On 01/03/2015 15:56, Ward Walker wrote: > While not freaking out, I would discourage this method. I have inherited > data via Gedcom that expands source details in the Notes. I find the reports > and web pages that result appear very bloated and verbose, often with > redundant information. Who wants to read all that when trying to scan and > understand their shared family tree? Bury these details in the sources, for > lookup by those truly interested in digging further. Keep the reports clean > and concise. IMO.
I rarely do reports. When I do, they tend to be descendent reports so no notes included. I don't do web pages other than using Wordpress which are written on the fly and may include an image such as a small chart or screenshot. I don't send or receive geds. When I work with other family members, we tend to use screenshots. There's no point in sending geds when we have the same information already. We share what we don't have. Anyone who picks up my data will have enough information to be able to recreate my research - which they should do anyway because I may have made mistakes. I have tried to use Master Sources but found it cumbersome and time consuming. It also didn't work terribly well. My way's quicker and easier - for me. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
