Jump to content


Rick Landrum's Content

There have been 168 items by Rick Landrum (Search limited from 18-November 18)


By content type

See this member's


Sort by                Order  

#95911 Historic vs current event locations / places

Posted by Rick Landrum on 13 November 2019 - 08:09 PM in Discussion

Pretty much just like I thought....I'll watch the place details though...hadn't thought of that.

Thanks again

Rick




#95908 Historic vs current event locations / places

Posted by Rick Landrum on 13 November 2019 - 01:27 PM in Discussion

One last question in this regard.

 

What happens when you merge places? From what I have seen in my own updates, it appears that all records with a given place are updated to reflect the change when merged. For example, if the place list has a dozen different versions of "anywhere USA', and you update one of them and then merge the others to it, then everywhere that those places were posted would be updated to reflect the primary place description and notes after the merge. 

 

I just want to be sure I'm not missing something before I do much of this.

 

Thanks

Rick




#95907 Historic vs current event locations / places

Posted by Rick Landrum on 12 November 2019 - 09:33 AM in Discussion

Thanks to all for the feedback. I think I have my main question answered. I am not a "genealogist", at most I guess I am an "amateur genealogist". However, I do have a desire to "get things right". My audiance (family and friends) are not genealogists either. They just want to know when and where something happened, expressed in a way that they can understand. It appears there are many differing opinions about how to handle place names.

 

I think the best solution, for me, is to follow Jerry's initial advice. Enter place names as they existed at the time of the event, enter clarifying notes as needed, turn off  RM's "County Check", use RM's Gazetteer as a quick reference, and use the most authoritative research available to help explain the name used in historical context.

 

I have run numerous report tests including events with place names entered in this way, and everything seems to work fine.

 

Thanks again

Rick




#95899 Historic vs current event locations / places

Posted by Rick Landrum on 11 November 2019 - 03:36 PM in Discussion

Thanks a lot !! 

 

This is very helpful, especially the tip to turn off the county check. Somehow I had totally overlooked that, and the popups were what was giving me the most trouble ( aggravation). I think I was on the right track by listing the place as it was known at the date of the event, and then supplement that with notes. It seems to make more sense to me that way. I was putting these notes in the persons record, as well as editing the note into the place list. I usually research the place's history on line and then save the results in the place list for future reference. 

Vyger - that article was very interesting and helpful. Thanks

Rick




#95892 Historic vs current event locations / places

Posted by Rick Landrum on 11 November 2019 - 11:01 AM in Discussion

Seeking advice

 

I am running across numerous places in my research that have an historic location, but the modern location is listed as a different place. Is it better to record the historic location, the modern location, or the modern location with a note pointing to the old historic location?

 

If I try to keep the historic, RM pops up a message that the location does not exist, but I can keep it. This is somewhat confusing to say the least.

 

Example -

"Campbeltown, Argyll, Scotland" (found in many records from mid to late 1600's). RM offers "Campbeltown, Argyll, Scotland, United Kingdom". If I accept that one, I get another message saying the UK didn't exist then. A second choice presented is "Campbeltown, Argyll and Bute, Scotland, United Kingdom". This also prompts the message the the UK didn't exist then.

 

I see many similar issues with County name changes in the US. These names of places are clearly following the historic changes of the name, but I'd like to know how others are handling this in RM. My initial thought is to list the name that corresponds to the time period of the event, and put a note in the Place List. But this does not stop the prompts.

 

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

Rick




#95837 Adding a person created by an affair

Posted by Rick Landrum on 03 November 2019 - 03:31 PM in Discussion

 

In truth, the actual list doesn't matter much in RM7. The list might or might not matter in future versions of RM. Which is to say, RM7 doesn't do anything with the information you enter. If you wish information about the parentage to appear in RM reports, you need supplement the parentage information RM does offer with notes of some kind or other. My comment applies equally to affairs, adoptions, step children, foster children, guardians, related individuals such as grandparents or aunts and uncles who raise children,  etc.

 

Jerry

I tend to agree with Jerry. I really doesn't matter so long as you supplement the  choice with supporting notes. I have always looked at the parentage options separately from the marriage options ( especially in cases of adoption, guardianship, etc). The 'father is the father" regardless of the marriage record. 

Rick




#95614 Orphan Media in RM Media Directory

Posted by Rick Landrum on 07 October 2019 - 04:14 PM in Discussion

Thanks Tom

I'll take a look

It's just that my media directory has grown so large that I need to get rid of any dead wood.

Rick




#95609 Orphan Media in RM Media Directory

Posted by Rick Landrum on 07 October 2019 - 12:09 PM in Discussion

Does anyone have a solution for identifying orphan media? 

I want to review my RM media directory and compare it to my RM gallery to identify "Orphan Media" in my directory that can then be moved to a different "hold" directory, or potentially be eliminated. 

 

For some time I have used my own naming conventions for new media being added to my directory. I stopped using TreeShare to do this because of the non-descript identifications used by Ancestry. However, I had already used TreeShare to load a significant amount of media itmes to RM. Also, as I review and clean my database, I routinely rename or replace existing media using my naming conventions. This has resulted in duplication in some cases (same media entered twice with different names).

 

As a start, I'd like to clean my media directory of any media with no link to my RM database.

 

Any suggestions appreciated.

 

Rick




#95464 GitHub

Posted by Rick Landrum on 27 September 2019 - 12:33 PM in Issues

FamilySearch no longer supports the embedded IE browser component inside RM. It was giving a 403 error message before so I'm not sure why it's now giving us the GitHub login screen. I reported that to development. In version 7.6.1 the external browser option needs to be used with FamilySearch. I checked and that is still working. 

Renee,

Oh-Ok, at least we know where the issue originated. Now that you mention it I did see the 403 error a few times and then the GitHub login screen started popping up. I tried WebSearch using the standard search provider with "use external browser" checked and it acted like a shortcut taking me to Family Search. However, the search fields were not auto populated. I then tried creating a custom search provider for FamilySearch with "use external browser' checked and it worked fine.

Thanks for the info

Rick




#95449 GitHub

Posted by Rick Landrum on 26 September 2019 - 10:12 AM in Issues

I am noticing a new issue (or at least I think it is) in the last few days.

 

When I try to use WebSearch to launch a search in FamilySearch a login screen pops up wanting me to sign into something called "GitHub". I searched and found this is some sort of new subsidiary of Microsoft.

 

I have no intention of joining "Github". Is this a bug or is it something new sanctioned by RootsMagic?

 

By the way, if I use my browser to reach FamilySearch independent of RootsMagic it works fine and no requirement to use "GitHub" pops up.

 

Can someone fill me in please.

 

Thanks

Rick

 

Forgot to  mention - no other platforms thru WebSearch seem to be affected, only FamilySearch




#95385 Elder vs Younger

Posted by Rick Landrum on 22 September 2019 - 02:39 PM in Discussion

Sevier County, Tennessee was a rural and sparsely populated county. Nevertheless, there were so many men named John Underwood in the county at the same time that a tax record once identified one of them as "John Underwood the red head". I have recorded this information in a note in RM, but I have not made "the red head" become part of the man's name.  :)

 

On a more serious note, the problem you cite is a common one and can be a serious impediment to matching records with people and with identifying people properly in reports. I have even seen the Senior and Junior suffixes be used for men that I know were uncle and nephew or grandfather and grandson. I have even seen a case  in a family bible where the Senior and Junior suffixes used for sisters with the same name (Elizabeth Bryan Sr. and Elizabeth Bryan Jr.), where the younger sister was named at her birth in memory of the older sister who had died.

I like the Elder and Younger terminology for your particular use case, but I doubt that one particular rule is ever going to cover every case that might ever arise. I think that some cases are likely to be so uncommon or so unusual or so difficult to figure out that only notes can adequately describe the situation. For example, there were two men Anderson County, Tennessee at the same time who were about the same age and who were both named John W. Peters. I'm about 99.9% sure that the two men were first cousins, and there were no Sr. and Jr. issues associated with them. But it can really be quite impossible in some cases ever to match a particular record with a specific one of the two men with any confidence.

 

Jerry

Jerry,

I have been struggling with this issue for some time. My father's branch of our tree, for example, began in Scotland and came to Virginia in the early 1700's. Now it is "loaded" with John's, Jame's, Samuel's, Thomas', etc. and it is nearly impossible to tell them apart without reviewing their details. To make matters worse, brothers would often name their children after their brothers. Several generations down and you can see my problem. In the past I have put their birth and death year in brackets in the suffix field in RM, i.e. (1815-1875). This works well when you visually scan the tree, but it seems to add a lot of additional detail to the person's name. However, it may be the best way to go, and It does seem to work in every case that I've encountered. I was just wondering how others were handling.

Thanks

Rick




#95380 Elder vs Younger

Posted by Rick Landrum on 22 September 2019 - 08:44 AM in Discussion

So.....Elder and Younger works (even though my relatives are not necessarily historically known :) )

It is a way for me  to distinguish in my tree between persons in skipped generations with the same name.

 

Thanks

Rick




#95369 Elder vs Younger

Posted by Rick Landrum on 21 September 2019 - 03:21 PM in Discussion

Quick relationship chart question -

 

How do you distinguish between say a grandfather and a grandson when their names are the same?

 

It seems it would not be "Sr" and "Jr" because that is reserved for fathers and sons. It also seems it should not be "I-II-III" etc., unless the names were used in consecutive generations (example grandfather-son-grandson).

 

I have seen records where the older person is referred to as "the elder", and the younger person is referred to as "the younger", but I'm not sure if that is correct.

 

How should this be handled in RM?

 

Thanks

Rick




#95343 TreeShare failure to transfer media attached to source citation

Posted by Rick Landrum on 19 September 2019 - 12:35 PM in Discussion

Jerry,

 

Your comment -

 

Given that, I will plan to keep my RM7 software and my RM7 database for a while. I will put my RM8 database in a different folder from my RM7 folder. I will copy my RM7 database to my RM8 folder as a way to provide initial input to RM8. I will have RM8 work only in the RM8 folder. My RM7 software, database, and folder will remain my production system until I have tested RM8 sufficiently. And I will never touch my RM7 folder with RM8.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking. If I don't like RM8 (probably unlikely), and or it isn't working up to expectations, my current "production" data base will be separate and safe from whatever "mahem" ensues when RM8 starts up.

 

Thanks

Rick




#95340 TreeShare failure to transfer media attached to source citation

Posted by Rick Landrum on 19 September 2019 - 10:40 AM in Discussion

 

I think there is at least a possibility (no certainty, and I'm not announcing anything!) that RM8 will have a feature which is called Shared Citations in FTM. This feature allows you to have a single citation (truly a citation and not a source) which is linked to multiple people and/or facts. If RM8 does turn out to have this feature, I will have to decide whether to use it or to continue along my extreme splitting path.

If I were in your shoes, I would wait until RM8 before making the rather serious decision to become an extreme source splitter. Which is to say, if RM8 supports Shared Citations by whatever name it might be called in RM8, then you should be able to get most or all of the advantages of extreme source splitting without actually becoming an extreme source splitter - depending how RM8 might choose to implement Shared Citations, of course.

 

Jerry

Jerry,

Just a general question -

Wonder if we will be able to continue to run version 7 after version 8 comes out? I would assume that you could run both versions while you check out the new version without having to upgrade your 7 to 8.  :unsure:

Rick




#95335 TreeShare failure to transfer media attached to source citation

Posted by Rick Landrum on 18 September 2019 - 02:18 PM in Discussion

Jerry,

That makes sense to me. I jumped in with both feet when TreeShare came out, wish now I had gone a little slower.

Thanks again

Rick




#95331 TreeShare failure to transfer media attached to source citation

Posted by Rick Landrum on 18 September 2019 - 11:09 AM in Discussion

Jerry,

These are very interesting perspectives. I was using the memorize/paste of citations in RM because of efficiency. I had not considered what it would mean if a correction were needed. I plan to consider the concept of becoming an "extream source splitter" for sources and media. It seems this might solve some of the issues I have been experiencing. It seems like a pretty big change so I'll have give it some thought. 

 

I also have stopped using TreeShare to update my RM tree. The main reasons for me are that Tree Share does not  transfer source details to RM, and media is named with a non-descriptive Ancestry media ID. I do still try to use it going the other way to update my Ancestry tree from RM. However, I'm having so many problems with this, I'm considering stopping altogether, except to use it to help work hints.

 

I too had thought about how to load data to Ancestry by group through TreeShare. The only way I could come up with was to create a separate tree in RM for the group, then connect that to a new tree in Ancestry. However, then how could you merge those trees into your main tree?? Sounds like too big of a mess to even bother.

 

Thank you for your tips

Rick




#95325 TreeShare failure to transfer media attached to source citation

Posted by Rick Landrum on 17 September 2019 - 03:20 PM in Discussion

Jerry,

Thanks for the tips on the proper assignment of source media to either the master source or the source citation. Most of the time, I have saved media to a citation rather than to the master source. I have found that memorizing a source from one person, and pasting to another person, keeps the same media assignment. Example - saving media to a citation for person 1 will also be assigned to a citation for person 2, after pasting. This media will also transfer to Ancestry through TreeShare, but it does not always attach to the fact in Ancestry (??). As a result, I have to manually search among the available media and add it to the citation for the given fact. I have also found that if a hint exists in Ancestry for the citation and media in RM, it is better to accept it in Ancestry and not to try and push it from RM through TreeShare to Ancestry. This way the proper associations are created by Ancestry, not requiring any manual intervention. I have had so much trouble with TreeShare that I am generally trying to avoid using it. Instead, I review hints and copy paste what I need to create the fact in RM.

Thanks again,

Rick




#95319 TreeShare failure to transfer media attached to source citation

Posted by Rick Landrum on 17 September 2019 - 07:42 AM in Discussion

Question: are you tagging the media to a Master Source or to a Source Detail in RM? This is more or less RM's terminology for a "source" vs. a "citation", except that RM is actually not very consistent in its terminology.

 

I don't know for certain whether the distinction matters or not, but it might. I haven't looked in great detail for awhile how "sourcing media" gets transferred from RM to ancestry via TreeShare.

 

Jerry

Jerry,

I was assuming that the media was being attached to the source citation. However, I ran a test on a tree member who had not yet been processed through TreeShare. I made certain that the media was attached to the citation for the person, and not to the master source. I then ran TreeShare. The media did transfer but, I had to manually search for it in the available list of media, and attach it to the fact citation, before it showed up in the peron's fact view in Ancestry. I need to do some more detailed tests to see if this is always the case. I guess I expected it to be automatically attached.

Thanks

Rick




#95310 TreeShare failure to transfer media attached to source citation

Posted by Rick Landrum on 16 September 2019 - 04:20 PM in Discussion

I have a question regarding the use of TreeShare to upload source media to Ancestry.

 

I have found that if media is attached to a source, and the source is uploaded to Ancestry via TreeShare, then the media can not be found in the Ancestry tree after the transfer. I have searched the available media in the ancestry record to attach it to the source, but it is not available. However, if I also attach the media to the RM event/fact, and then transfer to Ancestry, the media does transfer OK, attached to the event/fact.

 

I usually attach media to source citations if I need to copy the citation and paste it to another persons record. This saves time and it works fine in RM. (example - image of a census record attached to the census fact for the head of the family and then copied to the other members of the census family.)

 

Am I understanding the functionality of TreeShare correctly by expecting the source citation media to transfer in this way?

 

Thanks

Rick




#95265 TreeShare failing to load RM data to Ancestry

Posted by Rick Landrum on 13 September 2019 - 08:32 AM in Issues

Since this was an isolated issue I believe your problem was an upload on a bad day for Ancestry. I would do as you planned and get a new Ancestry tree. Cleaning your RM database first is always a good plan. 

Renee,

FYI

I have completed the replacement of both my RM data base and my Ancestry tree. This appears to have solved the issues. I'm not sure which was corrupted. However, of course, reconnecting to a new Ancestry tree reset all my hints. These now have to be reviewed and either accepted or rejected (again).  :rolleyes:

Thanks again for your help

Rick




#95218 Person Group Headcount

Posted by Rick Landrum on 11 September 2019 - 07:39 AM in Discussion

The problem is the hints only display as you are viewing the individuals. It would require to many resources to generate them database wide. That is why you don't find WebHints on the People view. If they are not all generated then we couldn't generate a report for all of them. 

 

Since the hints are generated on the Ancestry website they have the best capabilities of displaying them all.  Not sure if you looked in the right spot on Ancestry for "All Hints" by tree. Each hint has the name of the person and you can visit their profile from the hint. Once identified you could open RM to view their hints there and work on them. 

Renee,

Yes, I go to Trees/Manage Trees/My Tree/All Hints and work from there. This all works OK, but as you said  "you could open RM to view their hints there and work on them". This is "one person at a time" centered. I was looking for something that would allow me to create groups in RM and see the open hint light bulbs there for each member of the group. It appears that does not exist at this time, so I'll just have to flip back and forth between A.com and RM, person by person.

Thanks

Rick




#95211 Person Group Headcount

Posted by Rick Landrum on 10 September 2019 - 03:12 PM in Discussion

No there isn't a report on WebHints. To look at all the Ancestry hints together their website will do that for you. 

I have used the Ancestry tool, which allows searches by name, but it is rather clunky when you are trying to ID tree members with open hints in RM. Some sort of report, with group creation capabilities, would be very helpful. Otherwise, searching for open hints in RM is basically a visual, one by one, process.  Clearing hints, if you are using hints in your research, is critical to keeping the sync between RM and Ancestry (or other platforms) current. I try to attack these by family groups and the lack of a report hinders that effort.

Thanks

Rick




#95204 Person Group Headcount

Posted by Rick Landrum on 10 September 2019 - 08:15 AM in Discussion

 

I would quibble with the "works great" characterization. I would say that it works but that it's pretty clunky. I don't understand why the list of groups can't just include the counts. The counts should appear there, all the time, every time. The counts are just too hard to get.

 

Jerry

Jerry,

I actually agree with you, but the statistical report for a group beats what you would have to do to get the count by other methods. I use groups and flags to keep track of my research status by family. My flags are placed in the prefix field, which I do not use otherwise. For example, {W} means research in work, etc.

Rick




#95189 Person Group Headcount

Posted by Rick Landrum on 09 September 2019 - 03:01 PM in Discussion

Is there a way to get a headcount of the number of persons in a group?

 

(I know how to generate a text file, import to Excel, and get it that way, but looking for something more direct in RM)

 

Thanks

Rick

 

************************************************

Oops, never mind......it popped up two seconds after I posted

 

Use Reports - List - Statistics - by group

 

Works great

************************************************

More to the point - - is there a way to get a report of persons by group who have open hints (specifically Ancestry hints)?

Thanks

Rick