Cathy, 1/ Let me say that I include a death date for people whom I believe to have died out of a personal preference. We have chatted about this in the past, and I think my way is safer. For instance, I get to set people as deceased who died in the 20th century whom I cannot find explicit death information, but know, based on circumstantial evidence, that they are most likely deceased.
I am sure that if your work is done entirely within the Legacy Bubble, you are ok. Let us just say that I am not so trusting. 2/ Unlike you and most of the experienced genealogy community, I do display the names of known living people on my web sites. I explicitly state this in my privacy policy: http://www.davidsongenealogy.com/family1/extensions/privacy.php If I am given information about living people from a family member and they ask me to hide the living people, I will comply by making the specific people invisible in Legacy. I figure, if I am getting all of the details of a family, I do not need some new visitor to fill in the details. The US has more explicit data available about living people than some other countries, but I am always surprised about what I can learn about living people, even from several supposedly high privacy countries like Australia. john. At 09:00 PM 3/27/2015, Cathy Pinner wrote: >I agree with John about how easily date >modifiers get lost. For a start they don't show >in many indexes. So I also put dates in privacy brackets. > >However, in Legacy I don't feel the need to put >something in the Death date to trigger that the person has died. > >I periodically run the Advanced Set Living Tool >- especially before exporting a Gedcom to upload to Ancestry. > >For a Gedcom for Ancestry I also omit Living >people altogether. If you really want the living private, don't show them. > >Cathy > >Jay Wilpolt wrote: >> >>John >> >>I think we are on the same page.... >> >>some thoughts to add..... >> >>/As both of us maintain somewhat public research sites online, I >>decided some time ago that I did not wish to publish dates that I >>could not support by some type of fact. Yet, as >>a One Namer, I would < BR> find that my family >>files would have actually 100s of people with more >>or less the same name. >> >>/Again another reason why I had to start adding some date "qualifiers" >>as my own distant (5th great) paternal families had names like; >>Johan Bernard William Whilpholt >>Bernard Wilhelm Henricis Whilpholt >>Johann Wilhelm Henricus Whilpholt >>Henricus Willhelm Bernard Whilpholt >>Wilhelm Johann Hericus Whilpholt >> >>and often not the exact same name would then be used for their >>marriage or death/ >>/ >>Or like where 8 families with the same surname all lived close by and >>they all had a Maria Anna born between 1850-1870 >> >> >>/I discovered that Legacy has a neat feature that allows you to make a >>date private. For instance when I enter a marriage record for John >>Stedman and Mary Smith that took place in May 1816 and have not (yet) >>discovered them in a census or in other vital records documentation, I >>will estimate when they were born. For John, say 1790. I enter in >>Legacy [[est 1790]] {I tie "est" to the circa date in Legacy}. The >>privacy brackets around the date mean that index view and name list >>will sort the person correctly, but when I export the Gedcom, no date >>will appear for the birth date. >> >>/ >>Personal choice not to keep the dates private, since i dont know what >>genealogy software someone else uses, thaht may not properly handle >>all the "Blank" info, whereas I am pretty sure it will handle fields >>with data. / >>/ >>/ >>I have seen too many cases of people (myself included before I set >>this standard) having a date like you have of bef. 1882 copied down as >>1882 and then get perpetuated. Now, I try not to be responsible for >>introducing too much bogus information into the literature. >> >>/ >>I can not control how well other "copy down" info, If it says bef 1882 >>they better copy BEFORE 1882 . / >> >>/ >>/ >>When you enter a private date that would otherwise trigger the person >>as being deceased, the person is set to deceased. >> >>/ >>That is a good feature/ >>/ >>/ >>This triggers another rant... :-) >> >>I hate to see trees where persons born 400 years ago are listed as >>living and thus made private. This is often caused by some genealogy >>program or another not having a data model that properly handles when >>an undated person is deceased. Consequently, I set a personal standard >>that anyone whom I believe to be deceased, I will enter the death date >>of "Unknown". Then I do not have to depend on the whim of any >>genealogy program to set the person as deceased. >> >>/ >>AGREED AGREED AGREED not to mention some basic validation tests..... >>when I see a parent born in 1880 and their child is born in 1792 I >>know they are not serious about their data/ >>/ >>/ >> >>I have also fou nd that when recording census data, it is helpful, even >>when I do not have a death date, to record a death date as "after >>1860" if the 1860 census was last that I found him or her recorded. I >>will also make that a between date if, say, I find the person is the >>1860 census but I learn in the 1880 or 1900 census or some other >>record that the person is deceased: "bet. 1860 and 1880". >> >>I do know this standard sets up the possibility of someone recording >>the after date as just a date. I am likely to make that a private date >>as a result. My concern then is that the deceased person does not show >>a death date ./ >> >> >>But as another user stated, the best way is whatever works for YOU...... >> >>On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:33 PM, John B. Lisle <[email protected] >><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Jay, >> >> We can agree to disagree about your unknown name naming >> conventions, but I did wish to respond to some of your date usage. >> >> As both of us maintain somewhat public research sites online, I >> decided some time ago that I did not wish to publish dates that I >> could not support by some type of fact. Yet, as a One Namer, I >> would find that my family files would have actually 100s of people >> with more or less the same name. >> >> I discovered that Legacy has a neat feature that allows you to >> make a date private. For instance when I enter a marriage record >> for John Stedman and Mary Smith that took place in May 1816 and >> have not (yet) discovered them in a census or in other vital >> records documentation, I will estimate when they were born. For >> John, say 1790. I en ter in Legacy [[est 1790]] {I tie "est" to the >> circa date in Legacy}. The privacy brackets around the date mean >> that index view and name list will sort the person correctly, but >> when I export the Gedcom, no date will appear for the birth date. >> >> I have seen too many cases of people (myself included before I set >> this standard) having a date like you have of bef. 1882 copied >> down as 1882 and then get perpetuated. Now, I try not to be >> responsible for introducing too much bogus information into the >> literature. >> >> When you enter a private date that would otherwise trigger the >> person as being deceased, the person is set to deceased. >> >> This triggers another rant... :-) >> >> I hate to see trees where pers ons born 400 years ago are listed as >> living and thus made private. This is often caused by some >> genealogy program or another not having a data model that properly >> handles when an undated person is deceased. Consequently, I set a >> personal standard that anyone whom I believe to be deceased, I >> will enter the death date of "Unknown". Then I do not have to >> depend on the whim of any genealogy program to set the person as >> deceased. >> >> I have also found that when recording census data, it is helpful, >> even when I do not have a death date, to record a death date as >> "after 1860" if the 1860 census was last that I found him or her >> recorded. I will also make that a between date if, say, I find the >> person is the 1860 census but I learn in the 1880 or 1900 census >> or some other record that the person is deceased: "bet. 1860 and >> 1880". >> >> I do know this standard sets up the possibility of someone >> recording the after date as just a date. I am likely to make that >> a private date as a result. My concern then is that the deceased >> person does not show a death date ... >> >> Since I do not permit Gedcoms to be downloaded from my TNG site, I >> am not as not as worried about this. But it is a concern. >> >> john. >> >> At 03:29 PM 3/27/2015, Jay Wilpolt wrote: >>> >>> Don, >>> >>> I cant answer the question as to why Legacy does the things it >>> does as far as name conventions..... >>> >>>&nb >>>sp; But I have a large database of almost 250,000. >>> The problems come most often because of exchanging gedcoms where >>> importing and exporting data doesnt always end up in the right >>> place causing errors. >>> >>> Wherever I can I place a name and a date to help define the person >>> >>> I use UnknownMÃ and UnknownF for givven names and Unknown as a >>> surname >>> >>> You can tell Legacy to exclude specific names on the potential >>> problems list. >>> >>> I also add in usually some kind of date definer. >>> >>> Say as you mentioned as married females parents and siblings..... >>> Let say the lady was born in 1900 and married in 1918. >>> >>> I would add her parents as UnknownM Unknown born Bef 1882 and >>> & >>> >>>nbsp; married Bef 1900 to UnknownF Unknown also born Bef 1882 >>> and under the parents add the siblings like Margaret Unknown born >>> 1915 and John Unknown born 1918 >>> >>> If you were to leave the default Legacy of just no names but a >>> defacto (unknown and unknown) couple that connected to the >>> Margaret and John siblings... because there are no dates for the >>> parents they would export in any gedcom as LIVING persons. >>> >>> With dates added Legacy has a better chance on not selecting them >>> when searching for duplicates (If I didnt have all these >>> (placeholders) my duplicate search would have over 1,000,000 >>> potentials to review....lol) >>> >>> >>> so my general rules of thumb for date estimations are; >>> >>> abt. (about) is used whenever the date is NOT exact OR complete; >>> Dec 2008 is listed as "abt. Dec 2008" >>> aft. (after) is used for birth dates and estimates the birth took >>> place after the marriage of the parents. >>> aft. (after) used in birth dates estimates the birth took place >>> after the parent was 18 years of age. >>> aft. (after) used in marriage dates estimates the couple were >>> married after the eldest spouse was at least 18 years of age. >>> bef. (before) used in marriages dates estimates a couple were >>> married before the date of birth of any children. >>> bef. (before) used in death dates estimates a person died before >>> the age of 100. >>> bet. (between) used in birth dates estimates a person was born >>> between a rang e of dates when they are not listed on a census and >>> are listed on the next census. >>> bet. (between) used in marriage dates estimates a range of dates >>> from aft 18 years of age of the eldest spouse to some other date >>> information from another source. >>> cir. (circa) used in birth dates estimates a spouses birth date >>> is close to the same year as their spouse and is used only when >>> no other estimated dates can be determined. >>> >>> Yes, there will be people you find that actual date falls outside >>> of these generalizations, (like the 3/10ths of 1 % of persons >>> that live to be over 100 in my datafile) that is an acceptable >>> range for error. >>> >>> >>> Hope this helps >>> >>> Jay >> >> >> >> >>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://support.legacyfamilytree.com >>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 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://support.legacyfamilytree.com 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
