,
or rather, either I or some expert, has to weigh them,
basically by gut feeling.

Doug McDonald

Peter J Seymour wrote:

I'm interested in this as a software developer, so I'm sort of
musing on the problem.
It seems to me that it should be possible to assign a 'confidence'
value to each piece of evidence and then the program could make
a stab at assigning an overall level of confidence to the particular
'fact' (difficult to do when there are conflicting pieces of evidence,
but never mind). This would indicate the user's view of the evidence
and the reasons could be recorded by a note somewhere. So, for
instance, there could be a parental relationship of 'natural' given
by some evidence, but the user could assign a confidence value
of 'doubtful'.
Another approach would be as you suggest, a user-assigned
surety value.
This could act as an override on the level of confidence mentioned
above. I'm tending to the view that this should not be necessary,
but I will give it some more thought.

Regards, Peter

Peter, I think you're missing the point! The manual assignment of
surety value for the link is needed just because it *can't* be worked
out from the individual pieces of evidence.

For example: say I find from a marriage certificate that the father
of Joe Smith was Fred Smith. Later, I find a birth certificate for
Joe Smith, showing the father as Fred Smith. Both pieces of evidence
are pretty solid - as separate items - and get a high confidence rating.
But I may have grave doubts that I have the *right* Fred Smith for
the Joe Smith who appears in my family tree.

With common names like these I would have to go off and collect
extra information to check whether I had the right father/son pair.
It may take some time before I get this, and I would like to show
the possible father on my tree in the meantime to remind me where
I was up to, but show the link as dubious until proved otherwise.

The value to assign to the link would depend on how common the
names were in the area, how far I had got with the checking process,
and so on. In other words, as Doug McDonald says, it's
'basically gut feeling'.

Regards, John

[Peter J Seymour]

John wrote:
....

Peter J Seymour wrote:

I'm interested in this as a software developer, so I'm sort of
musing on the problem.
....

Peter, I think you're missing the point! The manual assignment of
surety value for the link is needed just because it *can't* be worked
out from the individual pieces of evidence.

For example: say I find from a marriage certificate that the father
of Joe Smith was Fred Smith. Later, I find a birth certificate for
Joe Smith, showing the father as Fred Smith. Both pieces of evidence
are pretty solid - as separate items - and get a high confidence rating.
But I may have grave doubts that I have the *right* Fred Smith for
the Joe Smith who appears in my family tree.

With common names like these I would have to go off and collect
extra information to check whether I had the right father/son pair.
It may take some time before I get this, and I would like to show
the possible father on my tree in the meantime to remind me where
I was up to, but show the link as dubious until proved otherwise.

The value to assign to the link would depend on how common the
names were in the area, how far I had got with the checking process,
and so on. In other words, as Doug McDonald says, it's
'basically gut feeling'.

Regards, John

I'm happy with what you say. As I have indicated in other postings, I am

wondering how well a computer can support the process you outline, with
the user making decisions nearer the evidence rather than at an end
point such as a chart. I don't think there will be a definite answer,
but I am hoping to provide some assistance in my program.
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/

[Dale DePriest]

Peter J Seymour wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:
...

It seems to me that it should be possible to assign a 'confidence'
value to each piece of evidence and then the program could make a
stab at assigning an overall level of confidence to the particular
'fact' (difficult to do when there are conflicting pieces of
evidence, but never mind). This would indicate the user's view of the
evidence and the reasons could be recorded by a note somewhere. So,
for instance, there could be a parental relationship of 'natural'
given by some evidence, but the user could assign a confidence value
of 'doubtful'.
Another approach would be as you suggest, a user-assigned surety
value. This could act as an override on the level of confidence
mentioned above. I'm tending to the view that this should not be
necessary, but I will give it some more thought.
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/



There is no alternative to the user giving the value: you could have
4 sources of putative equal unreliability, two saying A was the
mother of B, and two saying C was the mother of B. Dueling sources.
It;s up to the user to decide who is right, and what the probability is.

There is no other choice. This is the nature of "the humanities".

Doug McDonald

You make a good point. My line of thought is whether the computer can
provide some assistance and if so how much. In your example that might
simple be to summarise that 2 items favour A mother of B and 2 items go
against it. It points up that you have further work to do. Whereas a
situation of 4 items in favour, none against may seem conclusive as far
as it goes. Someone would still have to decide whether an evidence item
is 'for' or 'against', I can't see the computer doing that.
Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/

Many programs allow the user to assign sources and confidence in facts.
As I see the problem in this thread is that the connection is not a
traditional fact. It is a line shown on a chart while facts are
generally associated with the nodes on the chart, not the lines.

You can certainly define sources for any fact on a node today with most
programs and gedcom will even support this. Some programs will let you
assign confidence in the source specific to this citation. However the
line between the objects is an artifact of the arrangement and generally
not assignable to a source.

Dale
--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

[Doug McDonald]

Dale DePriest wrote:

Many programs allow the user to assign sources and confidence in facts.
As I see the problem in this thread is that the connection is not a
traditional fact. It is a line shown on a chart while facts are
generally associated with the nodes on the chart, not the lines.

You can certainly define sources for any fact on a node today with most
programs and gedcom will even support this. Some programs will let you
assign confidence in the source specific to this citation. However the
line between the objects is an artifact of the arrangement and generally
not assignable to a source.

The problem is that what is needed is not related to a source,

it is related to a person directly. You could have a thing
called "fater surety" of a person, and "mother surety", and define
(fake) sources to those and assign a surety level. But all that should
not be necessary ... they should be directly attached to the connection.
This would allow for surety levels for "different sorts" of parents,
like adoptive ones, etc.

Doug McDonald

[Dale DePriest]

Doug McDonald wrote:

Dale DePriest wrote:


Many programs allow the user to assign sources and confidence in
facts. As I see the problem in this thread is that the connection is
not a traditional fact. It is a line shown on a chart while facts are
generally associated with the nodes on the chart, not the lines.

You can certainly define sources for any fact on a node today with
most programs and gedcom will even support this. Some programs will
let you assign confidence in the source specific to this citation.
However the line between the objects is an artifact of the arrangement
and generally not assignable to a source.

The problem is that what is needed is not related to a source,
it is related to a person directly. You could have a thing
called "fater surety" of a person, and "mother surety", and define
(fake) sources to those and assign a surety level. But all that should
not be necessary ... they should be directly attached to the connection.
This would allow for surety levels for "different sorts" of parents,
like adoptive ones, etc.

Doug McDonald

The program I use (roots magic) allows assigning the surety to
individual instances so that it can be assigned to the person and not
the source itself. GEDCOM permits this as well. The citation quality is
specific to the person but I only have a pull down list with 4 choices.

Dale
--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

[Doug McDonald]

Dale DePriest wrote:

The program I use (roots magic) allows assigning the surety to
individual instances so that it can be assigned to the person and not
the source itself. GEDCOM permits this as well. The citation quality is
specific to the person but I only have a pull down list with 4 choices.

Legacy allows that too ... you can define fake sources called
"father surety" and "mother surety" for a person, and assign
a surety level to those. That's the way you fake it.

But it would be nice to have these levels built in and have
chart drawing parts of the program actually use them to gray
down the boxes of uncertain people, to teh extent they
are uncertain.

Doug McDonald

[Dale DePriest]

Doug McDonald wrote:

Dale DePriest wrote:



The program I use (roots magic) allows assigning the surety to
individual instances so that it can be assigned to the person and not
the source itself. GEDCOM permits this as well. The citation quality
is specific to the person but I only have a pull down list with 4
choices.



Legacy allows that too ... you can define fake sources called
"father surety" and "mother surety" for a person, and assign
a surety level to those. That's the way you fake it.

But it would be nice to have these levels built in and have
chart drawing parts of the program actually use them to gray
down the boxes of uncertain people, to teh extent they
are uncertain.

Doug McDonald

But who do you assign these fake sources to? By rights they should be
assigned to the wire between the people. If you assign them to the child
what happens when you have multiple parents? If you assign them to the
parent what do you do with multiple children. One thought I had was to
make them family sources and assign them to the family connection which
grossly does the right thing but leaves out the detail. There may be a
way in GEDCOM to assign sources in the family structure to individuals
in that structure. This might do the job but unlikely to be supported in
any program.

Dale
--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

[Dale DePriest]

Dale DePriest wrote:

Doug McDonald wrote:

Dale DePriest wrote:



The program I use (roots magic) allows assigning the surety to
individual instances so that it can be assigned to the person and not
the source itself. GEDCOM permits this as well. The citation quality
is specific to the person but I only have a pull down list with 4
choices.



Legacy allows that too ... you can define fake sources called
"father surety" and "mother surety" for a person, and assign
a surety level to those. That's the way you fake it.

But it would be nice to have these levels built in and have
chart drawing parts of the program actually use them to gray
down the boxes of uncertain people, to teh extent they
are uncertain.

Doug McDonald


But who do you assign these fake sources to? By rights they should be
assigned to the wire between the people. If you assign them to the child
what happens when you have multiple parents? If you assign them to the
parent what do you do with multiple children. One thought I had was to
make them family sources and assign them to the family connection which
grossly does the right thing but leaves out the detail. There may be a
way in GEDCOM to assign sources in the family structure to individuals
in that structure. This might do the job but unlikely to be supported in
any program.

Dale

By the way, Roots Magic does support Family level sources so you can
assign a general surety to the family and a person can belong to
multiple families. But this is still not quite to the individual link.

Dale

--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

[Doug McDonald]

Dale DePriest wrote:

Legacy allows that too ... you can define fake sources called
"father surety" and "mother surety" for a person, and assign
a surety level to those. That's the way you fake it.

But it would be nice to have these levels built in and have
chart drawing parts of the program actually use them to gray
down the boxes of uncertain people, to teh extent they
are uncertain.

Doug McDonald


But who do you assign these fake sources to?

The child.

By rights they should be
assigned to the wire between the people.

That's correct ... that's why it is a fake and a kludge.

If you assign them to the child
what happens when you have multiple parents?

A mess, unless you only assign them to the real parent, as
opposed to adopted or step, or whatever. That's why
a real feature assigning the surety to the connection itself
is needed.

If you assign them to the
parent what do you do with multiple children.

You are out of luck.

Doug

[Dale DePriest]

Doug McDonald wrote:

Dale DePriest wrote:



Legacy allows that too ... you can define fake sources called
"father surety" and "mother surety" for a person, and assign
a surety level to those. That's the way you fake it.

But it would be nice to have these levels built in and have
chart drawing parts of the program actually use them to gray
down the boxes of uncertain people, to teh extent they
are uncertain.

Doug McDonald



But who do you assign these fake sources to?


The child.

By rights they should be assigned to the wire between the people.


That's correct ... that's why it is a fake and a kludge.


If you assign them to the child what happens when you have multiple
parents?


A mess, unless you only assign them to the real parent, as
opposed to adopted or step, or whatever. That's why
a real feature assigning the surety to the connection itself
is needed.


If you assign them to the parent what do you do with multiple children.


You are out of luck.

Doug

Assigning to the child doesn't depend on just their biological parents.
The whole idea of surity is to provide probabilities and you could
easily have 2 choices for biological parents with different
probabilities. Assigning to the connection clears this up. The more I
think about this the more I realize the family view approach offered in
several programs (including roots magic) is the only one that makes
sense. There just needs to be a source assigned in the family section of
the GEDCOM for the connection and then this data should be visible in
the family view of the data as opposed to the individual view. I believe
it is doable. The family section already includes a source entry that is
unique to the family.

Dale

--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

[f/fgeorge]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:49:12 +0100, opiam@lbb-zzn.com wrote:

www.antollma.org
Why don't they stop asking us to save "our" world and save their own,

then the rest of us can just go along for the ride!

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On 9 Dec 2005 19:05:43 -0800, "sally@jacobsarchival.com"
<sally@jacobsarchival.com> declaimed the following in
soc.genealogy.computing:

But how many of us actually back up everything?

...And how often?

In reverse order:

Not quite often enough.

Everything...


For each new computer, I make two purchases from the start.
Partition Magic, so I can isolate applications and system code that
doesn't change often from data and scratch areas that under modification
on a daily basis. A stand-alone backup utility (since Veritas no longer
sells a single-seat/desktop version of Backup Exec, the current program
of choice is NTI Backup Now).

These get installed, and a complete /bootable/ image of the new
machine is created. THEN I create my desired partitioning and install
all my applications. Then a regular FULL back-up is produced. From there
I produce INCREMENTAL backups at erratic intervals. About once a year I
produce a new FULL back-up set, and dispose of the previous one and the
incrementals.

A FULL backup of my machine will consume, depending upon compression
achieved, up to 22 DVD-R (NOT CD-R!) (You can understand why I tend to
only to incrementals for normal work -- even those consume a DVD-R or
two, each time).

I DO NOT rely upon, for example, TMG's "backup" process; I consider
that just a utility to save me from problems that may occur during a
session of heavy editing of data, but not as a "backup" for security.

The last place I'd go is to an outside agency that requires either
slow connections or custom software to interface with, and may get in my
way of easy dynamic access and updates.
--

==============================================================
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG
wulfraed@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff
==============================================================
Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/
Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[Hugh Watkins]

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

On 9 Dec 2005 19:05:43 -0800, "sally@jacobsarchival.com"
sally@jacobsarchival.com> declaimed the following in
soc.genealogy.computing:


But how many of us actually back up everything?

...And how often?


In reverse order:

Not quite often enough.

Everything...


For each new computer, I make two purchases from the start.
Partition Magic, so I can isolate applications and system code that
doesn't change often from data and scratch areas that under modification
on a daily basis. A stand-alone backup utility (since Veritas no longer
sells a single-seat/desktop version of Backup Exec, the current program
of choice is NTI Backup Now).

These get installed, and a complete /bootable/ image of the new
machine is created. THEN I create my desired partitioning and install
all my applications. Then a regular FULL back-up is produced. From there
I produce INCREMENTAL backups at erratic intervals. About once a year I
produce a new FULL back-up set, and dispose of the previous one and the
incrementals.

A FULL backup of my machine will consume, depending upon compression
achieved, up to 22 DVD-R (NOT CD-R!) (You can understand why I tend to
only to incrementals for normal work -- even those consume a DVD-R or
two, each time).

I DO NOT rely upon, for example, TMG's "backup" process; I consider
that just a utility to save me from problems that may occur during a
session of heavy editing of data, but not as a "backup" for security.

The last place I'd go is to an outside agency that requires either
slow connections or custom software to interface with, and may get in my
way of easy dynamic access and updates.

I back up to an external hard disk as a whole

I put all my family files on line
http://wc.rootsweb.com/

and send copies to myself as attachments to gmail cna be 2gb there
recent photos get blogged


Hugh W

[Bill Harrison]

Hi All

My Missus has bought me an external 250 Gb HDD for Xmas ... from PCWorld
£89.99 incl VAT (£40 off normal price)

Will save on Disks for backing up !

regards

Bill

Downside is she won't let me have it till Xmas morning (



----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com>
To: <GENCMP-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Looking for digital horror stories...

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On 9 Dec 2005 19:05:43 -0800, "sally@jacobsarchival.com"
sally@jacobsarchival.com> declaimed the following in
soc.genealogy.computing:


But how many of us actually back up everything?

...And how often?


In reverse order:

Not quite often enough.

Everything...


For each new computer, I make two purchases from the start.
Partition Magic, so I can isolate applications and system code that
doesn't change often from data and scratch areas that under modification
on a daily basis. A stand-alone backup utility (since Veritas no longer
sells a single-seat/desktop version of Backup Exec, the current program
of choice is NTI Backup Now).

These get installed, and a complete /bootable/ image of the new
machine is created. THEN I create my desired partitioning and install
all my applications. Then a regular FULL back-up is produced. From there
I produce INCREMENTAL backups at erratic intervals. About once a year I
produce a new FULL back-up set, and dispose of the previous one and the
incrementals.

A FULL backup of my machine will consume, depending upon compression
achieved, up to 22 DVD-R (NOT CD-R!) (You can understand why I tend to
only to incrementals for normal work -- even those consume a DVD-R or
two, each time).

I DO NOT rely upon, for example, TMG's "backup" process; I consider
that just a utility to save me from problems that may occur during a
session of heavy editing of data, but not as a "backup" for security.

The last place I'd go is to an outside agency that requires either
slow connections or custom software to interface with, and may get in my
way of easy dynamic access and updates.


I back up to an external hard disk as a whole

I put all my family files on line
http://wc.rootsweb.com/

and send copies to myself as attachments to gmail cna be 2gb there
recent photos get blogged


Hugh W

[sally@jacobsarchival.com]

Dear Members of the Soc.Genealogy.Computing Group,

Like you, I hate spam, and I am quite stung that you have
mis-interpreted my plea for help.

May I please have a moment to clarify my intentions?

My post was *not* selling my services. If you check the archive at
soc.genealogy.marketplace you will find my posts about what services I
offer.

My post to this forum was just what D. Stussy saw. A plea for help from
genealogists. I teach family archivists (most often genalogists such as
yourselves) to take better care of their collections. And whether you
realize it or not, we are currently in an era that may not be recorded
AT ALL for future generations. Do you have any idea how many people
back up their photographs? Shockingly few.

I appealed to all of you for digital horror stories. These stories do
not generate revenue for me. They serve as warnings to the people who
have *already* signed up for my workshops, or attend one of my free
talks, or subscribe to my free newsletter. Warnings that will (I hope)
scare them into actually backing up their data once in a while.

OK. Yes. I do run a commercial business. I have a friend who teaches
very similar workshops as part of a large state historical society.

If my friend had made the same plea would you have jumped all over him
as well? I suspect you would not have. (One of you admitted that the
very fact that I own a business with the word "services" in it is
enough to make my post spam). My friend charges a fee for his
workshops, just like I do. (Oh, and by the way -- the stories I collect
will be shared with him, and used in the "nonprofit" workshops as
well.)

I realize there are a lot of unethical business practices out there,
but it truly pains me to think that those folks have ruined everything
to the point where a query like mine causes so much anger and derision.
The email was simply a convenient way to send an autorepsonse to those
who chose to share their stories. I'm only one person and it takes a
while to get back to folks.

I DO NOT, under any circumstances, email people without their
permission. I do not sell, rent, or otherwise share email addresses.

My apologies if I have offended anyone or used this board
inappropriately.

-Sally

Sally J. Jacobs, Archivist

[Dave Hinz]

On 12 Dec 2005 06:11:01 -0800, sally@jacobsarchival.com <sally@jacobsarchival.com> wrote:

Dear Members of the Soc.Genealogy.Computing Group,

Like you, I hate spam, and I am quite stung that you have
mis-interpreted my plea for help.

uh huh...

May I please have a moment to clarify my intentions?

We'll see.

My post to this forum was just what D. Stussy saw. A plea for help from
genealogists.

If that were true, it would have been reponded to much better if you'd
posted it without the links to your products site, and just asked as an
interested person.

I mean, come on. You want horror stories to put on your website, to
show people why they should buy your stuff. Yes, or no?

I appealed to all of you for digital horror stories. These stories do
not generate revenue for me. They serve as warnings to the people who
have *already* signed up for my workshops, or attend one of my free
talks, or subscribe to my free newsletter. Warnings that will (I hope)
scare them into actually backing up their data once in a while.

seewhutImean?

If my friend had made the same plea would you have jumped all over him
as well? I suspect you would not have.

The faint glimmering of a clue appears.

I DO NOT, under any circumstances, email people without their
permission. I do not sell, rent, or otherwise share email addresses.

That is not the limit of what spam is.

My apologies if I have offended anyone or used this board
inappropriately.

I'm not getting a strong feeling of sincerity on that one, I'm getting a
feeling of "Wow, these people are touchy, and I'll just say something to
appease them".

[sally@jacobsarchival.com]

1. My apology was sincere.

2. This is the last you will hear from me.

-Sally

[Gene]

sally@jacobsarchival.com wrote:

1. My apology was sincere.

2. This is the last you will hear from me.

-Sally

Want to bet?

If she had really only wanted to warn people of the dangers of not
archiving their work, why not use a personal e-mail instead of a
commercial one?

Hmmm.

Sorry Sally, it just doesn't ring true.

Gene

[Gene]

sally@jacobsarchival.com wrote:

1. My apology was sincere.

2. This is the last you will hear from me.

-Sally

Want to bet?

If she had really only wanted to warn people of the dangers of not
archiving their work, why not use a personal e-mail instead of a
commercial one?

Hmmm.

Sorry Sally, it just doesn't ring true.

Gene

[Gene]

sally@jacobsarchival.com wrote:

1. My apology was sincere.

2. This is the last you will hear from me.

-Sally

Want to bet?

If she had really only wanted to warn people of the dangers of not
archiving their work, why not use a personal e-mail instead of a
commercial one?

Hmmm.

Sorry Sally, it just doesn't ring true.

Gene

[Gene]

sally@jacobsarchival.com wrote:

1. My apology was sincere.

2. This is the last you will hear from me.

-Sally

Want to bet?

If she had really only wanted to warn people of the dangers of not
archiving their work, why not use a personal e-mail instead of a
commercial one?

Hmmm.

Sorry Sally, it just doesn't ring true.

Gene

[Lesley Robertson]

"DakaR" <dakar@tscii.enzed.corn> wrote in message
news:5B3nf.7476$vH5.377457@news.xtra.co.nz...

Paul Blair wrote:


Not at all. I saw NO product or service - just a query about
misfortunes
- for
which most people are UNLIKELY to admit to. I won't disagree that the
post was inappropriate (i.e. off topic) - but I don't see it as spam.

Then you are blind.


No, but more likely commercial phishing.

Paul

Exactly and if you fill in one of the horror stories you will then be
spammed to buy their product. If you really can't see this whole thing as
spam then I would suggest you need to take a reality check.

I didn't see it as spam either - just a bit silly. Also, I really don't see

the need for you to be insulting just because someone disagrees with you.
Lesley Robertson

[D. Stussy]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, DakaR wrote:

Paul Blair wrote:

Not at all. I saw NO product or service - just a query about misfortunes
- for
which most people are UNLIKELY to admit to. I won't disagree that the
post was inappropriate (i.e. off topic) - but I don't see it as spam.

Then you are blind.


No, but more likely commercial phishing.

Paul

Exactly and if you fill in one of the horror stories you will then be
spammed to buy their product. If you really can't see this whole thing as
spam then I would suggest you need to take a reality check.

Which clearly means that the SECOND message (the reply) is the spam, not the
post itself.

However, it could also be an HONEST QUERY by a professional archivist. I see
nothing in the original post that says it's not.

You're overly paranoid.

[D. Stussy]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Gene wrote:

sally@jacobsarchival.com wrote:
1. My apology was sincere.

2. This is the last you will hear from me.

-Sally

Want to bet?

If she had really only wanted to warn people of the dangers of not archiving
their work, why not use a personal e-mail instead of a commercial one?

Hmmm.

Sorry Sally, it just doesn't ring true.

Gene

Since when is that a REQUIREMENT for a message not to be spam? I agree that
the use of the business mailbox as sender may be suspicious, but one has to
consider ALL facts and circumstances, not just one alone.

[Dave Hinz]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:09:49 GMT, D. Stussy <att-spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Gene wrote:

If she had really only wanted to warn people of the dangers of not archiving
their work, why not use a personal e-mail instead of a commercial one?
Sorry Sally, it just doesn't ring true.

Since when is that a REQUIREMENT for a message not to be spam? I agree that
the use of the business mailbox as sender may be suspicious, but one has to
consider ALL facts and circumstances, not just one alone.

Yes. It's just another spammy aspect of her post. Absence of a
commercial address wouldn't have changed it's pork content much if at
all.

[None]

Many writable CD's are known to become unreadable after a few years.
I don't backup anything for long term storage on CD's

<sally@jacobsarchival.com> wrote in message
news:1134183943.430103.140740@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Dear Family Historians,

We all know that it's important to back up our computer files. Archival
best practice for digital records is to back them up to an external
hard drive or CD. For the best protection, keep an extra set of CDs at
a different location such as a relative's house, your office, or a safe
deposit box. Images should be saved as program independent,
uncompressed files such as TIFF.

But how many of us actually back up everything?

...And how often?

I'm on a mission to encourage *everyone* to create backups of digital
family photographs and research notes -- and I'm asking for your help.

Have you ever lost photos or other digital files due to computer
crashes or other disasters? I'm collecting digital horror stories to
illustrate the fragility of digital records. My plan is to use these
examples in workshops, public lectures, and newsletters. You can
include your name or remain anonymous, but signed stories are more
likely to be used.

If you are willing to share your stories, please send them via email
to: digital@jacobsarchival.com.

Many thanks!

Sincerely,
-Sally

Sally J. Jacobs, Archivist
-------------------
JACOBS ARCHIVAL SERVICES
http://www.jacobsarchival.com
Our business is saving memories.

[71073511]

Upgrade to FreeBMD
In order to improve the service that FreeBMD provides, work will be carried
out throughout the day on Friday 30th December 2005.
Although this work has been planned to ensure continued normal operation,
access to the site may occasionally be temporarily interrupted, and error
messages may be seen.
In addition, all site users should note that correction requests, file
upload and syndicate maintenance functions will not be available for the
duration of the upgrade.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused, and would ask that in order to
allow us to concentrate our efforts on carrying out the work, you do NOT
report any problems encountered.

[Gjest]

Hi Peter;

I'm not sure if you where responding to my posting or just making a
announcement.

If you where responding to my posting then I will have to make some
clarification of what I am looking for.

Specifically:

Transcription software that provides a means of entering into a relational
database those event related records that might be acquired from parish
registers, census record, tithes, trade directories, BMD certs., or other
similar sources. The records would be `transcribed` to event formatted forms
as batches. The batches would then be verified, audited, and subsequently
posted to a larger relation database that would/could take advantage of a
variety of SQL queries.

This software would not work to a tafel logic as it would be used as a bulk
loader. Therefore, GEDCOM import or export would not apply.

The data model should be something like:

Batch Description Record - Recording: Event type and Place of recording.

Event Grouping - Recording: Event Date
Person(s) - Recording: Names, DOB/Age, Occupation,
Relationship to event, Condition @ time of event, etc. specific to each

individual recorded to the event group.

Joe Rose
A Canuk

[Dave Mayall]

<gsrc@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:000101c61206$9c546c40$0201a8c0@rose.local...

Hi Peter;

I'm not sure if you where responding to my posting or just making a
announcement.

If you where responding to my posting then I will have to make some
clarification of what I am looking for.

Specifically:

Transcription software that provides a means of entering into a relational
database those event related records that might be acquired from parish
registers, census record, tithes, trade directories, BMD certs., or other
similar sources. The records would be `transcribed` to event formatted
forms
as batches. The batches would then be verified, audited, and subsequently
posted to a larger relation database that would/could take advantage of a
variety of SQL queries.

Your enquiry has puzzled, and intrigued, me more than a little, because you
took SpeedREG as an example.

There are few, if any, general purpose transcription programs around, for
the simple reason that transcription programs are bespoke applications
written to suit the specific data to be transcribed.

SpeedREG is a piece of software designed for transcription of UK parish
registers, producing an output file in the format used by the FreeREG
project, thus;

+INFO,xxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx,yyyyy,SEQUENCED,BURIALS,cp850
#,CCCC,Transcriber Name,Herefordshire,ledbur1.csv,11-July-2001,
#,Credit Helper Name
#,,,,,,11-July-2001
HEF,Ledbury,St Michael's,1,04 Jan 1821,Ann,,,,,TAYLOR,Infant,Alkerridge,-
HEF,Ledbury,St Michael's,2,17 Jan 1821,Elizabeth,,,,,WOOTTON,67,Homend,-
HEF,Ledbury,St Michael's,3,19 Jan 1821,Ann,,,,,PROTHEROE,65,Parkway,-
HEF,Ledbury,St Michael's,4,27 Feb 1821,Eliza ,,,,,EGGLETON,6,Homend,-
HEF,Ledbury,St Michael's,5,03 Mar 1821,Hannah,,,,,COTTERELL,64,Homend,-
HEF,Ledbury,St Michael's,6,04 Mar 1821,Richard,,,,,TREHERNE,60,Wellington
Heath,-
HEF,Ledbury,St Michael's,7,08 Mar 1821,Thomas,,,,,WOODWARD,59,Homend,-
HEF,Ledbury,St Michael's,8,09 Mar 1821,Mary,,,,,WOODYATT,1,Homend,-
HEF,Ledbury,St Michael's,9,19 Mar 1821,Ann,,,,,PULLEN,82,Bishop Street,-
HEF,Ledbury,St Michael's,10,21 Mar 1821,Charles,,,,,HOLBROOK,I,Horseland,-

Now, unless you happen to want files in the exact format of FreeREG, they
will be of no use to you!

This applies particularly as you have no way of knowing if there are
undocumented features in the structure, or if the next release of SpeedREG
will alter the structure.

[Leif B. Kristensen]

gsrc@shaw.ca skrev:

Specifically:

Transcription software that provides a means of entering into a
relational database those event related records that might be acquired
from parish registers, census record, tithes, trade directories, BMD
certs., or other similar sources. The records would be `transcribed`
to event formatted forms as batches. The batches would then be
verified, audited, and subsequently posted to a larger relation
database that would/could take advantage of a variety of SQL queries.

This software would not work to a tafel logic as it would be used as a
bulk loader. Therefore, GEDCOM import or export would not apply.

As Dave says, such requirements can't be met with shrink-wrapped
software. I do a lot of both database programming and data entry
myself, and have found that using PHP/Apache provides a fast and
relatively easy way to create data entry forms. As for batch
processing, I rather prefer Perl or Python, somewhat depending on the
"shape" of the problem at hand.

I don't quite see why you would want to use an intermediate text file;
for instance MySQL is easily installed on a PC, and Apache and PHP
along with it. Those are free and very powerful products.
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen
http://solumslekt.org/

[Jack]

Hi!

You can do (most) those already.

You can get it free http://www.LegacyFamilytree.com/Index.asp?mid=4A17Nvi
but with De-Luxe-version:
- copy event/source to other person
- use Birthday Reminders
There is also namecards, but perhaps not excaclty what you want, but close
enough.

Jack
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eqo3s1l1pl408qbh8n6bhdjbq0aqnancq9@4ax.com...

When Legacy 6.0 was released recently, there was some discussion of what
new
features it had, and how useful they would be.

I've been using Legacy for four years now, and like it, but there are
still
some features it lacks, and which I would like to see. This applies not
only
to Legacy, but to other genealogy programs.

1. Source clipboard work across files

To be able to copy a source from one file to another.

2. Print index cards

Print 3x5 and 6x4 index cards

Individual's information - top line with name (surname first, years of
birth
and death, and RIN in top right corner. e.g

SMITH, John Brown (1855-1923) RIN 12345
___________________________________________________
son of James Smith [12343] and Clara Brown [12344]
b. 23 Jun 1855 London, England
d. 12 Aug 1923 Santiago, Chile
m. 19 Feb 1882 Rome, Italy

and so on

3. Link more than one person to events

It should be possible to enter events just once, and link people to them,
and
also to print lists of events with names of participants. I believe The
Master
Genealogist can already do this; it would be nice if Legacy could do this
as
well.

4. Birthday Reminders etc

Better to have an export of data to PIM software than to have Lwegacy
trying
to give birthday reminders. A feature to excport to MS Outlook and other
popular PIM programs would be more useful -- information such as name,
birthday, address, current spouse and wedding anniversary, and possibly
notes,
would be useful. It could probablt be exported in CSV format.

Comments, anyone?

Note, I've crossposted this to several groups, to solicit comments from
Legacy
users, but I've set follow-ups to soc.genealogy.computing, where the
discussion is most appropriate.



--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 05:50:50 GMT, "Jack" <none@INVALIDmail.com> wrote:

Hi!

You can do (most) those already.

You can get it free http://www.LegacyFamilytree.com/Index.asp?mid=4A17Nvi
but with De-Luxe-version:
- copy event/source to other person

Only within a file, and copying an event breaks Codd's law.

- use Birthday Reminders

Which means I still have to retype the information in my PIM.

There is also namecards, but perhaps not excaclty what you want, but close
enough.

No, not nearly close enough


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Peter J Seymour]

Steve Hayes wrote:

When Legacy 6.0 was released recently, there was some discussion of what new
features it had, and how useful they would be.

I've been using Legacy for four years now, and like it, but there are still
some features it lacks, and which I would like to see. This applies not only
to Legacy, but to other genealogy programs.

1. Source clipboard work across files

To be able to copy a source from one file to another.

I understand that copying a source from one file to another may be
useful, but as a digression, what about holding all the sources in a
separate file, cross-linked as required? Or is this arrangement getting
overly technical? (I am not convinced that programs should go that way,
simply that it seems to be the strictly 'correct' way).

2. Print index cards

Print 3x5 and 6x4 index cards

Individual's information - top line with name (surname first, years of birth
and death, and RIN in top right corner. e.g

SMITH, John Brown (1855-1923) RIN 12345
___________________________________________________
son of James Smith [12343] and Clara Brown [12344]
b. 23 Jun 1855 London, England
d. 12 Aug 1923 Santiago, Chile
m. 19 Feb 1882 Rome, Italy

and so on

Are index cards what you actually want, or a convenient abbreviated
representation of the essential data whatever form that might take?

3. Link more than one person to events

It should be possible to enter events just once, and link people to them, and
also to print lists of events with names of participants. I believe The Master
Genealogist can already do this; it would be nice if Legacy could do this as
well.

I entirely agree that handling events in this way should be possible.

....

Comments, anyone?

Regards

Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/

[Paul Blair]

Peter J Seymour wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

When Legacy 6.0 was released recently, there was some discussion of
what new
features it had, and how useful they would be.
I've been using Legacy for four years now, and like it, but there are
still
some features it lacks, and which I would like to see. This applies
not only
to Legacy, but to other genealogy programs.

1. Source clipboard work across files

To be able to copy a source from one file to another.


I understand that copying a source from one file to another may be
useful, but as a digression, what about holding all the sources in a
separate file, cross-linked as required? Or is this arrangement getting
overly technical? (I am not convinced that programs should go that way,
simply that it seems to be the strictly 'correct' way).

2. Print index cards

Print 3x5 and 6x4 index cards

Individual's information - top line with name (surname first, years of
birth
and death, and RIN in top right corner. e.g

SMITH, John Brown (1855-1923) RIN 12345
___________________________________________________
son of James Smith [12343] and Clara Brown [12344]
b. 23 Jun 1855 London, England
d. 12 Aug 1923 Santiago, Chile
m. 19 Feb 1882 Rome, Italy

and so on


Are index cards what you actually want, or a convenient abbreviated
representation of the essential data whatever form that might take?

3. Link more than one person to events

It should be possible to enter events just once, and link people to
them, and
also to print lists of events with names of participants. I believe
The Master
Genealogist can already do this; it would be nice if Legacy could do
this as
well.


I entirely agree that handling events in this way should be possible.

...


Comments, anyone?

Regards
Peter
http://www.gendatam.com/

Handling events should be no different to handling locations etc. One
table holds all.

Put in your bids, folks....Legacy will probably have to be fully
rewritten in the not too distant future.

Paul

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 08:57:15 +0000, Peter J Seymour <moz@pjsey.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:
1. Source clipboard work across files

To be able to copy a source from one file to another.


I understand that copying a source from one file to another may be
useful, but as a digression, what about holding all the sources in a
separate file, cross-linked as required? Or is this arrangement getting
overly technical? (I am not convinced that programs should go that way,
simply that it seems to be the strictly 'correct' way).

I think one needs to distinguishing between having multiple copies of
different information in the dame database, and in different databases.

If, for example, you wanted to split off the descendants of one person in a
database to send someone related to that person, you would not want to have to
send them all the sources for all the material you were NOT sending them.

2. Print index cards

Print 3x5 and 6x4 index cards

Individual's information - top line with name (surname first, years of birth
and death, and RIN in top right corner. e.g

SMITH, John Brown (1855-1923) RIN 12345
___________________________________________________
son of James Smith [12343] and Clara Brown [12344]
b. 23 Jun 1855 London, England
d. 12 Aug 1923 Santiago, Chile
m. 19 Feb 1882 Rome, Italy

and so on


Are index cards what you actually want, or a convenient abbreviated
representation of the essential data whatever form that might take?

Index cards are what I actually want.

I should perhaps explain a bit more. In the early days of personal computing
(and even to some extent nowadays), computer programmers failed to understand
what computers were good for. Computers could often help to organise
information more effectively than manual filing systems. But instead of doing
that, computer programmers got it backwards.

Several programs went so far as to produce an image of a cardfile on the
computer screen (thus wastinmg a lot of screen space). Windown cardfile war
one, but there were others. But they couldn't actually print the cards, thus
keeping a usless featyure of a card file, and omitting the useful one.
Entering data on index cards is not an enjoyasble task. But index cards are
useful for LOOKING AT data. The real strength of computers is that you casn
update the data quickly, and produce new index cards. But this has not been
exploited.

3. Link more than one person to events

It should be possible to enter events just once, and link people to them, and
also to print lists of events with names of participants. I believe The Master
Genealogist can already do this; it would be nice if Legacy could do this as
well.


I entirely agree that handling events in this way should be possible.

TMG seems to manage it.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Tids]

Steve Hayes wrote:

When Legacy 6.0 was released recently, there was some discussion of
what new features it had, and how useful they would be.

I would dearly like to be able to list the marriage notes
(as you can do with general notes) through the Name List
I've put all my ancestors marriage details in marriage notes
and now I can print them off. I'll have to move the whole
lot to general notes....a huge job.

[removethis]

Hi Steve,

Long time no hear/see.

Steve Hayes wrote:

3. Link more than one person to events

It should be possible to enter events just once, and link people to them, and
also to print lists of events with names of participants. I believe The Master
Genealogist can already do this; it would be nice if Legacy could do this as
well.

This would be a extremely useful feature. I am a Legacy 6 Deluxe user
and this would save me quite a bit of time and hassle.

David

[Randy]

Steve Hayes wrote:

When Legacy 6.0 was released recently, there was some discussion of what
new features it had, and how useful they would be.

I've been using Legacy for four years now, and like it, but there are
still some features it lacks, and which I would like to see. This applies
not only to Legacy, but to other genealogy programs.

1. Source clipboard work across files

To be able to copy a source from one file to another.

2. Print index cards

Print 3x5 and 6x4 index cards

Individual's information - top line with name (surname first, years of
birth and death, and RIN in top right corner. e.g

SMITH, John Brown (1855-1923) RIN 12345
___________________________________________________
son of James Smith [12343] and Clara Brown [12344]
b. 23 Jun 1855 London, England
d. 12 Aug 1923 Santiago, Chile
m. 19 Feb 1882 Rome, Italy

and so on

3. Link more than one person to events

It should be possible to enter events just once, and link people to them,
and also to print lists of events with names of participants. I believe
The Master Genealogist can already do this; it would be nice if Legacy
could do this as well.

4. Birthday Reminders etc

Better to have an export of data to PIM software than to have Lwegacy
trying to give birthday reminders. A feature to excport to MS Outlook and
other popular PIM programs would be more useful -- information such as
name, birthday, address, current spouse and wedding anniversary, and
possibly notes, would be useful. It could probablt be exported in CSV
format.

Comments, anyone?

Note, I've crossposted this to several groups, to solicit comments from
Legacy users, but I've set follow-ups to soc.genealogy.computing, where
the discussion is most appropriate.

Good ideas, especially the birthday reminders. Are you on the Legacy mailing
list? http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Randy
--
To email me directly just put my first and shaver together @comcast.net

[Kaye Payne]

I am enjoying the birthday reminder on Legacy. Just have to remember to open
the program each morning. I wish my computer would just open on Legacy at
Start-up.

Kaye Payne

[David]

Kaye Payne wrote:

I am enjoying the birthday reminder on Legacy. Just have to remember to open
the program each morning. I wish my computer would just open on Legacy at
Start-up.

Kaye Payne

It can do that. Simply add Legacy to the Startup group.

[Paul Blair]

David wrote:

Kaye Payne wrote:

I am enjoying the birthday reminder on Legacy. Just have to remember
to open the program each morning. I wish my computer would just open
on Legacy at Start-up.

Kaye Payne


It can do that. Simply add Legacy to the Startup group.

Perhaps a bit more detail...

Open Windows Explorer, find the Legacy folder and open it. Scroll down
to legacy.exe, right click on it, and make a shortcut. Drag the shortcut
onto your desktop.

Now go up to Documents and Settings. Open the folder with your name
against it, open the sub-folder named Start Menu, then the one Programs.
In there is a folder named Startup. Open it, then drag the Legacy
shortcut into it from the desktop.

Next time you boot...voila

Paul

[Kaye Payne]

Hi David,

Yes I can put it on the Start up list but I mean when the computer turns on
it would open straight to Legacy instead of the desktop picture.

KP

[Kaye Payne]

Hi Paul,

Now that was clever I would never had worked that out in a million years.
Must be getting too old but from here on I will never miss a birthday.

Thanks to David for the suggestion.

Kaye Payne

[Paul Blair]

Kaye Payne wrote:

Hi Paul,

Now that was clever I would never had worked that out in a million years.
Must be getting too old but from here on I will never miss a birthday.

Thanks to David for the suggestion.

Kaye Payne


Now if you can tell my why my cordless optical mouse has got the jumps,

I will reckon we're even

Paul

[Kaye Payne]

hehehehe

No I am not too keen on cordless things. Sometimes no batteries within 100
miles out here in the bush. So I would not know - sorry.

KP

[Shelley]

Now if you can tell my why my cordless optical mouse has got the jumps, I
will reckon we're even

Paul

Try using the mouse on a different surface, especially if you're using a
mousepad. Some optical mice don't work with normal mousepads.

Shelley

[Paul Blair]

Shelley wrote:

Now if you can tell my why my cordless optical mouse has got the jumps, I
will reckon we're even

Paul


Try using the mouse on a different surface, especially if you're using a
mousepad. Some optical mice don't work with normal mousepads.

Shelley


Thanks, Shelley - it might just be hot and grumpy like me at the moment!

I will try it

Paul

[David]

Kaye Payne wrote:

Hi David,

Yes I can put it on the Start up list but I mean when the computer turns on
it would open straight to Legacy instead of the desktop picture.

KP

All you would need to do is minimize it. Still easier than remembering
to start it up.

[David]

Paul Blair wrote:

Thanks, Shelley - it might just be hot and grumpy like me at the moment!
That's because you people down under mix up your seasons. We've got snow

outside - the way it ought to be. <duck and running>



David

[Paul Blair]

David wrote:

Paul Blair wrote:

Thanks, Shelley - it might just be hot and grumpy like me at the moment!

That's because you people down under mix up your seasons. We've got snow
outside - the way it ought to be. <duck and running



David

Hmmm...well, about 30 years ago, it snowed here on Christmas Day. Quite
unbelieveable!!!

Paul

[Lech Jaszowski]

Yes I can put it on the Start up list but I mean when the computer turns
on
it would open straight to Legacy instead of the desktop picture.

Try this:
1) right click on the shortcut (in the Autostart) and choose Properties
2) on the second tab (shortcut) choose "Minimized" from Run option

Leszek

[Doug Laidlaw]

<posted & mailed>

Steve Hayes wrote:

When Legacy 6.0 was released recently, there was some discussion of what
new features it had, and how useful they would be.

I've been using Legacy for four years now, and like it, but there are
still some features it lacks, and which I would like to see. This applies
not only to Legacy, but to other genealogy programs.

1. Source clipboard work across files

To be able to copy a source from one file to another.

2. Print index cards

Print 3x5 and 6x4 index cards

Individual's information - top line with name (surname first, years of
birth and death, and RIN in top right corner. e.g

SMITH, John Brown (1855-1923) RIN 12345
___________________________________________________
son of James Smith [12343] and Clara Brown [12344]
b. 23 Jun 1855 London, England
d. 12 Aug 1923 Santiago, Chile
m. 19 Feb 1882 Rome, Italy

and so on

3. Link more than one person to events

It should be possible to enter events just once, and link people to them,
and also to print lists of events with names of participants. I believe
The Master Genealogist can already do this; it would be nice if Legacy
could do this as well.

4. Birthday Reminders etc

Better to have an export of data to PIM software than to have Lwegacy
trying to give birthday reminders. A feature to excport to MS Outlook and
other popular PIM programs would be more useful -- information such as
name, birthday, address, current spouse and wedding anniversary, and
possibly notes, would be useful. It could probablt be exported in CSV
format.

Comments, anyone?

Note, I've crossposted this to several groups, to solicit comments from
Legacy users, but I've set follow-ups to soc.genealogy.computing, where
the discussion is most appropriate.



Is it the most appropriate? What about Legacy's own user mailing list? It

is very busy and is watched by the developers. Topics such as this are
discussed frequently.

Personally, although I use Legacy, I am not a "power user", and I don't
really miss the features you mention. My website is generated with
phpGedView (http://phpgedview.sourceforge.net - plug, plug) and there is a
commercial equivalent whose interface you might prefer, but I keep the
"definitive" file on Legacy.

Doug.
http://www.douglaidlaw.net/boykett/
--
Registered Linux User No. 277548. My true email address has hotkey for
myaccess.
The complete truth is not the prerogative of the human judge.
- Judge Meir Shamgar.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:07:37 +1100, Doug Laidlaw <laidlaws@myaccess.com.au>
wrote:

Note, I've crossposted this to several groups, to solicit comments from
Legacy users, but I've set follow-ups to soc.genealogy.computing, where
the discussion is most appropriate.



Is it the most appropriate? What about Legacy's own user mailing list? It
is very busy and is watched by the developers. Topics such as this are
discussed frequently.

I've posted it there too, but it's wider than any single program, and most
genealogy programs can't do the things I've suggested, though there were
add-on's for the DOS versions of PAF that could print on 3x5 and 6x4 cards --
only trouble is, modern printers can't cope with printing from DOS programs.

And TMG did the event thing, and I would have used it except that every time I
tried to instal and run it it crashed. I found Legacy much more reliable, but
I would like it even better if it had these features.

Anyway, I'll see if my post in the user list brings any responses.

Personally, although I use Legacy, I am not a "power user", and I don't
really miss the features you mention. My website is generated with
phpGedView (http://phpgedview.sourceforge.net - plug, plug) and there is a
commercial equivalent whose interface you might prefer, but I keep the
"definitive" file on Legacy.

I've not used Legacy for generating web sites yet.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Lech Jaszowski]

I have an additional wish. For me the most important one - if it would be
fulfilled, I would pay for the Deluxe version.

5. Possibility to use Eastern Europe characters (Polish, Czech, Russian,
Hungarian, Romanian etc.)

Now I cannot correctly write down many surnames, names and the town. And
therefore this program is for me worthless. I am convinced, that Millennia
Corporation would earn much money if Legacy supported Unicode or UTF-8. I'm
using PAF 5.2 (by the way PAF Companion isn't supporting such letters).

Lech Jaszowski

[Jack]

Hi!

According my knowledge, they are planning it.
So, start Legacy usage...

Hopefully Polish will be in this long list wuite soon.
Afrikaans - Dansk - Deutsch - Eesti - English - Español - Français -
Italiano - Nederlands - Norsk (Bokmål) - Norsk (Nynorsk) - Português
(Brasil) - Suomi - Svenska


"Lech Jaszowski" <jaszowsk@kr.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:dq2hib$j8p$1@inews.gazeta.pl...

I have an additional wish. For me the most important one - if it would be
fulfilled, I would pay for the Deluxe version.

5. Possibility to use Eastern Europe characters (Polish, Czech, Russian,
Hungarian, Romanian etc.)

Now I cannot correctly write down many surnames, names and the town. And
therefore this program is for me worthless. I am convinced, that Millennia
Corporation would earn much money if Legacy supported Unicode or UTF-8.
I'm
using PAF 5.2 (by the way PAF Companion isn't supporting such letters).

Lech Jaszowski

[Sherry]

"Lech Jaszowski" <jaszowsk@kr.onet.pl> wrote in
news:dq2hib$j8p$1@inews.gazeta.pl:

<snip>

5. Possibility to use Eastern Europe characters (Polish, Czech,
Russian, Hungarian, Romanian etc.)<snip
Lech Jaszowski

The programmers are working on porting Legacy over from VB6, which
doesn't support unicode fonts, to VB.Net, which will. They expect that
it will take about a year to make the transition.

Sherry
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
Support@MillenniaCorp.com
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

We are changing the world of genealogy!

[Althiom]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:27:15 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:

Funny, isn't it -- nine replies, in the thread, and none on topic.

Just what do you mean by an "event-based note recording program"???

althiom

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:57:12 -0500, Althiom <gbell3@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:27:15 +0200, Steve Hayes
hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:

Funny, isn't it -- nine replies, in the thread, and none on topic.

Just what do you mean by an "event-based note recording program"???

I thought I described what the Genota program did, and that is part of it.

But most genealogy programs are person-based. You enter person, and link them
to others in the main genealogical relationship of parent-child (and some
insist that you marry them too).

An event-based program would let you enter events, and link people to events.

An "event" could be the main genealogical ones of birth, marriage, and death,
and others such as baptisms and burials. But it also would include other
events, such as a birthday party, a car crash, a battle, a bank robbery, a
graduation, the death of a pet, flying up from Brownies to Guides, and so on.

Most genealogy programs let you enter events, which are linked to people.

The kind I have in mind would let you link people to events,

So if the event was a marriage, you would enter it once, and then you could
link people to it saying what part they had played in the event --
bridgegrrom, bride, witness, best man, drunk buffoon who disrupted the
proceedings, marriage officer and so on.

Such a program would be a useful tool for analysing genwealogical data. You
could get a list of events a person was involved in, useful for making a
timeline of that person's life.

The Genota program I've been trying out *almost* does this, but not quite.

It is document-based rather than event-based.

For example, I could enter the text of my great grandfather's diary of the
Battle of Isandlwana, and then I could list the people mentioned in it --
officers who gav e him orders and so on.

But "event" and "person" are part of the same record -- they are linked to the
same "note" (the diary entry).

It looks useful, and its links to programs like Legacy might make it a useful
was of organising notes and source information. But it is not *exactly* what I
am looking for.

In Genota, you might enter the same person many timees, as they crop up in
different "nots".

I want "Events" and "People" to be in a many-to-many relationship, and sources
as well -- one could get information about an event from many sources -- my
great grandfather's diary (ehrre the event is the Battle of Isandlwana) but
several history books as well.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:27:15 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:29:13 +0000, Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com
wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:26:57 +0000, Hugh Watkins
hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote:


J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:


On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:10:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:



For a long time I've been looking for an event-based note recording program to
try to look for patterns in genealogical notes and data.

Funny, isn't it -- nine replies, in the thread, and none on topic.

Mea culpa. I thought a better way would interest you.

Hugh

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:11:15 GMT, sull1927@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:27:15 +0200, Steve Hayes
hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:29:13 +0000, Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com
wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:26:57 +0000, Hugh Watkins
hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote:


J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:


On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:10:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:



For a long time I've been looking for an event-based note recording program to
try to look for patterns in genealogical notes and data.

Funny, isn't it -- nine replies, in the thread, and none on topic.

Mea culpa. I thought a better way would interest you.

You failed to explain how it would be better, and is a somewhat different
topic, namely whether word processing progams are better for data analysis
than database ones.






--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:55:37 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:

A couple of days ago I asked some questions about event based databases.

All the on-topic responses I received were sent by private e-mail, while most
of the responses in the newsgroup were off-topic (thanks largely to a troll
named Phil Hawkins, who posted a fatuous response).

Now if newsgroups are to be useful, this is the very reverse of what should be
happening.

Post the ON-TOPIC stuff to the newsgroup, to contribute to the discussion, and
post OFF-TOPIC stuff by private e-mail, to avoid cluttering up the newsgroup
with extraneous material.

If we all did that, the newsgroups would become more interesting and useful to
all of us.

I don't object to the occasional joke, or threads that are clearly marked OT,
but when threads are hijacked into irrelevant backwaters and all the on-topic
replies are sent by e-mail, we are missing the purpose of newsgroups.

Think about it: if you post something that you would like to discuss with
other genealogists, and you get 10 replies by e-mail, it means you have to
send 10 messages in reply to those 10 e-mails, instead of one reply to the
group, to take the discussion forward. And if one of those replies has
something that answers a question posed in one of the other replies, then you
have to forward A's message to B, and then if B responds to A by e-mail too,
you may miss some interesting information, and the whole discussion gets
fragmented.

..... and all this time I had thought that Don Quixote was Spanish <g>.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[K0BBE]

Charlie Hoffpauir smeet het volgende in de groep:

.... and all this time I had thought that Don Quixote was
Spanish <g>. Charlie Hoffpauir

Don Quichote, yes.
Windmills are international!

(Sorry for this OT response.)

--
K0BBE
:: familiewebblad: [ http://tinyurl.com/csb8n ]
:: e-adres: incorrect

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:16:49 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:11:15 GMT, sull1927@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:27:15 +0200, Steve Hayes
hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:29:13 +0000, Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com
wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:26:57 +0000, Hugh Watkins
hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote:


J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:


On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:10:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:



For a long time I've been looking for an event-based note recording program to
try to look for patterns in genealogical notes and data.

Funny, isn't it -- nine replies, in the thread, and none on topic.

Mea culpa. I thought a better way would interest you.

You failed to explain how it would be better,

1. As I said my way, my rules - and program, program rules. I'd rather
ride the horse than have the horse ride me.

2. What I have is better than what apparently no one has.

3. What I do got me 5 generations further back than anyone else. I'm
waiting for the world to catch up or prove me wrong.

and is a somewhat different
topic, namely whether word processing progams are better for data analysis
than database ones.

It obviously depends on the ability of the user. In the case of the
topic I don't need training wheels..

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:36:31 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:45:33 GMT, sull1927@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:10:33 +0200, Steve Hayes
hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:

For a long time I've been looking for an event-based note recording program to
try to look for patterns in genealogical notes and data.

[huge snip] or [hugh snip] if you prefer.

I have done two things - well, a lot of things but I'll only mention
two...

1. I have arranged every fact found on Sullivans in VA and NC, from
creation to about 1835, in chrono order by State and date with the
county listed. I use MS Word to combine these in any fashion I choose
to discern patterns. I also have a listing of the dates of county
formation as an aid.

HOW exactly do you "combine these in any fashion you choose" in Word?

I group by state, I group by year, I group by county, I group by like
names, I group by areas larger than counties but smaller than states.
Each time I change the grouping and realign more events are recorded
in my memory until, at one point, I could recite about 14
single-spaced pages without cues. I can put all the Johns and/or
Williams together. I can look for naming patterns.

Can you filter by date range, or place, or other criteria?

I do it manually. I retain more than if a program did it.

Can you search for a certain combination of words in records? (eg "pumpkin"
and "farmer")

Seems like that would be people-oriented vice event-oriented.

I try to relate events and people because each event I record is for a
person or people. Each time I manipulate a different way I see some
other possible link or combination.

Of course I'm retired and have time to play with the events. And I cut
my teeth doing things manually instead of using the computer. I want
to retain and have immediate access while a program user has to spend
a lot of time setting things up. And I can cope with exceptions and
possibilities better than a logical machine.

I'm not contending that one size fits all - just mentioning other
possibilities. If you need to go a mile in less than 2 minutes a horse
is better than having to walk if you have no car. I don't know anyone
else who does it my way - but I know a lot of folks who wish they had.

I suspect I could have recorded the info in Excel and done more
searching and sorting.

Hugh

[Bob Velke]

Steve said:

I've discussed it with the TMG help people, and they couldn't help. It seemed
there was a problem with the underlying software engine (Foxpro) though why it
worked on some computers and not others was something of a mystery -- I tried
installing it on two computers with different OSs -- Win 98 and Windows OS/2,
and it crashed on both.

I'm sorry to hear of your experience and I don't know the particulars but
we do have a lot of people running TMG on Win 98, NT, 2000, ME, and
XP. Windows 98 is easily strained for resources, however. TMG isn't
designed for OS/2.

Unlike programs like Legacy, you have to pay upfront for TMG, and if it
doesn't work you don't get your money back, so trying a
different version seems too much of a risk to me, and might be throwing
good money after bad.

You're mistaken. TMG has a 30-day free trial which is not limited in any
way. It also has a 90-day guarantee if you buy it and decide that you want
your money back. Once you own it, most updates are free.

Bob Velke
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 05:35:15 +0000 (UTC), bvelke@whollygenes.com (Bob Velke)
wrote:

Steve said:

I've discussed it with the TMG help people, and they couldn't help. It seemed
there was a problem with the underlying software engine (Foxpro) though why it
worked on some computers and not others was something of a mystery -- I tried
installing it on two computers with different OSs -- Win 98 and Windows OS/2,
and it crashed on both.

I'm sorry to hear of your experience and I don't know the particulars but
we do have a lot of people running TMG on Win 98, NT, 2000, ME, and
XP. Windows 98 is easily strained for resources, however. TMG isn't
designed for OS/2.

Aye, but WinOS/2 was a Windows 3.1 emulator that ran under OS/2, which alos
had a better DOS emulator than DOS 6.22. It was just another platform to try
it on.

Unlike programs like Legacy, you have to pay upfront for TMG, and if it
doesn't work you don't get your money back, so trying a
different version seems too much of a risk to me, and might be throwing
good money after bad.

You're mistaken. TMG has a 30-day free trial which is not limited in any
way. It also has a 90-day guarantee if you buy it and decide that you want
your money back. Once you own it, most updates are free.

I'm glad to hear that, because I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case when I
tried it.

I'd like to give a newer version a try, because what little I did manage to
see looked tantalisingly useful!


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[James O'Riley]

James O'Riley wrote:

It seems that Ancestry has changed their census file format. There used
to use a form such that you fill in a name, etc. and search. Now it
looks like you have to know the state, county, city, ED, ??? in order to
search. Or have the URLs changed and I missed it while out of the country?

Thanks,
James

Sorry folks, I just noticed that I had Firefox's AdBlock enabled. Nothing
has changed on their site.

James

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Williams]

I currently own Family Tree Maker (FTM) 2005 under Windows 2000 have
been noticing some problems lately. I do not think that FTM in
completely happy under 2000?

So I have been wondering changing to Roots Magic v.3, does any one
currently have this and what do you think of it?

Regards
Peter Williams

[Williams]

I currently own Family Tree Maker (FTM) 2005 under Windows 2000 have
been noticing some problems lately. I do not think that FTM in
completely happy under 2000?

So I have been wondering changing to Roots Magic v.3, does any one
currently have this and what do you think of it?

Regards
Peter Williams

[Jerald H. Mathews]

Williams <sandhills.168@gmail.com> wrote:

I currently own Family Tree Maker (FTM) 2005 under Windows 2000 have
been noticing some problems lately. I do not think that FTM in
completely happy under 2000?

So I have been wondering changing to Roots Magic v.3, does any one
currently have this and what do you think of it?

Regards
Peter Williams

RootsMagic is very good. The author pays close attention to user
complaints and wishes, fixes problems (mot many of those) and
includes wish lists on a timely basis.

I started with Family Origins (Same Author) and moved to RootsMagic
with no problems.

--
Regards,
Jerry M.

This E-Mail server is a text only server, NO HTML. Attachments will be
downloaded to a non-Windowz system.

[Paul Blair]

Williams wrote:

I currently own Family Tree Maker (FTM) 2005 under Windows 2000 have
been noticing some problems lately. I do not think that FTM in
completely happy under 2000?

So I have been wondering changing to Roots Magic v.3, does any one
currently have this and what do you think of it?

Regards
Peter Williams

I don't know what you are seeing as unhappiness, but FTM 2005 works well
under Win2K/XP.

But it is FTM, with not a lot of improvement over past years, and a
degree of non-standard features eg GEDCOM export. But it does good
charts, and the underlying data management seems to be unbreakable. It
is faster than other software (eg Legacy), but....

Roots Magic is good, and the writer(s) are aware of customer inputs. It
is blindingly fast (useful if you have a large file ...say 5000+
entries.) There is a free trial which is limited to the number of
entries you can make yourself, but the trial version will import any
size so you can test a large file for yourself. It's worth doing just
for the sheer pleasure of watching efficient software!

Paul

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:04:53 +0000, Williams <sandhills.168@gmail.com>
wrote:

I currently own Family Tree Maker (FTM) 2005 under Windows 2000 have
been noticing some problems lately. I do not think that FTM in
completely happy under 2000?

So I have been wondering changing to Roots Magic v.3, does any one
currently have this and what do you think of it?

Regards
Peter Williams

If you have FTM switch to Legacy or RM or TMG every day in the week
and twice on Sunday!

All three owners or tech people are available and all accomodate users
requests that would benefit the majority of users.

All three have a trial program or a basic program so you don't have to
open your billfold until you're sure.

I suggest inputting about 50 + or - people from different families to
give the programs a workout including report printing. An entire data
base is too unweildy and takes too much paper for reports when
testing. Or gedcom the entire data base in and only print a few
generations.

If the advice is worth nothing, that's what it cost you.

Hugh

[John Nichols]

"Williams" <sandhills.168@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:43de55c0$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

I currently own Family Tree Maker (FTM) 2005 under Windows 2000 have
been noticing some problems lately. I do not think that FTM in
completely happy under 2000?

So I have been wondering changing to Roots Magic v.3, does any one
currently have this and what do you think of it?

Regards
Peter Williams

I've been using Roots Magic for just over a year now, and upgraded to
version three over the Christmas holidays. I'm very satisfied with it, I
especially like its Source Wizard which makes it incredibly easy to enter a
source correctly, along with comments about it. It's ability to search the
Internet, particularly IGIs on the LDS site is quite good.

My only gripe with it is that doesn't display an individual's relationship
to your root individual by default. Instead you have to use its
relationship calculator, which does not appear to "stick" once it's been
calculated.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:06:44 GMT, "John Nichols"
<bejay@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

"Williams" <sandhills.168@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:43de55c0$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I currently own Family Tree Maker (FTM) 2005 under Windows 2000 have
been noticing some problems lately. I do not think that FTM in
completely happy under 2000?

So I have been wondering changing to Roots Magic v.3, does any one
currently have this and what do you think of it?

Regards
Peter Williams

I've been using Roots Magic for just over a year now, and upgraded to
version three over the Christmas holidays. I'm very satisfied with it, I
especially like its Source Wizard which makes it incredibly easy to enter a
source correctly, along with comments about it. It's ability to search the
Internet, particularly IGIs on the LDS site is quite good.

My only gripe with it is that doesn't display an individual's relationship
to your root individual by default. Instead you have to use its
relationship calculator, which does not appear to "stick" once it's been
calculated.

Certainly each user is interested in a genealogy program doing
everything he wishes. But for purposes of discussion...

I know the relationship of almost anyone in my direct line starting
with my gggg grandfather. It's only out of curiosity that I want to
know my relationship with those not in my direct line.

Even though that is one of your interests, what am I, or the average
user, missing by RM not having the feature you would like?

Hugh

[John Nichols]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <sull1927@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:43df5d51.1841297@news1.news.adelphia.net...

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:06:44 GMT, "John Nichols"
bejay@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


"Williams" <sandhills.168@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:43de55c0$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I currently own Family Tree Maker (FTM) 2005 under Windows 2000 have
been noticing some problems lately. I do not think that FTM in
completely happy under 2000?

So I have been wondering changing to Roots Magic v.3, does any one
currently have this and what do you think of it?

Regards
Peter Williams

I've been using Roots Magic for just over a year now, and upgraded to
version three over the Christmas holidays. I'm very satisfied with it, I
especially like its Source Wizard which makes it incredibly easy to enter
a
source correctly, along with comments about it. It's ability to search
the
Internet, particularly IGIs on the LDS site is quite good.

My only gripe with it is that doesn't display an individual's relationship
to your root individual by default. Instead you have to use its
relationship calculator, which does not appear to "stick" once it's been
calculated.

Certainly each user is interested in a genealogy program doing
everything he wishes. But for purposes of discussion...

I know the relationship of almost anyone in my direct line starting
with my gggg grandfather. It's only out of curiosity that I want to
know my relationship with those not in my direct line.

Even though that is one of your interests, what am I, or the average
user, missing by RM not having the feature you would like?

Hugh

Hugh, if it's not important to you, then you're missing nothing. And direct
lines are not so hard. But, and this is a biggie for _me_, when you tracing
the children of your great granduncle, and their children, and so on, then
it gets to more complicated. Even more so if you're tracing down the
children of the brother of your third great grandfather (or grandmother).

I have to admit that this is one of the things that I miss about
Generations, which I no longer use. On any given screen, without having to
go through a separate menu, you always knew if somebody was your third
cousin four times removed.

Obviously, YDV.

[Richard Bland]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:15:05 GMT, "John Nichols"
<bejay@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Hugh, if it's not important to you, then you're missing nothing. And direct
lines are not so hard. But, and this is a biggie for _me_, when you tracing
the children of your great granduncle, and their children, and so on, then
it gets to more complicated. Even more so if you're tracing down the
children of the brother of your third great grandfather (or grandmother).

I have to admit that this is one of the things that I miss about
Generations, which I no longer use. On any given screen, without having to
go through a separate menu, you always knew if somebody was your third
cousin four times removed.

Obviously, YDV.

John:

Version 3.0.4 of Roots Magic does have the feature you want.
Go to Tools - Set relationships.
The relationship of any person to the root person appears in the
status bar at the bottom of the screen.

Dick

[John Nichols]

"Richard Bland" <dbland@shentel.net> wrote in message
news:16d1u111iivl4unieg0ibkosaldtplfop2@4ax.com...

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:15:05 GMT, "John Nichols"
bejay@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


Hugh, if it's not important to you, then you're missing nothing. And
direct
lines are not so hard. But, and this is a biggie for _me_, when you
tracing
the children of your great granduncle, and their children, and so on, then
it gets to more complicated. Even more so if you're tracing down the
children of the brother of your third great grandfather (or grandmother).

I have to admit that this is one of the things that I miss about
Generations, which I no longer use. On any given screen, without having
to
go through a separate menu, you always knew if somebody was your third
cousin four times removed.

Obviously, YDV.

John:

Version 3.0.4 of Roots Magic does have the feature you want.
Go to Tools - Set relationships.
The relationship of any person to the root person appears in the
status bar at the bottom of the screen.

Dick

Dick, I want to thank both you, and Sue (who sent me a private email for
this), for pointing to this. I've set it, and now I see the relationships
at the bottom of the screen.

[Peter J Seymour]

Steve Hayes wrote:

On the Legacy user group and elsewhere various people have discussed
things like using MS Acess to manipulate Legacy data, and various other
things relating broadly to genealogy software development.

We don't all have exactly the same concerns, but I think they overlap
sufficiently to make it possible to have useful conversations and share
ideas. It would therefore be nice if we could get together in a forum
where such discussions would not be off topic, and go beyond the scope (or
remit, as Brits say) of the forum.

I've tried to discuss tuch things in the soc.genealogy.computing
newsgroup, which seems to be the logical place for it, though people also
discuss things like how to do this or that in such and such a program, and
most only seem to be interested in that.

The advantage of having such discussions in a newsgroup is that it is
publicly accessible, and therefore relatively easy for others to find. To
have useful discussions, one needs a critical mass of interested people.
I've tried to start discussions on the relative merits and features of
Clooz and Custodian and there has been no response.

Another advantage of newsgroups is that and such software development
needs input from users as well as developers. It's all to easy to design
software that doesn't really meet the needs of users. With newsgroups, one
can crosspost an idea for a program to various generalogy newsgroups, to
get responses of a variety of genealogists, and set follow-ups back to
soc.genealogy.computing. If those polled on such things are interested
enough, they can easily subscribe to that newsgroup too.

But failing that, perhaps one could start a newsgroup of YahooGroups or
somewhere, and invite interested people to join. An advantage of that,
compared with newsgroups, is that one can upload sample files of code or
datya models etc, which other people can download and look at. One can set
up an online database of interests and projects.

The Legacy user group list isn't really a suitable place for discussing
this, because it sometimes goes beyond Legacy, and some people who are not
members of the Legacy list could also contribute.

The people who participate do not need to be programmers (I'm not), but
people who are willing to discuss what kinds of software would meet the
needs of genealogists, where the gaps are, and how the gaps can be filled.


If this message rings any bells with you, then if possible, join
soc.genealogy.computing and respond there, or if you really think there is
a need for a mailing list on the topic, and I'll start one on YahooGroups.

The current newsgroup s.g.computing does seem the appropriate place for

such discussion even if there is sometimes not enough response.
Personally, I don't myself using yahoo groups or google groups or
whatever, they are yet some other system to keep track of. I doubt that
there is enough interest to justify a new newgroup.
Perhaps one way to approach the matter would be to adopt a title prefix
such as [DEV] within the current newsgroup.
Regards
Peter

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:52:01 +0000, Peter J Seymour <moz@pjsey.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:
The people who participate do not need to be programmers (I'm not), but
people who are willing to discuss what kinds of software would meet the
needs of genealogists, where the gaps are, and how the gaps can be filled.

If this message rings any bells with you, then if possible, join
soc.genealogy.computing and respond there, or if you really think there is
a need for a mailing list on the topic, and I'll start one on YahooGroups.

The current newsgroup s.g.computing does seem the appropriate place for
such discussion even if there is sometimes not enough response.
Personally, I don't myself using yahoo groups or google groups or
whatever, they are yet some other system to keep track of. I doubt that
there is enough interest to justify a new newgroup.
Perhaps one way to approach the matter would be to adopt a title prefix
such as [DEV] within the current newsgroup.

I agree that this is the best place to discuss it, or at least the best
existing place. A couple of other people have e-mailed me privately,
expressing interest in a YahooGroups forum.

XDon't confuse YahooGroups and Google Groups. Google Groups is just a way of
accessing newsgroups from the web, with a ratrher clunky and difficult-to-use
user interface, but useful if you haven't got access to a decent news server.

YahooGroups provides a mailing list, a place to store and exchange files,
databases that can keep track of projects and more. I can see that both that
and this ng could be useful.



--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

On 8 Feb 2006 11:13:37 -0800, afriendnottohave@yahoo.com wrote:

This article is dedicated to:

A man I met, with most of his body heavily burned, simply because he
was a Chinese during the 1998 May Riot in Indonesia.

Are you going to cut the waffle and say something about genealogy?

Thought not.


--
Terms and conditions apply.

Steve Hayes
hayesstw@yahoo.com

[Steve Hayes]

On 8 Feb 2006 11:13:37 -0800, afriendnottohave@yahoo.com wrote:

This article is dedicated to:

A man I met, with most of his body heavily burned, simply because he
was a Chinese during the 1998 May Riot in Indonesia.

Are you going to cut the waffle and say something about genealogy?

Thought not.


--
Terms and conditions apply.

Steve Hayes
hayesstw@yahoo.com

[Ron Fuller]

hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in
news:41d750b3.79871135@news.saix.net:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 07:31:21 +1100, Paul Blair <pblair@pcug.org.au
wrote:

Paul Blair wrote:
I got it from typing
print autoexec.bat

at the C\> prompt

and getting the message "Bad command or filename".





PRINT writes to the screen or a file
LPRINT writes to device LPT1: - so maybe try that?

Paul

Oooops... sorry, forgot you were using Windows 9.x. LPRINT came later.

In that case, the syntax would start PRINT /d:lpt1 drive:path:filename

Bad command or filename.

The last 3 items take the info from disk, but if the file is already
open, leave the items out.

Bad command or filename .

If I type "dir /?"

I get a help screen.

If I type "print /?" I get "Bad command or filename"

THAT is what gives me the idea that the PRINT comand is mising from
Windows 9.x.

try:

type \autoexec.bat >> lpt1




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rfuller@freeway.net rfuller@match.org

if you and the universe are going in the same direction
you will find that the whole world conspires for your
benefit.