[LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Cathy]

Although I have sympathy with Gail in wanting the source Detail to be 
relational as well so there is only one copy of the specific detail 
and every use links to that, I have learnt to live with the database as it is.


You can correct typos etc in a specific source detail by using the 
Search and Replace on just the right part of the Source/Citation 
Detail or Text.


So long as you carefully enter as the search phrase a unique section 
of detail that includes the error and choose to just replace the 
found text, all sorts of errors are quickly corrected. No need to 
find each individual person. I do it all too often.


It is harder when the error is less easily uniquely identified in the 
search phrase.


Cathy

At 02:59 PM 30/12/2007, you wrote:


Gail:

My sourcing method is very similar to yours and I agree that it is a major
pain when you find a typo in the Source Detail that's been used for perhaps
a dozen different people and in several fields for each person.  It's
necessary then to locate and correct every individual instance or you can
end up with two versions of the citation in the Source Notes in reports, so
if I'm understanding your suggestion correctly it would be a tremendous
convenience.

What I don't understand is your statement that a given Master Source/Source
Detail combination used multiple times results in multiple copies in the
database.  If the "combo" is identical, but applied to several different
fields and/or individuals, would it not be in the database only once?

Either way, being able to make a global change to any given Master
Source/Source Detail combination would be absolutely wonderful.  If this is
what you're advocating, then I'll certainly add my vote and hope that
Millennia is listening!

Kirsten

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gail
Nestor
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:11 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources


Hi Michele, you have hit upon a scenario that is exactly why I hope
Legacy will consider a change in its source formatting.  Your method
is the same as mine for attaching sources to different people and
different facts or events.  Unfortunately, every time we attach a
single source to all these different places, it adds an extra
identical copy of that exact same source in the database.

I wish so much that the source could just be in the database once and
then that same source could be attached as a *link* to all the various
places it needs to go.  It would save so much space and would help
immensely when I find an error I want to correct.  I wouldn't have to
correct 10 duplicate copies.  Instead I would just have the one linked
copy to correct.

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net





Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[ronald ferguson]

Sorry, Gail, but I do agree with Cathy.

Ron Ferguson


_

For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:
http://www.fergys.co.uk
*New Blog* Protect Your PC
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_

> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:24:37 +0900
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]
>
> Although I have sympathy with Gail in wanting the source Detail to be
> relational as well so there is only one copy of the specific detail
> and every use links to that, I have learnt to live with the database as it is.
>
> You can correct typos etc in a specific source detail by using the
> Search and Replace on just the right part of the Source/Citation
> Detail or Text.
>
> So long as you carefully enter as the search phrase a unique section
> of detail that includes the error and choose to just replace the
> found text, all sorts of errors are quickly corrected. No need to
> find each individual person. I do it all too often.
>
> It is harder when the error is less easily uniquely identified in the
> search phrase.
>
> Cathy
>
> At 02:59 PM 30/12/2007, you wrote:
>
>>Gail:
>>
>>My sourcing method is very similar to yours and I agree that it is a major
>>pain when you find a typo in the Source Detail that's been used for perhaps
>>a dozen different people and in several fields for each person. It's
>>necessary then to locate and correct every individual instance or you can
>>end up with two versions of the citation in the Source Notes in reports, so
>>if I'm understanding your suggestion correctly it would be a tremendous
>>convenience.
>>
>>What I don't understand is your statement that a given Master Source/Source
>>Detail combination used multiple times results in multiple copies in the
>>database. If the "combo" is identical, but applied to several different
>>fields and/or individuals, would it not be in the database only once?
>>
>>Either way, being able to make a global change to any given Master
>>Source/Source Detail combination would be absolutely wonderful. If this is
>>what you're advocating, then I'll certainly add my vote and hope that
>>Millennia is listening!
>>
>>Kirsten
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gail
>>Nestor
>>Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:11 AM
>>To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
>>Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources
>>
>>
>>Hi Michele, you have hit upon a scenario that is exactly why I hope
>>Legacy will consider a change in its source formatting. Your method
>>is the same as mine for attaching sources to different people and
>>different facts or events. Unfortunately, every time we attach a
>>single source to all these different places, it adds an extra
>>identical copy of that exact same source in the database.
>>
>>I wish so much that the source could just be in the database once and
>>then that same source could be attached as a *link* to all the various
>>places it needs to go. It would save so much space and would help
>>immensely when I find an error I want to correct. I wouldn't have to
>>correct 10 duplicate copies. Instead I would just have the one linked
>>copy to correct.
>>
>>Gail Rich Nestor
>>Smyrna, GA
>>www.roots2buds.net

_
Fancy some celeb spotting? 
https://www.celebmashup.com


Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Hope Bagot Bees]

Hi Wendy

Many thanks - just the explanation needed!  However, at the risk of yet 
more procrastination, I am not going to undertake a major sourcing 
exercise until Legacy 7 is out as I see from another message that this 
will treat sources slightly differently.  In the meantime, I promise 
myself I won't enter ANY detail without a source! 


Elizabeth

Wendy Howard wrote:

Hi Elizabeth,

"Lumping" and "splitting" are terms this list has adopted to describe 
two ways of utilising the sources feature of Legacy.


At one extreme end, a splitter will use one Master Source for each 
individual document they come across.  For example, each birth 
certificate sighted for data would have it's own Master Source, each 
page in a census, etc.  This results in many, many Master Sources, but 
also has some advantages over other methods.  In this situation, the 
Detail Source field would only be required in situations such as when 
you wanted to specify the page of a book, or something like that.


At the other extreme, a lumper would have one Master Source called 
something like "Birth Certificates", and use that for every piece of 
data that came from a birth record.  The Detail Source field is used 
in this case to provide information specific to each item.  This 
results in fewer Master Source items.


I'm somewhere in-between, having started out as a splitter because I 
didn't realise there were alternatives until I'd been reading this 
list for a while.  I lump different *types* of birth records together, 
so I have one for English birth certificates, one for New Zealand 
birth certificates, another for NZ birth "printouts" (which aren't the 
same as certificates, but are the original entries from which 
certificates are produced on order), and so on.  One Master Source for 
each country that I've got material from.  One Master Source for each 
year and country for census data.  The information that is common to 
these items (author, title, usually) is recorded in the Master Source, 
everything else is recorded in the Detail Source.


I also have a Master Source called "Private Correspondence", which I 
use for letters, emails, etc that I receive from people about my 
family.  A splitter would create a Master Source for each item.


I like my method of being somewhat of a lumper because it is quicker 
for me to assign a Master Source when I'm entering data, and if I'm 
looking through the list there isn't a lot to look through (70 at this 
moment, though many of those are from the days when I was working in 
the splitter fashion that I haven't changed yet) and easy to remember 
what I've got there.


However, as has already been mentioned here today, if I make a mistake 
in the Detail Source field for an item and don't notice it until 
later, and I've used that for several pieces of data spread over 
several people, I have to find each one to correct them individually.  
Sounds drastic, but with the Source Clipboard it is actually very 
quick to make the actual correction - it just takes time to locate 
where that Detail Source was used.  And even if you miss one 
correction and don't notice it until you're running a report later, it 
doesn't take long to copy the correct entry to the Source Clipboard 
and paste it where it's needed, deleting the incorrect one as well.


There is no "right" answer here for you - just choices to make as to 
how you want to proceed.  We can help you by telling you what we do 
ourselves and why we prefer our own methods.  :-)


Hope this helps.

Kind Regards,
Wendy Howard




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Census Record - Unrelated Person

[Hope Bagot Bees]

Just a thought - many local family history societies run a 'Strays 
Index' to which they like contributions.  In other words if you are 
looking at a census for say London and you find a servant who was born 
say in Chichester, the West Sussex FHS would like to be informed of the 
details which they then circulate to members in case anyone has lost 
this particular member of the family.


However, yes, do make a note as they can turn out not only to be family 
members, but in researching them, you make a breakthrough.

Elizabeth

Jeremy Main wrote:
In searching through census records I'm occasionally finding unrelated 
individuals living in the same household (at the time of the census). 
I'm wondering what others have done with these individuals.  I can 
certainly put them in as "unlinked" (or unrelated) individuals and 
also include them in notes and also in the census source records.


One instance was a 15 year old child (listed as 'servant' in 1930) 
when there was also a 1-year old and a 3-year old in the family.  I 
wanted to know the best way to include this fact in an event 
chronology to show the "structure of the family" in 1930 as including 
'live in extra help' and also reminding me to keep this person in mind 
during other research if it turned out to be an unexpected cousin.


All suggestions appreciated (or point me to a previous discussion)  
Thanks./Jeremy




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines:   
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:   
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp








Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Wynthner]

But.. but... but...
Can't this exact thing be accomplished by making the master source:

The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
(Wilkes County Community College Library);obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 
103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5

and then adding that to his wife and children?

I really fail to see where the number of Master Sources is important to 
anything as long as I can find them on some sort of list.

Guess I suffer from a very advanced case of spliteritis!



- Original Message 
From: Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:18:45 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

Hi Ron and others, I know this is a complicated situation to try to
explain and I think it would mainly benefit those with medium to large
databases and those who lump (who have a master source with lots of
details and apply those same details to multiple people, facts, and
events).  Let me see if an example might help.

I find an obituary for John Doe:

I first create a master source like"
The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
(Wilkes County Community College Library)

This master source could be the source for several different peoples'
obits, each of which can apply to many people and/or events.

Now let's say I create a citation detail for one specific article I
find in this newspaper:
obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5

I might want to apply this master source and the source detail to John
Doe's name, birth date, death date, religion, and occupation.  I might
also want to apply this same "master plus detail" to John Does' wife,
parents, and children.

I could use Legacy's source template to copy and paste the master plus
detail combo to all the people and facts.  That would be fine except
that there would be muliple copies of this exact same master plus
detail floating around in Legacy's database.  If I needed to make a
correction to the detail, I would have to "search and replace" the
erroneous portion in every individual copy of this in Legacy.

If the source plus detail were only entered once in Legacy, I envision this:
1) I first select a (previously entered) master source from Legacy
(like I already would now)
2) I then see a drop down box with each previously entered citation
detail choice:

i.e. obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
obituary for Jane Doe, vol. XXVII, no. 112, Monday, 5 May 1942, page 1
obituary for Baby Doe, vol XXII, no. 74, Monday, 12 February 1921, page 3

3) I would click the one I wanted or I could add a new one
4) I would then click the place to apply the master plus detail (John
Doe's name, Jane Doe's name, John Doe's place of birth, etc.)


The benefit is that you would select the detail to associate with the
master source and then Legacy would create a link to the entire source
set (master plus detail).  You would not have identical copies of
master plus detail like the example below floating around in Legacy
attached to multiple people and/or events.

The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
(Wilkes County Community College Library), obituary for John Doe, vol.
XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5

Let's say I have 1 newspaper (one master source) with obituaries for
10 different people, each with his own separate citation detail.  That
would lead to 10 different "master plus detail" combos.  Then let's
say I paste one of these 10 souce combos to 5 people and/or events.
That equates to 5 separate source listings in Legacy.  If each "master
plus detail" combos (that is - one newspaper plus one person's
individual obit detail) could be formed so that a link could be
established between it and a person/fact/event, there would only be 1
source listings instead of 5 as above.

I know this sounds convoluted, but I just feel that if I could talk
with a programmer, I could get this to make more sense.  I once had a
project working with electronic invoicing at a prior job and everyone
thought I was crazy until I finally caught the programmers interest
and we ended up saving a ton of time, money, data storage space, and
many less errors.  It's just very complicated to describe in words!

Anyway, sorry for going on about this as I know it doesn't have any
chance of being included with v7.  However, I do think this idea is
worthy of consideration and hope it makes a tiny bit of sense.

Now I'm off to a movie with Mom and sis while hubby watches the kids!...

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 29, 2007 2:09 PM, ronald ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gail,
>
> Please forgive me but I do not understand what you are saying. There is one 
> Master Source which (hopefully) does not need changing and then source 
> details which are related to the individual and, therefore, must be changed 
> for each. So , what is the probem? Or is it a problem that only splitters 
> h

RE: Www -- Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Valerie Garton]

Thanks Wendy I will have a look.

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wendy
Howard
Sent: Sunday, 30 December 2007 10:08 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Www -- Re: [LegacyUG] Sources


It's a brand of fine tipped felt pen with permanent ink, that you should

be able to find in Australia.  We have them here in NZ. 

See their web site at 
http://www.sharpie.com/enUS/Product/Sharpie_Fine_Point_Permanent_Marker.
html 
to see what they look like and the colours available.

Wendy

- Original Message -
*From:* "Valerie Garton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
*Sent:* 12/30/2007 11:52:13 AM +1300
*Subject:* [LegacyUG] Sources


> Great suggestion but what is a Sharpie ?
>
> 
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michele Lewis
> Sent: Sunday, 30 December 2007 1:56 AM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources
>
>
>  All my documents are in those plastic sleeves and I just put a 
> little checkmark on the plastic with a Sharpie. 



Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp







Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Gail Nestor]

Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes in
terms of being very kind and helpful to this list!  You both have made
huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG.

One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know
this tool won't help everyone.  It sure would help me though,
especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get
them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something
everyone wants) once v7 comes out.

Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household
containing 10 people.  If I attach the source only to the census event
for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail)
source combos floating around in Legacy.  Now let's say I decide to
attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name,
birth information, and occupation.  That would be 30 additional copies
of the same (master plus detail) source.

A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to
the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of
repetition.  Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries
for families in my file of almost 7,000.  Each person might have 1-8
census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.) depending
of his lifespan.

A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not to include the
image number from Ancestry.  My master source would include the NARA
microfilm series number, the roll number, and then the image number.
Because the image number is unique for every census page, it does not
lend itself well to the handy search and replace feature.  I could
search for "image_" but then I had to manually delete the numbers
following this search string.  It took many hours just to amend this
part of the citation with only one copy of each census to one
individual.  Imagine if each one were multiplied by three additional
facts/events!

I know we all do sourcing a bit differently, so in some cases this
will not help users at all.  However, I do think it will help those
who:
1) have medium to large databases,
2) care about sourcing and plan to make citation adjustments as time
and experience dictate,
3) lump sources more than split, and
4) want their (master plus detail) sources attached to multiple places
frequently.

Sorry for the long posts!

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 3:24 AM, Cathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although I have sympathy with Gail in wanting the source Detail to be
> relational as well so there is only one copy of the specific detail
> and every use links to that, I have learnt to live with the database as it is.
>
> You can correct typos etc in a specific source detail by using the
> Search and Replace on just the right part of the Source/Citation
> Detail or Text.
>
> So long as you carefully enter as the search phrase a unique section
> of detail that includes the error and choose to just replace the
> found text, all sorts of errors are quickly corrected. No need to
> find each individual person. I do it all too often.
>
> It is harder when the error is less easily uniquely identified in the
> search phrase.
>
> Cathy
>
> At 02:59 PM 30/12/2007, you wrote:
>
> >Gail:
> >
> >My sourcing method is very similar to yours and I agree that it is a major
> >pain when you find a typo in the Source Detail that's been used for perhaps
> >a dozen different people and in several fields for each person.  It's
> >necessary then to locate and correct every individual instance or you can
> >end up with two versions of the citation in the Source Notes in reports, so
> >if I'm understanding your suggestion correctly it would be a tremendous
> >convenience.
> >
> >What I don't understand is your statement that a given Master Source/Source
> >Detail combination used multiple times results in multiple copies in the
> >database.  If the "combo" is identical, but applied to several different
> >fields and/or individuals, would it not be in the database only once?
> >
> >Either way, being able to make a global change to any given Master
> >Source/Source Detail combination would be absolutely wonderful.  If this is
> >what you're advocating, then I'll certainly add my vote and hope that
> >Millennia is listening!
> >
> >Kirsten
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gail
> >Nestor
> >Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:11 AM
> >To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> >Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources
> >
> >
> >Hi Michele, you have hit upon a scenario that is exactly why I hope
> >Legacy will consider a change in its source formatting.  Your method
> >is the same as mine for attaching sources to different people and
> >different facts or events.  Unfortunately, every time we attach a
> >single source to all these different places, it adds an extra
> >identical copy of that exact same source in the database.
> >
> >I wish so much that the sou

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Gail Nestor]

Hi Wynthner, in my specific case, if I split every single obit I found
into its own separate master source, I would have tens of thousands
(if not hundreds of thousands) of individual sources in my files!
That's the "downside" of sourcing everything AND having a
medium-to-large database.

Now let's say I found a typo in the word "Journal" below.  I would
have to go back for every single obit and correct it.  On the other
hand, by "lumping" all articles found in this newspaper into one
master source, I would only have to make one change to the master and
all the individual sources would instantly be fixed.  That's the
beauty of what people refer to as source "lumping."

Also, I can search a specific newspaper (or cemetery, or census year
and county) and very quickly know who all I've found in that paper (or
other master source).  That's, to me, what makes using a database so
powerful!

Hope that all makes sense...

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 7:52 AM, Wynthner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But.. but... but...
> Can't this exact thing be accomplished by making the master source:
>
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> (Wilkes County Community College Library);obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, 
> no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> and then adding that to his wife and children?
>
> I really fail to see where the number of Master Sources is important to 
> anything as long as I can find them on some sort of list.
>
> Guess I suffer from a very advanced case of spliteritis!
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
> From: Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:18:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources
>
>
> Hi Ron and others, I know this is a complicated situation to try to
> explain and I think it would mainly benefit those with medium to large
> databases and those who lump (who have a master source with lots of
> details and apply those same details to multiple people, facts, and
> events).  Let me see if an example might help.
>
> I find an obituary for John Doe:
>
> I first create a master source like"
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> (Wilkes County Community College Library)
>
> This master source could be the source for several different peoples'
> obits, each of which can apply to many people and/or events.
>
> Now let's say I create a citation detail for one specific article I
> find in this newspaper:
> obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> I might want to apply this master source and the source detail to John
> Doe's name, birth date, death date, religion, and occupation.  I might
> also want to apply this same "master plus detail" to John Does' wife,
> parents, and children.
>
> I could use Legacy's source template to copy and paste the master plus
> detail combo to all the people and facts.  That would be fine except
> that there would be muliple copies of this exact same master plus
> detail floating around in Legacy's database.  If I needed to make a
> correction to the detail, I would have to "search and replace" the
> erroneous portion in every individual copy of this in Legacy.
>
> If the source plus detail were only entered once in Legacy, I envision this:
> 1) I first select a (previously entered) master source from Legacy
> (like I already would now)
> 2) I then see a drop down box with each previously entered citation
> detail choice:
>
> i.e. obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
> obituary for Jane Doe, vol. XXVII, no. 112, Monday, 5 May 1942, page 1
> obituary for Baby Doe, vol XXII, no. 74, Monday, 12 February 1921, page 3
>
> 3) I would click the one I wanted or I could add a new one
> 4) I would then click the place to apply the master plus detail (John
> Doe's name, Jane Doe's name, John Doe's place of birth, etc.)
>
>
> The benefit is that you would select the detail to associate with the
> master source and then Legacy would create a link to the entire source
> set (master plus detail).  You would not have identical copies of
> master plus detail like the example below floating around in Legacy
> attached to multiple people and/or events.
>
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> (Wilkes County Community College Library), obituary for John Doe, vol.
> XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> Let's say I have 1 newspaper (one master source) with obituaries for
> 10 different people, each with his own separate citation detail.  That
> would lead to 10 different "master plus detail" combos.  Then let's
> say I paste one of these 10 souce combos to 5 people and/or events.
> That equates to 5 separate source listings in Legacy.  If each "master
> plus detail" combos (that is - one newspaper plus one person's
> individual obit detail) could be formed so that a link could be
> established between it and a person/fact/event, 

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Henry T. Peterson Jr.]

Gail

I have been silent...but, I have a large database with over 108,000 
master sources and growing daily (I am NOT a lumper).  But, I find it 
still less confusing to do it my way.


This is why I think that Legeacy is so great. So everyone can choose 
what is working the best.


Regards
Henry


Gail Nestor wrote:

Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes in
terms of being very kind and helpful to this list!  You both have made
huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG.

One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know
this tool won't help everyone.  It sure would help me though,
especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get
them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something
everyone wants) once v7 comes out.

Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household
containing 10 people.  If I attach the source only to the census event
for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail)
source combos floating around in Legacy.  Now let's say I decide to
attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name,
birth information, and occupation.  That would be 30 additional copies
of the same (master plus detail) source.

A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to
the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of
repetition.  Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries
for families in my file of almost 7,000.  Each person might have 1-8
census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.) depending
of his lifespan.

A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not to include the
image number from Ancestry.  My master source would include the NARA
microfilm series number, the roll number, and then the image number.
Because the image number is unique for every census page, it does not
lend itself well to the handy search and replace feature.  I could
search for "image_" but then I had to manually delete the numbers
following this search string.  It took many hours just to amend this
part of the citation with only one copy of each census to one
individual.  Imagine if each one were multiplied by three additional
facts/events!

I know we all do sourcing a bit differently, so in some cases this
will not help users at all.  However, I do think it will help those
who:
1) have medium to large databases,
2) care about sourcing and plan to make citation adjustments as time
and experience dictate,
3) lump sources more than split, and
4) want their (master plus detail) sources attached to multiple places
frequently.

Sorry for the long posts!

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 3:24 AM, Cathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

Although I have sympathy with Gail in wanting the source Detail to be
relational as well so there is only one copy of the specific detail
and every use links to that, I have learnt to live with the database as it is.

You can correct typos etc in a specific source detail by using the
Search and Replace on just the right part of the Source/Citation
Detail or Text.

So long as you carefully enter as the search phrase a unique section
of detail that includes the error and choose to just replace the
found text, all sorts of errors are quickly corrected. No need to
find each individual person. I do it all too often.

It is harder when the error is less easily uniquely identified in the
search phrase.

Cathy

At 02:59 PM 30/12/2007, you wrote:



Gail:

My sourcing method is very similar to yours and I agree that it is a major
pain when you find a typo in the Source Detail that's been used for perhaps
a dozen different people and in several fields for each person.  It's
necessary then to locate and correct every individual instance or you can
end up with two versions of the citation in the Source Notes in reports, so
if I'm understanding your suggestion correctly it would be a tremendous
convenience.

What I don't understand is your statement that a given Master Source/Source
Detail combination used multiple times results in multiple copies in the
database.  If the "combo" is identical, but applied to several different
fields and/or individuals, would it not be in the database only once?

Either way, being able to make a global change to any given Master
Source/Source Detail combination would be absolutely wonderful.  If this is
what you're advocating, then I'll certainly add my vote and hope that
Millennia is listening!

Kirsten

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gail
Nestor
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:11 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources


Hi Michele, you have hit upon a scenario that is exactly why I hope
Legacy will consider a change in its source formatting.  Your method
is the same as mine for attaching sources to different people and
different facts or events.  Unfort

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Gail Nestor]

Hi Henry, I do totally agree with your last statement!  ;-)  There are
plenty of features I do not use in Legacy, but plenty more that I do
use and love!

Gail


On Dec 30, 2007 8:13 AM, Henry T. Peterson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gail
>
> I have been silent...but, I have a large database with over 108,000
> master sources and growing daily (I am NOT a lumper).  But, I find it
> still less confusing to do it my way.
>
> This is why I think that Legeacy is so great. So everyone can choose
> what is working the best.
>
> Regards
> Henry
>
>
>
> Gail Nestor wrote:
> > Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes in
> > terms of being very kind and helpful to this list!  You both have made
> > huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG.
> >
> > One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know
> > this tool won't help everyone.  It sure would help me though,
> > especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get
> > them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something
> > everyone wants) once v7 comes out.
> >
> > Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household
> > containing 10 people.  If I attach the source only to the census event
> > for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail)
> > source combos floating around in Legacy.  Now let's say I decide to
> > attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name,
> > birth information, and occupation.  That would be 30 additional copies
> > of the same (master plus detail) source.
> >
> > A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to
> > the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of
> > repetition.  Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries
> > for families in my file of almost 7,000.  Each person might have 1-8
> > census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.) depending
> > of his lifespan.
> >
> > A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not to include the
> > image number from Ancestry.  My master source would include the NARA
> > microfilm series number, the roll number, and then the image number.
> > Because the image number is unique for every census page, it does not
> > lend itself well to the handy search and replace feature.  I could
> > search for "image_" but then I had to manually delete the numbers
> > following this search string.  It took many hours just to amend this
> > part of the citation with only one copy of each census to one
> > individual.  Imagine if each one were multiplied by three additional
> > facts/events!
> >
> > I know we all do sourcing a bit differently, so in some cases this
> > will not help users at all.  However, I do think it will help those
> > who:
> > 1) have medium to large databases,
> > 2) care about sourcing and plan to make citation adjustments as time
> > and experience dictate,
> > 3) lump sources more than split, and
> > 4) want their (master plus detail) sources attached to multiple places
> > frequently.
> >
> > Sorry for the long posts!
> >
> > Gail Rich Nestor
> > Smyrna, GA
> > www.roots2buds.net
> >
> >
> > On Dec 30, 2007 3:24 AM, Cathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Although I have sympathy with Gail in wanting the source Detail to be
> >> relational as well so there is only one copy of the specific detail
> >> and every use links to that, I have learnt to live with the database as it 
> >> is.
> >>
> >> You can correct typos etc in a specific source detail by using the
> >> Search and Replace on just the right part of the Source/Citation
> >> Detail or Text.
> >>
> >> So long as you carefully enter as the search phrase a unique section
> >> of detail that includes the error and choose to just replace the
> >> found text, all sorts of errors are quickly corrected. No need to
> >> find each individual person. I do it all too often.
> >>
> >> It is harder when the error is less easily uniquely identified in the
> >> search phrase.
> >>
> >> Cathy
> >>
> >> At 02:59 PM 30/12/2007, you wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Gail:
> >>>
> >>> My sourcing method is very similar to yours and I agree that it is a major
> >>> pain when you find a typo in the Source Detail that's been used for 
> >>> perhaps
> >>> a dozen different people and in several fields for each person.  It's
> >>> necessary then to locate and correct every individual instance or you can
> >>> end up with two versions of the citation in the Source Notes in reports, 
> >>> so
> >>> if I'm understanding your suggestion correctly it would be a tremendous
> >>> convenience.
> >>>
> >>> What I don't understand is your statement that a given Master 
> >>> Source/Source
> >>> Detail combination used multiple times results in multiple copies in the
> >>> database.  If the "combo" is identical, but applied to several different
> >>> fields and/or individuals, would it not be in the database only once?
> >>>
> >>> Either way, being able to 

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Wynthner]

Hmmm.. why not just directly access the database table itself (rather then the 
Master Source List) and use search/replace to change it?


- Original Message 
From: Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

Hi Wynthner, in my specific case, if I split every single obit I found
into its own separate master source, I would have tens of thousands
(if not hundreds of thousands) of individual sources in my files!
That's the "downside" of sourcing everything AND having a
medium-to-large database.

Now let's say I found a typo in the word "Journal" below.  I would
have to go back for every single obit and correct it.  On the other
hand, by "lumping" all articles found in this newspaper into one
master source, I would only have to make one change to the master and
all the individual sources would instantly be fixed.  That's the
beauty of what people refer to as source "lumping."

Also, I can search a specific newspaper (or cemetery, or census year
and county) and very quickly know who all I've found in that paper (or
other master source).  That's, to me, what makes using a database so
powerful!

Hope that all makes sense...

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 7:52 AM, Wynthner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But.. but... but...
> Can't this exact thing be accomplished by making the master source:
>
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> (Wilkes County Community College Library);obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, 
> no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> and then adding that to his wife and children?
>
> I really fail to see where the number of Master Sources is important to 
> anything as long as I can find them on some sort of list.
>
> Guess I suffer from a very advanced case of spliteritis!
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
> From: Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:18:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources
>
>
> Hi Ron and others, I know this is a complicated situation to try to
> explain and I think it would mainly benefit those with medium to large
> databases and those who lump (who have a master source with lots of
> details and apply those same details to multiple people, facts, and
> events).  Let me see if an example might help.
>
> I find an obituary for John Doe:
>
> I first create a master source like"
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> (Wilkes County Community College Library)
>
> This master source could be the source for several different peoples'
> obits, each of which can apply to many people and/or events.
>
> Now let's say I create a citation detail for one specific article I
> find in this newspaper:
> obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> I might want to apply this master source and the source detail to John
> Doe's name, birth date, death date, religion, and occupation.  I might
> also want to apply this same "master plus detail" to John Does' wife,
> parents, and children.
>
> I could use Legacy's source template to copy and paste the master plus
> detail combo to all the people and facts.  That would be fine except
> that there would be muliple copies of this exact same master plus
> detail floating around in Legacy's database.  If I needed to make a
> correction to the detail, I would have to "search and replace" the
> erroneous portion in every individual copy of this in Legacy.
>
> If the source plus detail were only entered once in Legacy, I envision this:
> 1) I first select a (previously entered) master source from Legacy
> (like I already would now)
> 2) I then see a drop down box with each previously entered citation
> detail choice:
>
> i.e. obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
> obituary for Jane Doe, vol. XXVII, no. 112, Monday, 5 May 1942, page 1
> obituary for Baby Doe, vol XXII, no. 74, Monday, 12 February 1921, page 3
>
> 3) I would click the one I wanted or I could add a new one
> 4) I would then click the place to apply the master plus detail (John
> Doe's name, Jane Doe's name, John Doe's place of birth, etc.)
>
>
> The benefit is that you would select the detail to associate with the
> master source and then Legacy would create a link to the entire source
> set (master plus detail).  You would not have identical copies of
> master plus detail like the example below floating around in Legacy
> attached to multiple people and/or events.
>
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> (Wilkes County Community College Library), obituary for John Doe, vol.
> XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> Let's say I have 1 newspaper (one master source) with obituaries for
> 10 different people, each with his own separate citation detail.   That
> would lead to 10 different "master plus detail" combos.  Then let's
>

RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[ronald ferguson]

Gail,

I do understand the points which you make, and as you are no doubt aware I am a 
confirmed lumper. You are possibly aware that I am no lover of so called 
standardisation of Sources eg Mills. I guess I am also a minimalist in that I 
record the minimum amount of information in each Source to enable someone else 
to find it, and do not include the full details of where it is. As a 
consequence the second part of the sentence in your note (2) does not really 
apply to me but the rest does and also notes (1) to (4).

The result is that, spelling and grammar apart, I have not changed either a 
Master Source or Source Details for years and for those two aspects have found 
the Search and Replace as described by Cathy to be fine.

My opinion is certainly coloured by the fact that I consider Mills's views on 
Sourcing to be overkill; an opinion which is unlikely to be changed by debate! 
This is not to criticise those who prefer to dot every "i" and cross every "t" 
as to the exact location in which a document is to be found but simply to state 
that to me it is not necessary.

I hope that this clarifies/explains my view and the reason(s) behind it.

Ron Ferguson


_

For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:
http://www.fergys.co.uk
*New Blog* Protect Your PC
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_

> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:02:22 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]
>
> Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes in
> terms of being very kind and helpful to this list! You both have made
> huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG.
>
> One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know
> this tool won't help everyone. It sure would help me though,
> especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get
> them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something
> everyone wants) once v7 comes out.
>
> Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household
> containing 10 people. If I attach the source only to the census event
> for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail)
> source combos floating around in Legacy. Now let's say I decide to
> attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name,
> birth information, and occupation. That would be 30 additional copies
> of the same (master plus detail) source.
>
> A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to
> the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of
> repetition. Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries
> for families in my file of almost 7,000. Each person might have 1-8
> census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.) depending
> of his lifespan.
>
> A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not to include the
> image number from Ancestry. My master source would include the NARA
> microfilm series number, the roll number, and then the image number.
> Because the image number is unique for every census page, it does not
> lend itself well to the handy search and replace feature. I could
> search for "image_" but then I had to manually delete the numbers
> following this search string. It took many hours just to amend this
> part of the citation with only one copy of each census to one
> individual. Imagine if each one were multiplied by three additional
> facts/events!
>
> I know we all do sourcing a bit differently, so in some cases this
> will not help users at all. However, I do think it will help those
> who:
> 1) have medium to large databases,
> 2) care about sourcing and plan to make citation adjustments as time
> and experience dictate,
> 3) lump sources more than split, and
> 4) want their (master plus detail) sources attached to multiple places
> frequently.
>
> Sorry for the long posts!
>
> Gail Rich Nestor
> Smyrna, GA
> www.roots2buds.net
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2007 3:24 AM, Cathy  wrote:
>> Although I have sympathy with Gail in wanting the source Detail to be
>> relational as well so there is only one copy of the specific detail
>> and every use links to that, I have learnt to live with the database as it 
>> is.
>>
>> You can correct typos etc in a specific source detail by using the
>> Search and Replace on just the right part of the Source/Citation
>> Detail or Text.
>>
>> So long as you carefully enter as the search phrase a unique section
>> of detail that includes the error and choose to just replace the
>> found text, all sorts of errors are quickly corrected. No need to
>> find each individual person. I do it all too often.
>>
>> It is harder when the error is less easily uniquely identified in th

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Michele Lewis]

Ron,
Here is my thing with the Mills standard format...  I want to eventually go 
for my CG.  From what I understand, your sourcing must pretty much go with 
what Mills has advocated.  Is it not the god standard among CGs?  I would 
love to know what the AGs accept as the right way to source!


michele

- Original Message - 
From: "ronald ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]



Gail,

I do understand the points which you make, and as you are no doubt aware I 
am a confirmed lumper. You are possibly aware that I am no lover of so 
called standardisation of Sources eg Mills. I guess I am also a minimalist 
in that I record the minimum amount of information in each Source to enable 
someone else to find it, and do not include the full details of where it is. 
As a consequence the second part of the sentence in your note (2) does not 
really apply to me but the rest does and also notes (1) to (4).


The result is that, spelling and grammar apart, I have not changed either a 
Master Source or Source Details for years and for those two aspects have 
found the Search and Replace as described by Cathy to be fine.


My opinion is certainly coloured by the fact that I consider Mills's views 
on Sourcing to be overkill; an opinion which is unlikely to be changed by 
debate! This is not to criticise those who prefer to dot every "i" and cross 
every "t" as to the exact location in which a document is to be found but 
simply to state that to me it is not necessary.


I hope that this clarifies/explains my view and the reason(s) behind it.

Ron Ferguson


_

For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:
http://www.fergys.co.uk
*New Blog* Protect Your PC
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_


Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:02:22 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes in
terms of being very kind and helpful to this list! You both have made
huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG.

One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know
this tool won't help everyone. It sure would help me though,
especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get
them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something
everyone wants) once v7 comes out.

Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household
containing 10 people. If I attach the source only to the census event
for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail)
source combos floating around in Legacy. Now let's say I decide to
attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name,
birth information, and occupation. That would be 30 additional copies
of the same (master plus detail) source.

A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to
the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of
repetition. Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries
for families in my file of almost 7,000. Each person might have 1-8
census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.) depending
of his lifespan.

A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not to include the
image number from Ancestry. My master source would include the NARA
microfilm series number, the roll number, and then the image number.
Because the image number is unique for every census page, it does not
lend itself well to the handy search and replace feature. I could
search for "image_" but then I had to manually delete the numbers
following this search string. It took many hours just to amend this
part of the citation with only one copy of each census to one
individual. Imagine if each one were multiplied by three additional
facts/events!

I know we all do sourcing a bit differently, so in some cases this
will not help users at all. However, I do think it will help those
who:
1) have medium to large databases,
2) care about sourcing and plan to make citation adjustments as time
and experience dictate,
3) lump sources more than split, and
4) want their (master plus detail) sources attached to multiple places
frequently.

Sorry for the long posts!

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 3:24 AM, Cathy  wrote:

Although I have sympathy with Gail in wanting the source Detail to be
relational as well so there is only one copy of the specific detail
and every use links to that, I have learnt to live with the database as 
it is.


You can correct typos etc in a specific source detail by using the
Search and Replace on just the right part of the Source/

Re: [LegacyUG] Maiden Names

[Johnny V]

In the main information window the surname is the name that stays with that
person throughout. Any other names would be handled as an AKA regardless of
how many times an individual marries or changes names.

John Valencic




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Maiden Names

[Wayne Martell]

I know that but if Jane Doe marries Joe Blow and keeps the Doe name, I could 
waste a lot of time looking for information on Jane Blow, information that 
does not exist.


___
Wayne Martell
Victoria, BC, Canada

- Original Message - 
From: Johnny V

To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Maiden Names


In the main information window the surname is the name that stays with that 
person throughout. Any other names would be handled as an AKA regardless of 
how many times an individual marries or changes names.


John Valencic 






Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[ronald ferguson]

Sorry, Michele, but I cannot help on this as I do not know the systems and 
formats required for a CG.

I think Mills states that much more information is required in Sources than I 
give, and I am unsure whether she recommends lumping or splitting (if either). 
As you can gather I have not read her books and have only picked up bits of her 
recommendations from lists such as this.

Ron Ferguson


_

For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:
http://www.fergys.co.uk
*New Blog* Protect Your PC
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]
> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:06:55 -0500
>
> Ron,
> Here is my thing with the Mills standard format... I want to eventually go
> for my CG. From what I understand, your sourcing must pretty much go with
> what Mills has advocated. Is it not the god standard among CGs? I would
> love to know what the AGs accept as the right way to source!
>
> michele
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "ronald ferguson" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 8:55 AM
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]
>
>
>
> Gail,
>
> I do understand the points which you make, and as you are no doubt aware I
> am a confirmed lumper. You are possibly aware that I am no lover of so
> called standardisation of Sources eg Mills. I guess I am also a minimalist
> in that I record the minimum amount of information in each Source to enable
> someone else to find it, and do not include the full details of where it is.
> As a consequence the second part of the sentence in your note (2) does not
> really apply to me but the rest does and also notes (1) to (4).
>
> The result is that, spelling and grammar apart, I have not changed either a
> Master Source or Source Details for years and for those two aspects have
> found the Search and Replace as described by Cathy to be fine.
>
> My opinion is certainly coloured by the fact that I consider Mills's views
> on Sourcing to be overkill; an opinion which is unlikely to be changed by
> debate! This is not to criticise those who prefer to dot every "i" and cross
> every "t" as to the exact location in which a document is to be found but
> simply to state that to me it is not necessary.
>
> I hope that this clarifies/explains my view and the reason(s) behind it.
>
> Ron Ferguson
>
>
> _
>
> For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:
> http://www.fergys.co.uk
> *New Blog* Protect Your PC
> View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
> http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
> For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
> http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
> _
>
>> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:02:22 -0500
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
>> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]
>>
>> Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes in
>> terms of being very kind and helpful to this list! You both have made
>> huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG.
>>
>> One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know
>> this tool won't help everyone. It sure would help me though,
>> especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get
>> them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something
>> everyone wants) once v7 comes out.
>>
>> Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household
>> containing 10 people. If I attach the source only to the census event
>> for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail)
>> source combos floating around in Legacy. Now let's say I decide to
>> attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name,
>> birth information, and occupation. That would be 30 additional copies
>> of the same (master plus detail) source.
>>
>> A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to
>> the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of
>> repetition. Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries
>> for families in my file of almost 7,000. Each person might have 1-8
>> census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.) depending
>> of his lifespan.
>>
>> A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not to include the
>> image number from Ancestry. My master source would include the NARA
>> microfilm series number, the roll number, and then the image number.
>> Because the image number is unique for every census page, it does not
>> lend itself well to the handy search and replace feature. I could
>> search for "image_" but 

Re: [LegacyUG] Maiden Names

[Susan Daily]

Wayne,
I would suggest for now simply putting a note in the Marriage Notes to
the effect that "Jane Doe did not change her last name after she
married." Or you could create an event called Maiden Name or Unchanged
Name that automatically is worded "She did not change her last name
after she married." This would allow you to quickly see if they have
that event or not.

Keep in mind that if you export your data to a GEDCOM, this event may
not carry over well. You might want to test it to see how it looks.

I do like the idea of an enhancement where someone can check off a box
that automatically adds the male's surname to the wife's given name(s)
to create an AKA for her. But it might just be more programming
trouble than it is worth.

Susan

On 12/30/07, Wayne Martell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that but if Jane Doe marries Joe Blow and keeps the Doe name, I could
> waste a lot of time looking for information on Jane Blow, information that
> does not exist.
>
> ___
> Wayne Martell
> Victoria, BC, Canada
>



Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[John Clare]

It would seem to me that the Master source is the Journal-Patriot,
Wilkesboro, North Carolina, US of A. Microfilm is not a source but a method
of holding and Wilkes County Community Library is a place not a source. In
other words, the same Journal will hold the same information if it is held
on paper  and if it is held in a different place.
In the reference to the source, you can then hold the specific reference for
that record. I use it for the Census for instance, giving the Reference in
the Reference record. They all appear happily when the report is printed. I
also use it for the Cemetery reference where I have a lot of people buried
in the same cemetery.
John Clare

On 30/12/2007, Wynthner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hmmm.. why not just directly access the database table itself (rather then
> the Master Source List) and use search/replace to change it?
>
>
> - Original Message 
> From: Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:11:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources
>
> Hi Wynthner, in my specific case, if I split every single obit I found
> into its own separate master source, I would have tens of thousands
> (if not hundreds of thousands) of individual sources in my files!
> That's the "downside" of sourcing everything AND having a
> medium-to-large database.
>
> Now let's say I found a typo in the word "Journal" below.  I would
> have to go back for every single obit and correct it.  On the other
> hand, by "lumping" all articles found in this newspaper into one
> master source, I would only have to make one change to the master and
> all the individual sources would instantly be fixed.  That's the
> beauty of what people refer to as source "lumping."
>
> Also, I can search a specific newspaper (or cemetery, or census year
> and county) and very quickly know who all I've found in that paper (or
> other master source).  That's, to me, what makes using a database so
> powerful!
>
> Hope that all makes sense...
>
> Gail Rich Nestor
> Smyrna, GA
> www.roots2buds.net
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2007 7:52 AM, Wynthner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But.. but... but...
> > Can't this exact thing be accomplished by making the master source:
> >
> > The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> > (Wilkes County Community College Library);obituary for John Doe, vol.
> XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
> >
> > and then adding that to his wife and children?
> >
> > I really fail to see where the number of Master Sources is important to
> anything as long as I can find them on some sort of list.
> >
> > Guess I suffer from a very advanced case of spliteritis!
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message 
> > From: Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:18:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources
> >
> >
> > Hi Ron and others, I know this is a complicated situation to try to
> > explain and I think it would mainly benefit those with medium to large
> > databases and those who lump (who have a master source with lots of
> > details and apply those same details to multiple people, facts, and
> > events).  Let me see if an example might help.
> >
> > I find an obituary for John Doe:
> >
> > I first create a master source like"
> > The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> > (Wilkes County Community College Library)
> >
> > This master source could be the source for several different peoples'
> > obits, each of which can apply to many people and/or events.
> >
> > Now let's say I create a citation detail for one specific article I
> > find in this newspaper:
> > obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
> >
> > I might want to apply this master source and the source detail to John
> > Doe's name, birth date, death date, religion, and occupation.  I might
> > also want to apply this same "master plus detail" to John Does' wife,
> > parents, and children.
> >
> > I could use Legacy's source template to copy and paste the master plus
> > detail combo to all the people and facts.  That would be fine except
> > that there would be muliple copies of this exact same master plus
> > detail floating around in Legacy's database.  If I needed to make a
> > correction to the detail, I would have to "search and replace" the
> > erroneous portion in every individual copy of this in Legacy.
> >
> > If the source plus detail were only entered once in Legacy, I envision
> this:
> > 1) I first select a (previously entered) master source from Legacy
> > (like I already would now)
> > 2) I then see a drop down box with each previously entered citation
> > detail choice:
> >
> > i.e. obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933,
> page 5
> > obituary for Jane Doe, vol. XXVII, no. 112, Monday, 5 May 1942, page 1
> > obituary for Baby Doe, vol XXII, no. 74, Monday, 12 February 1921, page
> 3
> >
> > 3)

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

There seems to be some confusion about how a database
functions. My example may clear it up. If you add the
same photo to ten people, you do not now have ten
photos, but one photo with ten places to be seen. The
same with the Master Source. It exists only once, no
matter how many places it is 'attached'. The 'details'
each exist in only one place, but the Master Source
may have as many details attached, one for each time
it is used.  As a splitter by nature, former lumper, I
found the more specific the type/location combination,
the easier to avoid duplicating the research
(Birth/Chicago). And it shows what I am missing
faster. I am not trying to convince anyone, just
mentioning the other side. Good luck in all your
searches, no brick walls.
Rich in LA CA

--- Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you
> two are my heroes in
> terms of being very kind and helpful to this list! 
> You both have made
> huge contributions to the knowledge contained in
> this LUG.
> 
> One last example might help explain my specific
> dilemma and I know
> this tool won't help everyone.  It sure would help
> me though,
> especially when I go to do massive edits to my
> sources so I can get
> them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again,
> not something
> everyone wants) once v7 comes out.
> 
> Let's say I have a census master source with detail
> for one household
> containing 10 people.  If I attach the source only
> to the census event
> for each person, I already have 10 identical (master
> plus detail)
> source combos floating around in Legacy.  Now let's
> say I decide to
> attach that same (master plus detail) source to each
> person's name,
> birth information, and occupation.  That would be 30
> additional copies
> of the same (master plus detail) source.
> 
> A while back, I decided to leave all census entries
> attached only to
> the census event for each person and that has saved
> me tons of
> repetition.  Keep in mind I have literally thousands
> of census entries
> for families in my file of almost 7,000.  Each
> person might have 1-8
> census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820,
> 1830, etc.) depending
> of his lifespan.
> 
> A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not
> to include the
> image number from Ancestry.  My master source would
> include the NARA
> microfilm series number, the roll number, and then
> the image number.
> Because the image number is unique for every census
> page, it does not
> lend itself well to the handy search and replace
> feature.  I could
> search for "image_" but then I had to manually
> delete the numbers
> following this search string.  It took many hours
> just to amend this
> part of the citation with only one copy of each
> census to one
> individual.  Imagine if each one were multiplied by
> three additional
> facts/events!
> 
> I know we all do sourcing a bit differently, so in
> some cases this
> will not help users at all.  However, I do think it
> will help those
> who:
> 1) have medium to large databases,
> 2) care about sourcing and plan to make citation
> adjustments as time
> and experience dictate,
> 3) lump sources more than split, and
> 4) want their (master plus detail) sources attached
> to multiple places
> frequently.
> 
> Sorry for the long posts!
> 
> Gail Rich Nestor
> Smyrna, GA
> www.roots2buds.net
> 
> 
> On Dec 30, 2007 3:24 AM, Cathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Although I have sympathy with Gail in wanting the
> source Detail to be
> > relational as well so there is only one copy of
> the specific detail
> > and every use links to that, I have learnt to live
> with the database as it is.
> >
> > You can correct typos etc in a specific source
> detail by using the
> > Search and Replace on just the right part of the
> Source/Citation
> > Detail or Text.
> >
> > So long as you carefully enter as the search
> phrase a unique section
> > of detail that includes the error and choose to
> just replace the
> > found text, all sorts of errors are quickly
> corrected. No need to
> > find each individual person. I do it all too
> often.
> >
> > It is harder when the error is less easily
> uniquely identified in the
> > search phrase.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> > At 02:59 PM 30/12/2007, you wrote:
> >
> > >Gail:
> > >
> > >My sourcing method is very similar to yours and I
> agree that it is a major
> > >pain when you find a typo in the Source Detail
> that's been used for perhaps
> > >a dozen different people and in several fields
> for each person.  It's
> > >necessary then to locate and correct every
> individual instance or you can
> > >end up with two versions of the citation in the
> Source Notes in reports, so
> > >if I'm understanding your suggestion correctly it
> would be a tremendous
> > >convenience.
> > >
> > >What I don't understand is your statement that a
> given Master Source/Source
> > >Detail combination used multiple times results in
> multiple copies in the
> > >database.  If the

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

It is much faster to edit the changes, no matter what
they are, and I am hoping that the L7 sources, will
not need a lot of fixing. But if needed, I will tag
all the Sources and fix one at a time. I
procrastinated in the past, and it took me a long time
to get all my sources 'fixed'. I wish I had been doing
them as I added the people, it has been quite a few
years, and I am still finding documents in my files
not sourced, what a problem I created. I think I have
found them all.
Rich in LA CA

--- Hope Bagot Bees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Wendy
> 
> Many thanks - just the explanation needed!  However,
> at the risk of yet 
> more procrastination, I am not going to undertake a
> major sourcing 
> exercise until Legacy 7 is out as I see from another
> message that this 
> will treat sources slightly differently.  In the
> meantime, I promise 
> myself I won't enter ANY detail without a source! 
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> Wendy Howard wrote:
> > Hi Elizabeth,
> >
> > "Lumping" and "splitting" are terms this list has
> adopted to describe 
> > two ways of utilising the sources feature of
> Legacy.
> >
> > At one extreme end, a splitter will use one Master
> Source for each 
> > individual document they come across.  For
> example, each birth 
> > certificate sighted for data would have it's own
> Master Source, each 
> > page in a census, etc.  This results in many, many
> Master Sources, but 
> > also has some advantages over other methods.  In
> this situation, the 
> > Detail Source field would only be required in
> situations such as when 
> > you wanted to specify the page of a book, or
> something like that.
> >
> > At the other extreme, a lumper would have one
> Master Source called 
> > something like "Birth Certificates", and use that
> for every piece of 
> > data that came from a birth record.  The Detail
> Source field is used 
> > in this case to provide information specific to
> each item.  This 
> > results in fewer Master Source items.
> >
> > I'm somewhere in-between, having started out as a
> splitter because I 
> > didn't realise there were alternatives until I'd
> been reading this 
> > list for a while.  I lump different *types* of
> birth records together, 
> > so I have one for English birth certificates, one
> for New Zealand 
> > birth certificates, another for NZ birth
> "printouts" (which aren't the 
> > same as certificates, but are the original entries
> from which 
> > certificates are produced on order), and so on. 
> One Master Source for 
> > each country that I've got material from.  One
> Master Source for each 
> > year and country for census data.  The information
> that is common to 
> > these items (author, title, usually) is recorded
> in the Master Source, 
> > everything else is recorded in the Detail Source.
> >
> > I also have a Master Source called "Private
> Correspondence", which I 
> > use for letters, emails, etc that I receive from
> people about my 
> > family.  A splitter would create a Master Source
> for each item.
> >
> > I like my method of being somewhat of a lumper
> because it is quicker 
> > for me to assign a Master Source when I'm entering
> data, and if I'm 
> > looking through the list there isn't a lot to look
> through (70 at this 
> > moment, though many of those are from the days
> when I was working in 
> > the splitter fashion that I haven't changed yet)
> and easy to remember 
> > what I've got there.
> >
> > However, as has already been mentioned here today,
> if I make a mistake 
> > in the Detail Source field for an item and don't
> notice it until 
> > later, and I've used that for several pieces of
> data spread over 
> > several people, I have to find each one to correct
> them individually.  
> > Sounds drastic, but with the Source Clipboard it
> is actually very 
> > quick to make the actual correction - it just
> takes time to locate 
> > where that Detail Source was used.  And even if
> you miss one 
> > correction and don't notice it until you're
> running a report later, it 
> > doesn't take long to copy the correct entry to the
> Source Clipboard 
> > and paste it where it's needed, deleting the
> incorrect one as well.
> >
> > There is no "right" answer here for you - just
> choices to make as to 
> > how you want to proceed.  We can help you by
> telling you what we do 
> > ourselves and why we prefer our own methods.  :-)
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Wendy Howard
> 
> 
> 
> Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit
> http://tinyurl.com/2b49et
> 
> Legacy User Group guidelines: 
>http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
> Archived messages: 
>   
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
> Online technical support:
> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
> To unsubscribe:
> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
> 
> 
> 
> 




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/

RE: [LegacyUG] Sources

[M. Brenzel]

I had a situation that I found where in some source details I had "page"
and in others "Page".  I wanted to make them consistent.  Doing it
through Legacy would have been quite a task.  I opened the database in
Access, found the correct table, created a query of the source detail
field, sorted it and was able to make all of my entries consistent.
Search and Replace was very easy.

I know that this is not something that everyone using Legacy can do,
whether it is because they don't have Access or don't know really how to
use it.  But this was a quick fix for me and I am very happy making
these changes so easily.  

Mary

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gail
Nestor
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 8:11 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

Hi Wynthner, in my specific case, if I split every single obit I found
into its own separate master source, I would have tens of thousands
(if not hundreds of thousands) of individual sources in my files!
That's the "downside" of sourcing everything AND having a
medium-to-large database.

Now let's say I found a typo in the word "Journal" below.  I would
have to go back for every single obit and correct it.  On the other
hand, by "lumping" all articles found in this newspaper into one
master source, I would only have to make one change to the master and
all the individual sources would instantly be fixed.  That's the
beauty of what people refer to as source "lumping."

Also, I can search a specific newspaper (or cemetery, or census year
and county) and very quickly know who all I've found in that paper (or
other master source).  That's, to me, what makes using a database so
powerful!

Hope that all makes sense...

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 7:52 AM, Wynthner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But.. but... but...
> Can't this exact thing be accomplished by making the master source:
>
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> (Wilkes County Community College Library);obituary for John Doe, vol.
XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> and then adding that to his wife and children?
>
> I really fail to see where the number of Master Sources is important
to anything as long as I can find them on some sort of list.
>
> Guess I suffer from a very advanced case of spliteritis!
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
> From: Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:18:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources
>
>
> Hi Ron and others, I know this is a complicated situation to try to
> explain and I think it would mainly benefit those with medium to large
> databases and those who lump (who have a master source with lots of
> details and apply those same details to multiple people, facts, and
> events).  Let me see if an example might help.
>
> I find an obituary for John Doe:
>
> I first create a master source like"
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> (Wilkes County Community College Library)
>
> This master source could be the source for several different peoples'
> obits, each of which can apply to many people and/or events.
>
> Now let's say I create a citation detail for one specific article I
> find in this newspaper:
> obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> I might want to apply this master source and the source detail to John
> Doe's name, birth date, death date, religion, and occupation.  I might
> also want to apply this same "master plus detail" to John Does' wife,
> parents, and children.
>
> I could use Legacy's source template to copy and paste the master plus
> detail combo to all the people and facts.  That would be fine except
> that there would be muliple copies of this exact same master plus
> detail floating around in Legacy's database.  If I needed to make a
> correction to the detail, I would have to "search and replace" the
> erroneous portion in every individual copy of this in Legacy.
>
> If the source plus detail were only entered once in Legacy, I envision
this:
> 1) I first select a (previously entered) master source from Legacy
> (like I already would now)
> 2) I then see a drop down box with each previously entered citation
> detail choice:
>
> i.e. obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933,
page 5
> obituary for Jane Doe, vol. XXVII, no. 112, Monday, 5 May 1942, page 1
> obituary for Baby Doe, vol XXII, no. 74, Monday, 12 February 1921,
page 3
>
> 3) I would click the one I wanted or I could add a new one
> 4) I would then click the place to apply the master plus detail (John
> Doe's name, Jane Doe's name, John Doe's place of birth, etc.)
>
>
> The benefit is that you would select the detail to associate with the
> master source and then Legacy would create a link to the entire source
> set (master plus detail).  You would not have identical copies of

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Mary Figgins]

I am a splitter.  Every source is filed in my file
cabinet under family name then type of record then a
number, such as Dunhaupt-VR-Off-27.  Therefore each
source gets a separate entry in Legacy and refers back
to where the source is filed.  That way if I give a
copy of the database to someone, or a printout and
they want more information about the source, I can
easily pull it to look at and re-evaluate.  Every
source is in order by this.  The source list name
would be:  Dunhaupt-VR-Off-27: Death cert William
Bieger.  The location is also in brackets under
publication to follow through from before there was a
file id space.  It is also in the file id.  That way
it is more likely to be in a printout.

Mary Beth


--- Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Wynthner, in my specific case, if I split every
> single obit I found
> into its own separate master source, I would have
> tens of thousands
> (if not hundreds of thousands) of individual sources
> in my files!
> That's the "downside" of sourcing everything AND
> having a
> medium-to-large database.
> 
> Now let's say I found a typo in the word "Journal"
> below.  I would
> have to go back for every single obit and correct
> it.  On the other
> hand, by "lumping" all articles found in this
> newspaper into one
> master source, I would only have to make one change
> to the master and
> all the individual sources would instantly be fixed.
>  That's the
> beauty of what people refer to as source "lumping."
> 
> Also, I can search a specific newspaper (or
> cemetery, or census year
> and county) and very quickly know who all I've found
> in that paper (or
> other master source).  That's, to me, what makes
> using a database so
> powerful!
> 
> Hope that all makes sense...
> 
> Gail Rich Nestor
> Smyrna, GA
> www.roots2buds.net
> 
> 
> On Dec 30, 2007 7:52 AM, Wynthner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But.. but... but...
> > Can't this exact thing be accomplished by making
> the master source:
> >
> > The Journal-Patriot [microfilm],
> Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> > (Wilkes County Community College Library);obituary
> for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov
> 1933, page 5
> >
> > and then adding that to his wife and children?
> >
> > I really fail to see where the number of Master
> Sources is important to anything as long as I can
> find them on some sort of list.
> >
> > Guess I suffer from a very advanced case of
> spliteritis!
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message 
> > From: Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:18:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources
> >
> >
> > Hi Ron and others, I know this is a complicated
> situation to try to
> > explain and I think it would mainly benefit those
> with medium to large
> > databases and those who lump (who have a master
> source with lots of
> > details and apply those same details to multiple
> people, facts, and
> > events).  Let me see if an example might help.
> >
> > I find an obituary for John Doe:
> >
> > I first create a master source like"
> > The Journal-Patriot [microfilm],
> Wilkesboro, North Carolina
> > (Wilkes County Community College Library)
> >
> > This master source could be the source for several
> different peoples'
> > obits, each of which can apply to many people
> and/or events.
> >
> > Now let's say I create a citation detail for one
> specific article I
> > find in this newspaper:
> > obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday,
> 20 Nov 1933, page 5
> >
> > I might want to apply this master source and the
> source detail to John
> > Doe's name, birth date, death date, religion, and
> occupation.  I might
> > also want to apply this same "master plus detail"
> to John Does' wife,
> > parents, and children.
> >
> > I could use Legacy's source template to copy and
> paste the master plus
> > detail combo to all the people and facts.  That
> would be fine except
> > that there would be muliple copies of this exact
> same master plus
> > detail floating around in Legacy's database.  If I
> needed to make a
> > correction to the detail, I would have to "search
> and replace" the
> > erroneous portion in every individual copy of this
> in Legacy.
> >
> > If the source plus detail were only entered once
> in Legacy, I envision this:
> > 1) I first select a (previously entered) master
> source from Legacy
> > (like I already would now)
> > 2) I then see a drop down box with each previously
> entered citation
> > detail choice:
> >
> > i.e. obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103,
> Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
> > obituary for Jane Doe, vol. XXVII, no. 112,
> Monday, 5 May 1942, page 1
> > obituary for Baby Doe, vol XXII, no. 74, Monday,
> 12 February 1921, page 3
> >
> > 3) I would click the one I wanted or I could add a
> new one
> > 4) I would then click the place to apply the
> master plus detail (John
> > Doe's name, Jane Doe's name, John Doe's place of
> birth, etc.)
> >
> >
> > The be

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Gail Nestor]

If only I had a copy of Access!  I used it a long time ago quite
extensively, but I only had it at work.  I would buy a copy now, but
can't justify the cost for just this when I want so purchase so many
other genealogy resources.

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net



On Dec 30, 2007 3:47 PM, M. Brenzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had a situation that I found where in some source details I had "page"
> and in others "Page".  I wanted to make them consistent.  Doing it
> through Legacy would have been quite a task.  I opened the database in
> Access, found the correct table, created a query of the source detail
> field, sorted it and was able to make all of my entries consistent.
> Search and Replace was very easy.
>
> I know that this is not something that everyone using Legacy can do,
> whether it is because they don't have Access or don't know really how to
> use it.  But this was a quick fix for me and I am very happy making
> these changes so easily.
>
> Mary



Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Michele Lewis]

That is way more advanced than me :)  I wish one of you girls was over here 
to help me do stuff like that!


michele

- Original Message - 
From: "Gail Nestor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources



If only I had a copy of Access!  I used it a long time ago quite
extensively, but I only had it at work.  I would buy a copy now, but
can't justify the cost for just this when I want so purchase so many
other genealogy resources.

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net



On Dec 30, 2007 3:47 PM, M. Brenzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I had a situation that I found where in some source details I had "page"
and in others "Page".  I wanted to make them consistent.  Doing it
through Legacy would have been quite a task.  I opened the database in
Access, found the correct table, created a query of the source detail
field, sorted it and was able to make all of my entries consistent.
Search and Replace was very easy.

I know that this is not something that everyone using Legacy can do,
whether it is because they don't have Access or don't know really how to
use it.  But this was a quick fix for me and I am very happy making
these changes so easily.

Mary




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines:
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp








Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Gail Nestor]

Hi Rich, I think you are mistaken, but maybe the Legacy programmers
could set us straight.  I have been known to be wrong a time or two!
:-)

Let's say I have a census master source with detail for a specific
family.  I attach the whole source (master plus detail) to 5 people in
that family.  I still only have that one master source in Legacy, but
I do have 5 separate copies of that citation detail in Legacy's
database.  If I go to John Doe and click on the list of his assigned
sources and then "edit detail" to change "Page" to "page," I still
have to do the same steps to separately fix this detail in the source
entries for the wife and each of the kids.

Doesn't that indicate the "citation detail" is in Legacy separately
for each time it is attached along with the master source?  Legacy
staff - can you please confirm?

Thanks,
Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 12:51 PM, RICHARD SCHULTHIES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There seems to be some confusion about how a database
> functions. My example may clear it up. If you add the
> same photo to ten people, you do not now have ten
> photos, but one photo with ten places to be seen. The
> same with the Master Source. It exists only once, no
> matter how many places it is 'attached'. The 'details'
> each exist in only one place, but the Master Source
> may have as many details attached, one for each time
> it is used.  As a splitter by nature, former lumper, I
> found the more specific the type/location combination,
> the easier to avoid duplicating the research
> (Birth/Chicago). And it shows what I am missing
> faster. I am not trying to convince anyone, just
> mentioning the other side. Good luck in all your
> searches, no brick walls.
> Rich in LA CA
>



Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Gail Nestor]

Hi John, you're right that microfilm is what holds the paper.
However, I like to consider the microfilm of a record as a separate
source from its original.  There may be subtle differences in the
readability, etc. and I like to differentiate these at the master
source level.

I would also consider an online transcription of a cemetery as a
different source than a photograph I had personally taken during a
personal visit there as I would a photograph of a stone I found online
vs. my own photo.  These differences may all be denoted in the
citation detail instead of the master source, but that was not the
point I was trying to make about sourcing.  It was more of a
computer/data issue.

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 12:34 PM, John Clare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would seem to me that the Master source is the Journal-Patriot,
> Wilkesboro, North Carolina, US of A. Microfilm is not a source but a method
> of holding and Wilkes County Community Library is a place not a source. In
> other words, the same Journal will hold the same information if it is held
> on paper  and if it is held in a different place.
> In the reference to the source, you can then hold the specific reference for
> that record. I use it for the Census for instance, giving the Reference in
> the Reference record. They all appear happily when the report is printed. I
> also use it for the Cemetery reference where I have a lot of people buried
> in the same cemetery.
> John Clare
>



Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Cathy]

Hi Gail,

But I agree with you. I think it would be marvellous to just have a 
specific source detail in the database once - though I think your 
drop down list idea would be unworkable as some Master Sources are 
used hundreds of times so how to access the specific source detail 
for further use is more difficult. Perhaps the Copy to Clipboard from 
an Assigned Sources screen would be the only practical way to reuse a 
specific source detail.


My point in changing the subject line was to focus on how you can 
correct source detail given the current way it is stored. I agree 
that with your example the task is virtually impossible with current 
abilities of Search and Replace.


Cathy

At 10:02 PM 30/12/2007, you wrote:


Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes in
terms of being very kind and helpful to this list!  You both have made
huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG.

One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know
this tool won't help everyone.  It sure would help me though,
especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get
them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something
everyone wants) once v7 comes out.

Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household
containing 10 people.  If I attach the source only to the census event
for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail)
source combos floating around in Legacy.  Now let's say I decide to
attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name,
birth information, and occupation.  That would be 30 additional copies
of the same (master plus detail) source.

A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to
the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of
repetition.  Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries
for families in my file of almost 7,000.  Each person might have 1-8
census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.) depending
of his lifespan.

A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not to include the
image number from Ancestry.  My master source would include the NARA
microfilm series number, the roll number, and then the image number.
Because the image number is unique for every census page, it does not
lend itself well to the handy search and replace feature.  I could
search for "image_" but then I had to manually delete the numbers
following this search string.  It took many hours just to amend this
part of the citation with only one copy of each census to one
individual.  Imagine if each one were multiplied by three additional
facts/events!

I know we all do sourcing a bit differently, so in some cases this
will not help users at all.  However, I do think it will help those
who:
1) have medium to large databases,
2) care about sourcing and plan to make citation adjustments as time
and experience dictate,
3) lump sources more than split, and
4) want their (master plus detail) sources attached to multiple places
frequently.

Sorry for the long posts!

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 3:24 AM, Cathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although I have sympathy with Gail in wanting the source Detail to be
> relational as well so there is only one copy of the specific detail
> and every use links to that, I have learnt to live with the 
database as it is.

>
> You can correct typos etc in a specific source detail by using the
> Search and Replace on just the right part of the Source/Citation
> Detail or Text.
>
> So long as you carefully enter as the search phrase a unique section
> of detail that includes the error and choose to just replace the
> found text, all sorts of errors are quickly corrected. No need to
> find each individual person. I do it all too often.
>
> It is harder when the error is less easily uniquely identified in the
> search phrase.
>
> Cathy





Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Cathy]

Hi Gail,

You just have to look at the database in Access to confirm that you 
are correct.
The Source Citation Detail is repeated in the database each time it 
is used. (tblSX)
So if you use a Census to source a Person's name, birth, occupation, 
residence and the Census event itself, the detail is recorded 5 times 
for that person alone.
So the easiest place to edit Source Detail is in Access - but use a 
copy of your database in case you make an error and change something 
that stops you re-opening the database in Legacy.


The Master Source is entered in the database just once. That's the 
meaning of all the Master lists - the information is entered only 
once so is easily edited.


The photo isn't in the database at all but the link is in as many 
times as the photo has been attached.


Cathy

At 06:29 AM 31/12/2007, you wrote:


Hi Rich, I think you are mistaken, but maybe the Legacy programmers
could set us straight.  I have been known to be wrong a time or two!
:-)

Let's say I have a census master source with detail for a specific
family.  I attach the whole source (master plus detail) to 5 people in
that family.  I still only have that one master source in Legacy, but
I do have 5 separate copies of that citation detail in Legacy's
database.  If I go to John Doe and click on the list of his assigned
sources and then "edit detail" to change "Page" to "page," I still
have to do the same steps to separately fix this detail in the source
entries for the wife and each of the kids.

Doesn't that indicate the "citation detail" is in Legacy separately
for each time it is attached along with the master source?  Legacy
staff - can you please confirm?

Thanks,
Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 12:51 PM, RICHARD SCHULTHIES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There seems to be some confusion about how a database
> functions. My example may clear it up. If you add the
> same photo to ten people, you do not now have ten
> photos, but one photo with ten places to be seen. The
> same with the Master Source. It exists only once, no
> matter how many places it is 'attached'. The 'details'
> each exist in only one place, but the Master Source
> may have as many details attached, one for each time
> it is used.  As a splitter by nature, former lumper, I
> found the more specific the type/location combination,
> the easier to avoid duplicating the research
> (Birth/Chicago). And it shows what I am missing
> faster. I am not trying to convince anyone, just
> mentioning the other side. Good luck in all your
> searches, no brick walls.
> Rich in LA CA





Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Valerie Garton]

Can some one tell me what is a CG and an AG ?

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michele
Lewis
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 1:07 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]


Ron,
Here is my thing with the Mills standard format...  I want to eventually
go 
for my CG.  From what I understand, your sourcing must pretty much go
with 
what Mills has advocated.  Is it not the god standard among CGs?  I
would 
love to know what the AGs accept as the right way to source!

michele

- Original Message - 
From: "ronald ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]



Gail,

I do understand the points which you make, and as you are no doubt aware
I 
am a confirmed lumper. You are possibly aware that I am no lover of so 
called standardisation of Sources eg Mills. I guess I am also a
minimalist 
in that I record the minimum amount of information in each Source to
enable 
someone else to find it, and do not include the full details of where it
is. 
As a consequence the second part of the sentence in your note (2) does
not 
really apply to me but the rest does and also notes (1) to (4).

The result is that, spelling and grammar apart, I have not changed
either a 
Master Source or Source Details for years and for those two aspects have

found the Search and Replace as described by Cathy to be fine.

My opinion is certainly coloured by the fact that I consider Mills's
views 
on Sourcing to be overkill; an opinion which is unlikely to be changed
by 
debate! This is not to criticise those who prefer to dot every "i" and
cross 
every "t" as to the exact location in which a document is to be found
but 
simply to state that to me it is not necessary.

I hope that this clarifies/explains my view and the reason(s) behind it.

Ron Ferguson


_

For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *New
Blog* Protect Your PC View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_

> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:02:22 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]
>
> Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes in

> terms of being very kind and helpful to this list! You both have made 
> huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG.
>
> One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know 
> this tool won't help everyone. It sure would help me though, 
> especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get 
> them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something 
> everyone wants) once v7 comes out.
>
> Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household 
> containing 10 people. If I attach the source only to the census event 
> for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail) 
> source combos floating around in Legacy. Now let's say I decide to 
> attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name, 
> birth information, and occupation. That would be 30 additional copies 
> of the same (master plus detail) source.
>
> A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to 
> the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of 
> repetition. Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries 
> for families in my file of almost 7,000. Each person might have 1-8 
> census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.) depending

> of his lifespan.
>
> A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not to include the 
> image number from Ancestry. My master source would include the NARA 
> microfilm series number, the roll number, and then the image number. 
> Because the image number is unique for every census page, it does not 
> lend itself well to the handy search and replace feature. I could 
> search for "image_" but then I had to manually delete the numbers 
> following this search string. It took many hours just to amend this 
> part of the citation with only one copy of each census to one 
> individual. Imagine if each one were multiplied by three additional 
> facts/events!
>
> I know we all do sourcing a bit differently, so in some cases this 
> will not help users at all. However, I do think it will help those
> who:
> 1) have medium to large databases,
> 2) care about sourcing and plan to make citation adjustments as time 
> and experience dictate,
> 3) 

RE: [LegacyUG] Sources - Obits

[Valerie Garton]

I wish I had your problem with even two obits !

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gail
Nestor
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 12:11 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources - Obits


Hi Wynthner, in my specific case, if I split every single obit I found
into its own separate master source, I would have tens of thousands (if
not hundreds of thousands) of individual sources in my files! That's the
"downside" of sourcing everything AND having a medium-to-large database.

Now let's say I found a typo in the word "Journal" below.  I would have
to go back for every single obit and correct it.  On the other hand, by
"lumping" all articles found in this newspaper into one master source, I
would only have to make one change to the master and all the individual
sources would instantly be fixed.  That's the beauty of what people
refer to as source "lumping."

Also, I can search a specific newspaper (or cemetery, or census year and
county) and very quickly know who all I've found in that paper (or other
master source).  That's, to me, what makes using a database so powerful!

Hope that all makes sense...

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net


On Dec 30, 2007 7:52 AM, Wynthner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But.. but... but...
> Can't this exact thing be accomplished by making the master source:
>
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina 
> (Wilkes County Community College Library);obituary for John Doe, vol. 
> XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> and then adding that to his wife and children?
>
> I really fail to see where the number of Master Sources is important 
> to anything as long as I can find them on some sort of list.
>
> Guess I suffer from a very advanced case of spliteritis!
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
> From: Gail Nestor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:18:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources
>
>
> Hi Ron and others, I know this is a complicated situation to try to 
> explain and I think it would mainly benefit those with medium to large

> databases and those who lump (who have a master source with lots of 
> details and apply those same details to multiple people, facts, and 
> events).  Let me see if an example might help.
>
> I find an obituary for John Doe:
>
> I first create a master source like"
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina 
> (Wilkes County Community College Library)
>
> This master source could be the source for several different peoples' 
> obits, each of which can apply to many people and/or events.
>
> Now let's say I create a citation detail for one specific article I 
> find in this newspaper: obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, 
> Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> I might want to apply this master source and the source detail to John

> Doe's name, birth date, death date, religion, and occupation.  I might

> also want to apply this same "master plus detail" to John Does' wife, 
> parents, and children.
>
> I could use Legacy's source template to copy and paste the master plus

> detail combo to all the people and facts.  That would be fine except 
> that there would be muliple copies of this exact same master plus 
> detail floating around in Legacy's database.  If I needed to make a 
> correction to the detail, I would have to "search and replace" the 
> erroneous portion in every individual copy of this in Legacy.
>
> If the source plus detail were only entered once in Legacy, I envision

> this:
> 1) I first select a (previously entered) master source from Legacy
> (like I already would now)
> 2) I then see a drop down box with each previously entered citation
> detail choice:
>
> i.e. obituary for John Doe, vol. XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, 
> page 5 obituary for Jane Doe, vol. XXVII, no. 112, Monday, 5 May 1942,

> page 1 obituary for Baby Doe, vol XXII, no. 74, Monday, 12 February 
> 1921, page 3
>
> 3) I would click the one I wanted or I could add a new one
> 4) I would then click the place to apply the master plus detail (John 
> Doe's name, Jane Doe's name, John Doe's place of birth, etc.)
>
>
> The benefit is that you would select the detail to associate with the 
> master source and then Legacy would create a link to the entire source

> set (master plus detail).  You would not have identical copies of 
> master plus detail like the example below floating around in Legacy 
> attached to multiple people and/or events.
>
> The Journal-Patriot [microfilm], Wilkesboro, North Carolina 
> (Wilkes County Community College Library), obituary for John Doe, vol.

> XXVI, no. 103, Monday, 20 Nov 1933, page 5
>
> Let's say I have 1 newspaper (one master source) with ob

RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[Valerie Garton]

Can some one please tell me how I can search by year of birth ?

Yes I have tried and can  not work out what to put in which field.

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Withers
Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2007 1:29 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?


Hi Michele,

Could you not search for:

1. Individual - Living - Equal To - YES
and
2. Individual - Birth Date - before - 1937

Regards,
Bob

On Dec 25, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Michele Lewis wrote:

> Is there some way to search by age?  Let's say I want to search for
> everyone in my file that is still marked as living that age 70 or  
> older (to help me come up with a list of persons I need to check  
> whether or not they are still living)
>
> Michele Simmons Lewis
> Staff Genealogist, McDuffie Mirror
>
> Diggin' in the dirt, lookin' fer dem roots!
>
>
>
>
> Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et
>
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
> Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
>
>
>




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp







Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Valerie Garton]

Richard did you look under the bed ?

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RICHARD
SCHULTHIES
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 5:05 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sources


It is much faster to edit the changes, no matter what
they are, and I am hoping that the L7 sources, will
not need a lot of fixing. But if needed, I will tag
all the Sources and fix one at a time. I
procrastinated in the past, and it took me a long time
to get all my sources 'fixed'. I wish I had been doing
them as I added the people, it has been quite a few
years, and I am still finding documents in my files
not sourced, what a problem I created. I think I have
found them all.
Rich in LA CA

--- Hope Bagot Bees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Wendy
> 
> Many thanks - just the explanation needed!  However,
> at the risk of yet
> more procrastination, I am not going to undertake a
> major sourcing 
> exercise until Legacy 7 is out as I see from another
> message that this 
> will treat sources slightly differently.  In the
> meantime, I promise 
> myself I won't enter ANY detail without a source! 
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> Wendy Howard wrote:
> > Hi Elizabeth,
> >
> > "Lumping" and "splitting" are terms this list has
> adopted to describe
> > two ways of utilising the sources feature of
> Legacy.
> >
> > At one extreme end, a splitter will use one Master
> Source for each
> > individual document they come across.  For
> example, each birth
> > certificate sighted for data would have it's own
> Master Source, each
> > page in a census, etc.  This results in many, many
> Master Sources, but
> > also has some advantages over other methods.  In
> this situation, the
> > Detail Source field would only be required in
> situations such as when
> > you wanted to specify the page of a book, or
> something like that.
> >
> > At the other extreme, a lumper would have one
> Master Source called
> > something like "Birth Certificates", and use that
> for every piece of
> > data that came from a birth record.  The Detail
> Source field is used
> > in this case to provide information specific to
> each item.  This
> > results in fewer Master Source items.
> >
> > I'm somewhere in-between, having started out as a
> splitter because I
> > didn't realise there were alternatives until I'd
> been reading this
> > list for a while.  I lump different *types* of
> birth records together,
> > so I have one for English birth certificates, one
> for New Zealand
> > birth certificates, another for NZ birth
> "printouts" (which aren't the
> > same as certificates, but are the original entries
> from which
> > certificates are produced on order), and so on.
> One Master Source for
> > each country that I've got material from.  One
> Master Source for each
> > year and country for census data.  The information
> that is common to
> > these items (author, title, usually) is recorded
> in the Master Source,
> > everything else is recorded in the Detail Source.
> >
> > I also have a Master Source called "Private
> Correspondence", which I
> > use for letters, emails, etc that I receive from
> people about my
> > family.  A splitter would create a Master Source
> for each item.
> >
> > I like my method of being somewhat of a lumper
> because it is quicker
> > for me to assign a Master Source when I'm entering
> data, and if I'm
> > looking through the list there isn't a lot to look
> through (70 at this
> > moment, though many of those are from the days
> when I was working in
> > the splitter fashion that I haven't changed yet)
> and easy to remember
> > what I've got there.
> >
> > However, as has already been mentioned here today,
> if I make a mistake
> > in the Detail Source field for an item and don't
> notice it until
> > later, and I've used that for several pieces of
> data spread over
> > several people, I have to find each one to correct
> them individually.
> > Sounds drastic, but with the Source Clipboard it
> is actually very
> > quick to make the actual correction - it just
> takes time to locate
> > where that Detail Source was used.  And even if
> you miss one
> > correction and don't notice it until you're
> running a report later, it
> > doesn't take long to copy the correct entry to the
> Source Clipboard
> > and paste it where it's needed, deleting the
> incorrect one as well.
> >
> > There is no "right" answer here for you - just
> choices to make as to
> > how you want to proceed.  We can help you by
> telling you what we do
> > ourselves and why we prefer our own methods.  :-)
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Wendy Howard
> 
> 
> 
> Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et
> 
> Legacy User Group guidelines: 
>http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.a

RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[ronald ferguson]

Valerie,

Search>Find>Detailed Search then, for eg. year of birth being 1847

Look for Whom: Individual
Where to Look: Birth Date
How to Look: Contains
What to look for: 1847

Ron Ferguson


_

For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:
http://www.fergys.co.uk
*New Blog* Protect Your PC
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:53:04 +1100
>
> Can some one please tell me how I can search by year of birth ?
>
> Yes I have tried and can not work out what to put in which field.
>
> Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.
> Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
> & Wexford
> GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
> Withers
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2007 1:29 AM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?
>
>
> Hi Michele,
>
> Could you not search for:
>
> 1. Individual - Living - Equal To - YES
> and
> 2. Individual - Birth Date - before - 1937
>
> Regards,
> Bob
>
> On Dec 25, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Michele Lewis wrote:
>
>> Is there some way to search by age? Let's say I want to search for
>> everyone in my file that is still marked as living that age 70 or
>> older (to help me come up with a list of persons I need to check
>> whether or not they are still living)
>>
>> Michele Simmons Lewis
>> Staff Genealogist, McDuffie Mirror
>>

_
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox. 
http://www.searchgamesbox.com


Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[Cathy]

Hi Valerie,
Currently you can't search a date with "contains"
(Yes it is now there in the current list in the latest build but it 
isn't working)


So you need to do a detailed search for
Birth Date  -   after-31/12/
where  is the year before the year you are looking for
AND second condition
Birth Date-  before -   01/01/
where  is the year after the year you are looking for.

Note I've put date in Australian order not US so US users would need 
to put after 12/31/


Cathy

At 08:53 AM 31/12/2007, you wrote:


Can some one please tell me how I can search by year of birth ?

Yes I have tried and can  not work out what to put in which field.

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.





Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[Drew Smith]

On Dec 30, 2007 6:53 PM, Valerie Garton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can some one please tell me how I can search by year of birth ?
>
> Yes I have tried and can  not work out what to put in which field.

1. Go to Search.
2. Choose Detailed Search.
3. Under "Where to look", chose "Birth Date".
4. Under "How to look", chose "Contains".
5. Under "What to look for", enter the year.
6. Click "Create List".

Regards,
Drew Smith



Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[Jeremy Main]

To search by Birth Year:
1)  Click on Search
2)  Click on "Detailed Search" tab (2nd one from the left)
3)  Look for whom: 'Individual'
4)  Where to look:   'Birth Date'
5)  How to look:  'Contains'
6)  What to look for:'1775'  or year of your choice.
7)  Click on:  create list

Using 'Contains' will search for both:
1)  regular normal dates, such as   7/4/1775 or just the year 1775, as 
well as,
2)  prefixed or suffixed dates (called 'bad dates' by Legacy) such as:   
abt 1775,  aft 1775,  died 1775,  etc.


There may be other ways as well, but this seem to find dates containing 
1775 of both kinds.  Note:  In the Misc Searches,  one can search and 
find all 'bad dates'.

.../Jeremy

Valerie Garton wrote:

Can some one please tell me how I can search by year of birth ?

Yes I have tried and can  not work out what to put in which field.

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Withers
Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2007 1:29 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?


Hi Michele,

Could you not search for:

1. Individual - Living - Equal To - YES
and
2. Individual - Birth Date - before - 1937

Regards,
Bob

On Dec 25, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Michele Lewis wrote:

  

Is there some way to search by age?  Let's say I want to search for
everyone in my file that is still marked as living that age 70 or  
older (to help me come up with a list of persons I need to check  
whether or not they are still living)


Michele Simmons Lewis
Staff Genealogist, McDuffie Mirror

Diggin' in the dirt, lookin' fer dem roots!




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines:


http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
  

Archived messages:


http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
  

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp









Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp







Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp




  




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[Cathy]

You're right Drew.

I knew it worked in the beta but for some reason it didn't in the 
normal version so I thought it wasn't working as it wasn't a 
possibility in the past.


Tried again and there it is.
I can't have cleared a previous search.

Cheers,
Cathy

At 09:43 AM 31/12/2007, you wrote:


On Dec 30, 2007 6:53 PM, Valerie Garton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can some one please tell me how I can search by year of birth ?
>
> Yes I have tried and can  not work out what to put in which field.

1. Go to Search.
2. Choose Detailed Search.
3. Under "Where to look", chose "Birth Date".
4. Under "How to look", chose "Contains".
5. Under "What to look for", enter the year.
6. Click "Create List".

Regards,
Drew Smith





Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[Richard Doherty]

Cathy,
I have the latest V6 build and the search on "birth date" using "contains"
and the specific year works just fine. 

Dick

Richard M. Doherty
5237 Folkstone Dr.
Troy, MI 48085-3222
Phone: 248-879-9352
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cathy
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:34 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

Hi Valerie,
Currently you can't search a date with "contains"
(Yes it is now there in the current list in the latest build but it 
isn't working)

So you need to do a detailed search for
Birth Date  -   after-31/12/
where  is the year before the year you are looking for
AND second condition
Birth Date-  before -   01/01/
where  is the year after the year you are looking for.

Note I've put date in Australian order not US so US users would need 
to put after 12/31/

Cathy

At 08:53 AM 31/12/2007, you wrote:

>Can some one please tell me how I can search by year of birth ?
>
>Yes I have tried and can  not work out what to put in which field.
>
>Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.12/1202 - Release Date: 12/29/2007
1:27 PM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.12/1202 - Release Date: 12/29/2007
1:27 PM
 




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Commercially printing a 15 Generation Pedigree Chart

[Patti Hobbs]

Arnold,

I have done something similar at Kinkos using Legacy Tree Draw. As  
John said, you can't do "print preview" to find out how many pages of  
8.5 X 11 paper it would use and then calculate the inches that way.  
Kinkos has a 24 in wide roll of paper and 36", so I've always used the  
24".  When a lot of pages are printed out on standard paper, there is  
an allowance made for overlapping the pages, so the dimensions can be  
smaller than what you'd figure with just the standard paper. In Tree  
Draw you can see where the paper dimension is once you've put the  
custom print size paper in the preview area.  I've created mine in pdf  
format which Kinkos does print.  Beware that the color printing for  
Kinkos is outrageously high. I always make a black and white chart.


Patti
On Dec 28, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Arnold Sprague wrote:


Sharon,
What do you mean by "Legacy Charting Companion will do this for you"?
Does it provide a pdf file? Can I take the file to most any large  
print shop, such as Kinkos? Is this an easy task? Are there some  
tips and tricks I should be aware of?

I really need some detailed answers from those who have been there.
Arnold


At 11:58 AM 12/28/2007, you wrote:

Legacy Charting Companion will do this for you.

Sharon Perdue

- Original Message - From: "Arnold Sprague" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>

To: 
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: [LegacyUG] Commercially printing a 15 Generation Pedigree  
Chart



I have an old 15 Generation Pedigree Chart (25" x 27")  which I filled out manually back in the days of my old DOS  
genealogical program. Now I am wondering if one can print a 15  
Generation Pedigree Chart via a "modern" genealogical program. I  
am thinking of using Kinkos with its large format printers.
How do I produce a file to make a 15 Generation Pedigree Chart  
which Kinkos, for example, can use to print it. Does Legacy 6.x  
provide this? Will Legacy 7.x provide this? Is there an  
intermediary program that provides this?

 Arnold






Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines:   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:   
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp








Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Dan Bateham]

Hi Valerie,

CG = Certified Genealogist
AG = Accredited Genealogist

For more information, see:
Board for Certification of Genealogists: www.bcgcertification.org
International Commission for the Accreditation of Professional Genealogists 
(ICAPGen): www.icapgen.org


Dan Bateham

- Original Message - 
From: "Valerie Garton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]



Can some one tell me what is a CG and an AG ?

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON 






Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Thomas Herson]

4 useless postings.

- Original Message - 
From: "Valerie Garton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]



Can some one tell me what is a CG and an AG ?

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michele
Lewis
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 1:07 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]


Ron,
Here is my thing with the Mills standard format...  I want to eventually
go 
for my CG.  From what I understand, your sourcing must pretty much go
with 
what Mills has advocated.  Is it not the god standard among CGs?  I
would 
love to know what the AGs accept as the right way to source!


michele

- Original Message - 
From: "ronald ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]



Gail,

I do understand the points which you make, and as you are no doubt aware
I 
am a confirmed lumper. You are possibly aware that I am no lover of so 
called standardisation of Sources eg Mills. I guess I am also a
minimalist 
in that I record the minimum amount of information in each Source to
enable 
someone else to find it, and do not include the full details of where it
is. 
As a consequence the second part of the sentence in your note (2) does
not 
really apply to me but the rest does and also notes (1) to (4).


The result is that, spelling and grammar apart, I have not changed
either a 
Master Source or Source Details for years and for those two aspects have


found the Search and Replace as described by Cathy to be fine.

My opinion is certainly coloured by the fact that I consider Mills's
views 
on Sourcing to be overkill; an opinion which is unlikely to be changed
by 
debate! This is not to criticise those who prefer to dot every "i" and
cross 
every "t" as to the exact location in which a document is to be found
but 
simply to state that to me it is not necessary.


I hope that this clarifies/explains my view and the reason(s) behind it.

Ron Ferguson


_

For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *New
Blog* Protect Your PC View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_


Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:02:22 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes in


terms of being very kind and helpful to this list! You both have made 
huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG.


One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know 
this tool won't help everyone. It sure would help me though, 
especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get 
them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something 
everyone wants) once v7 comes out.


Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household 
containing 10 people. If I attach the source only to the census event 
for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail) 
source combos floating around in Legacy. Now let's say I decide to 
attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name, 
birth information, and occupation. That would be 30 additional copies 
of the same (master plus detail) source.


A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to 
the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of 
repetition. Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries 
for families in my file of almost 7,000. Each person might have 1-8 
census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.) depending



of his lifespan.

A some point, based on Mills' books, I decided not to include the 
image number from Ancestry. My master source would include the NARA 
microfilm series number, the roll number, and then the image number. 
Because the image number is unique for every census page, it does not 
lend itself well to the handy search and replace feature. I could 
search for "image_" but then I had to manually delete the numbers 
following this search string. It took many hours just to amend this 
part of the citation with only one copy of each census to one 
individual. Imagine if each one were multiplied by three additional 
facts/events!


I know we all do sourcing a bit differently, so in some cases this 
will not help users at all. However, I do think it will help those

who:

RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[ronald ferguson]

Cathy,

Are you sure that is still the case with your installation, as, knowing there 
have been problems, I checked before I responded and it worked OK for me?

Ron Ferguson


_

For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:
http://www.fergys.co.uk
*New Blog* Protect Your PC
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_

> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:33:39 +0900
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?
>
> Hi Valerie,
> Currently you can't search a date with "contains"
> (Yes it is now there in the current list in the latest build but it
> isn't working)
>
> So you need to do a detailed search for
> Birth Date - after - 31/12/
> where  is the year before the year you are looking for
> AND second condition
> Birth Date - before - 01/01/
> where  is the year after the year you are looking for.
>
> Note I've put date in Australian order not US so US users would need
> to put after 12/31/
>
> Cathy

_
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox. 
http://www.searchgamesbox.com


Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sources

[Patti Hobbs]

That sounds very good, Gail. I've not been real diligent about my  
sourcing, so I hadn't realized all the problems with extra stuff.  I  
know you're a TNG user also, and it sounds similar to being able to  
connect the media to all the people the media applies to.  It's also  
helpful to hear how people are using the sourcing. I've been going  
through years and years of one newspaper in one location and was  
wondering how I was going to source it.   Your examples helps.


Patti


On Dec 29, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Gail Nestor wrote:


I know this sounds convoluted, but I just feel that if I could talk
with a programmer, I could get this to make more sense.  I once had a
project working with electronic invoicing at a prior job and everyone
thought I was crazy until I finally caught the programmers interest
and we ended up saving a ton of time, money, data storage space, and
many less errors.  It's just very complicated to describe in words!

Anyway, sorry for going on about this as I know it doesn't have any
chance of being included with v7.  However, I do think this idea is
worthy of consideration and hope it makes a tiny bit of sense.





Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Bob Withers]

Well, for me, the only one that was useless was yours.

On Dec 30, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Thomas Herson wrote:


4 useless postings.





Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Maureen Chambers]

Thomas Herson wrote:  "4 useless postings"

So, what are you telling us here??  Are there 3 more still to come?

Maureen




Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et



Legacy User Group guidelines: 

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages: 

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Valerie Garton]

Thanks for this Tom but unfortunately your reply still did not answer my
query ?

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas
Herson
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 12:34 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]


4 useless postings.

- Original Message - 
From: "Valerie Garton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]


> Can some one tell me what is a CG and an AG ?
> 
> Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.
> Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin,
Wicklow
> & Wexford 
> GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Michele Lewis
> Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 1:07 AM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]
> 
> 
> Ron,
> Here is my thing with the Mills standard format...  I want to 
> eventually go for my CG.  From what I understand, your sourcing must 
> pretty much go with
> what Mills has advocated.  Is it not the god standard among CGs?  I
> would 
> love to know what the AGs accept as the right way to source!
> 
> michele
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "ronald ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 8:55 AM
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]
> 
> 
> 
> Gail,
> 
> I do understand the points which you make, and as you are no doubt 
> aware I am a confirmed lumper. You are possibly aware that I am no 
> lover of so called standardisation of Sources eg Mills. I guess I am 
> also a minimalist
> in that I record the minimum amount of information in each Source to
> enable 
> someone else to find it, and do not include the full details of where
it
> is. 
> As a consequence the second part of the sentence in your note (2) does
> not 
> really apply to me but the rest does and also notes (1) to (4).
> 
> The result is that, spelling and grammar apart, I have not changed 
> either a Master Source or Source Details for years and for those two 
> aspects have
> 
> found the Search and Replace as described by Cathy to be fine.
> 
> My opinion is certainly coloured by the fact that I consider Mills's 
> views on Sourcing to be overkill; an opinion which is unlikely to be 
> changed by
> debate! This is not to criticise those who prefer to dot every "i" and
> cross 
> every "t" as to the exact location in which a document is to be found
> but 
> simply to state that to me it is not necessary.
> 
> I hope that this clarifies/explains my view and the reason(s) behind 
> it.
> 
> Ron Ferguson
> 
> 
> _
> 
> For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *New
> Blog* Protect Your PC View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: 
> http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England 
> See: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
> _
> 
>> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:02:22 -0500
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
>> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]
>>
>> Cathy and Ron, I do respect your opinions and you two are my heroes 
>> in
> 
>> terms of being very kind and helpful to this list! You both have made
>> huge contributions to the knowledge contained in this LUG.
>>
>> One last example might help explain my specific dilemma and I know
>> this tool won't help everyone. It sure would help me though, 
>> especially when I go to do massive edits to my sources so I can get 
>> them to mirror Mills' _Evidence Explained_ (again, not something 
>> everyone wants) once v7 comes out.
>>
>> Let's say I have a census master source with detail for one household
>> containing 10 people. If I attach the source only to the census event

>> for each person, I already have 10 identical (master plus detail) 
>> source combos floating around in Legacy. Now let's say I decide to 
>> attach that same (master plus detail) source to each person's name, 
>> birth information, and occupation. That would be 30 additional copies

>> of the same (master plus detail) source.
>>
>> A while back, I decided to leave all census entries attached only to
>> the census event for each person and that has saved me tons of 
>> repetition. Keep in mind I have literally thousands of census entries

>> for families in my file of almost 7,000. Each person might have 1-8 
>> census entries throughout time (e.g. 1810, 1820, 1830, etc.)
depending
> 
>> of his lifespan.
>>
>> A some point, based on Mills' book

RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[Valerie Garton]

Thanks Ron

That is OK if I only want one specific year but I want to search for all
birth dates and those without for all CULLODENs.

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ronald
ferguson
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 11:43 AM
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?



Valerie,

Search>Find>Detailed Search then, for eg. year of birth being 1847

Look for Whom: Individual
Where to Look: Birth Date
How to Look: Contains
What to look for: 1847

Ron Ferguson


_

For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *New
Blog* Protect Your PC View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:53:04 +1100
>
> Can some one please tell me how I can search by year of birth ?
>
> Yes I have tried and can not work out what to put in which field.
>
> Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.
> Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, 
> Wicklow & Wexford GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob 
> Withers
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2007 1:29 AM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?
>
>
> Hi Michele,
>
> Could you not search for:
>
> 1. Individual - Living - Equal To - YES
> and
> 2. Individual - Birth Date - before - 1937
>
> Regards,
> Bob
>
> On Dec 25, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Michele Lewis wrote:
>
>> Is there some way to search by age? Let's say I want to search for 
>> everyone in my file that is still marked as living that age 70 or 
>> older (to help me come up with a list of persons I need to check 
>> whether or not they are still living)
>>
>> Michele Simmons Lewis
>> Staff Genealogist, McDuffie Mirror
>>

_
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox. 
http://www.searchgamesbox.com


Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp








Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Valerie Garton]

Gosh I should have known that as I am one. We do not use an abbreviation
in Australia.

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan
Bateham
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 12:35 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]


Hi Valerie,

CG = Certified Genealogist
AG = Accredited Genealogist

For more information, see:
Board for Certification of Genealogists: www.bcgcertification.org
International Commission for the Accreditation of Professional
Genealogists 
(ICAPGen): www.icapgen.org

Dan Bateham

- Original Message - 
From: "Valerie Garton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]


> Can some one tell me what is a CG and an AG ?
>
> Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.
> Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, 
> Wicklow & Wexford GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON





Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp







Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[Valerie Garton]

Thanks Drew but as I said to Ron I want to search for all CULLODENs by
year of birth or lack of ?

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drew
Smith
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 11:43 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?


On Dec 30, 2007 6:53 PM, Valerie Garton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Can some one please tell me how I can search by year of birth ?
>
> Yes I have tried and can  not work out what to put in which field.

1. Go to Search.
2. Choose Detailed Search.
3. Under "Where to look", chose "Birth Date".
4. Under "How to look", chose "Contains".
5. Under "What to look for", enter the year.
6. Click "Create List".

Regards,
Drew Smith



Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp







Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]

[Valerie Garton]

Thanks Dan this makes more sense that what Tom was trying to tell me. I
did get back to him but as yet have not had a reply.

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney. 
Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
& Wexford 
GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan
Bateham
Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 12:35 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]


Hi Valerie,

CG = Certified Genealogist
AG = Accredited Genealogist

For more information, see:
Board for Certification of Genealogists: www.bcgcertification.org
International Commission for the Accreditation of Professional
Genealogists 
(ICAPGen): www.icapgen.org

Dan Bateham

- Original Message - 
From: "Valerie Garton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Correcting Source Detail was [Sources]


> Can some one tell me what is a CG and an AG ?
>
> Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.
> Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, 
> Wicklow & Wexford GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON





Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp







Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[Cathy]

Hi Valerie,
That isn't what you originally asked for.

Search
1st condition
Surnameequal to Culloden

AND

2nd condition

Birth Dateequal to
Don't add anything and it will find Culloden's without birth dates.
Tag that list and look for Culloden's not tagged with that tag number 
and you have all Culloden's with a birth date.


You can do lots of searches. You just have to think through the logic.
Cathy

At 01:15 PM 31/12/2007, you wrote:


Thanks Ron

That is OK if I only want one specific year but I want to search for all
birth dates and those without for all CULLODENs.

Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.





Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?

[ronald ferguson]

Valerie,

If you reread your previous post you will see that that is'nt the question you 
asked.

I take it that you require 2 lists one for Cullodens with a birth date and one 
for those without. In which case use Search>Find>Detailed Search

Look for Whom: Individual
Where to Look: Surname
How to Look: Equal to
What to look for: Culloden

second row:

AND

Look for Whom: Individual
Where to Look: Birth Date
How to Look: Not Equal to
What to look for: leave blank

Create List. Options>Advanced Tagging Tag with (say) Tag 1

To find Cullodens without a birth date first search for Cullodens as above, 
then in the second row:

AND

Look for Whom: Individual
Where to Look: Tag 1
How to Look: Equal to
What to look for: Untagged

Ron Ferguson




_

For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:
http://www.fergys.co.uk
*New Blog* Protect Your PC
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:15:57 +1100
>
> Thanks Ron
>
> That is OK if I only want one specific year but I want to search for all
> birth dates and those without for all CULLODENs.
>
> Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.
> Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin, Wicklow
> & Wexford
> GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ronald
> ferguson
> Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 11:43 AM
> To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?
>
>
>
> Valerie,
>
> Search>Find>Detailed Search then, for eg. year of birth being 1847
>
> Look for Whom: Individual
> Where to Look: Birth Date
> How to Look: Contains
> What to look for: 1847
>
> Ron Ferguson
>
>
> _
>
> For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: http://www.fergys.co.uk *New
> Blog* Protect Your PC View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
> http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
> http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
> _
>
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
>> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?
>> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:53:04 +1100
>>
>> Can some one please tell me how I can search by year of birth ?
>>
>> Yes I have tried and can not work out what to put in which field.
>>
>> Regards from Valerie in sunny Sydney.
>> Researching: BEDDY, CULLODEN, DYAS and ROWAN in Belfast, Dublin,
>> Wicklow & Wexford GOON member No: 4825 for CULLODEN & HIGGINSON
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
>> Withers
>> Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2007 1:29 AM
>> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
>> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Searching by age?
>>
>>
>> Hi Michele,
>>
>> Could you not search for:
>>
>> 1. Individual - Living - Equal To - YES
>> and
>> 2. Individual - Birth Date - before - 1937
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob

_
Telly addicts unite!
http://www.searchgamesbox.com/tvtown.shtml


Give Legacy as a Gift for 25% Off. Visit http://tinyurl.com/2b49et

Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp