John, For Gedcom validation I recommed
Genealogica Grafica http://www.genealogicagrafica.nl/ or try Tim's Bonkers its GREAT! http://www.mccomberfamily.com/2013/02/bonkers-gedcom-sanity-checker.html These both go much further than Legacy does in validation. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:08 PM, John B. Lisle <[email protected]> wrote: > Jay, > > Please see below... > > john. > > At 06:59 PM 3/27/2015, 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 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 agree, but I just do not wish to publish data that I know to be guesses. > The private dates helps me keep organized without publishing more crap. > > > > > > *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 never seen a problem, remember, I am always explicitly putting in > at least an "Unknown" death date. Every software product I have looked at > handles that. > > > > > *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. > > > Again, I prefer to take the risk out of the equation. > > The historical way to deal with such items is to say Joe Smith, son of > Alfred Smith and Ellen Jones. Or some other phrase that talks to their > genealogy. > > When I am working a family reconstruction, I am always looking for the > names of parents of the spouses of my target family. And, I will research > the spouse family more if I start finding surnames that are popping up > elsewhere in the family. This is my "hidden cousins" dynamic. > > > > > *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 > > > Of course. Or when you look at a FamilySearch or Ancestry tree and you see > a person father or grandfather in their child list. > > The L8 PP Alerts system is wonderful for preventing this -- I get a laff > out of hearing people talk about turning it off because they are getting > too many alerts. > > I do not add Gedcoms to my research file. If someone contributes a Gedcom, > I import the Gedcom into Legacy and then rework each person in the file so > that the data complies with my standards and then append it into my main > file, merging data where necessary. IE, the Gedcom was only a file of clues. > > > > > > *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 .* > > > But as another user stated, the best way is whatever works for YOU...... > > > Yup. > > Thanks for the conversation. > > BTW, I have submitted the suggestion about the Child Status to Legacy, > along with two other suggestions to improve Gedcom export. > > john. > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:33 PM, John B. Lisle <[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 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. > > 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 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. > > 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..... > > 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 UnknownM and UnknownF for given 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 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 > range 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 > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Don Quigley <[email protected]> wrote: Some > of the recent messages have prompted this more general question I have > about how to enter “names†for unr unknown persons in Legacy, > particularly for persons with no known given or surname. This situation > typically arises for a female with no known surname, for whom I have > information about her parents that I want to record and have in the > database when (if) I find the missing names. I also need parents for > siblings to be linked, even if their surnames are unknown. > >  > I have always used ??? as the unknown given and/or surname for a > person. Legacy warns me against doing so, but allows me to do it. > However, if I leave both fields blank, Legacy will prevent me from saving > the person. >  > For me, ??? seems to work well, but I’ve of often wondered why does > Legacy (and other geneaology sources) warn against the use of a > questionmark in a name? Are they just referring to the practice of > trying to show uncertainty about a name – i.e., John Smith?.‚ I > don’t do that.< > >  > Donald Quigley > Escondido, CA > Quigley Doyle Family Tree > > http://www.donquigley.net >  > > 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 <http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/>). To > unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > <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 > <http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/>). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > <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 > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > <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 > <http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/>). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > <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 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
