Jump to content


Photo

Things still needed in RM5


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1036 posts

Posted 05 December 2011 - 04:09 PM

Here are some things I still need in RM5:
1. We still need a surname prefix: Some non-kludge way to alphabetize the 'de', 'le', 'la' surnames.
2. Gracefully handle dual dates before 1583/4. Yes, technically there is no ambiguity in 12 Jan 1312; it happened a month after 12 Dec 1312. However, it is not uncommon to see "12 Jan 1312/3" to indicate old/new style dating. Doing so is not a mistake; it is just another form of notation.
3. County Check needs to not worry if you don't include "United States" or "Canada".
4. Link the Research log to the Source and Repository lists. As it is I can't even open the Source and Repository lists when the Research Manager is open. Please don't make me remember the details from one list to the other.

#2 Paul Harris

Paul Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

Posted 05 December 2011 - 04:57 PM

Here are some things I still need in RM5:
1. We still need a surname prefix: Some non-kludge way to alphabetize the 'de', 'le', 'la' surnames.
2. Gracefully handle dual dates before 1583/4. Yes, technically there is no ambiguity in 12 Jan 1312; it happened a month after 12 Dec 1312. However, it is not uncommon to see "12 Jan 1312/3" to indicate old/new style dating. Doing so is not a mistake; it is just another form of notation.
3. County Check needs to not worry if you don't include "United States" or "Canada".
4. Link the Research log to the Source and Repository lists. As it is I can't even open the Source and Repository lists when the Research Manager is open. Please don't make me remember the details from one list to the other.


Don,

Not hijacking, just focusing. I would like to see a LOT of focus on number 4. Now that we have a Research Manager, I would like to see that concept expanded. Instead of ToDos being separate, I believe they should be a PART of the Research Manager, as should Correspondence. It should all be accessed through the Research Manager and all linked together with powerful searching and filtering capabilities.

I believe that an appropriate approach would be to use ToDos for searches that need TO BE done, and the Research Log for searches that HAVE BEEN done. It should all be linked and tied together with the ability to link multiple Sources AND multiple Repositories to a task. You may be able to search the same records in more than one repository and want the ability to filter by the repository you are going to, or are at, at the time.

Most genealogy programs throw in a task list/research log as an afterthought, an appendage. If RM focused on making these features a true research tool it could truly distinguish itself. I, and many others, have, or still do use ByGones, which is essentially a non-evolving tool in which to manage searches, correspondence, and log your findings so you don't repeat searches. I have often wished someone would come up with a more contemporary approach to do the same thing, but I haven't seen it. RM is more than half way there, so why not bring it on home?

Paul

#3 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3373 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 02:40 AM

RM is more than half way there, so why not bring it on home?

In general I give my vote to this discussion and in my opinion RM is half way there on a number of important features and I believe if they close those gaps they will lead the genealogy software league.

Just a matter of if and when :rolleyes:

“Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.” -Bill Gates

It's now time for discretion, trust, patience and support

 

User of Rootsmagic 7.5.9, Family Historian 6.2.7, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#4 PatsyD

PatsyD

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 09:28 AM

Don,

Not hijacking, just focusing. I would like to see a LOT of focus on number 4. Now that we have a Research Manager, I would like to see that concept expanded. Instead of ToDos being separate, I believe they should be a PART of the Research Manager, as should Correspondence. It should all be accessed through the Research Manager and all linked together with powerful searching and filtering capabilities.

I believe that an appropriate approach would be to use ToDos for searches that need TO BE done, and the Research Log for searches that HAVE BEEN done. It should all be linked and tied together with the ability to link multiple Sources AND multiple Repositories to a task. You may be able to search the same records in more than one repository and want the ability to filter by the repository you are going to, or are at, at the time.

Most genealogy programs throw in a task list/research log as an afterthought, an appendage. If RM focused on making these features a true research tool it could truly distinguish itself. I, and many others, have, or still do use ByGones, which is essentially a non-evolving tool in which to manage searches, correspondence, and log your findings so you don't repeat searches. I have often wished someone would come up with a more contemporary approach to do the same thing, but I haven't seen it. RM is more than half way there, so why not bring it on home?

Paul


I am thrilled to have Research Manager, however it would be perfect with the connections that you mention.Then I could use it as my Research Plan as well as my Research Log.

#5 leeirons

leeirons

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 01:53 PM

Items 1 and 2 might be simply handled by adding radio buttons that, when selected, identify if the surname has a prefix and if the date is in old style. Then the program could use these selections to enable intelligent sorting and searching (i.e., the sort and search functions recognize when a surname has a prefix that could be ignored in a sort or search or when a date is in old style in order to correct for that in the sort or search.

Item 3 should be easy enough for them to handle in an update anytime this week. ;)

Item 4 will probably take more time in terms of writing the code. Maybe it will be in RM6 next November? Or maybe sooner in an update?

#6 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8335 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:44 PM

Confirming enhancement requests are in the tracking system.
Renee
RootsMagic

#7 RootsMagician

RootsMagician

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 826 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:56 PM

A little food for thought and discussion (and don't read anything one way or the other into these thoughts regarding what we are looking at doing in this area ;) )...

1. A research log is a list of searches you have done towards a goal. Not all to-do items are searches.

2. A research log keeps record of negative searches (those where you look at a source but don't find anything). Forcing a link to a source or repository in RM will force you to include sources and repositories in your file that don't have any information you need.
RootsMagician

#8 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 08:18 PM

A little food for thought and discussion (and don't read anything one way or the other into these thoughts regarding what we are looking at doing in this area ;) )...

1. A research log is a list of searches you have done towards a goal. Not all to-do items are searches.

2. A research log keeps record of negative searches (those where you look at a source but don't find anything). Forcing a link to a source or repository in RM will force you to include sources and repositories in your file that don't have any information you need.


I like it the way it is as I don't want to be forced to create an unused source or repository to link into those boxes.

I will be going through my sources and repositories to see if I have any left that I made just to show I checked them and they had no information that forwarded my research, add them to a Research log and then delete the source or repository.

I am already spoilt to entering what I choose in the Research item boxes and not having to choose a source or repository already in the database.

In my new Research Log for the research resources I have in my personal library, the source is the book, CD, etc. some of which I do not have in my sources in RM. And the Repository box contains where I bought the book, CD, etc.

Perhaps there could be choice given on each Research Item or a Global option to fill in the box with your own information or choose a already entered source and/or repository and address.

I'm seeing the Research Item screen with the box for source where you enter your own information with a button to choose a source which would then fill the source box with the source footnote overriding whatever may have been typed into it. I use Free Form sources so this might not be possible with sources created from source templates.



It would be the same for the Repository.

#9 Paul Harris

Paul Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 09:07 PM

A little food for thought and discussion (and don't read anything one way or the other into these thoughts regarding what we are looking at doing in this area ;) )...

1. A research log is a list of searches you have done towards a goal. Not all to-do items are searches.

2. A research log keeps record of negative searches (those where you look at a source but don't find anything). Forcing a link to a source or repository in RM will force you to include sources and repositories in your file that don't have any information you need.


Wouldn't a negative search, by its own definition, not have a Source attached to it? A Source would only be created and attached if one was found.

I would like to see repositories linked for consistency of entry. If every time I enter a repository in a task or log I spell it or word it just a little differently, how can I possibly filter my entries for searches in a single repository? As for useless repositories, you would have to have nothing BUT negative searches there for it to be useless, so to speak, but it would still be useful to document the all important negative searches.

Paul

#10 RootsMagician

RootsMagician

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 826 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 10:39 PM

Wouldn't a negative search, by its own definition, not have a Source attached to it? A Source would only be created and attached if one was found.


No. A negative search means you looked at a source that you thought might contain information you were looking for, but didn't find it. You still need to document that you looked in that source so that you don't forget that you looked there.
RootsMagician

#11 Romer

Romer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2056 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:04 PM

Another option might be to consider similar functionality to that found in the "People who share this fact" screen for shared events. There, you can choose an existing person in your database or just type in a person's name who's not in it (whether so as not to clutter it, etc.).

#12 Paul Harris

Paul Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:23 PM

No. A negative search means you looked at a source that you thought might contain information you were looking for, but didn't find it. You still need to document that you looked in that source so that you don't forget that you looked there.


Okay, Bruce, I think I see where our thinking differs. If I am looking for a birth certificate, you consider the birth certificate collection as the Source, whereas I think of the actual certificate, which wasn't found, as the Source. I've just always felt that if I am empty handed, I don't have a Source, just records searched. Being a rather diligent Splitter, your explanation doesn't make sense to me, but it does make sense. ;)

Paul

#13 Ludlow Bay

Ludlow Bay

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 867 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:26 PM

1. A research log is a list of searches you have done towards a goal. Not all to-do items are searches.

Or this?

1. A research log is a list of searches activities you have done towards designed to achieve a goal. Not all To-do items are searches. activities from that log which have not yet been completed.

I don't see the efficiency in separating the thought process or documentation.

#14 Romer

Romer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2056 posts

Posted 07 December 2011 - 11:34 PM

Note also that implication made by a "Transfer to a research log" button in the Edit ToDo screen.

#15 Paul Harris

Paul Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

Posted 08 December 2011 - 09:28 AM

Note also that implication made by a "Transfer to a research log" button in the Edit ToDo screen.


So noted. I think it is important to separate that which is TO BE DONE from that which HAS BEEN DONE. A pilot will create a Flight Plan of what he intends to do. Once the flight is completed the Flight Plan is tossed and the effort is LOGGED in his LOG book. I use a SaaS online CRM program that allows me to SCHEDULE an Activity in the future. Once that Activity is completed it is converted into a LOGGED Activity. The LOGGED status means it has taken place. Everything in the 'ships log' has already taken place.

True, not all ToDo Items are Searches, but the ones that are Searches could be 'pre-linked' to a Research Log. When they are marked complete they would automatically transfer TO the Research Log as a completed Search and would no longer be in the ToDo list. Then, completed ToDo List items would be non-search items.

Paul

#16 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 08 December 2011 - 12:32 PM

And what if I don't want RM to automatically delete a ToDo I mark completed? I don't want RM to take control of what I want included in my ToDo list.

The ToDo is more than just keeping track of what research you need to do on that person. It also shows what you have completed and don't necessarily need to search for anymore.

I use the ToDo list as sort of a timeline where I can keep track of whether I have found certain facts for that person.

Smith, John, 1900, census, AR, Franklin, child [marked completed, priority 9]

Smith, John, 1910, census, AR, Franklin, child [marked open, priority 1]

Smith, John, 1913-12-29, marriage, Jane Taylor, AR, Logan, certificate [marked completed, priority 9]

Smith, John, 1920, census, AR, Logan, head? [marked open, priority 1]

I know that I have found the 1900 census and marriage, but haven't found the 1910 and 1920 census.

When I find a fact for that person, I put the source and transcription in the results.

With the Research log, if I check a source and it doesn't have information on that fact or person, I will put that source in the Research log as not found.

If I find a ToDo, I will put that source in the Research log as found.

I do not want to have to leave the ToDo's and open a Research log to find whether I have completed the research for a person.

However Bruce incorporates the ToDo's and Research Log's, I hope he keeps that in mind.

The song "Don't fence me in" keeps running through my head. :)

#17 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1036 posts

Posted 08 December 2011 - 03:34 PM

Wouldn't a negative search, by its own definition, not have a Source attached to it? A Source would only be created and attached if one was found.

Not really, I could make a to-do item of checking "Great Migration Immigrants" for a certain person. If he/she is not found, G.M.I. is still a source, just a non-productive one. Similar for census, draft records, deed books of a particular jurisdiction, etc. Now, if you are one of those people who create master sources for every page or sheet of paper, maybe it wouldn't work out for you.

#18 Paul Harris

Paul Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

Posted 08 December 2011 - 06:38 PM

Now, if you are one of those people who create master sources for every page or sheet of paper, maybe it wouldn't work out for you.


Guilty! It's just a matter of semantics. In my mind in a negative search the GMI is just a set of records searched with no result, no source for what I was looking for.

Paul

#19 nap-kin

nap-kin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7 posts

Posted 12 December 2011 - 03:45 AM

Here are some things I still need in RM5:
1. We still need a surname prefix: Some non-kludge way to alphabetize the 'de', 'le', 'la' surnames.
2. Gracefully handle dual dates before 1583/4. Yes, technically there is no ambiguity in 12 Jan 1312; it happened a month after 12 Dec 1312. However, it is not uncommon to see "12 Jan 1312/3" to indicate old/new style dating. Doing so is not a mistake; it is just another form of notation.
3. County Check needs to not worry if you don't include "United States" or "Canada".
4. Link the Research log to the Source and Repository lists. As it is I can't even open the Source and Repository lists when the Research Manager is open. Please don't make me remember the details from one list to the other.


Yes please for that surname prefix, half my tree is Dutch!
Lisa Nap
Utrecht, The Netherlands

My link