Thanks, James. Yes, more than I asked for but very informative and I appreciate your taking the time to write it. Now I have to think again about whether to convert my sources to all basic or sourcewriter or just keep a mixture. I definitely will split many of my lumped sources. I don't do much exporting to 3rd parties, so that is not a problem. I had to do a lot of clean-up when I changed from FTM to Legacy and my main concern now is if I ever decide to change genealogy programs again, what problems will I have in transferring data. I realize that Gedcom is outdated or maybe even obsolete, and that some programs read competitor programs pretty well. It may even be more feasible to transfer data that way rather than Gedcom. Thanks again for your input... Chick
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM, James Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > I have not stopped using Source Writer. I'm a computer guy, not a > word smith, so I do like being prompted for the correct information > and having that information formatted correctly for me - at least > within Legacy and in reports produced by Legacy. The export to a 3rd > party is still an issue that I find troublesome. What I have settled > on for now is to massage the GEDCOM files produced by legacy to make > the data transfer more presentable. Being a computer guy, I automated > this with with some macros (technically Clips for NoteTab as described > on my blog). > > The system I ended up with is to use use the "Source List Name" (the > user defined name you give a Master Source and which is displayed as > its name in the source list) as my citation to a 3rd party. I delete > all the rest. As such, I have to be more careful in picking my Master > Source names. Privately held stuff requires the most care, as it > often contains personal info. I want to maintain, but not necessarily > share publicly. This suits my needs so far. This provides a clear > source, though basic, source reference should anyone wish to find on > their own. I should say I am not sharing for research collaboration > with other people, but rather posting online such as Ancestry.com. > Perhaps a brief example will help clarify: > > Master Source Name: Artifacts (Privately Held[[ by James T. Cook]]) - > Funeral Card > Shows up at Ancestry as: Artifacts (Privately Held) - Funeral Card > > FamilySearch - Union Provost Marshals' File of Papers Relating to Two > or More Civilians, 1861-1866 > Internet - Oklahoma Historical Society > Ancestry.com - Kansas State Census Collection, 1855-1925 > US Census - Oklahoma, Cleveland County - 1910 > etc. > > This does mean my system requires splitting (vs. lumping) in order to > get enough detail in my Master Source Names to be meaningful. > They are good enough that others can contact me if they are interested > in learning more. Like I said, suits me so far. > > More that you asked for, I'm sure :) > JC > > > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Chick Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: >> James, >> I notice that several months ago you were contemplating dropping >> Source Writer and going with the Basic system. Did you? If not, what >> changed your mind? >> >>> It's true that it exports something, and that something will be >>> imported just fine. The problem with it, and the reason for my >>> caution, is that (perhaps arguably) the conversion from Source Writer >>> to GEDCOM is horrible. The more I share with 3rd parties, the more I >>> consider dropping Source Writer and going with the Basic system. >> >> Thanks for your input... Chick Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
