Can anybody advice me on best practice for organising your reseach? At present, I am researching all brances of my family tree (both maternal and paternal) until I get back as far as I can go on each branch and I am then going to start looking more in-depth into each person within the branches - I am just trying to get as many names as possible.
How should I organise my research? I am using the computer software Family Tree Maker 2005 to develop my tree but am thinking along the below lines:-
1.) Buying a large telephone book listed A-Z whereby I can put entries in it for each individual in my tree. I can then list what research I have on that person or possible matches for that person underneath their names in the book. Any suggestions or comments on this?
2.) Folders - I have a few copies of census records and birth certificates. Would it just be best to set up a folder with loads of plastic wallets in, one for each person to pop all the "evidence" I have for them?
> Can anybody advice me on best practice for organising your reseach? At > present, I am researching all brances of my family tree (both maternal and > paternal) until I get back as far as I can go on each branch and I am then > going to start looking more in-depth into each person within the > branches - I am just trying to get as many names as possible.
> How should I organise my research? I am using the computer software Family > Tree Maker 2005 to develop my tree but am thinking along the below lines:-
> 1.) Buying a large telephone book listed A-Z whereby I can put entries in > it for each individual in my tree. I can then list what research I have on > that person or possible matches for that person underneath their names in > the book. Any suggestions or comments on this?
I use the Notes section of FTM to do that. Keeps everything together.
> 2.) Folders - I have a few copies of census records and birth > certificates. Would it just be best to set up a folder with loads of > plastic wallets in, one for each person to pop all the "evidence" I have > for them?
I have mine arranged by generation, with each piece in its own plastic folder. I also have them entered into a MS Works database so that I can search on all sorts of things (eg cause of death, year, parent) - but then I'm doing a 1-place study. Lesley Robertson
> Would it just be best to set up a folder with loads of plastic wallets in, > one for each person to pop all the "evidence" I have for them?
I wouldn't do that. Perhaps you get a letter from a distant relative. In this letter he mentions some relatives of yours and gives a lot of informations about your relatives.
In the folder of what person would you keep this letter?
I have many folders. One for letters, one for documents, one for photographs, one for pieces of remembrance and so on. Additionally I have many lists on my harddisk describing the contents of the folders piece by piece. Perhaps it is a similar manner to the manner Lesley Robertson describes in her Posting.
If you are able to understand German text read "Sammlungen des Genealogen, Ordnungsgesichtspunkte" on my homepage. You will be astonished what things a researcher can collect.
On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:49:47 +0100, "Joe Bloggs" <a...@abc.com> wrote: >Can anybody advice me on best practice for organising your reseach? At >present, I am researching all brances of my family tree (both maternal and >paternal) until I get back as far as I can go on each branch and I am then >going to start looking more in-depth into each person within the branches - >I am just trying to get as many names as possible.
>How should I organise my research? I am using the computer software Family >Tree Maker 2005 to develop my tree but am thinking along the below lines:-
>1.) Buying a large telephone book listed A-Z whereby I can put entries in it >for each individual in my tree. I can then list what research I have on that >person or possible matches for that person underneath their names in the >book. Any suggestions or comments on this?
Let the computer do the work -- store all that stuff on your computer.
>2.) Folders - I have a few copies of census records and birth certificates. >Would it just be best to set up a folder with loads of plastic wallets in, >one for each person to pop all the "evidence" I have for them?
The problem is that crnsus records, adn others too, refer to more than one person. One was is to have each document a number, file them in numerical order, and then let the computer index them.
Joe Bloggs wrote: > Can anybody advice me on best practice for organising your reseach? At > present, I am researching all brances of my family tree (both maternal and > paternal) until I get back as far as I can go on each branch and I am then > going to start looking more in-depth into each person within the branches - > I am just trying to get as many names as possible.
> How should I organise my research? I am using the computer software Family > Tree Maker 2005 to develop my tree but am thinking along the below lines:-
> 1.) Buying a large telephone book listed A-Z whereby I can put entries in it > for each individual in my tree. I can then list what research I have on that > person or possible matches for that person underneath their names in the > book. Any suggestions or comments on this?
> 2.) Folders - I have a few copies of census records and birth certificates. > Would it just be best to set up a folder with loads of plastic wallets in, > one for each person to pop all the "evidence" I have for them?
> Any other suggestions?
1) read the help files of FTM 2005 and learn to use the research notes function
2) update to FTM 2006 for better editing of sources
3) upload to wc.rootsweb.com
easier to view your datbas a whole
4) generate and print out ancestor trees and ahnentafel but lotta ink and paper :-)
Joe Bloggs wrote: > Can anybody advice me on best practice for organising your reseach? At > present, I am researching all brances of my family tree (both maternal and > paternal) until I get back as far as I can go on each branch and I am then > going to start looking more in-depth into each person within the branches - > I am just trying to get as many names as possible.
> How should I organise my research? I am using the computer software Family > Tree Maker 2005 to develop my tree but am thinking along the below lines:-
> 1.) Buying a large telephone book listed A-Z whereby I can put entries in it > for each individual in my tree. I can then list what research I have on that > person or possible matches for that person underneath their names in the > book. Any suggestions or comments on this?
> 2.) Folders - I have a few copies of census records and birth certificates. > Would it just be best to set up a folder with loads of plastic wallets in, > one for each person to pop all the "evidence" I have for them?
> Any other suggestions?
Hi Joe, Steve Hayes and Hugh Watkins have given you good advice please do heed it. I would recommend that you back your data up onto either CD, DVD or as Hugh Watkins pointed out World connect. As for what I use when at repositories this is a Hard bound 2B8 lined book I always use pencil and due to the nature of my research I use one Book for my One Name Study and one for each leg of my own ancestry. Each book in Named on the front and spine, this way when working on one project all I have to do is grab the book concerned and off to the repository and record what I find and I treat all my research the same, record any and every thing concerning the family surname you just never know when you will go ah ha got you at last. With the surname Bloggs it may pay to record all the Bloggs's you find and treat it like a One Name Study, remember that your ancestors may or may not have been able to read or write and it was the clerk in the position of Authority that recorded the surname as he / she thought it ought to be spelt. Hope this has been of some help. David.
> "Steve Hayes" <hayesm...@hotmail.com> schrieb >> On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:49:47 +0100, "Joe Bloggs" <a...@abc.com> > wrote:
>> >Can anybody advice me >> ...... ...... >> Let the computer do the work -- store all that stuff on your > computer.
> And what can he do if his harddisk has gone and he has deleted or > lost all his original documents?
> Or what should his children do when they are trying years to read > his stored stuff 20-40 years later?
The entire point of digital archiving is lossless translation and copying. Everytime digital formats are updated, simply import your data into the new format and save the copy. Unlike analogue copying, there is no loss of quality when you copy the files.
This is the biggest non-issue since "Y2K". You guys sound like Ed Conrad.
>[...]As for what I use when at repositories this is a Hard bound 2B8 lined >book I always use pencil and due to the nature of my research I use one >Book for my One Name Study and one for each leg of my own ancestry. >Each book in Named on the front and spine, this way when working on one >project all I have to do is grab the book concerned and off to the >repository and record what I find [...]
I use a similar book (A4 size) for all I do (too many lines converged on London for me to consider taking that many books when I go there). There is a contents list by page number on the back sheet - when the book is full, I sort the contents list and redo by family. One can then construct a cumulative index across the completed books.
On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:42:55 +0200, "Henning Boettcher" <boettc...@smile.ch> wrote:
>"Steve Hayes" <hayesm...@hotmail.com> schrieb >> On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:49:47 +0100, "Joe Bloggs" <a...@abc.com> >wrote:
>> >Can anybody advice me >> ...... ...... >> Let the computer do the work -- store all that stuff on your >computer.
>And what can he do if his harddisk has gone and he has deleted or >lost all his original documents?
I suppose he could store photocopies in another location. But if the original documents have gone, there's not much point in organising them, though in cases where it has happened, such as with Irish records in th22, or English Weest Country ones 20 years later, genealogists have preserved indexes and tried to use them to reconstruct the contents of the original documents, and milked them forwhatever they can get.
>Or what should his children do when they are trying years to read >his stored stuff 20-40 years later?
Keep a printed copy of the index with the documents themselves (if they've survived, of course).
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:49:58 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2006 22:04:56 +0000, Hugh Watkins <hugh.watk...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>Steve Hayes wrote: >>> Put not your trust in web servers. Your records can be deleted at any time >>> with the press of a key.
>>at the moment the group employs more people than google and has lotta >>cash subscribers
> They can still delete all your stuff at the push of a button.
That's why the LDS is a much safer repository of important data. They're doing this for reasons more important to them than money. some dot-com can and will just go away someday. If you're relying on that for data preservation, it's just a matter of time before you get let down.
Dave Hinz wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:49:58 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 31 May 2006 22:04:56 +0000, Hugh Watkins <hugh.watk...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
> >>Steve Hayes wrote: > >>> Put not your trust in web servers. Your records can be deleted at any time > >>> with the press of a key.
> >>at the moment the group employs more people than google and has lotta > >>cash subscribers
> > They can still delete all your stuff at the push of a button.
> That's why the LDS is a much safer repository of important data. > They're doing this for reasons more important to them than money. > some dot-com can and will just go away someday. If you're relying on > that for data preservation, it's just a matter of time before you get > let down.
I fail to see the difference. The LDS can just as easily remove their data from public use and limit access to church members at their FHCs.
On 1 Jun 2006 09:10:36 -0700, the_vermina...@comcast.net <the_vermina...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote: >> That's why the LDS is a much safer repository of important data. >> They're doing this for reasons more important to them than money. >> some dot-com can and will just go away someday. If you're relying on >> that for data preservation, it's just a matter of time before you get >> let down. > I fail to see the difference. The LDS can just as easily remove their > data from public use and limit access to church members at their FHCs.
Can? I suppose. Likely? I doubt it. I trust them more than I trust some dotcom, is my point. Maybe someone here who is a member or who knows more about them can explain why it's not a risk.
Note that I'm not saying that's the only place to put your data. Local historical societies, libraries... I'm just saying that they're committed to long-term preservation and, apparently, access to records of this nature. Everyone who gets into genealogy will eventually hear about them, and will check to see if the info they seek is there. If you put your info there, unless something changes drastically, it'll be available for future generations to find in the place where they'd expect to find it.
>On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:49:58 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 31 May 2006 22:04:56 +0000, Hugh Watkins <hugh.watk...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>>Steve Hayes wrote: >>>> Put not your trust in web servers. Your records can be deleted at any time >>>> with the press of a key.
>>>at the moment the group employs more people than google and has lotta >>>cash subscribers
>> They can still delete all your stuff at the push of a button.
>That's why the LDS is a much safer repository of important data. >They're doing this for reasons more important to them than money. >some dot-com can and will just go away someday. If you're relying on >that for data preservation, it's just a matter of time before you get >let down.
And there I agree, where it comes to preserving data for future generations. I'm not sure how it helps to organise it in the here and now, though.
>>>>Put not your trust in web servers. Your records can be deleted at any time >>>>with the press of a key.
>>>at the moment the group employs more people than google and has lotta >>>cash subscribers
>>They can still delete all your stuff at the push of a button.
> That's why the LDS is a much safer repository of important data. > They're doing this for reasons more important to them than money. > some dot-com can and will just go away someday. If you're relying on > that for data preservation, it's just a matter of time before you get > let down.
yes I am considering that too
but you have to manually privatize your file
and what happens if you want to replace it or delete it from familysearch?
>>>>>Put not your trust in web servers. Your records can be deleted at any time >>>>>with the press of a key.
>>>>at the moment the group employs more people than google and has lotta >>>>cash subscribers
>>>They can still delete all your stuff at the push of a button.
>>That's why the LDS is a much safer repository of important data. >>They're doing this for reasons more important to them than money. >>some dot-com can and will just go away someday. If you're relying on >>that for data preservation, it's just a matter of time before you get >>let down.
> And there I agree, where it comes to preserving data for future generations. > I'm not sure how it helps to organise it in the here and now, though.
