The issue, as you will appreciate, is that I am working with a database
converted from another product. The sources therefore already exist. I
need to be able to modify an existing source in order to add the
information describing it as a web-site. The Sourcewriter is not much
use to me in this
Kristen wrote:
According to _Evidence Explained_ by Elizabeth Shown Mills, a website is the
equivalent of a book and the URL, therefore, is entered in the field for the
publisher's information.
Personally I have trouble wrapping my head around this concept, and I know a
lot
On 5/22/2010 6:11 PM, Ron Ferguson wrote:
Martin,
Secondly the file names for Pedigree webpages are the RIN with the .html
extension, hance it is easier to think in RINs rather than names.
Ron Ferguson
_
This is not true in every
Gene Young wrote:
On 5/22/2010 6:11 PM, Ron Ferguson wrote:
Martin,
Secondly the file names for Pedigree webpages are the RIN with the
.html extension, hance it is easier to think in RINs rather than
names.
Ron Ferguson
_
This is not
Jim:
When I said the field for the publisher's information I meant that the URL
should appear in the finished citation instead of the usual place of
publication. So where you would normally see Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in a
citation for the publisher of a book, you would instead see the LAC
Note to self do not hit send by accident before you pare down your
questions to a legible format. Please forgive me. I will try to separate
the questions and try again
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21
I seem to be making mistakes all over the place.
I have been reading with interest the posts on sources. I have to ask,
because I have a copy of Evidence and cannot find the digital image by
subscription. What is this and what does it mean? I usually add the date
a webpage was accessed or a
I used to say that I was researching my genealogy. Now, after over 15
years, I have started over because much of what I had gathered in the
beginning did not have a source citation attached. Nor did I know anything
about putting notes in the research section so that when I came back to a
person
I have begun using the to-do feature in Legacy and have found it a wonderful
resource for keeping track of where I've looked and what my thoughts were on
a specific piece of research. Even if I looked at a source and did not find
anything in it for what I am looking for, I add it as a source on
smithmp wrote:
I used to say that I was researching my genealogy. Now, after over 15
years, I have started over because much of what I had gathered in the
beginning did not have a source citation attached. Nor did I know
anything about putting notes in the research section so that when I
Hey smithrmp...
I, too, am learning the best way to record information in the
database, and like you, started over when I bought Legacy,
re-entering all of the information I had from an earlier program.
Even now, however, I still am learning on the fly thus having to
update or correct information
Welcome to the crowd - I too have spent the better part of the past 1-2 years
correcting and changing records. Its been a long hard road, but I'm beginning
to see some organization to my files with backup and sources. The review has
been most enlightening as to correcting wrong paths, etc.
Ron,
I'm not sure that using the notes and writing the source next to
each entry would make it possible to have an uncluttered report for those
members of my family who don't really care about where each piect of
information came from. I wonder why this is a feature that Legacy doesn't
Scott,
Since I have never used a File ID I am not sure exactly how it works
but I think I will play around with it and see if this method might work for
me. It might be because I've never used File IDs that this sounds more
complicated than it is but I do get the thought process you
1. Both documents are sources and I would put the actual text of each
source in the Source Detail or under Source Detail Comments.
2. I remember Geofff Rasmussen suggesting somewhere to keep track of
information that turns out to be incorrect just so you know. So, that's
kind of similar. I don't
JL,
It sounds to me that this would probably be the easiest way to
handle it but it's really going to bug that part of me that wants to
completely redo my research without having to use 'work arounds', especially
since I am starting all over again with a database of over 68,000 people! I
I just put in the detail of the source, 'only had date' or 'only had place' or
'had month/year and state/country'; if it is a 'partial', because I know that
this Source will never give more data than I have already. Since I gedcom stuff
to others, if they want to delete/remove stuff, that is
Glad I helped. Not sure what I did.
--- On Sun, 5/23/10, smithmp smit...@hughes.net wrote:
From: smithmp smit...@hughes.net
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] A Different Way of Printing source citations...
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2010, 3:27 PM
Rich,
I just
What a good idea. That is easier to do (at home in advance) than photocopying
the Source stuff which is usually on line anyway while at the repository.
Rich
--- On Sun, 5/23/10, Connie Sheets clshee...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Connie Sheets clshee...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] A
Thank you for your advice. As you point out there are no hard and fast
rules about where this information should be put in the database
records. I just have to find a way that works for me.
--
Jim Cobban jamescob...@sympatico.ca
34 Palomino Dr.
Kanata, ON, CANADA
K2M 1M1
+1-613-592-9438
20 matches
Mail list logo
