I need help using Clooz to organize my genealogy research notes.
kyounge1956
I'm a new member of this group, and I've just bought a copy of Clooz
to help reduce my disorganized genealogical notes to some semblance
of order. I'm running into some snags using the program, and I
haven't been able to figure out what to do just by reading the
manual. The specific problem I'm running into is how to handle the
situation where there is more than one kind of information in the
same source. For example, on my last trip to the Family History
Library, in an index of death announcements, I found the information
that Elizabeth Ogier, wife of John, died Oct 27 1836, and made a
note of the information. Now I'm starting to enter all my notes into
the computer, so I created a research log, created a source for the
book I got this information from, added Elizabeth Ogier to the
database and linked her name to the research log. Then I converted
the research log to a death record template and gave the death
record an ID number, which I wrote on my note. But from this same
document I also know the name of Elizabeth's husband, so I linked
him to the log as well, but when I go back and try to create a
marriage record, I can't use the same ID number as I used for
Elizabeth's death record, even though the information came from the
same book.
I know lots of my notes have more than one type of information in
them. Is each one going to have multiple identification numbers, one
for each type of fact it contains? That doesn't seem right, but I
don't see any way to get around it. I think what I want to do is
give an ID number to the source itself, but the program doesn't seem
to be set up to work that way. What am I missing?
kyounge1956 <karen...@earthlink.net>
Edward Feustel
> I know lots of my notes have more than one type of information in
> them. Is each one going to have multiple identification numbers, one
> for each type of fact it contains? That doesn't seem right, but I
> don't see any way to get around it. I think what I want to do is
> give an ID number to the source itself, but the program doesn't seem
> to be set up to work that way. What am I missing?
>
> kyounge1956 <karen...@earthlink.net>
My genealogy program permits multiple references to a source with a
separate citation note for each event/person. As a result I can
record the additional types of information with the event/person it
applies to and still access the source. My program permits
specifying the repository so I do not really need Clooz in addition.
Ed
Edward Feustel <efeu...@hughes.net>
Wes Groleau
> My genealogy program permits multiple references to a source with a
> separate citation note for each event/person. As a result I can
> record the additional types of information with the event/person it
> applies to and still access the source. My program permits
> specifying the repository so I do not really need Clooz in addition.
>
Sounds like your program supports GEDCOM. :-)
--
Wes Groleau
Rant on using folk wisdom in the classroom
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1015
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
Edward Feustel
> > My genealogy program permits multiple references to a source with a
> > separate citation note for each event/person. As a result I can
> > record the additional types of information with the event/person it
> > applies to and still access the source. My program permits
> > specifying the repository so I do not really need Clooz in addition.
> >
> > Edward Feustel
>
> Sounds like your program supports GEDCOM. :-)
>
For most other programs it can import the databases directly using
Genbridge. That's much better than Gedcom.
Ed
Wes Groleau
Your reason for not needing Clooz to do what he asked for is that
your program does it without an add-on. I was making a
light-hearted reference to the fact that this is true of _any_
program whose implementation of GEDCOM is not hopelessly crippled.
Not saying that GEDCOM is anything fantastic, but it DOES define a
syntax for sources and citations and repositories.
--
Wes Groleau
To share or not to share
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/BlindDog?itemid=4012
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
kyounge1956
On Apr 17, 8:23am, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >>> My genealogy program permits multiple references to a source with a
> >>> separate citation note for each event/person. As a result I can
> >>> record the additional types of information with the event/person it
> >>> applies to and still access the source. My program permits
> >>> specifying the repository so I do not really need Clooz in addition.
> >>>
> >>> Edward Feustel
> >>
> >> Sounds like your program supports GEDCOM. :-)
> >>
> >>
> > For most other programs it can import the databases directly using
> > Genbridge. That's much better than Gedcom.
> >
> > Edward Feustel
>
> Your reason for not needing Clooz to do what he asked for is that
> your program does it without an add-on. I was making a
> light-hearted reference to the fact that this is true of _any_
> program whose implementation of GEDCOM is not hopelessly crippled.
> Not saying that GEDCOM is anything fantastic, but it DOES define a
> syntax for sources and citations and repositories.
>
I asked offline the program that can do the notes organizing without
an add-on is The Master Genealogist. The family tree is in FTM and
changing to some other program is not a practical option, since I am
not the only one working on the tree. If I were going to switch, I
would use something that will run on my Mac, and as far as I've been
able to find out, TMG isn't available in a Mac version. I *am* the
only one working on getting the notes into shape, so I can use
whatever program suits me for that. If the source tracking aspect of
FTM will do the job, great, but it didn't look to me as if it could.
You can link a source to someone who is in your tree, but what about
other documents pertaining to people whose relationship to your
family is not yet proven what do you do with those? Someone else on
the list brought up the question of how to document aspects of one's
genealogy relating to slavery. I don't have any such records yet,
but I strongly suspect that one of my great-grandfathers was born in
slavery, so it's entirely possible that I will need that capability
someday too. Can FTM help me organize all my documents, the ones for
people who may or may not be ancestors, or whose relationship to my
family is not one of kinship, as well as my actual relatives? If
not, I need some other program. I need to do better than the IIHS*
system.
Karen
*"it's in here somewhere"
kyounge1956 <karen...@earthlink.net>
Wes Groleau
> changing to some other program is not a practical option, since I am
> not the only one working on the tree. If I were going to switch, I
> would use something that will run on my Mac, and as far as I've been
> able to find out, TMG isn't available in a Mac version. I*am* the
>
I hear folks say Reunion is great for Mac.
For collaboration, why not take a look at PhpGedView, webtrees, "The
Next Generation," WeRelate.org, .....
There are also "cute" programs like genoom.com but they typically do
NOT have any support for sources and citations.
--
Wes Groleau
The Blind Dog Leading
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/?itemid=3570
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
singhals
Wes Groleau wrote:
> There are also "cute" programs like genoom.com but they typically do
> NOT have any support for sources and citations.
Hi, Wes.
This is ground you and I have covered minny minny times, but for the
possible benefit of/detriment to newcomers or anyone reading the
archives, I'll spread my share again. (g)
While I support, in theory, the multiple advantages of having
sources and citations, I do question the value of having a specific
nook or cranny into which I'm expected to "poke" the same. It seems
like an excessive amount of work for so little benefit when I need
to "peek" at the citation. IME, it is simply easier to put the cite
of the source into my program's NOTES section; for one thing, it
allows me to get painfully specific about what fact I'm supporting,
and in a one-click fashion. I really like single-click options. (g)
F'instance, good ol' Mary-'Lizabeth: I have two agreeing sources on
her birth year (both appear to be wrong, but they do agree!), a
different one for the month and a fourth source for the day; for her
death, I have one source for day-month-year, and a 2nd source that
disagrees on the year (making the day-month also suspect). Putting
all that into the SOURCES portion of my program hides it from my
casual check. If I have to retype it into the NOTES for easy
reference, there's not a lot of point to having it in SOURCES, and
if I don't retype it so I can see it easily, there's even less point
to putting it in SOURCES.
I will stipulate (again) that having the info in the SOURCES
facilitates use of the book-writing feature in my programs, but
since this is a working database, and since the book-writing feature
is mostly for the benefit of folks who don't give a rodent's-rear
about my sources (especially if they disagree with what they know),
that's a slightly dubious bennie IMO.
When I do use the SOURCES/CITATIONS feature in a book I've printed,
I really dislike having the refs at the end of the chapter or the
end of the book. WHY can't they show up as a proper footnote on the
page they're needed on!!
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Wes Groleau
On 04-20-2011 15:34, singhals wrote:
> This is ground you and I have covered minny minny times, but for the
> possible benefit of/detriment to newcomers or anyone reading the
> archives, I'll spread my share again. (g)
I don't recall, but whatever.
> of the source into my program's NOTES section; for one thing, it
> allows me to get painfully specific about what fact I'm supporting,
> and in a one-click fashion. I really like single-click options. (g)
I was indeed rather disappointed to learn that GEDCOM officially
says a SOURce can support an event but NOT a fact about the event.
When SSDI tells the exact date of birth, and a letter from Joe says
the place, GEDCOM says both are sources for the fact that he was
born. I had for years been hand-editing GEDCOM and WorldConnect (WC)
displayed just what I expected. When I decided to use a "real"
program to get just a little more than WC, I had to make all my
sources less specific.
On the other hand, if you have to use NOTE for a SOUR only because
your program makes it hard to see the sources, then maybe you need
to change the program, not your methods.
And if you have a program that thinks GEDCOM is too anal and that
you should attach all your sources to the _person_ well, ....
> ... Putting [multiple conflicting statements]
> ... into the SOURCES portion of my program hides it from my
> casual check. If I have to retype it into the NOTES for easy
Discussing the merits of various sources BELONGS in notes, IMHO.
Discussion is naturally free-form, and not amenable to structured
searching, sorting, grouping. Citations and references, vice versa.
> reference, there's not a lot of point to having it in SOURCES, and
> if I don't retype it so I can see it easily, there's even less point
> to putting it in SOURCES.
Again, if the program makes it difficult for you to see sources,
there must be something else it does well for you to put up with it?
> When I do use the SOURCES/CITATIONS feature in a book I've printed,
> I really dislike having the refs at the end of the chapter or the
> end of the book. WHY can't they show up as a proper footnote on the
> page they're needed on!!
Another deficiency of software. For decades (centuries), printers
used clever manual tricks to put footnotes where they were most
useful. Now, for some addle-pated reason, when we finally have
software that can EASILY do footnotes, why have publishers suddenly
started demanding we put them at the end--to make it easier for
typesetters who no longer exist?
And knowing that publishers are that irrational, programmers are
making programs with the assumption that nobody likes footnotes?
Gaah!!
When I see a book cover like "C++ for Dummies" I think "C++ is
dangerous enough on its own. PLEASE don't put it in the hands of
dummies!"
--
Wes Groleau
It’s the Law!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=93
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
singhals
> > When I do use the SOURCES/CITATIONS feature in a book I've printed,
> > I really dislike having the refs at the end of the chapter or the
> > end of the book. WHY can't they show up as a proper footnote on the
> > page they're needed on!!
>
> used clever manual tricks to put footnotes where they were most
> useful. Now, for some addle-pated reason, when we finally have
> software that can EASILY do footnotes, why have publishers suddenly
> started demanding we put them at the end--to make it easier for
> typesetters who no longer exist?
>
> And knowing that publishers are that irrational, programmers are
> making programs with the assumption that nobody likes footnotes?
> Gaah!!
>
> When I see a book cover like "C++ for Dummies" I think "C++ is
> dangerous enough on its own. PLEASE don't put it in the hands of
> dummies!"
>
I saw "GOOGLE for Dummies" the other day. ;)
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Ian Goddard
"About 42,400,000 results (0.10 seconds)"
;)
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>