What's the best way to get started in genealogy?
Dave
best to get started on my family genealogy? Any help would be
appreciated.
Thanks,
David
crib...@gmail.com
and Ancestry.com.
Footnote is great too.
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GENCMP-...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
--
Bill Cribbs
GenealogyBuff.com
http://www.genealogybuff.com
Fax: 1-832-553-2796
Hugh Watkins
read some books and google for genealogy FAQ
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=genealogy+FAQ&btnG=Google+Search
or
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=genealogy+newbies&btnG=Search
for UK
http://www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History
by ROY STOCKDILL
Hugh W
singhals
"Best" is very personal, so this is a lot like asking, what
car is best or which ice cream flavor is best.
PAF http;//www.familysearch.org under the tab order
products, is a free dowonload
Legacy basic is also free http://www.legacyfamilytree.com
Both are good programs that print standard genealogy reports
(including books) with a minor amouont of effort. Both
allow you more choices than is good for you (or me) (g).
Which website is "best" is even more personal. An excellent
website for English genealogy won't do you a bit of good if
your family is Swiss or Brazilian.
First check with your local public library and see what
they've got available to you at no charge -- most have
either Ancestry.com or HeritageQuest these days. Then, try
www.rootsweb.ancestry.com to see what they've got free that
can help you -- Worldconnect maybe? various death indexes,
including the Social Security Death Index? Then, back to
familysearch and the SEARCH tab. Try a GOOGLE for the
family name if it's rare or for a specific person (yourself,
your grandfather?). Whatever you find -- trust it
not-too-far; many times it is absolutely correct, but many
times it isn't.
But, the general advice to newbies is -- start with YOU,
write down your birth date and where, then take a different
sheet of paper and write down the same info about your
parents. The bricks of genealogy are WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE --
once you've got those, you want to wonder WHY sometimes.
Both the mentioned programs walk you through the recording
steps and just recording it tends to organize it.
Welcome to the obsession.
Cheryl
Ian Goddard
http://www.genealogy-britain.org.uk is intended for the UK but there
should be some generally useful information in there.
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
Steve Hayes
The first is a matter of personal preference, and the second depends on where
your ancestors lived.
Try the free programs, like Legacy and PAF first.
Before you start looking at web sites, talk to your relatives, enter what they
tell you in your chosen program, and then start checking it out from other
sources.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Jack
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:o4sb64119le0166of...@4ax.com...
After you have tested, order the best from:
http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/?Click=1192
The DeLuxe version can be taken into action into free version just by
enterin your personal details (get it by order, they send email).
DeLuxe-version have Mapping and Wall-charting capabilies and many many more
feature.
Just, If your hobby is more permanent (more than two weeks ;).
Jeff
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:58:58 -0700 (PDT), Dave <DThomp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to know, which computer software and websites are the
>> best to get started on my family genealogy? Any help would be
>> appreciated.
>>
> their Family Hisotry Library, it is free and you do NOT need to be a
> Mormon to use it,
Also worth mentioning that they will NOT try to convert you.
D. Stussy
news:3ce44a84-e970-4f9f...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> I would like to know, which computer software and websites are the
> best to get started on my family genealogy? Any help would be
> appreciated.
Software is up to you. However, at a minimum, it should support:
- Multiple sources for each fact.
- Multiple facts for each event (e.g. 2 birthdates, etc.)
Why multiple facts? Sources may not agree. I use "Brother's Keeper"
version 6. Other replies will recommend other software packages.
As for where to start, I suggest NO web site. First, enter what you know
and what you can get first-hand from your living relatives and documents in
your and their possession. Only then are you ready for a web site to go
further.
When starting your Internet search, search for yourself first. You may
discover that a relative you didn't know or didn't contact has already done
some of the work.
Pascal
"D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org> a écrit :
> "Dave" <DThomp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ce44a84-e970-4f9f...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > I would like to know, which computer software and websites are the
> > best to get started on my family genealogy? Any help would be
> > appreciated.
>
> Software is up to you. However, at a minimum, it should support:
>
> - Multiple sources for each fact.
> - Multiple facts for each event (e.g. 2 birthdates, etc.)
Are you sure the gedcom authorize this ? I know it's possible to use
the same tag again, but use 2 or more dates on the same tag, I am not
sure.
>
> Why multiple facts? Sources may not agree. I use "Brother's Keeper"
> version 6. Other replies will recommend other software packages.
The most important is at least a good gedcom support, so it's possible
to change the software easily.
Pascal
Nigel Bufton
"Pascal" <pasc...@parois.net> wrote in message
news:20080704110...@parois.net...
Pascal
----------------------------------------------
Yes, you can have multiple records for the same event type (such as BIRTh).
The standard states: "The occurrence of equal level numbers and equal tags
within the same context imply that multiple opinions or multiple values of
the data exist. The significance of the order in these cases is interpreted
as the submitter's preference. The most preferred value being the first with
the least preferred data listed in subsequent lines by order decreasing
preference. For example, a researcher who discovers conflicting evidence
about a person's birth event would list the most
credible information first and the least credible or preferred items last."
Nigel
Nigel Bufton
Pascal
----------------------------------------------
Pascal
"Nigel Bufton" <ni...@bufton.org> a écrit :
> Yes, you can have multiple records for the same event type (such as
> BIRTh). The standard states: "The occurrence of equal level numbers
> and equal tags within the same context imply that multiple opinions
> or multiple values of the data exist.
Ok,
I thougt you were talking about something like this:
1 BIRTH
2 DATE ...
2 DATE ...
instead of:
1 BIRTH
2 DATE ...
1 BIRTH
2 DATE ...
> The significance of the order
> in these cases is interpreted as the submitter's preference.
Hum, I never take care about the order...
Pascal
D. Stussy
news:486e0a8d$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> ...
> Yes, you can have multiple records for the same event type (such as
BIRTh).
> The standard states: "The occurrence of equal level numbers and equal tags
> within the same context imply that multiple opinions or multiple values of
> the data exist. The significance of the order in these cases is
interpreted
> as the submitter's preference. The most preferred value being the first
with
> the least preferred data listed in subsequent lines by order decreasing
> preference. For example, a researcher who discovers conflicting evidence
> about a person's birth event would list the most
> credible information first and the least credible or preferred items
last."
Some programs do NOT support that. (E.g. PAF will not accept multiple AFNs,
or at least it didn't). That's why I specifically stated it.
singhals
> "Pascal" <pasc...@parois.net> wrote in message
> news:20080704110...@parois.net...
> Le Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:03:05 -0700,
> "D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org> a écrit :
>
>
>>"Dave" <DThomp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3ce44a84-e970-4f9f...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I would like to know, which computer software and websites are the
>>>best to get started on my family genealogy? Any help would be
>>>appreciated.
>>
>>Software is up to you. However, at a minimum, it should support:
>>
>>- Multiple sources for each fact.
>
>
>>- Multiple facts for each event (e.g. 2 birthdates, etc.)
>
> Are you sure the gedcom authorize this ? I know it's possible to use
> the same tag again, but use 2 or more dates on the same tag, I am not
> sure.
>
>
>>Why multiple facts? Sources may not agree. I use "Brother's Keeper"
>>version 6. Other replies will recommend other software packages.
>
>
> The most important is at least a good gedcom support, so it's possible
> to change the software easily.
>
> Pascal
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> The significance of the order in these cases is interpreted
> as the submitter's preference. The most preferred value being the first with
> the least preferred data listed in subsequent lines by order decreasing
> preference. For example, a researcher who discovers conflicting evidence
> about a person's birth event would list the most
> credible information first and the least credible or preferred items last."
Maybe it's me, maybe it's a sex-linked failing, or maybe
it's a left-brain/right-brain issue ... but ...
I can't be the only one who puts their data into their genie
program AS THEY FIND IT. Which means, no telling whether
the first date entered will turn out to be the most reliable.
That being true, the host-program needs a way to flag the
"preferred" or "most reliable" date before the export
subroutine needs multiple slots for birthdate.
Which makes it just a tad baffling why the "least credible"
is an alternate for "preferred" -- surely the more-reliable
would be the preferred, in which event the export/import
subroutine should be given first?
This isn't the place for the philosophical discussions on
"most reliable", but you can't completely ignore the
possibility that "most reliable" does not _necessarily_ mean
most correct.
FTR: the internal pointers that attach themselves to any
chr$ of dataentry at the time of entry -- entering data as
you find it and then tagging the "most reliable" or
"preferred" version probably won't change those pointers ...
and practical experience suggests that the importing program
will ignore the Preferred flag in favor of the
first-encountered pointer...which gets you back to the first
date entered isn't necessarily the preferred or the most
reliable.
Cheryl
Wes Groleau
> Software is up to you. However, at a minimum, it should support:
>
> - Multiple sources for each fact.
> - Multiple facts for each event (e.g. 2 birthdates, etc.)
>
> Why multiple facts? Sources may not agree. I use "Brother's Keeper"
> version 6. Other replies will recommend other software packages.
Another reason for this: "Standard" GEDCOM only allows sources
at levels one and two. Thus, if a source is cited "legally" for
an event, you can't tell whether it is source for the date,
or for the place, or for the age, or ....
One way around it is two list all sources under the same event tag
and expect the reader to actually look at the source.
Another is to repeat the event for each source, putting in only the
attributes that source supports.
> When starting your Internet search, search for yourself first. You may
> discover that a relative you didn't know or didn't contact has already done
> some of the work.
ON THE OTHER HAND, if that person listed you, while you are living,
without your permission (and therefore without your knowledge), what
other genealogical "best practices" has he or she violated?
--
Wes Groleau
Nobody believes a theoretical analysis -- except the guy who did it.
Everybody believes an experimental analysis -- except the guy who
did it.
-- Unknown
Wes Groleau
> Nigel Bufton wrote:
>> submitter's preference. The most preferred value being the first with
>> the least preferred data listed in subsequent lines by order
>> decreasing preference. For example, a researcher who discovers
>> conflicting evidence about a person's birth event would list the most
>> credible information first and the least credible or preferred items
>> last."
>
> alternate for "preferred" -- surely the more-reliable would be the
> preferred, in which event the export/import subroutine should be given
> first?
That's what he said.
"most preferred value being the first"
and then
"most credible information first"
--
Wes Groleau
He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
-- Samuel Butler, 1612-1680
D. Stussy
news:iKMbk.1000$bn3.942@trnddc07...
> D. Stussy wrote:
> > Software is up to you. However, at a minimum, it should support:
> >
> > - Multiple sources for each fact.
> > - Multiple facts for each event (e.g. 2 birthdates, etc.)
> >
> > Why multiple facts? Sources may not agree. I use "Brother's Keeper"
> > version 6. Other replies will recommend other software packages.
>
> Another reason for this: "Standard" GEDCOM only allows sources
> at levels one and two. Thus, if a source is cited "legally" for
> an event, you can't tell whether it is source for the date,
> or for the place, or for the age, or ....
>
> One way around it is two list all sources under the same event tag
> and expect the reader to actually look at the source.
>
> Another is to repeat the event for each source, putting in only the
> attributes that source supports.
>
> > When starting your Internet search, search for yourself first. You may
> > discover that a relative you didn't know or didn't contact has already
done
> > some of the work.
>
> ON THE OTHER HAND, if that person listed you, while you are living,
> without your permission (and therefore without your knowledge), what
> other genealogical "best practices" has he or she violated?
Even if "best practices" have been violated, I don't see that as reason NOT
to use the information if available (and verifiable as correct), then ask
that it be removed for the obvious reason(s).
Ian Goddard
The dates are evidence. "Preferred", "most reliable", etc. are
interpretations with which the recipient of the export may or may not
agree and which are, in fact, pretty well valueless without the
reasoning which lead to them. So what you need to export is not some
tag to indicate your preference but a note to give your reasoned opinion
which the recipient may then evaluate for themselves.
cecilia
>[...] "Preferred", "most reliable", etc. are
>agree and which are, in fact, pretty well valueless without the
>reasoning which lead to them. So what you need to export is not some
>tag to indicate your preference but a note to give your reasoned opinion
>which the recipient may then evaluate for themselves.
I do this, but ... When I print the resuilts of my researches along
some branch or other over the past year, and circulate around the
family, I get complaints that they don't want the evidence, they want
a firm conclusion. <groan>
Ian Goddard
>
> I do this, but ... When I print the resuilts of my researches along
> some branch or other over the past year, and circulate around the
> family, I get complaints that they don't want the evidence, they want
> a firm conclusion. <groan>
Firm conclusion: you had parents, they had parents, they had parents ...
singhals
Precisely. Non-genealogists don't see the nuances or the
implication of the nuance. And -- as test of the hypothesis
-- how many of you read a paragraph-long footnote when
you're reading something you're barely interested in?
Remember my Mary Elizabeth ... I have 3 hard-core facts (a
marriage certificate, a gravemarker, and a census record)
and explaining those three takes two pages; explaining the
soft-facts I've also found is another 4 pages. *I* don't
even want to read all that every time. (g)
Cheryl
Andrei Douglas
> say 10 "birth" dates and "tag" the one that is the "official" one.
It is absolutely not necessary. As GEDCOM standard states, put that
"primary" event first, and that's it. No need to invent any special
tags for this. The same works, for example, for order of children -
oldest first... and nobody needs a special tag for this...
Bob Velke
f/fgeorge was not using the word "tag" above the way you do. He
merely means that events can be marked in TMG as "primary" (or not).
Regarding GEDCOM, however, how does one distinguish those cases where
you have a preference (when evidence conflicts) from those cases
where you don't? How do you distinguish those cases where you have
evidence of the order of children from those cases where you don't?
If you can't answer those questions, then the GEDCOM feature to which
you refer is worse than useless because it causes importing programs
to infer a intended sequence where no such evidence exists.
Bob Velke
Wholly Genes Software
Wes Groleau
> Precisely. Non-genealogists don't see the nuances or the implication of
> the nuance. And -- as test of the hypothesis -- how many of you read a
> paragraph-long footnote when you're reading something you're barely
> interested in?
If I'm "barely interested," I'm not reading it at all and therefore
don't know there's a footnote.
If I am actually interested, I get really irritated at the widespread
adoption of endnotes instead of footnotes right about the time that
software _finally_ became capable of doing footnotes.
Almost any non-fiction I read, I need two bookmarks for.
--
Wes Groleau
"Beware the barrenness of a busy life."
-- George Verwer
Wes Groleau
> Even if "best practices" have been violated, I don't see that as reason NOT
> to use the information if available (and verifiable as correct), then ask
> that it be removed for the obvious reason(s).
If verified, sure. But how many genealogists of that caliber
verify anything?
--
Wes Groleau
Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?
Patrick Texier
> Some programs do NOT support that. (E.g. PAF will not accept multiple AFNs,
> or at least it didn't). That's why I specifically stated it.
According Gedcom 5.5, an individual can have only one AFN :
INDIVIDUAL_RECORD: =
n @<XREF:INDI>@ INDI {1:1}
[...]
+1 AFN <ANCESTRAL_FILE_NUMBER> {0:1}
--
Patrick Texier
vim:syntax=mail:ai:ts=4:et:tw=72
Wes Groleau
> According Gedcom 5.5, an individual can have only one AFN :
>
> INDIVIDUAL_RECORD: =
> n @<XREF:INDI>@ INDI {1:1}
> [...]
> +1 AFN <ANCESTRAL_FILE_NUMBER> {0:1}
Since the AFN so often has multiple IDENTICAL (except for AFN)
records, I used to ignore that rule and put in all the ones I was
convinced were the same as my person.
Used to--now I've decided the AF is not worth my time.
I think my disillusionment began forming when I found a lineage
in it allowing me to trace my lineage through Beowulf and
others all the way back to Adam and Eve.
D. Stussy
news:g4scgv.3...@genindre.org...
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:21:42 -0700, D. Stussy wrote:
> > Some programs do NOT support that. (E.g. PAF will not accept multiple
AFNs,
> > or at least it didn't). That's why I specifically stated it.
>
> According Gedcom 5.5, an individual can have only one AFN :
>
> INDIVIDUAL_RECORD: =
> n @<XREF:INDI>@ INDI {1:1}
> [...]
> +1 AFN <ANCESTRAL_FILE_NUMBER> {0:1}
OK, but there are people listed in the LDS-AF that have up to 4 AFNs (I
don't think I've ever seen 5+). It's NOT a unique identifier (i.e 1-to-1).
Based on this, the specification is wrong. It fails to adequately model
usage of the datum.
It's no different than for a person to have multiple birthdates. They
weren't born multiple times.
Steve Hayes
>OK, but there are people listed in the LDS-AF that have up to 4 AFNs (I
>don't think I've ever seen 5+). It's NOT a unique identifier (i.e 1-to-1).
>Based on this, the specification is wrong. It fails to adequately model
>usage of the datum.
>
>It's no different than for a person to have multiple birthdates. They
>weren't born multiple times.
Perhaps that's why the use of AFNs seems to have been discontinued, and there
are no more submissions to the Ancestral File.
If a person had more than one, if would be an indication that there were
duplicate records of that person, and that they should be merged, provided
there were enough evidence that they were indeed one and the same.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
singhals
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:32:42 -0700, "D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>
>>OK, but there are people listed in the LDS-AF that have up to 4 AFNs (I
>>don't think I've ever seen 5+). It's NOT a unique identifier (i.e 1-to-1).
>>Based on this, the specification is wrong. It fails to adequately model
>>usage of the datum.
>>
>>It's no different than for a person to have multiple birthdates. They
>>weren't born multiple times.
>
>
> Perhaps that's why the use of AFNs seems to have been discontinued, and there
> are no more submissions to the Ancestral File.
>
> If a person had more than one, if would be an indication that there were
> duplicate records of that person, and that they should be merged, provided
> there were enough evidence that they were indeed one and the same.
The AFN was intended to identify the SUBMITTER, not the name
submitted. If you sent in 200 names at one time to the AF,
then all 200 would have a similar number (sorry, I don't
remember, if indeed I ever knew, the minute details). If
four different people sent in the same person, that person
would get four different AFNs; using the the EDIT feature in
AF, you could combine them, but then they got a different
AFN. Given the infrequency with which the AF was being
updated, it was almost a given that there would be multiple
entries of the same person.
Marmaduke Swearingen aka Marmaduke vanSwearingen or
Sweerengin et al. is in there 45 times and another 20 or so
times under his AmerInd alias.
CHeryl
Wes Groleau
> I used to talk to a guy, he is dead now, that spent countless hours
> going thru the Bible page by page doing a genealogy chart based on
> what it said. He gave it to me, I use it as a piece of interesting
> work, not anything proveable. But I do know that there are those that
> think it is absolutely the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt, so I keep
Yes, there are plenty of people who believe the Bible is true.
But very few of those would believe a genealogy that identifies
every generation connecting ME to Adam, or to anyone else mentioned
in the old testament, the last book of which was around 400 B.C.
--
Wes Groleau
Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana!
http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/
Wes Groleau
> The AFN was intended to identify the SUBMITTER, not the name submitted.
> If you sent in 200 names at one time to the AF, then all 200 would have
> a similar number (sorry, I don't remember, if indeed I ever knew, the
Sorry, Cheryl, not so. The AFN in a non-AF genealogy is intended to be
the INDI number in the AF. So where the AF has
0 INDI @ABCD-3G@
1 NAME My /Ancestor/
my GEDCOM could have
0 INDI @MA-Feb-1895@
1 AFN ABCD-3G
1 NAME My /Ancestor/
And though it's been ages since I took a GEDCOM excerpt from the AF, it
seems to me that the old DOS-based CDROMs did the conversion for you.
For evidence, go to
http://www.familysearch.org/ENG/Search/af/individual_record.asp?recid=26863983
click submitter details.
Go back and click an ancestor, and check that submitter.
D. Stussy
news:4sa6741h3n7v5isfl...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:32:42 -0700, "D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
wrote:
> >OK, but there are people listed in the LDS-AF that have up to 4 AFNs (I
> >don't think I've ever seen 5+). It's NOT a unique identifier (i.e
1-to-1).
> >Based on this, the specification is wrong. It fails to adequately model
> >usage of the datum.
> >
> >It's no different than for a person to have multiple birthdates. They
> >weren't born multiple times.
>
> Perhaps that's why the use of AFNs seems to have been discontinued, and
there
> are no more submissions to the Ancestral File.
>
> If a person had more than one, if would be an indication that there were
> duplicate records of that person, and that they should be merged, provided
> there were enough evidence that they were indeed one and the same.
Agreed, but merging doesn't happen. I've asked the LDS Church (at the FHL
in Los Angeles - their second largest temple) about correcting obvious
errors and they don't seem to care about correctness whatsoever. I've also
asked them about multiple AFNs - same response. In their "perfect world,"
it doesn't happen.
Where I've seen multiple AFNs for a person, it comes about usually by having
one each assigned to the person 1) as a child, 2) as a parent, and 3) as a
spouse - where in each submission the other information is missing (i.e. as
a child - without spouse or children; as a parent - without parents; and as
a spouse - without parents). Often, it come from not knowing that the
person is already listed - or the inability to reconcile a listing of the
same name as the same person.
In the real world, it does happen. Therefore, in my opinion, any program
that cannot handle this (or multiple copies of any event or identifier) is
defective and should not be used.
D. Stussy
wrote:
> >OK, but there are people listed in the LDS-AF that have up to 4 AFNs (I
> >don't think I've ever seen 5+). It's NOT a unique identifier (i.e
1-to-1).
> >Based on this, the specification is wrong. It fails to adequately model
> >usage of the datum.
> >
> >It's no different than for a person to have multiple birthdates. They
> >weren't born multiple times.
>
> Perhaps that's why the use of AFNs seems to have been discontinued, and
there
> are no more submissions to the Ancestral File.
>
> If a person had more than one, if would be an indication that there were
> duplicate records of that person, and that they should be merged, provided
> there were enough evidence that they were indeed one and the same.
Agreed, but merging doesn't happen. I've asked the LDS Church (at the FHL
D. Stussy
wrote:
> >OK, but there are people listed in the LDS-AF that have up to 4 AFNs (I
> >don't think I've ever seen 5+). It's NOT a unique identifier (i.e
1-to-1).
> >Based on this, the specification is wrong. It fails to adequately model
> >usage of the datum.
> >
> >It's no different than for a person to have multiple birthdates. They
> >weren't born multiple times.
>
> Perhaps that's why the use of AFNs seems to have been discontinued, and
there
> are no more submissions to the Ancestral File.
>
> If a person had more than one, if would be an indication that there were
> duplicate records of that person, and that they should be merged, provided
> there were enough evidence that they were indeed one and the same.
Agreed, but merging doesn't happen. I've asked the LDS Church (at the FHL
D. Stussy
wrote:
> >OK, but there are people listed in the LDS-AF that have up to 4 AFNs (I
> >don't think I've ever seen 5+). It's NOT a unique identifier (i.e
1-to-1).
> >Based on this, the specification is wrong. It fails to adequately model
> >usage of the datum.
> >
> >It's no different than for a person to have multiple birthdates. They
> >weren't born multiple times.
>
> Perhaps that's why the use of AFNs seems to have been discontinued, and
there
> are no more submissions to the Ancestral File.
>
> If a person had more than one, if would be an indication that there were
> duplicate records of that person, and that they should be merged, provided
> there were enough evidence that they were indeed one and the same.
Agreed, but merging doesn't happen. I've asked the LDS Church (at the FHL
wolfclo...@yahoo.com
> I would like to know, which computer software and websites are the
> best to get started on my family genealogy? Any help would be
> appreciated.
>
> David
Hi David,
I've been reasearching genealogy for years. I've found many good
websites.
familysearch.org (wich is free)
rootsweb.com (free)
usgenweb (free)
footnote
distantcousin.com
As far as software, try going to
http://5dollarsoftware.com/
I only paid $5.00 for family tree and am very happy with it.
D
Bob LeChevalier
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4sa6741h3n7v5isfl...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:32:42 -0700, "D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
>wrote:
>> >OK, but there are people listed in the LDS-AF that have up to 4 AFNs (I
>> >don't think I've ever seen 5+). It's NOT a unique identifier (i.e
>1-to-1).
>> >Based on this, the specification is wrong. It fails to adequately model
>> >usage of the datum.
>> >
>> >It's no different than for a person to have multiple birthdates. They
>> >weren't born multiple times.
>>
>> Perhaps that's why the use of AFNs seems to have been discontinued, and
>there
>> are no more submissions to the Ancestral File.
>>
>> If a person had more than one, if would be an indication that there were
>> duplicate records of that person, and that they should be merged, provided
>> there were enough evidence that they were indeed one and the same.
>
>Agreed, but merging doesn't happen. I've asked the LDS Church (at the FHL
>in Los Angeles - their second largest temple) about correcting obvious
>errors and they don't seem to care about correctness whatsoever. I've also
>asked them about multiple AFNs - same response. In their "perfect world,"
>it doesn't happen.
Actually I suspect that they don't have the resources to re-engineer
an obsolete 18 year old system, when they are in the process of
transitioning to the next generation of software (newfamilysearch), at
the same time that they are trying to put the bulk of their microfilm
library online. They aren't going to throw all that old data out, but
it really isn't and shouldn't be their main focus.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Ian Goddard
>
> Used to--now I've decided the AF is not worth my time.
> I think my disillusionment began forming when I found a lineage
> in it allowing me to trace my lineage through Beowulf and
> others all the way back to Adam and Eve.
>
>
My favourite piece of wackiness is the collection of attempts in the
Pedigree Resource File at the ancestry of Agnes Godard who married Sir
Bryan Stapleton.
In fact she appears to have been the daughter of Sir John Godard (born
1346 +/- a year based on his deposition at the Scrope trial) and an
unknown first wife. Sir John then, before 12 Dec 1384, married
Constance, formerly Sutton, widow of Peter VI de Mauley, this marriage
and the resulting children being well documented. Constance survived
Sir John who seems to have died in the early months of 1392/3. (I've
had it argued that Agnes was, in fact, a daughter of the marriage to
Constance but I'm not convinced.)
At some stage someone mistook the widow of Peter VI for the widow of
Peter VIII, the grandson of Peter VI by his first wife. This widow was
Matilda, formerly Neville, and there is a note added to a copy of a
Neville pedigree in a visitation to the effect that she married Sir John
& was Agnes' mother. This note must have been written about a couple of
centuries after Sir John's time. Naturally Agnes' descendants would
have been pleased with this claimed descent from the great northern
marcher family even if early Stapleton pedigrees only include Sir John.
Nevertheless it's false pedigree 1.
At some time someone must have realised that this pedigree was
chronological nonsense. The Neville pedigree must have been too good to
miss, however, so instead of reinstating the anonymous first wife
Matilda is left in place and Sir John replaced with an semi-anonymous
filius Godard. This is false pedigree 2.
Pedigree Resource contributors were evidently resourceful and include
attempts to reconcile the two false pedigrees with two Matildas, a
filius Godard and a Sir John. They also include a marriage between Sir
John and "Matilda (Mrs Stapleton)" and a marriage between the mythical
filius and a completely different Neville (although I think this would
have been the only one with the correct Neville parentage had it named
Matilda!).
D. Stussy
news:7b6a74lvaaavd9h39...@4ax.com...
...And actually, I asked the question 5 years ago - before they even had the
PRF online.
D. Stussy
...And actually, I asked the question 5 years ago - before they even had the
PRF online.
k...@panix.com
All the talk in the thread about beginning genealogy has got me wondering.
I have an FTM 2008 database of over 5,000 names. Many of these people are not
related, as my interest is along the lines of a one-name study. But I want to
enable certain people to be able to add more information.
It would seem that a a web-based system with password protection would be the
way to go. I would hope to be able to import my FTM file to whatever system I
choose.
At first, PhpGedView was suggested (I've seen some users of it, and it looks
nice). But with the recent thread, it seems that the general trend is to
web-based systems.
So the question is: which way to go? Should I try PhpGedView, or wait for one
of the websites to come up with a satisfactory interface?
Thanks for responses.
Bob Kosovsky
New York City
Joe Makowiec
> At first, PhpGedView was suggested (I've seen some users of it, and
> it looks nice). But with the recent thread, it seems that the
> general trend is to web-based systems.
>
> So the question is: which way to go? Should I try PhpGedView, or
> wait for one of the websites to come up with a satisfactory
> interface?
PHPGedView is web-based. You need hosting with PHP and a database[1].
That can be had for US$5/month.
[1] From http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=Installation_Guide#Requirements
You will need at least 1 database and a username and password
to access it. PhpGedView primarily supports MySQL, but has also
been tested and shown to work with Postgresql, SQLite, and
SQL-Server.
Many hosting accounts you'll find include MySQL.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/
Robert Melson
Joe Makowiec <mako...@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 10 Jul 2008 in soc.genealogy.computing, wrote:
>
>> At first, PhpGedView was suggested (I've seen some users of it, and
>> it looks nice). But with the recent thread, it seems that the
>> general trend is to web-based systems.
>>
>> So the question is: which way to go? Should I try PhpGedView, or
>> wait for one of the websites to come up with a satisfactory
>> interface?
>
> PHPGedView is web-based. You need hosting with PHP and a database[1].
> That can be had for US$5/month.
>
> [1] From http://wiki.phpgedview.net/en/index.php?title=Installation_Guide#Requirements
> You will need at least 1 database and a username and password
> to access it. PhpGedView primarily supports MySQL, but has also
> been tested and shown to work with Postgresql, SQLite, and
> SQL-Server.
> Many hosting accounts you'll find include MySQL.
>
Both phpGedView (pGV) and The Next Generation (TNG) are
web-based. Both are very similar, both use php, both have
an underlying database. Major difference is that pGV is
free, while TNG is share-ware. Eastman's Online Genealogy
Newsletter has reviews of both, equally nice things to say
about them.
If you want to "roll your own" and run your own web-site, you
will require a web-server, a database engine (mySQL), and php,
at a minimum. If you just want to toss your gedcom into a
hopper and have it miraculously appear, both pGV and TNG offer
links to services using their software which will do all the
heavy lifting for you. Which you choose is up to you.
Which to choose? Well, I've used pGV for about 5 years now and
run my own web-site. There have been minor glitches along the way -
more my fault than that of the software - but the end product
is and has been most satisfactory. Collaborative genealogy
really IS the way to go.
Scholarly Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford
Wes Groleau
> It would seem that a a web-based system with password protection would
> be the way to go. I would hope to be able to import my FTM file to
> whatever system I choose.
PHPGedView is web-based. GenMod is almsot the same as PhpGedView
(split off into a separate project from it._ TNG has a lot of
followers, also web-based.
For a bit less capability but a much prettier interface, see
myheritage.com
geni.com is another, but I have SERIOUS privacy doubts about it.
werelate.org
geneanet
Distributed Family Tree
there's probably a dozen more that I haven't heard of.
--
Wes Groleau
Free speech has its limits
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=99
Robert Melson
Wes Groleau <grolea...@freeshell.org> writes:
> k...@panix.com wrote:
>> It would seem that a a web-based system with password protection would
>> be the way to go. I would hope to be able to import my FTM file to
>> whatever system I choose.
>
> PHPGedView is web-based. GenMod is almsot the same as PhpGedView
Almost the same to the extent that the wording in several of the
"canned" blocks and pages is identical. The one UI I was able to
find with a quick search was a tad different, but not markedly so.
I think if I were John Finley I'd be having a conniption fit or
two or three over this copy. Imitation, they say, is the most
sincere form of flattery - mebbe Finley et al. should be hugely
flattered.
> For a bit less capability but a much prettier interface, see
> myheritage.com
Much too busy for my tastes, much less capable. Smart Match
feature is OK, tho' I do wish they'd not write quite so often.
>
> geni.com is another, but I have SERIOUS privacy doubts about it.
>
> werelate.org
> geneanet
> Distributed Family Tree
>
> there's probably a dozen more that I haven't heard of.
>
For my money, phoGedView or The Next Generation are the only
real contenders .. particularly if you wanna roll your own.
They're probably the only two contenders if you want somebody
else to host your gedcom while retaining control over it.
A lot depends on what you really want to do and how much effort
you want to expend. Read the Eastman reviews
http://blog.eogn.com On the right side, scroll down to "Search
Past Standard Edition Newsletters", click, then enter your search
term (phpGedView, The Next Generation).
Swell Ol' Bob
Wes Groleau
> Almost the same to the extent that the wording in several of the
> "canned" blocks and pages is identical. The one UI I was able to
> find with a quick search was a tad different, but not markedly so.
> I think if I were John Finley I'd be having a conniption fit or
> two or three over this copy. Imitation, they say, is the most
> sincere form of flattery - mebbe Finley et al. should be hugely
> flattered.
It's not a copy, it's a branch. Both projects are dedicated to
Richard Stallman's flavor of open-source. At one point, a few
of the PhpGedView people felt that efficiency was more important
than supporting four different databases (and a few other diffferences,
so they took a clone of the source and went their own way.
>> For a bit less capability but a much prettier interface, see
>> myheritage.com
>
> Much too busy for my tastes, much less capable. Smart Match
> feature is OK, tho' I do wish they'd not write quite so often.
But then I heard they bought gencircles, which had a "Smart Match"
feature that was ANYTHING but smart:
Joe Blow, 1808-1878 and Nick Bellows, 1898-1944
Hmm, born in the same century, similar Soundex in
the last name .... MATCH!!
> For my money, phoGedView or The Next Generation are the only
> real contenders .. particularly if you wanna roll your own.
> They're probably the only two contenders if you want somebody
> else to host your gedcom while retaining control over it.
For a while, I decided to go with TNG, for a less cluttered interface.
But eventually, I decided I just couldn't give up "relationsip privacy."
"Relationship privacy," online collaboration, and full UTF-8 support for
Unicode are three critical requirements I had in mind when I started
developing my own software. When I discovered that PGV already had all
three, it seemed pointless to continue working on my own.
Relationship privacy says that if you have an account, you also have a
spot in the GEDCOM. You cannot see details on a living person unless
the GEDCOM linkages identify you as a close relative of that person.
Robert Melson
Wes Groleau <grolea...@freeshell.org> writes:
> Robert Melson wrote:
>> Almost the same to the extent that the wording in several of the
>> "canned" blocks and pages is identical. The one UI I was able to
>> find with a quick search was a tad different, but not markedly so.
>> I think if I were John Finley I'd be having a conniption fit or
>> two or three over this copy. Imitation, they say, is the most
>> sincere form of flattery - mebbe Finley et al. should be hugely
>> flattered.
>
> It's not a copy, it's a branch. Both projects are dedicated to
> Richard Stallman's flavor of open-source. At one point, a few
> of the PhpGedView people felt that efficiency was more important
> than supporting four different databases (and a few other diffferences,
> so they took a clone of the source and went their own way.
Couldn't prove it from the project pages - very little seems to have
been written at this point. If they're doing this with Finlay's
blessing, who am I to object?
>
>>> For a bit less capability but a much prettier interface, see
>>> myheritage.com
>>
>> Much too busy for my tastes, much less capable. Smart Match
>> feature is OK, tho' I do wish they'd not write quite so often.
>
> But then I heard they bought gencircles, which had a "Smart Match"
> feature that was ANYTHING but smart:
Good point. Some of the matches are spot-on, most are not, from
what I've seen. So far, in my opinion, MyHeritage has not lived
up to its promise/potential.
<snip>
> For a while, I decided to go with TNG, for a less cluttered interface.
> But eventually, I decided I just couldn't give up "relationsip privacy."
You can "cure" that, I gather, by modifying one of the existing
themes - php and css. Dunno. I haven't felt the need and my
collaborators seem quite pleased with the selections available to
them out of stock.
>
> "Relationship privacy," online collaboration, and full UTF-8 support for
> Unicode are three critical requirements I had in mind when I started
> developing my own software. When I discovered that PGV already had all
> three, it seemed pointless to continue working on my own.
>
> Relationship privacy says that if you have an account, you also have a
> spot in the GEDCOM. You cannot see details on a living person unless
> the GEDCOM linkages identify you as a close relative of that person.
I've had no real reason to set relationship privacy in my system -
all my collaborators are there by invitation and that only after I've
gotten to "know" them to some degree. Not perfect, but sufficient for
our mutual needs.
Overall, pGV's security model appears quite robust, tho' I have added
a layer to the site itself that's effective before a "subscriber" can
access anything, much less pGV. Seems to have worked so far (sound
of knuckles rapping on a desk).
>
Splendid Ol' Bob