Organising your Research
Joe Bloggs
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?
Lesley Robertson
"Joe Bloggs" <a...@abc.com> wrote in message
news:447ad...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> 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
Henning Boettcher
"Joe Bloggs" <a...@abc.com> schrieb
> 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.
--
Kind regards
Henning Boettcher
Switzerland
http://homepage.sunrise.ch/homepage/boettche/
(universally applicable hints/German language only/ last review:
Aug. 2005)
Steve Hayes
>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.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Henning Boettcher
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> schrieb> ...... ......
> 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?
Hugh Watkins
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 :-)
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@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?
>
go back to worldconnect.rootsweb,com and dopwnload another full copy of
his gedcom (needs password)
Hugh W
David J Grimshaw
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.
Christopher Jahn
news:4e3if5F...@individual.net:
>
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@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.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
My oh my! Life sure is easier with my new Salad Shooter (R) !
cecilia
>[...]As for what I use when at repositories this is a Hard bound 2B8 lined
>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
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.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@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).
Steve Hayes
wrote:
If WorldConnect hasn't gone bankrupt and closed its site, or hasn't deleted
the documents.
Put not your trust in web servers. Your records can be deleted at any time
with the press of a key.
Hugh Watkins
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:17:14 +0000, Hugh Watkins <hugh.w...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Henning Boettcher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@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?
>>>
>>
>>go back to worldconnect.rootsweb,com and dopwnload another full copy of
>>his gedcom (needs password)
>
>
> If WorldConnect hasn't gone bankrupt and closed its site, or hasn't deleted
> the documents.
>
> 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
Hugh W
Steve Hayes
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.
Dave Hinz
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 22:04:56 +0000, Hugh Watkins <hugh.w...@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.
the_ver...@comcast.net
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.
--
The Verminator
Dave Hinz
>
> 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.
Dave Hinz
Steve Hayes
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.
Hugh Watkins
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?
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
> On 1 Jun 2006 15:59:46 GMT, Dave Hinz <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:49:58 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 May 2006 22:04:56 +0000, Hugh Watkins <hugh.w...@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.
because you could die unexpectedly in a car crash
like for example the late Marjorie Moore, FSG
http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2006/02/in_memoriam_mar.html
Hugh W