Jump to content


Member Since 23 Oct 2011
Offline Last Active Sep 10 2015 10:47 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: cleaning up family tree

18 November 2011 - 12:48 PM

I have to agree, getting rid of the cousin of a cousin, etc can be detrimental in some ways. I have had a number of them pop back up in the family from time to time strangely enough in marriages. One line in particular in my tree is notorious for that very in/out scheme. So I have decided that once they are in, and their children are in they stay as usually sooner or later they link back in somehow.

In Topic: Organisation Systems

12 November 2011 - 11:02 AM

I have electronic as well as paper copies of all my source documents for the reason that I am somewhat old school and like to have physical documents for my perusal as well as proof that I have entered and sourced the item in question, as I know that once it is in the file I have completed work on that particular document. As for the electronic portion all my source docs are grouped by type, placed in a master folder called source citations which is in a master folder labelled as genealogy. Numbering of the source documents are as I have stated above and each doc is linked as an image to the appropriate source in RM as well as Clooz. I also enter the document number in the master source in the file number location.

I could create electronic files for all the family and may do so, however, I would have massive duplication of images on my computer if I was to do so as a fair bit of my family are from small communities in Northern Ontario, and as such I have frequently had pages of the census (for example) where there were two, three or even more families on the same page that are different families on the same master source document. As such right now, I only have multiple print outs placed in paper files rather than 2 or more copes of the same image on my hard drive in each folder for each family.

Adapting what is done on paper to computer is relatively simple. More often than not what will be discussed will be the theory of our org systems. If we happen to mention paper or electronic storage, remember that the medium is interchangeable.

In Topic: Improved Surity/Proof Levels

12 November 2011 - 05:54 AM

As an aside, the 5 standards I used to use in my older program were;


In Topic: New to RootsMagic. Have several questions.

10 November 2011 - 11:26 AM

Myself, I am first off fortunate that not a lot of my ancestors moved around all that much, for the most part staying in Southern Ontario for quite some time. That being said I have had to deal with the geocoder for all of Ontario that was once Canada West and before that Upper Canada. I learned that a location must be entered to an event as it was at the time of the event. I have relatives that were born in Upper Canada, married in Canada West, and passed away in Ontario, Canada without moving locations. Needless to say geocoder has no clue about this LOL.

As for the standardisation of place names, I too am not a fan of the extra comma's some use for missing information. For me, Villages, Townships and Counties/Districts are properly labeled as such. Further, full names are used in as much as possible. If the county/province is unknown, I will look it up at the time of the event and so far I have to say Google has rarely failed me. I do have to admit that I like the fact the software will recognise some of my places correctly i.e. Rosseau Village, Humphrey Township, District of Parry Sound, Ontario, Canada (an actual place that I visit quite frequently and my immediate ancestors are from). Other software has only gone into 4 geographical regions whereas RM recognises it correctly.

As an aside, it would be nice to have a database of places at different time periods, so that one doesn't have to search the web for changes in location names over the centuries, England is nasty for that LOL

In Topic: County Level View

31 October 2011 - 06:32 PM

You may want to think on adding that in your updates to the software