This is the 16th of 24 posts for the Advent Calendar of Christmas Memories, a Geneablogger tradition.
On the 9th day of Christmas,
I got dressed up as a tree
for the school play pageantry.
1) What did you do to celebrate Christmas at school?
My elementary school days were in 1948-1955, and I really don't remember much about Christmas activities at school. We must have made Christmas cards for our siblings and parents and grandparents. And paper chains to decorate the Christmas tree or the house. We probably made "hands" in clay, or paperweights with our picture on them, or some little gift like that for our parents. We probably sang some Christmas songs - especially the secular ones like Frosty, Jingle Bells, Rudolph, etc.
2) Were you ever in a Christmas Pageant?
Again, I don't recall (perhaps conveniently?). If I was, it was probably as a tree or a shepherd or a wise man with no speaking part. I was terribly frightened of public speaking until after college.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Blog Caroling - Angels We Have Heard On High
Our dear footnoteMaven is warming up the Choir of GeneAngels for this year's sing-along of Christmas Carols. We are supposed to claim our favorite Christmas Carol. The collection of songs from genea-bloggers should lift all of our spirits as we shop until we drop.
Mine is still "Angels we Have Heard On High" - maybe because of the Latin in it? Or because I can sing it in J-sharp and no one notices because of the joy it brings everyone else? Most likely because Linda collects angels and is referred to as Angel Linda by friends. The rumor that the first angel she collected was me is untrue.
Amen!
Musicologists have decided that this anonymous French tune was probably created around the eighteenth century. Some legends place its origin as as early as the second century.
Traditional French Carol
Words: Traditional French carol (Les Anges dans nos Campagnes).Translated from French to English by James Chadwick (1813-1882); appeared in Crown of Jesus, 1862.
Music: “Gloria (Barnes),” French carol melody; arranged by Edward S. Barnes.
Recorded/Performed: Andy Williams - 1970
Also recorded by: Tennessee Ernie Ford; Mormon Tabernacle Choir; Tommy Greer; Clancey Brothers; Scarlet Rivera; Eric Rigler; Madeline McNeil; Sandi Patty; Nat King Cole; Lorie Line; Connie Brown; Scott Miller; Vienna Boys Choir; Percy Faith; Collin Raye; Frankie Gavin; Texas Boys Choir; Mel Weston; Donny Osmond.
Mine is still "Angels we Have Heard On High" - maybe because of the Latin in it? Or because I can sing it in J-sharp and no one notices because of the joy it brings everyone else? Most likely because Linda collects angels and is referred to as Angel Linda by friends. The rumor that the first angel she collected was me is untrue.
Angels We Have Heard on High
Angels we have heard on high,
Singing sweetly through the night,
And the mountains in reply
Echoing their brave delight.
Gloria in excelsis Deo.
Gloria in excelsis Deo.
Shepherds, why this jubilee?
Why these songs of happy cheer?
What great brightness did you see?
What glad tiding did you hear?
Gloria in excelsis Deo.
Gloria in excelsis Deo.
Come to Bethlehem and see Him
whose birth the angels sing;
Come, adore on bended knee
Christ, the Lord, the new-born King.
Gloria in excelsis Deo.
Gloria in excelsis Deo.
See him in a manger laid
Whom the angels praise above;
Mary, Joseph, lend your aid,
While we raise our hearts in love.
Gloria in excelsis Deo.
Gloria in excelsis Deo.
Amen!
Musicologists have decided that this anonymous French tune was probably created around the eighteenth century. Some legends place its origin as as early as the second century.
Traditional French Carol
Words: Traditional French carol (Les Anges dans nos Campagnes).Translated from French to English by James Chadwick (1813-1882); appeared in Crown of Jesus, 1862.
Music: “Gloria (Barnes),” French carol melody; arranged by Edward S. Barnes.
Recorded/Performed: Andy Williams - 1970
Also recorded by: Tennessee Ernie Ford; Mormon Tabernacle Choir; Tommy Greer; Clancey Brothers; Scarlet Rivera; Eric Rigler; Madeline McNeil; Sandi Patty; Nat King Cole; Lorie Line; Connie Brown; Scott Miller; Vienna Boys Choir; Percy Faith; Collin Raye; Frankie Gavin; Texas Boys Choir; Mel Weston; Donny Osmond.
Building a Better GEDCOM - my ruminations
I mentioned the Build a Better GEDCOM Wiki over a month ago and urged genealogists interested in improving genealogy software to participate in the discussions, the testing and development of an improved standard that all genealogy software can use. The discussions are ongoing about not only GEDCOMs, but also genealogy research standards.
One of the most interesting pages on the site is the What's Wrong with GEDCOM? page. Click on the Discussion tab and see what people are saying.
And now there is a Build a Better GEDCOM Blog, with DearMYRTLE, GeneJ and Russ participating. Russ used a small GEDCOM file from Family Tree Maker 2011 and imported it into a number of other programs, with interesting, and different, results. These tests highlight the problems with current genealogy software, I think. Read their posts and comment if you have a question or suggestion.
From my own blog posts about FTM 16, FTM 2011, RootsMagic4 and Legacy Family Tree 7, readers can see some of the problems I've encountered, both real and imagined.
It's a given that most researchers don't really care about the standards, they just want software that works for them - is easy to use, is quick, looks good, produces decent reports and charts, and creates a GEDCOM file that can be shared with other researchers, ported to another program or uploaded to a website.
I think that most researchers buy one program and use it and hope that the GEDCOM it creates will be adequate for uploading to a website or importing to another program. Implicit in that is that the GEDCOM from one program can be read and understood by another program. Also implicit is that the GEDCOM file created uses standard terminology. The current GEDCOM de facto standard is apparently 5.5.
It's apparent to me that not every software program can accurately create a GEDCOM file fully complicit with GEDCOM 5.5 standards. If so, then the data in my GEDCOM file from FTM 16 would translate into exactly the same information in FTM 2011, RootsMagic or Legacy. It doesn't. I don't know whose fault that is, but I would like to find out.
Shouldn't every genealogy software program provide a fully compatible GEDCOM file to the 5.5 standard? Which ones do? I don't know, but I'd like to find out. What would be left out if they did?
I understand that this is not simple, and I understand that the different software companies have added content specific to their own programs in order to add features not incorporated in the GEDCOM 5.5 standard.
I've invested several months of time to improve my own database - fixing data errors, adding many sources for facts, standardizing place names, etc. I found that adding and editing sources and source citations was easily handled by FTM 16. In order to do the standardizing place names task as quickly and easily as possible, I imported the FTM 16 file into Family Tree Maker 2011. Am I now "stuck" with using FTM 2011 forever now? I guess I am if the task to correct the GEDCOM creation and exportation errors in FTM 2011 or the GEDCOM importation and translation errors in another program is too onerous to pursue.
One method that looks like it might transcend GEDCOM is a program like GenBridge, which reads genealogy software databases in their native format and creates a database file in the native format of another genealogy software program. That sounds wonderful, but is it sufficiently developed to be offered commercially, and will it be continuously updated as genealogy software programs mature and change over time?
Build a Better GEDCOM envisions a much larger task, and it is a significant challenge to complete. If you have some expertise in this area, I hope that you will participate in the discussions and creating solutions. I am heartened to see Bruce Buzbee of RootsMagic and Louis Kessler of Behold! at least reading and commenting on the site and the blog.
If you have a problem with one or more aspects of GEDCOM or with a specific software program, then raise your issue at Build a Better GEDCOM and volunteer to help solve it.
UPDATE 16 December: For some reason, Blogger did not accept a comment from Tamura Jones on this post. He tried six times, and I received the comment in my email each time, but the comment disappeared shortly after it was posted. I don't know why and did not delete the comments myself. The comment was cogwent and helpful. Here it is:
Tamura Jones has left a new comment on your post "Building a Better GEDCOM - my ruminations":
Randy,
I announced the Building a Better GEDCOM blog more than a week ago, in the best way possible; inside the third GeneaBlog Awards :-)
GeneaBlog Awards 2010
My recent Direct Import article discusses the pros & cons of direct import over standardised formats. This is a general software architecture article, not specific to genealogy, but it does discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using a third party component for direct import.
- Tamura
One of the most interesting pages on the site is the What's Wrong with GEDCOM? page. Click on the Discussion tab and see what people are saying.
And now there is a Build a Better GEDCOM Blog, with DearMYRTLE, GeneJ and Russ participating. Russ used a small GEDCOM file from Family Tree Maker 2011 and imported it into a number of other programs, with interesting, and different, results. These tests highlight the problems with current genealogy software, I think. Read their posts and comment if you have a question or suggestion.
From my own blog posts about FTM 16, FTM 2011, RootsMagic4 and Legacy Family Tree 7, readers can see some of the problems I've encountered, both real and imagined.
It's a given that most researchers don't really care about the standards, they just want software that works for them - is easy to use, is quick, looks good, produces decent reports and charts, and creates a GEDCOM file that can be shared with other researchers, ported to another program or uploaded to a website.
I think that most researchers buy one program and use it and hope that the GEDCOM it creates will be adequate for uploading to a website or importing to another program. Implicit in that is that the GEDCOM from one program can be read and understood by another program. Also implicit is that the GEDCOM file created uses standard terminology. The current GEDCOM de facto standard is apparently 5.5.
It's apparent to me that not every software program can accurately create a GEDCOM file fully complicit with GEDCOM 5.5 standards. If so, then the data in my GEDCOM file from FTM 16 would translate into exactly the same information in FTM 2011, RootsMagic or Legacy. It doesn't. I don't know whose fault that is, but I would like to find out.
Shouldn't every genealogy software program provide a fully compatible GEDCOM file to the 5.5 standard? Which ones do? I don't know, but I'd like to find out. What would be left out if they did?
I understand that this is not simple, and I understand that the different software companies have added content specific to their own programs in order to add features not incorporated in the GEDCOM 5.5 standard.
I've invested several months of time to improve my own database - fixing data errors, adding many sources for facts, standardizing place names, etc. I found that adding and editing sources and source citations was easily handled by FTM 16. In order to do the standardizing place names task as quickly and easily as possible, I imported the FTM 16 file into Family Tree Maker 2011. Am I now "stuck" with using FTM 2011 forever now? I guess I am if the task to correct the GEDCOM creation and exportation errors in FTM 2011 or the GEDCOM importation and translation errors in another program is too onerous to pursue.
One method that looks like it might transcend GEDCOM is a program like GenBridge, which reads genealogy software databases in their native format and creates a database file in the native format of another genealogy software program. That sounds wonderful, but is it sufficiently developed to be offered commercially, and will it be continuously updated as genealogy software programs mature and change over time?
Build a Better GEDCOM envisions a much larger task, and it is a significant challenge to complete. If you have some expertise in this area, I hope that you will participate in the discussions and creating solutions. I am heartened to see Bruce Buzbee of RootsMagic and Louis Kessler of Behold! at least reading and commenting on the site and the blog.
If you have a problem with one or more aspects of GEDCOM or with a specific software program, then raise your issue at Build a Better GEDCOM and volunteer to help solve it.
UPDATE 16 December: For some reason, Blogger did not accept a comment from Tamura Jones on this post. He tried six times, and I received the comment in my email each time, but the comment disappeared shortly after it was posted. I don't know why and did not delete the comments myself. The comment was cogwent and helpful. Here it is:
Tamura Jones has left a new comment on your post "Building a Better GEDCOM - my ruminations":
Randy,
I announced the Building a Better GEDCOM blog more than a week ago, in the best way possible; inside the third GeneaBlog Awards :-)
GeneaBlog Awards 2010
My recent Direct Import article discusses the pros & cons of direct import over standardised formats. This is a general software architecture article, not specific to genealogy, but it does discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using a third party component for direct import.
- Tamura
All I Want for Christmas is... Isaac's Civil War Pension File!
Devoted readers of Genea-Musings will recall that I'm transcribing the pages that I have from my second-great-grandfather Isaac Seaver's Civil War Pension File. However, I'm pretty sure that my uncle Ed Seaver ordered and received the Pension Documents Packet and not the complete file back in 1990.
So - for my belated Christmas present, I'm ordering Isaac Seaver's complete pension file online and should receive it on a CD or DVD in 6 to 20 weeks. In the process of ordering, I made some screen shots of the process that show off the new National Archives website and the online ordering process.
Here is the newly designed National archives home page at http://www.archives.gov/:
I was interested in the Civil War Pension File, so I clicked on the "Veterans Service Records" image:
On the "Veteran's Service Records" page above, under "Research using Military Records" there is a link for "Locate older (pre-World War I) service records" and I clicked on that to see (two screens below):
The page above provides information on ordering the older military records, and in the "Military Pension/Bounty Land Warrant Applications" box at the bottom of the screen above is a link to "Order Online." When I click on that, I get:
On this page above, I can order a number of different records online. I chose the "Federal Military Pension application - Civil War and Later Complete File - (NATF 85D)"
The first order page looks like this:
I chose to order the file via "CD or DVD (Determined by File size and Availability)" rather than via a paper copy. I clicked on the "Add to Cart" button and filled out the form with the Soldier's information:
I needed to know Isaac's Pension File number, his birth date and place, his death date and place, the war he fought in, and his company, regiment and branch of the service.
Then I clicked on the "Continue to Pay and Ship" button, registered with NARA, and filled in the shipping and billing information.
That took all of about five minutes to order the file. NARA has made this a very easy ordering process. I look forward to a surprise in my mailbox next February or March!
So - for my belated Christmas present, I'm ordering Isaac Seaver's complete pension file online and should receive it on a CD or DVD in 6 to 20 weeks. In the process of ordering, I made some screen shots of the process that show off the new National Archives website and the online ordering process.
Here is the newly designed National archives home page at http://www.archives.gov/:
I was interested in the Civil War Pension File, so I clicked on the "Veterans Service Records" image:
On the "Veteran's Service Records" page above, under "Research using Military Records" there is a link for "Locate older (pre-World War I) service records" and I clicked on that to see (two screens below):
The page above provides information on ordering the older military records, and in the "Military Pension/Bounty Land Warrant Applications" box at the bottom of the screen above is a link to "Order Online." When I click on that, I get:
On this page above, I can order a number of different records online. I chose the "Federal Military Pension application - Civil War and Later Complete File - (NATF 85D)"
The first order page looks like this:
I chose to order the file via "CD or DVD (Determined by File size and Availability)" rather than via a paper copy. I clicked on the "Add to Cart" button and filled out the form with the Soldier's information:
I needed to know Isaac's Pension File number, his birth date and place, his death date and place, the war he fought in, and his company, regiment and branch of the service.
Then I clicked on the "Continue to Pay and Ship" button, registered with NARA, and filled in the shipping and billing information.
That took all of about five minutes to order the file. NARA has made this a very easy ordering process. I look forward to a surprise in my mailbox next February or March!
(Not So) Wordless Wednesday - Post 133: Randy and Santa
I'm posting family photographs from my collection on Wednesdays, but they won't be Wordless Wednesday posts like others do - I simply am incapable of having a wordless post.
Here is a photograph from the Seaver//Carringer family collection handed down by my mother in the 1988 to 2002 time period:
This photograph was probably taken at Marston's Department Store in downtown San Diego where my grandfather worked for 55 years. This photo was probably taken in the 1947 to 1950 time frame. My guess is that my grandfather, Lyle Carringer, took this picture, although my mother may have taken it.
It looks like Santa has a good hold on me - an arm around my waist and a hand holding down my left arm. I was never scared of Santa Claus, so my smile is genuine and anticipatory. Either that, or someone made a funny face at me when the picture was snapped.
Here is a photograph from the Seaver//Carringer family collection handed down by my mother in the 1988 to 2002 time period:
This photograph was probably taken at Marston's Department Store in downtown San Diego where my grandfather worked for 55 years. This photo was probably taken in the 1947 to 1950 time frame. My guess is that my grandfather, Lyle Carringer, took this picture, although my mother may have taken it.
It looks like Santa has a good hold on me - an arm around my waist and a hand holding down my left arm. I was never scared of Santa Claus, so my smile is genuine and anticipatory. Either that, or someone made a funny face at me when the picture was snapped.
Advent Calendar - 15 December: The Holiday Happenings
This is the 15th of 24 posts for the Advent Calendar of Christmas Memories, a Geneablogger tradition.
On the 10th Day of Christmas,
my true love inquired to say
Did any ancestors marry on Christmas day?"
1) Select one or more December to mid-January birthdays and/or anniversaries on your family tree.
This, of course, requires knowledge of the birthdays, and anniversaries, of my ancestors and other relatives. What better way to find out than to exercise my genealogy software programs. The RootsMagic 4 program easily makes a list of persons born on specific days and couples with specific wedding days.
In my 39,537 person database, there are 48 persons born on 25 December, but only one of my known ancestors - Benedict Oatley (1732-1815) - was born on Christmas Day.
Likewise, in my database, there are 40 couples married on Christmas Day. Only one known ancestral couple - Edward Hildreth (1831-1899) and Sophia Newton (1834-1923) was married on Christmas Day.
I had to use the Custom List in RootsMagic 4 to look for the 40 people that died on 25 December, but I found that none of my known ancestors died on that date. I did find that my ancestor, Thomas Wheeler (1621-1704) died on 24 December.
2) Write a short tribute to or memory of those birthday guys and gals and write a toast to the anniversary couples.
I am, of course, thankful that each one of my ancestors were born on the day that they were born, and that they were married on the day that they were married. There are things that happen in a moment that take a lifetime to explain - a birth, a conception, a marriage, a death, or any of the events that each individual experiences in their lifetime.
I wonder if my great-great-grandparents Edward and Sophia (Newton) Hildreth had some sort of special way each year to celebrate their marriage on 25 December 1852. I hope so! They shared 46 wedding anniversaries together.
On the 10th Day of Christmas,
my true love inquired to say
Did any ancestors marry on Christmas day?"
1) Select one or more December to mid-January birthdays and/or anniversaries on your family tree.
This, of course, requires knowledge of the birthdays, and anniversaries, of my ancestors and other relatives. What better way to find out than to exercise my genealogy software programs. The RootsMagic 4 program easily makes a list of persons born on specific days and couples with specific wedding days.
In my 39,537 person database, there are 48 persons born on 25 December, but only one of my known ancestors - Benedict Oatley (1732-1815) - was born on Christmas Day.
Likewise, in my database, there are 40 couples married on Christmas Day. Only one known ancestral couple - Edward Hildreth (1831-1899) and Sophia Newton (1834-1923) was married on Christmas Day.
I had to use the Custom List in RootsMagic 4 to look for the 40 people that died on 25 December, but I found that none of my known ancestors died on that date. I did find that my ancestor, Thomas Wheeler (1621-1704) died on 24 December.
2) Write a short tribute to or memory of those birthday guys and gals and write a toast to the anniversary couples.
I am, of course, thankful that each one of my ancestors were born on the day that they were born, and that they were married on the day that they were married. There are things that happen in a moment that take a lifetime to explain - a birth, a conception, a marriage, a death, or any of the events that each individual experiences in their lifetime.
I wonder if my great-great-grandparents Edward and Sophia (Newton) Hildreth had some sort of special way each year to celebrate their marriage on 25 December 1852. I hope so! They shared 46 wedding anniversaries together.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The new www.FamilySearch.org is live!
I was alerted to this by James Tanner's post Beta FamilySearch replaces old FamilySearch and soon saaw Paul Nauta's post FamilySearch.org Website Changes on the FamilySearch Blog.
I typed http://www.familysearch.org/ in my browser address line and saw:
Okay. So where are the old sites that were useful, like the International Genealogical Index and the other databases? I found that the URLs I had in my Favorites still work and take me to the old FamilySearch Search, News, Library, Education, etc.
But there's a link on the new FamilySearch.org home page at the top right - see the "Changes at FamilySearch.org" and "What's New" button? Click on that, and you go to Paul Nauta's post on the blog (two screens below):
On the blog post are links to some of the old FamilySearch.org sites, including:
* Go to Prior Version of FamilySearch.org
* Go to Popular FamilySearch Downloads
* Search the IGI (International Genealogical Index)
* Search Ancestral File
* Search Historical Books
* Search Community Trees
Here is the screen for the Go to Prior Version of FamilySearch.org link:
Everything seems to work as before, although the screens have changed a bit, and there are links to the FamilySearch Beta site (and http://beta.familysearch.org/ still works).
The Record Search Pilot site is still active, but has only 402 databases at this time. The http://www.familysearch.org/ site has 508 historical collections listed today.
I typed http://www.familysearch.org/ in my browser address line and saw:
Okay. So where are the old sites that were useful, like the International Genealogical Index and the other databases? I found that the URLs I had in my Favorites still work and take me to the old FamilySearch Search, News, Library, Education, etc.
But there's a link on the new FamilySearch.org home page at the top right - see the "Changes at FamilySearch.org" and "What's New" button? Click on that, and you go to Paul Nauta's post on the blog (two screens below):
On the blog post are links to some of the old FamilySearch.org sites, including:
* Go to Prior Version of FamilySearch.org
* Go to Popular FamilySearch Downloads
* Search the IGI (International Genealogical Index)
* Search Ancestral File
* Search Historical Books
* Search Community Trees
Here is the screen for the Go to Prior Version of FamilySearch.org link:
Everything seems to work as before, although the screens have changed a bit, and there are links to the FamilySearch Beta site (and http://beta.familysearch.org/ still works).
The Record Search Pilot site is still active, but has only 402 databases at this time. The http://www.familysearch.org/ site has 508 historical collections listed today.
Tuesday's Tip - Use the FamilySearch Library Catalog and FHL Microforms
This week's Tuesday's Tip is to: Use the FamilySearch Library Catalog (formerly the Family History Library Catalog) to find resources that are located at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, or on microfilm or microfiche that can be ordered at a local LDS FamilySearch Center. Order microfilm or microfiche for those items of interest to you in your family history and genealogy research.
To reiterate an earlier Tuesday's Tip - all of the information you need to research your genealogy is not online, and it never will be! There is a wealth of material from all parts of the world available on microfilm or microfiche at the FamilySearch Library.
Some of the most useful records that can be obtained to perform a Reasonably Exhaustive Search are vital, probate, land, tax, town, church and similar county and state records. These are available in the FamilySearch Library Catalog for many counties, states and countries, and are not available, in general terms, in online historical record databases.
Ordering the microfilms and microfiches at a local FamilySearch Center can provide valuable research evidence for your elusive ancestors, but they cost about $6 for a limited time to review them. However, for me, that is more time efficient and cost efficient than going to Salt Lake City for a week or more at the Family History Library. The exception is if you need to access a large number of different microfilms - that is when you go to SLC.
The good news is that in the future a researcher will be able to browse through many of the microfilmed records on the FamilySearch.org website. There may even be indexes for the records. But there are few of the probate, land, tax, and town records available online at present.
Am I preaching to the choir here?
To reiterate an earlier Tuesday's Tip - all of the information you need to research your genealogy is not online, and it never will be! There is a wealth of material from all parts of the world available on microfilm or microfiche at the FamilySearch Library.
Some of the most useful records that can be obtained to perform a Reasonably Exhaustive Search are vital, probate, land, tax, town, church and similar county and state records. These are available in the FamilySearch Library Catalog for many counties, states and countries, and are not available, in general terms, in online historical record databases.
Ordering the microfilms and microfiches at a local FamilySearch Center can provide valuable research evidence for your elusive ancestors, but they cost about $6 for a limited time to review them. However, for me, that is more time efficient and cost efficient than going to Salt Lake City for a week or more at the Family History Library. The exception is if you need to access a large number of different microfilms - that is when you go to SLC.
The good news is that in the future a researcher will be able to browse through many of the microfilmed records on the FamilySearch.org website. There may even be indexes for the records. But there are few of the probate, land, tax, and town records available online at present.
Am I preaching to the choir here?
Advent Calendar - 14 December: Fruitcake - Friend or Foe?
This is the 14th in a series of 24 posts for the Advent Calendar of Christmas Memories.
On the 11th Day of Christmas,
some joker sent to me
the biggest fruitcake I ever did see!
1) Did you like fruitcake?
I don't recall ever eating more than one bite of fruitcake, so I don't know if I like it or not. I think probably not...
2) Did your family receive fruitcakes?
As a kid, I don't think so. We didn't get many gifts from out of town, and no one here, except probably Cousin Dorothy who was "different," received them.
3) Have you ever re-gifted fruitcake?
I recall that Linda and I received one by opening a gift at a Christmas party, and we promptly re-gifted at the New Years Party - to much laughter. We had to disguise it in a box, though.
4) Have you ever devised creative uses for fruitcake?
Of course...examples --
* Petrified Fruitcake (surprise your favorite geologist)?
* Fruitcake fights (hidden in a snowball)?
* Fruitcake-eating contest (go for a Guinness world record)?
* Juicy-Fruitcake gum (hide it under your best friend's desk)?
* Scantily clad girl surprises 90-year old on his birthday by jumping out of a large fruitcake (Ah, the mind wanders, er, well, I should be so lucky in 25 years)?
On the 11th Day of Christmas,
some joker sent to me
the biggest fruitcake I ever did see!
1) Did you like fruitcake?
I don't recall ever eating more than one bite of fruitcake, so I don't know if I like it or not. I think probably not...
2) Did your family receive fruitcakes?
As a kid, I don't think so. We didn't get many gifts from out of town, and no one here, except probably Cousin Dorothy who was "different," received them.
3) Have you ever re-gifted fruitcake?
I recall that Linda and I received one by opening a gift at a Christmas party, and we promptly re-gifted at the New Years Party - to much laughter. We had to disguise it in a box, though.
4) Have you ever devised creative uses for fruitcake?
Of course...examples --
* Petrified Fruitcake (surprise your favorite geologist)?
* Fruitcake fights (hidden in a snowball)?
* Fruitcake-eating contest (go for a Guinness world record)?
* Juicy-Fruitcake gum (hide it under your best friend's desk)?
* Scantily clad girl surprises 90-year old on his birthday by jumping out of a large fruitcake (Ah, the mind wanders, er, well, I should be so lucky in 25 years)?
Monday, December 13, 2010
Managing Repositories in Family Tree Maker 2011
You would think that I had learned my lesson from Saturday (see Be Careful with the Publish button...), and would check the Help file in Family Tree Maker 2011 before I tried to fix all of my Repository listings. But, alas, no. I messed around trying to Edit the Repository in specific source citations and finally managed to crash the program... several times.
I had several nearly duplicate Repositories in my list, and many of them had been screwed up when I exported my database from FTM 2010 back to FTM 16 several months ago. When I imported the FTM 16 database into FTM 2011, the screwed up Repository listings were still there (of course). So, I wanted to fix them, and clean up the duplicates in the process.
I figured that there was a better way, so I broke down and consulted the Help files. I searched for "replace repositories" in the Help Search screen, and saw several results, including this summary about "Repositories:"
It gives directions for different Options - New, Edit, Replace, Delete and Usage. At the bottom is the key - "To open the Repositories dialog box, click Edit and Manage Repositories.
Okay, that's simple... I tried that and the list of my Repositories opened:
If you look closely, you can see that many of the Repositories in my database had the blasted "NAME" in front of many Repositories, and had "ADDR EMAIL PHON" after the name of the Repository. After about an hour of effort, I had edited the Repository items to eliminate those offending terms and had also eliminated duplicate Repository entries by using the Replace button.
Here is my cleaned up list of Repositories:
Now I'm not sure what the "standard" repository citation is - should I name the repository itself and the location of the repository, e.g., "Carlsbad Georgina Cole Library, Carlsbad, California, USA" or should I put the city, state, country in the Address field in the Repository dialog box?
What about online databases? I have adopted using the name of the database with the website in parentheses - e.g., Find-A-Grave (http://www.findagrave.com/) without a place name for the company. Is that appropriate?
I hear a little birdie telling me "you dummy, you should have looked in the Bible of genealogical source citations, Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills." Okay, I did, and see the same thing in the QuickSheet: Citing Ancestry.com Databases and Images. A typical Ancestry.com citation for a census record looks like:
" 'Washington Deaths, 1890-1907,' database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com/)" with an "accessed 22 January 2009), entry for ..." after. The Repository bit is the Item ("database") and the Website title and URL ("Ancestry.com, (www.ancestry.com"). I've been putting the access date and specific entry information into the source citation detail.
So I've messed up again - I need to edit the Repositories, and more importantly, all of the Source definitions to meet the EE and QuickSheet standards. Drat!
I will learn the right way, and the easy way, to do this sometime, I hope! Perhaps I should use the Source template function. But I have 640 Source Groups already and about 40 Repositories to Edit. Or I could just leave them alone and they'll serve as a bad example.
I had several nearly duplicate Repositories in my list, and many of them had been screwed up when I exported my database from FTM 2010 back to FTM 16 several months ago. When I imported the FTM 16 database into FTM 2011, the screwed up Repository listings were still there (of course). So, I wanted to fix them, and clean up the duplicates in the process.
I figured that there was a better way, so I broke down and consulted the Help files. I searched for "replace repositories" in the Help Search screen, and saw several results, including this summary about "Repositories:"
It gives directions for different Options - New, Edit, Replace, Delete and Usage. At the bottom is the key - "To open the Repositories dialog box, click Edit and Manage Repositories.
Okay, that's simple... I tried that and the list of my Repositories opened:
If you look closely, you can see that many of the Repositories in my database had the blasted "NAME" in front of many Repositories, and had "ADDR EMAIL PHON" after the name of the Repository. After about an hour of effort, I had edited the Repository items to eliminate those offending terms and had also eliminated duplicate Repository entries by using the Replace button.
Here is my cleaned up list of Repositories:
Now I'm not sure what the "standard" repository citation is - should I name the repository itself and the location of the repository, e.g., "Carlsbad Georgina Cole Library, Carlsbad, California, USA" or should I put the city, state, country in the Address field in the Repository dialog box?
What about online databases? I have adopted using the name of the database with the website in parentheses - e.g., Find-A-Grave (http://www.findagrave.com/) without a place name for the company. Is that appropriate?
I hear a little birdie telling me "you dummy, you should have looked in the Bible of genealogical source citations, Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills." Okay, I did, and see the same thing in the QuickSheet: Citing Ancestry.com Databases and Images. A typical Ancestry.com citation for a census record looks like:
" 'Washington Deaths, 1890-1907,' database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com/)" with an "accessed 22 January 2009), entry for ..." after. The Repository bit is the Item ("database") and the Website title and URL ("Ancestry.com, (www.ancestry.com"). I've been putting the access date and specific entry information into the source citation detail.
So I've messed up again - I need to edit the Repositories, and more importantly, all of the Source definitions to meet the EE and QuickSheet standards. Drat!
I will learn the right way, and the easy way, to do this sometime, I hope! Perhaps I should use the Source template function. But I have 640 Source Groups already and about 40 Repositories to Edit. Or I could just leave them alone and they'll serve as a bad example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)