Jump to content


c24m48

Member Since 06 Aug 2006
Offline Last Active Today, 08:07 AM
****-

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Citing US Census Records Found on FamilySearch

Yesterday, 09:58 PM

I need to vent a little  bit here. I normally don't use familysearch.org for census images, using ancestry.com instead. But both of them (and numerous other online sites) have what I consider to be a pretty serious problem. Namely, they will produce citations for you, and the citations are pretty worthless. Well, the citations are pretty worthless in my opinion. I'm fully aware that I may the one that's completely wrong on this issue, and sites such as familysearch and ancestry may be in the right. To that end, I looked up my ancestor Peter Bryan in the 1900 census for Sevier County, Tennessee. Here is what familysearch.org says the proper citation should be.
 
"United States Census, 1900," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch...9101,1032094101 : 5 August 2014), Tennessee > Sevier > image 5 of 27; citing NARA microfilm publication T623 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
 
I just don't think that makes any sense whatsoever And how would you put it into RM?
 
Here is my own footnote sentence for the same census entry. If I had looked it up at familysearch.org, then my citation would have been identical except for the name of the Web site.
 
U.S. Federal Census: Sevier County, Tennessee, 1900, Dist. 8, Enumeration Dist. 143, page 119a, ancestry.com (1900 U.S. Census) viewed on 17 January 2015.
 
Now I'm just a simple country boy, but it seems to me that my citation contains all the relevant and salient information required to find the census entry and that the citation provided by familysearch.org does not. Well, my citation does not include the NARA film number, but I'm not sure that it needs to.
 
But as to how to put the data into RM, I assume that with the ancestry.com citation that "United States Census, 1900" would be the master source in RM and that "database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch...9101,1032094101 : 5 August 2014), Tennessee > Sevier > image 5 of 27; citing NARA microfilm publication T623 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.)." would be the citation detail in RM. Many users call these two parts "the source" and the "citation" respectively, but I tend to think that the footnote sentence as a whole is the citation.
 
I'm a source splitter, so my entire footnote sentence becomes a master source in RM and I obviously have lots and lots of Master Sources. But if I wanted to be more of a lumper, it would be straightforward to divide up my footnote sentence at any point I might wish between the master source in RM and the source detail in RM. Well, one criticism I would make of my footnote sentence is that it should really read as follows.
 
U.S. Federal Census: 1900, Sevier County, Tennessee, Dist. 8, Enumeration Dist. 143, page 119a, ancestry.com (1900 U.S. Census) viewed on 17 January 2015.
 
Having made this improvement and if I wanted to lump my sources, then my Master Source in RM (my level of lumping in RM) could be any of the following, with the rest of the footnote sentence going into the source details in RM.
 
U.S. Federal Census
U.S. Federal Census, 1900
U.S. Federal Census: 1900, Sevier County, Tennessee
U.S. Federal Census: 1900, Sevier County, Tennessee, Dist. 8
U.S. Federal Census: 1900, Sevier County, Tennessee, Dist. 8, Enumeration Dist. 143
 
I use a very simple source template of my own design to implement my footnote sentence for census records. If I wanted to become more of a source lumper, the only thing I would have to change would be to flag some of the fields in my source template as detail fields instead of master source fields. The way I would enter the sourcing data into RM and the appearance of my footnote sentences would not change.
 
Jerry
 
 
P.S. Another criticism I would make of my footnote sentence is that somewhere in the sentence it should really say "Population Schedule" because I'm beginning also to cite "Agricultural Schedule" and other such schedules. I'm not sure how familysearch.org handles these other census schedules.

In Topic: TMG Import

20 April 2017 - 09:36 PM

Jerry:  I select myself in the tree and then choose mark everyone in this person's tree.  My data has 45000 names and there are many in it that are not related to me.  I also tried marking just my husband's tree which would be substantially fewer people.  Neither worked.

 

It doesn't help solve the problem, but I would observe that marking your tree or marking your husband's tree will have exactly the same result and will mark the exact same number of people. Marking your tree in RM is not the same thing marking your ancestors or marking your ancestors and their descendants or anything like that. Rather, marking your tree in RM will follow every spouse, parent, or child that's connected in any way to each other. So for example, your cousin's spouse's former spouse and your cousin's spouse's former spouse's parents etc. are all in your tree.

 

It does sound like your database has some sort of loop in relationships that RM is not detecting properly and that therefore RM itself is getting into a loop or something like that. But perhaps instead of marking everyone in your tree in the sense that RM means it, you really need to mark all your ancestors and all their descendants. There is an option in the marking dialog to do so. Doing it that way, the number of people marked for you would almost certainly be very different than would the number of people marked for your husband.

 

Jerry


In Topic: FTM convert quesiton

20 April 2017 - 12:23 PM

Tools->File Options->Start person when opening this database->Last person from previous session will open up with the last person from the previous session.

 

Jerry


In Topic: FTM convert quesiton

20 April 2017 - 12:21 PM

But unless I am missing something all too obvious, RM7's main view for me is awful. I cannot easily see a couple's children on the screen. And when I click on the arrow to move the screen to the left where I would expect to see them, I see one. Is the only way RM7 displays children is when you click on a person and then click on the family icon?

 

RM has two views on the screen at all times. There is a main view and a sidebar view. Well, you can make the sidebar view go away, but I suspect that most people seldom do so. Several of these views have options that list the couple's children, and there are ways to have the couple's children to be visible at all times if you so choose.

 

There are several different options for the main view - Pedigree, Family, Descendants, People, WebSearch, and Timeline. There are tabs that you can click to switch quickly between these options. It's really easy to switch back and forth. All the options can be very valuable, and I suspect that a beginner would want to stick primarily to Pedigree, Family, and Descendants. Both the Family option and the Descendant option show the couple's children.

 

There are several different options for the sidebar view - Index, Family, Bookmarks, History, and Groups. The default is Index and I suspect it's the one that most people use most of the time. I use all the different sidebar views from time to time, and it's really easy to switch back and forth. I'm sure that opinions will vary, but the sidebar option that I find most valuable most of the time is the Family option and it displays all the couple's children. One of the reasons I like the Family option in the Sidebar so much is that it makes sure that the couple's children are visible no matter which option I'm using in the main view.

 

Jerry


In Topic: TMG Import

19 April 2017 - 05:18 PM

When you try to create the named group of all the persons in your tree, what do you do exactly? I'm assuming you get into RM's marking dialog. Do you then say "mark everybody", or whom do you try to mark?

 

Jerry