/
- Original Message -
From: Jim Walton
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: 07 October 2009 00:50
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
I guess my problem stems from my history with computers. I grew up in the
days that if you did something on a computer more than twice, you
Ron Ferguson wrote
I had not considered that as a possible reason as to why I am a lumper,
Jim, but you may well be right. It certainly is natural way of working
for me rather than something which I actually gave consideration to
when I first started out.
And in my case it was having had
Jim Walton wrote:
When I look at a list of sources, I would much rather see three or four
sources that are easy to locate and then add the state, county, and city
information in the detail record. I see the census as a single source
with a series of volumes, one for each state. Each volume
/
- Original Message - From: Jim Walton
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: 07 October 2009 00:50
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
I guess my problem stems from my history with computers. I grew up in the
days that if you did something on a computer more than twice
Evidence Explained says that a web site should not be used as a
repository, so I don't. The only time I would have a repository is if it is
a brick and mortar location like a genealogical library or personally owned
copy. Web documents are digital images, and most templates have that
capability.
In theory, it seems as if that would be true. But I haven't done much
combining of sources, so I can't speak with any authority. g
Janis
On 10/5/09 4:21 PM, Bruce Jones juicebo...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that it is easier for a Splitter to move toward being a
Lumper (by combining
I guess my problem stems from my history with computers. I grew up in the
days that if you did something on a computer more than twice, you write a
program to automate the task. (This was back in the 70s when most people
still didn't believe such a thing as a personal computer was very useful.)
I have gone the other way (splitting one master source into multiple),
and it was a *lot* of work.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Janis L Gilmore rajan...@earthlink.net wrote:
In theory, it seems as if that would be true. But I haven't done much
combining of sources, so I can't speak with any
Agreed, and I'm having an issue right now with some state documents that
contain many volumes, but every document has a separate title. Fortunately
only a handfull of records are affected, but it looks like I'm going to have
to split in this case and make every volume a separate source. So, I
-Original Message-
From: k...@legacyfamilytree.com [mailto:k...@legacyfamilytree.com]on
Behalf Of Jim Walton
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:56 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
Thanks, Kirsten. It looks pretty good, so
...@legacyfamilytree.com [mailto:k...@legacyfamilytree.com]on
Behalf Of Jim Walton
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:56 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
Thanks, Kirsten. It looks pretty good, so in the meantime I'll do it that
way.
You
@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census information
I record census information as part of residency then I can do a
chronology showing residence to compare people I think may be related.
I then use the source writer for the census information and supplement
it in the notes with my comments
-Original Message-
From: k...@legacyfamilytree.com [mailto:k...@legacyfamilytree.com]on
Behalf Of Jim Walton
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:56 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
Thanks, Kirsten. It looks pretty good, so in the meantime I'll
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
Thanks, Kirsten. It looks pretty good, so in the meantime I'll do it
that way.
You said it's extreme, but consider that a census is a document with
50 volumes, each volume has hundreds of chapters. Even the 1790
census would have at least 13 sources
in LA CA
- Original Message
From: Jim Walton jimwalt...@gmail.com
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:56:05 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
Thanks, Kirsten. It looks pretty good, so in the meantime I'll do it that way.
You said it's
@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census information
Thanks, Kirsten. It looks pretty good, so in the meantime I'll do
it that way.
You said it's extreme, but consider that a census is a document
with 50 volumes, each volume has hundreds of chapters. Even the
1790 census would have at least 13
I record census information as part of residency then I can do a
chronology showing residence to compare people I think may be related.
I then use the source writer for the census information and supplement
it in the notes with my comments, such as children, etc. that clarify
the numbers a little
@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census information
I record census information as part of residency then I can do a
chronology showing residence to compare people I think may be related.
I then use the source writer for the census information and supplement
it in the notes with my
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census information
I record census information as part of residency then I can do a
chronology showing residence to compare people I think may be related.
I then use the source writer for the census information and supplement
it in the notes with my comments, such as children
Cathy Vallevieni wrote
Is it appropriate to just enter in the ID of Person field just the
head of household's name (i.e. John Smith Family) for all citations of
that Census rather than each individual's name when assigning that
Census to each family member listed on the Census?
Well, that's
If I understand it correctly when citing a Census, the citation
includes the name of the person (ID of Person in Legacy) and that
means each family member's name would be listed separately for the
source assigned to them. Since each different citation shows up as a
separate source in the
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Source Citation Question
If I understand it correctly when citing a Census, the citation
includes the name of the person (ID of Person in Legacy) and that
means each family member's name would be listed separately for the
source assigned
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:59 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Source Citation Question
If I understand it correctly when citing a Census, the citation
includes the name of the person (ID of Person in Legacy) and that
means each family member's name
Cathy,
I cite the head of household: Joel F. DeBoard household.
The exception is when it is someone of a different surname, boarding in the
household, or a nephew in the household, etc. In which case, I cite it as
Joel F. DeBoard household, for Michael Smith, boarder.
Janis Walker Gilmore
On
Of Cathy Vallevieni
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:59 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Source Citation Question
If I understand it correctly when citing a Census, the citation
includes the name of the person (ID of Person in Legacy) and that
means each family
Cathy, That's what I do... enter head of household name, as it appears
(sometimes it's last name first).
--Paula
--- On Thu, 6/25/09, Cathy Vallevieni cathyv...@cox.net wrote:
From: Cathy Vallevieni cathyv...@cox.net
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Source Citation Question
To: LegacyUserGroup
Cathy, In this situation, I still use the head of household in the citation.
However, I add he was a boarder in Joel DeBoard's house in the Notes on
Michael Smith's census Event. I like the way that looks on the reports I run.
So maybe that is just personal preference.
--Paula
--- On
Thank you all who responded. Now I feel comfortable entering just
the household name and having one citation for the Census without
being concerned about breaking some citation rule.
Cathy Vallevieni
Orange County, CA
At 11:52 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:
Cathy, In this situation, I still use
I'd go along with this - it's easy to see from the individual screen
just what you do know about a person. As nearly everyone I add is long
dead, their 'pattern of migration' be it from one village to another or
one country to another is plain to see.
Elizabeth
John Roose wrote:
I put census
Hello, great Legacy User's Group Helpers,
Before I learned that there was a Census Event, I put all occurrences in the
Census as Residence Events. Is there a significant difference between using
the Census Event vs the Residence Event?
Thanks for your input.
Dave
Legacy
I used to do it that way too, and only changed because I saw it done the
other way by some-one more experienced. Does that make it right? Don't
know. I would hardly call a visitor from the census-taker 'an event'.
That's like notating every time the phone rings. Even I am not that
organized.
I take a Census Event - and make it both a Residence EVent and (if
possible) an occupation event. I then make the Census Event
private. Reports seem a lot friendlier showing where someone
lived and what they did rather than all of that other data that comes
with a census. I use the Census as a
I follow Geoff's method and put all the Census info in the Event,
even for other members of the household, because I like to see the
trend of the family (who lived with them, who was no longer living
with them--I even note if it appears a child died because they
dropped off the census at a
Dave -
I put census info into an event labelled Residence. I then put Census in
the description. I also use other sources for residence. I use Tax Lists,
sometimes Church Record [but I don't duplicate baptism], etc. I like to
see the list of residence and dates in an easily (by me) spotted
Ron F. wrote:
one of the considerations which I made when deciding how to deal with
census. What is the source for a census? In Britain, The government? It
wasn't their information, they only collected it. without going through all
the administrative layers we end up with the householder who
Ron, I have copied your comments from the Source Subsequent Citation thread,
but I have deleted most of your comments and the post to which you responded
because I hope we can discuss the example of the census and whether or not
it is an event or a source.
While I record this as an event, the
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: [LegacyUG] Census: Event
*
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of music-line
Sent: 07 November 2008 10:05
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
Hi everyone,
It will be much later
: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
In regards to making multiple changes in Source Detail, (an earlier
concern on this thread) this is possible through Search and Replace. The
fields there are broken down in a fair bit of detail so it should be
manageable regardless of where
the clipboard (and not
edited after)?
Ward
- Original Message - From: JLB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
In regards to making multiple changes
Of Ward
Walker
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 11:24 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
I wonder about this. As discussed a few months ago, the system for printing
the initial citation and then subsequent (briefer
? Or will it somehow keep track
of source details that were copied/placed via the clipboard (and not
edited after)?
Ward
- Original Message - From: JLB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census records
Hi everyone,
It will be much later on in the weekend before I am able to read the replies
to this, but hear goes (again). I have really tried to look back in the
archives to read the long thread on 'lumping and splitting' but it is no
longer there.
When Legacy 7 was released with the new
/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:04:32 +
Hi everyone,
It will be much later on in the weekend before I am able to read the replies
the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson
- Original Message -
From: music-line [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:04 AM
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
Hi everyone,
It will be much
Well said. I came to the same conclusion some time ago. Lumping makes
sense in theory but the editing problem you cite makes it much more
difficult in practice.
I think that there are other reasons for splitting as well but it was
fixing mistakes or making additons in souce detail that convinced
That was the whole reason I previously advocated having identical citation
details entered only once, and then creating multiple links to different
people (instead of having to create multiple entries of the same detail each
time it is needed). Not only would the links leave less room for error
will
that product be impacted by either lumping or splitting?
Kirsten
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
music-line
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:05 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v
I don't lump census sources either. I have over 26,000 people in my data base,
and hundreds, perhaps thousands of census records. I don't find the length of
the list to be unmanageable.
For U.S. and Canada census records, I start with an event: Event=census,
date=year of census, place=city,
I think the trick to have a lot of sources is how you organize them. This
is what I do...
Census - GA - McDuffie Co - 1880
Census - GA - Richmond Co - 1850
Census - LA - Caddo Parrish - 1860
Census - MS - Lamar Co - 1910
Census - MS - Lamar Co - 1920
All the censuses will be listed together
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
Hi everyone,
It will be much later on in the weekend before I am able to read the replies
to this, but hear goes (again). I have really tried to look back in the
archives to read the long
music-line wrote
Example: If I lump together all my Staffordshire census details for
1901, I
may have 10 different addresses. Let's say, there are 5 people living
at each address - that's 50 people (some which may have duplicate
names).
Yikes, the thought of having a separate Master Source
I have also use the same method as Jenny. I now wish to convert all these to
use the new SourseWriter template. Should I wait until the new conversion
tool that is to come or just how should I go about it?
Susan
Yikes, the thought of having a separate Master Source for every
household for
My sources are much like Michele's - except I put the State FIRST (Georgia
US Census - 1880 - McDuffie Co) so that - when I look at my sources -
everything from Georgia will be together (Marriage records would be Georgia
- Marriage). Works for me!
Keith
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM,
I am waiting - too many problems with the mixed BASIC and SOURCEWRITER
sources when it comes to reports. Once that is resolved - I may switch.
But my system does what sources should do -- gives anyone looking at them
all they need to see what I saw to prove a fact. What more do you need???
And -
PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census records: Master Source v. Detail Source
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 07:21:15 +1100
I have also use the same method as Jenny. I now wish to convert all these to
use the new SourseWriter template. Should I wait until the new
When selecting the 1870 federal census the series is pre-entered as M593.
Isn't Minnesota on T132?
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support:
Rasmussen
Millennia Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
=
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randolph
Clark
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:45 AM
To: legacyusergroup
Subject: [LegacyUG] census
When selecting the 1870
Hi everyone,
Just interested to see what people do here. What information would people
put in the 'published date' section of the sourcewriter template if the
information is found online at ancestry.com?
1851? It is the 1851 census of England, so is there any point in putting it
twice?
2005?
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: [LegacyUG] Census Information: How to record
music-line wrote
Just interested to see what people do here. What information would
people put in the 'published date' section of the sourcewriter template
if the information is found online at ancestry.com?
1851? It is the 1851 census of England, so is there any point in
putting it twice?
ronald ferguson wrote
There is no way I would put in all that stuff from Ancestry!!
As you will see elsewhere in this thread, I do! (For the reasons I have
given.)
Ancestry is the repository and not the source.
I agree with you, but Ancestry is publishing the Census and handy
hint for
The original source is National Archives HO107 (HO stands for Home Office)
and the class is England and Wales Census for 1851 (not just England). There
are many organisations who have transcribed the images, but the original
image production was done by the National Archives in the days when it
PROTECTED]
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of music-line
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 3:58 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Census Information: How to record 'published date
, Jenny M Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jenny M Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census Information: How to record 'published date' in
the the Master Source definition of Sourcewriter.
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 5:05 AM
RICHARD SCHULTHIES wrote
Redundancy is not evil. The disk space used by the 4 characters is made
up for by the 'fact' it is appearing somewhere in whichever report you
use, without retyping. In the past, I used abbreviations to save disk
space usage, I learned and changed my ways.
Richard,
My bad. I misread the question to being about avoiding multiple inputting of
data.
Rich in LA CA
--- On Tue, 9/30/08, Jenny M Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jenny M Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census Information: How to record 'published date' in
the the Master
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census Information: How to record 'published date'
in the the Master Source definition of Sourcewriter.
My bad. I misread the question to being about avoiding multiple inputting of
data.
Rich in LA CA
--- On Tue, 9/30/08, Jenny M Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From
I have one instance of a family appearing twice in the same county census -
a large family, apparently the result of a move.
I also have an instance of a woman appearing with her parents and
siblings,under her maiden name, although she was a couple of years into her
_second_ marriage. This was
- Original Message -
From: Jenny M Benson
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census BMD Name changes
Colin Liddell wrote
My question is; how do I handle the different spellings of his surname?
Do I make
Colin Liddell wrote
My question is; how do I handle the different spellings of his surname?
Do I make the assumption that the birth spelling is correct and just
use that in all instances or should I put in the Marriage notes the
spelling used there and in the Birth notes the spelling used
Colin Liddell wrote
My father was Baptised Archibald George but was known all his life as
George, would you classify that as an AKA?
No, as it its one of his officially given names I would enter it as a
quoted name (Archibald George George in the firstname field) and use
George in Reports.
- Original Message -
From: Jenny M Benson
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census BMD Name changes
Colin Liddell wrote
My father was Baptised Archibald George but was known all his life as
George
/fergys/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:21:07 +0100
Thanks for the reply Kirsten
AM
To: Legacy User Group
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census BMD Name changes
Hi Kirsten,
Thank you for your thoughts, I have now put the additonal names in as AKAs
and used the birth registration spelling on his main page.
I have also left the notes in the Birth and Marriage Notes to clarify.
I
Glenn Woodman wrote:
Ron,
I tried visiting your Website at fergys.co (as you listed). I get a
message returned unable to located that page. I then tried
www.fergys.com, and I get another message saying that that domain is
available for purchase. Is there a typo in your post?
Re-read
/
_
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 08:52:37 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
Ron,
I tried visiting your Website at fergys.co (as you listed). I get a
message returned unable
Mike Fry wrote:
Re-read the original message. In fact look at the bottom of any of Rons'
messages. You'll see that he's in the UK therefore you need *.co.uk*
Thanks, Mike. I should have been able to see that.
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Mike Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn Woodman
@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
David,
I cannot understand that as the address below is fine (just checked it) Note
it is not .com. Actually it would be better with a slash at the end (have
now put that in) but that should
Hi
Just to clarify what I meant by unstructured address.
In TMG each part of the address has a name e.g. village, city or county and
you can have different names for different parts of the address depending on
the country you are dealing with. In Legacy you can put anything anywhere
and you
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2008 6:57:45 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the question!
Re: TMG witnesses on a census. I don't know the purpose in other countries,
but in the US this decennial enumeration
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ronald
ferguson
Sent: 04 July 2008 21:07
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
David,
Re Census Sources. You are just about right, Master Sources by Country but
even the year is in the Detail
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenny M
Benson
Sent: 04 July 2008 23:22
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
Mary Young wrote
I'm an extreme splitter.
I rarely use Source Detail, and never the same Detail to more than one
Mary Young wrote
it's no more difficult to access 500 or 5,000 Sources than 220 - if
they're sensibly named.
Of course it's not - perhaps a fraction more time-consuming - but what a
waste of resources! The program needs more memory to handle the bulk,
the hard disk needs more space to
] On Behalf Of Mary Young
Sent: 04 July 2008 20:28
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
IMHO (unless you intend academic publishing) none of this really
matters. As long as you are consistent and you get the output
Bruce McArthur wrote
In TMG each part of the address has a name e.g. village, city or county
and you can have different names for different parts of the address
depending on the country you are dealing with. In Legacy you can put
anything anywhere and you could end up with a place being at
: 05 July 2008 04:08
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
On 7/4/08, Jenny M Benson wrote:
So if you found a publication that mentioned 2 of your relatives on page
6,
one on page 150 and 3 on page 175 would you
www.polesworthabbey.co.uk
*
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenny M
Benson
Sent: 05 July 2008 09:39
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census
*
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mary Young
Sent: 04 July 2008 22:30
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
On 7/4/08, Elizabeth Richardson
David wrote:
Oh no, Mary. Does this mean you are deserting the 'extreme splitters club'.
Only me and Ward Walker left!! :-)
I only said might ! (offered as a sop to the extreme lumpers).
Mary
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived
Jenny
I don't worry about resources that is what modern computers are for.
Reports are saved to pdf and emailed. Chacun a son gout.
I guess we have to agree to differ.
Mary
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
David wrote:
The real question was if someone asked me where it was, how would I search
my Legacy database? I don't think I can search sources for 'The Lowe' in
Legacy.
Yes, you can! But there are 10 fields in Sources, so it can be tedious.
Don't use the Magnifying Glass icon search.
In the
: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the question!
Re: TMG witnesses on a census. I don't know the purpose in other countries,
but in the US this decennial enumeration is (supposedly) done for the
purpose of creating voting districts. A census doesn't create witnesses
Of Mary Young
Sent: 05 July 2008 11:38
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
David wrote:
The real question was if someone asked me where it was, how would I
search
my Legacy database? I don't think I can search
Maybe it's easier in v.7 (or do you have that already?)
Mary
On 7/5/08, music-line [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found it Mary, so thanks for that, but as you say, it is a bit tedious.
To find something in a Detail Source, I eventually found it by searching
Citation-Text.
Legacy User Group
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
Maybe it's easier in v.7 (or do you have that already?)
Mary
On 7/5/08, music-line [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found it Mary, so thanks for that, but as you say, it is a bit tedious
Another reason for not splitting is to avoid errors. If you consider each
one as separate, there is a chance that mistakes can enter into the data.
Also, if you wish to change the description of a source, you only have to
change it in one place rather than in each record. In the UK, the Public
curious.)
Janis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce
McArthur
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:20 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
Hi
This is my first
: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:44 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
Hi Mary,
I really want to be able to search legacy for a census (exact location)
and
to get a census (exact location) as a result and not a person.
Best wishes and thanks for your
@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 7:29 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Census - To split or not to split, that is the
question!
I am a splitter, although I split less with the new Source Writer. I am
truly curious as to why anyone cares how many Master Sources they have? I
frequently see
1 - 100 of 278 matches
Mail list logo
