* Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Questions regarding use of any Version of Family Historian. Please ensure you have set your Version of Family Historian in your Profile
Post Reply
avatar
USMC7312
Silver
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Jul 2019 23:09
Family Historian: V6

Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by USMC7312 » 13 Jul 2019 16:20

Hay,

I am trying to evaluate Family Historian for a 3rd time after prompt from a troll who swears Family Historian is the #1 genealogy software. I have been researching this subject for over a year. I have looked at Family Historian twice before and was not impressed. My biggest hang up at this point is with creating citations and sources. I also want to be able to create my own source/citation templates. Furthermore, I want to make sure my database remains as NORMALIZED as possible. I want one source to multiple citations. Finally, I want my citations to be as Evidenced Explained compliant as possible.

I have been doing genealogy almost daily since 1998. Until last year, I used Family Tree Maker (FTM). I unfortunately encountered a bug that stopped my being able to sync with ancestry.com. I worked with FTM for six months too resolve the problem. I even provided all my data allowing them to reproduce the issue in house. They could not fix it after six months, so the odyssey began to find the best genealogy software. To date, the best I have found is Roots Magic and Legacy 9. Yes, their user interface leaves much to be desired, but as far as functionality, they have beaten all the competition. On the Mac platform, MacFamily Tree has the best solution, but with Parallels considered we are back to Legacy 9 and Roots Magic.

I want to test your software. If FH is better so be it. But until I can create a proper citation and custom citation that is EE compliant, Family Historian has no place in my study.

Can you please send me a license that would allow me to properly examine your software OR provide a workaround that would allow me to create a custom citation that is EE compliant?

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16462
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by tatewise » 13 Jul 2019 16:40

I have moved this to the FH General Usage Forum because Ancestral Sources is a companion product and nothing to do with your topic.

This is the Family Historian User Group (FHUG) run by users (like you) so have nothing to do with selling licences, which must be obtained from the vendors Calico Pie at https://store.family-historian.co.uk/.

However, the https://www.family-historian.co.uk/down ... -day-trial does everything that a licenced copy offers with the one exception of Plugins that have little to do with Source Citations.

One Source to multiple Citations is not a problem, and is fundamental feature of FH & GEDCOM.

What exactly do you mean by wanting your data 'as NORMALIZED as possible'?
Perhaps you mean adhering to the GEDCOM Specification without customisations?
But that would be in conflict with creating your 'own source/citation templates'.
Can you please explain how you would hope to achieve that with any product?

FH Source Citations can only be partially compliant with Evidenced Explained.
I believe the main limitation is that FH only allows plain text in a single font.
The compromises can be explained by other users who try to follow Evidenced Explained.

Knowledge Base > Key Features for Newcomers covers important topics, especially under Sources Methods 1 & 2 and the links to articles that explain how to use them. Please explain what techniques you have tried to create Sources and Citations as there may be just one key step you have overlooked, but the links mentioned above explain everything you should need to know. Also examining the Family Historian Sample Project should give you some clues.

There are plenty of migrants here from Legacy and Roots Magic who will no doubt explain why they switched to FH.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1296
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 13 Jul 2019 16:44

Hi!

This is the Family Historian User Group, not the software developers, whose website is at Family Historian.

However, the evaluation version of Family Historian is fully functional except for the ability to run plugins (user-developed add-ins), so I'm not sure why you can't create a source -- can you explain what you've tried? (FH definitely supports one source -- multiple citations).

As for EE compliance, FH v6 doesn't have that out of the box -- but there is a plugin (Add Source From Template) that allows you to create your own source template -- however, the output is constrained by the Gedcom source structure, and doesn't include formatted text (so no italics). I use it to create a 'long title' for my sources that is as close to EE compliant Source List format as I can get, e.g. (please don't mark me out of 10 for EE compliance; this is just to illustrate the sort of thing that's possible)
Staffordshire Parish Registers Society. "Rowley Regis Parish Register Part II (Baptisms & Burials 1685-1772, Marriages 1754-1772)", printed transcription as PDF, entry for Sarah Jones baptised 27 Nov 1743
"1900 United States Federal Census", database with images, Ancestry (https://ancestry.co.uk accessed 6 February 2018), David John citing Year: Year: 1900; Census Place: Provo, Utah, Utah; Page: 2; Enumeration District: 0163
You'll see more examples on my website at ColeValleyGirl Tree -- pick any individual and look at the source list at the end of the page. Note: I use a third-party product to generate the website, not FH, but the source details come out of FH.

You can't test the plugin in the evaluation version, unfortunately.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16462
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by tatewise » 13 Jul 2019 16:59

Let me add that you can do everything that the Add Source From Template Plugin offers without actually using the Plugin, but it does require a little more manual effort . The Plugin is simply an aid to creating the Sources illustrated by Helen, but they can be produced by hand without the Plugin.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1296
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 13 Jul 2019 17:06

Mike, Yes, it's possible, but OP said:
I also want to be able to create my own source/citation templates
for which you need the plugin (to create the templates, and then create sources using the templates). Without the plugin there are no templates and it's more than 'a little more effort'.

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 837
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Becuase Eval Version

Post by AdrianBruce » 13 Jul 2019 20:14

a proper citation and custom citation that is EE compliant
To be honest if someone is prioritising EE formats, then FH is not the place to be. There are 3 major issues that I think (from fallible memory) exist:
  • EE formats cover "footnotes", "2nd and subsequent footnotes" and bibliographies. No matter how you try, while you might concoct "footnotes" in an authentic ESM style, FH has no ability to produce "2nd and subsequent footnotes" - it just repeats the first. Nor can it produce bibliographies with the correct format.
  • I think that in software such as RM, you can enter source data into templated "items" that can be arranged via printing templates to construct the ESM style citations - but I also think that those items can be reordered for printing purposes by simply altering the printing templates, not the individual sources. Once a FH style plug-in template has created the source, the individual items have been concatenated into strings and can't be unconcatenated for re-arrangement.
  • Another major difference between RM/FTM and FH is the question of sources and master-sources (or detailed sources and sources, depending on which software you are using). Effectively, where FH just has sources, RM/FTM have sources and something-a-bit-higher-level-than-sources. The most sensible thing to do would be to say that they have sources and source-collections. Using the source templating facilities in those programs, one can hold a certain amount of data at the source-collection level to save repeating it at the source level. A typical US example would be to create source-collection records for a US census for a particular year and state/county - that way, the individual household schedules need only add the data below the county level. This is actually nothing whatsoever to do with EE citations - indeed, ESM's explanations of master-sources are distinctly woolly (unusually) primarily because master-sources are a computer artefact (unless explained as collections, which they seldom are). But if one has a mass of data held as sources and master-sources (aka detailed sources and sources, aka sources and source collections), it's impossible to import them into FH without flattening them into the one level of sources creating pretty much obligatory duplication.
My terminology is no doubt all wrong for software such as RM. (Though RM and FTM aren't consistent between themselves, as per the master-source / detail source business!)

Yes, there are all sorts of counter arguments to anything I've said above but - as I said - if you are seriously wedded to ESM's EE style formats across all 3 types (footnotes / 2nd footnotes / bibliographies), you're better off elsewhere. Personally, I use the EE formats as inspiration and no more.
Adrian

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16462
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by tatewise » 13 Jul 2019 22:09

How does the OP desire to have data 'as NORMALIZED as possible' fit with all that EE customisation?
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 837
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by AdrianBruce » 13 Jul 2019 23:01

Having 3 formats of EE Customisation (footnote, 2nd footnote and bibliography) isn't a challenge to Normalisation because each item is held just once for that source - e.g. "publication place" is held once but printed in each of the 3 when the need comes to generate those formats for each report being "printed". Not sure if that's part of what you were referring to...

Having Source and Master-Source was presumably intended to cut down on duplication because (to take the census example) all the county level data items are held once in the Master Source for that county, rather than against each household. Of course (so far as I know) you can't have a Master Source within another Master Source, so you still need to write "Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940. Population Schedule" against each county level Master Source, whereas if you could have a Master Source within another Master Source then you'd just store that bit once against the very top Master Source - or Collection. I mention county level censuses simply because that's the one that sticks in my mind - why our American friends tend to choose the county level for their census Master Sources, I've no idea. Presumably it's simply a good old British(??!!) compromise.

Where I suspect the EE customisation does tend to run away is with the countless templates that it prompts in apps like RM/FTM - I remember someone saying, "I really don't need 30 templates for a book, so I delete most of them..." But I've done it myself when creating dummy source-records in FH that I sometimes copy and modify - I carefully think up the 3 main variations and the first real life source I come across is not in the 3!
Adrian

avatar
USMC7312
Silver
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Jul 2019 23:09
Family Historian: V6

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by USMC7312 » 15 Jul 2019 03:06

Wow! Thanks for all the feedback...

By Normalized, I mean that database form of the definition. I want one entry for each entity and I want all entities to be standardized. For example, let’s take some places as an example.

1. I am want one term for the United States of America, ie. United States! I don’t want any places to use U.S.A. , United States of America, America or any other designations.

2. For places, in the United States I use this format
[City/TWP/Town/Hamlet], [County], [State], United States.

A. I always type out United States for the country.
B. I always use the states full name, no abbreviations.
C. Counties/Parishes are listed with just the name. I do not include the word “County” or “Parish” in my 2nd place block.
D. I use the city name or if the township is known I use the smallest entity. For example, in Louisville, Jefferson, Kentucky, United States there are tons of little towns. If I don’t know the little town and the smallest entity for an event place I know is the city, I will just put in Louisville, but if I know something occurred in a specific township, town, hamlet, I always use the smallest one. So I might put Fern Creek, Jefferson, Kentucky, United States as my place.

Another example of normalization is I never use St. Louis, MO [Simplified] instead I would use Saint Louis, Saint Louis Metro, Missouri, United States.

In places where the city and county merged I would do this for Miami, FL: Miami, Miami-Dade, Florida, United States.

Another example of normalization that I do is I use modern names that are geocoded more easily. I know this is a hot debate topic as technically under EE guidelines you should always designate a place as it was labeled at that time. For example:

Before 1890: Point Isabel, Pulaski, Kentucky United States
After 1890: Burnside, Pulaski, Kentucky, United States

I know there is a strong argument to use the name that was used at the time of the event. For example county records for a period of time prior to it being split are usually housed in the original county. So how do you know where to look? My answer is that when you do enough research in a county, you learn this, and that works for me. Ideally, I wish the software developers of these applications would make or propose some changes to the GEDCOM standard to fix this. For example, I wish you could just enter a GPS address and then a database that contains the names a particular area went by would display the historic address and if you hovered over the place label based upon configuration of choice it might show you the present place name. Of course there are issues with that. If you are doing deep research back in 1300 the best you might get is Middlesex, London, England but how would you add this in a normalized fashion. For me, I came up with using the modern names:

[City/Town/Hamlet], [Ceremonial Counties],[Country/Province], [United Kingdom]

Nation: United Kingdom
Country/Province: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
Ceremonial Counties


So for me I would describe all my UK places like this
City of Westminster, Greater London, England, United Kingdom
Plymouth, Devon, England, United Kingdom

For Scotland, I would use
[Civil Parish], [Council Area], Scotland, United Kingdom

I do the same for Wales and Northern Ireland. That is what I mean by Normalization.

avatar
USMC7312
Silver
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Jul 2019 23:09
Family Historian: V6

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by USMC7312 » 15 Jul 2019 03:59

One side question:

1. Can I access my data by SQL script?

Getting Back to Citations, Sources and Evidence Explained. I too use EE as my standard of best practice, but I am fully aware that standards of best practices and life are two different worlds. That said, I want to at least try to stick to the standard as best I can. One note of exception I can live with if I have too is loosing short footnotes/subsequent citations, but I absolutely must have a good bibliography and first citation.

Let’s bring some standard to these terms before I continue b/c I can see the mess this is starting.
Sources to me equal a Bibliography in the end.
Citations equate to a footnote

So when I think of the data involved in Sources and Citations there are indeed two general parts.

Part I - Bibliography Data common to all citations
Part II - Citation Data made up of Part I Source/Bibliography data but not all of it plus the data required to identify the data being documented ie. date of birth, etc... This might be the page #, Image #, Film # etc...

So in reality you have 4 parts to a source.
1. Bibliography Data - Gets you To right resource, ie book, database, website, census, etc..
2. Repository Data - Tells you where Data is physically stored
3. Citation Data - Tells you where to look inside your bibliography, ie Rill, Film, Paige, Image, Line #
4. Original Source Data - if Data is a secondary source, where did this data come from...

For me, I want all four pieces of information because they make good “Source Data,” especially if I am using Ancestry.com to provide data. In reality, you should be able to look at my citation and Bibliography and with little difficulty go get or see exactly how I determined the value of a fact like date of birth.

I guess you could say a fifth part is a copy of the data. This would be the media.

I see how Ancestral Sources works as it basically links the people, facts/events/attributes to the source.

So let me fire off a few questions & Please correct me where I am wrong?
1. It looks like the software allows you to control the Schema of Data it requests when you create a new Source?
2. If you go into sources and open the property view. Then righ click a source it allows you to add several pieces of info. How do you add a BIBL, SUBQ and TMPLT to a Source?
3 I assume/hope the following is true
A. BIBL - This is my Bibliography and it only needs to be added once.
2. TMPLT - Stores all my unique citation questions and data for a specific event, ie. Page #, Roll, Film, Etc....
3. SUBQ - The Citation/Footnote for a specific event

So if I understand this right, I would have one Source that has multiple SUBQ or citations/footnotes that are populated by the questions (TMPLT) created for a specific event, ie birth, death, burial, marriage, divorce, etc...

If this is correct, how do I create a TMPLT and SUBQ ? How do I create the formatting of my bibliography and footnotes. When I say formatting, I am not concerned about italicization or bold, I mean syntax like this as an example:
Author. Title. Publisher: Publisher Place: Year

Also for me, I would prefer to create these without use of a 3rd party tool. That is just one more dependency that can and will break.

I guess another question which I I know the answer is this. Let’s say I have 1000 or so footnotes connected to 50 sources. I go and import my GEDCOM into family historian and let’s say 99.9% of my data gets pulled in and associated with FH’s events. Based upon the test import, I can see it tried to import my sources and citations, but outside of trying, it seems that what I should do is recreate these and re-Associate them to the people and events using my new customized sources with my formatted SUBQ and TMPLT I create?

I also saw that I can create additional tabs. So does that mean I can split my data into Bibliography data on tab 1 and citation/footnote data on tab 2 and original source on tab 3?

avatar
USMC7312
Silver
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Jul 2019 23:09
Family Historian: V6

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by USMC7312 » 15 Jul 2019 04:18

Adrian.

I get your point as in the U. S. census you are technically creating a source for each county under the EE method. Same thing can apply to Vital Records like BDMD info.

Let me provide my thoughts on this. Let’s take Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates in Kentucky. The EE standard would generally require a source for each record type and county, so in Kentucky, we have approximately 120 counties, so you are going to have:

120 Birth Certificate Sources
120 Death Certificate Sources
120 Marriage Certificate Sources
120 U. S. census Sources for each Census
Ie
1800 U. S. census Pulaski, KY
1800 U. S. census Wayne, KY
1810 U. S. census Pulaski, KY
1810 U. S. census Wayne, KY

You get the point!

For me, I am happy short cutting this because although each of these Certificates are county based, they are in reality all stored in the state at Frankfort. Could I do this with my census sources? Maybe! But it would depend upon the importance of placing and finding the sources again. Either way, I am okay as I know this going in.

I understand that For these Certificates I am creating a one to many relation between bibliography and citation. But with the census data the source infor doesn’t allow for a one to Many to Many relation ship, ie 1 Source for each census that points to many counties and states that points to many people. Instead you are for Ed to a one Census Year for County, State to Many Peeps..., provided you do it as recommended by the standard.

I think you can get away with it for the vital records but it is a struggle for the census.

1 Source for Kentucky Birth Certificates
1 Source for Kentucky Death Certificates
1 Source for Kentucky Marriage Certificates

avatar
USMC7312
Silver
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Jul 2019 23:09
Family Historian: V6

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by USMC7312 » 15 Jul 2019 04:21

tatewise wrote:
Let me add that you can do everything that the Add Source From Template Plugin offers without actually using the Plugin, but it does require a little more manual effort . The Plugin is simply an aid to creating the Sources illustrated by Helen, but they can be produced by hand without the Plugin.

How do you do this and where is this documented?

User avatar
David2416
Famous
Posts: 143
Joined: 12 Nov 2017 16:37
Family Historian: V6.2

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by David2416 » 15 Jul 2019 06:27

To take up your point about Normalisation. This concept applies to databases where you store data in tables usually with a reference column. Repeated data gets stored in separate tables keyed by an index, progressively as you go through first normal form, second normal form etc.

FH stores the data in a flat text file mostly according to the gedcom standard {5.1.1} The file can be read and edited {not usually advisable} by such as Notepad, Notepad++. As it's not a database SQL cannot be used directly.
This file has data Tags which identifies the type of data held in each line, with some relation to previous line.

Some standardisation of place name for example can be achieved but not strict Normalisation.

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1296
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 15 Jul 2019 06:58

Let.s talk about Places first.

FH supports Place Records which can have:
  • A place name which must be unique (no two Places can have the same name, which is a squence of comma separated parts).

    This is the text that is displayed with a Fact, and used to geocode the Place. It would be possible to create a Place called United States of America and one called USA -- but if you're consistent in always using United States (say) you shouldn't get into that situation.

    And if you find that you have done so by accident, there is a facility to merge Places and retain the preferred one without having to relink anything.

    There is no way of 'policing' of the way you use the comma-separated parts -- it's the combination that creates the unique entity.

    Some people define Places down to the address level and don't use Addresses (as Addresses can't be geocoded); others split location information between Place and Address (typically used for building and street information). It's been a topic of much discussion over the years on these forums!
  • A 'Standardized' Place, which is used to geocode the Pace if it is specified.

    I use this to hold the modern place name (more likely to be found by geocoding) and put the place name as it was when the fact happened in the Place name field.

    You can have many Place records with the same Standardised Place, which is useful when place names/political divisions change over time.
  • A Latitude/Longitude which can be populated by automatically geocoding the place, or manually if automatic geocoding doesn't pin it down enough.

You can also add Notes and Media.

Whether this meets your requirements, only you can decide.

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1296
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 15 Jul 2019 07:17

USMC7312 wrote:tatewise wrote:
Let me add that you can do everything that the Add Source From Template Plugin offers without actually using the Plugin, but it does require a little more manual effort . The Plugin is simply an aid to creating the Sources illustrated by Helen, but they can be produced by hand without the Plugin.

How do you do this and where is this documented?
You would have to handcraft each source, or (more likely) create a set of 'template sources' (one for each source type you wanted to use) which you would then have to clone for each real source and edit to fit that real source.

Not impossible -- the effort would be in creating all the example sources with some kind of marker (e.g. {token}) for the parts that would need editing, which you would have to do it you used the plugin anyway.

It would be more error-prone than the plugin (easy to overlook a token) and more effort (if a token appears more than once in a template you would have to edit each instance whereas the plugin substitutes all instances of the token automatically) but it would avoid dependence on a third party product, if that's important to you.

As long as you never linked one of these template sources to a fact, they shouldn't show up in your reports about Individuals; you would need to exclude them from the data set for (e.g. Source Summary report, or Record Detail -Source) which you could do if you adopted a naming convention for the Template sources and used a query to exclude the sources based on that naming convention.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16462
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by tatewise » 15 Jul 2019 10:31

When I spoke about producing Sources by hand, I meant during an evaluation before committing to buy a licence.
Once you have a licence, then you can evaluate the Plugins, which use the Lua scripting language.
They do not really involve a third party as they are integrated into FH and the scripts can be modified by you.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1296
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 15 Jul 2019 11:03

tatewise wrote:They do not really involve a third party as they are integrated into FH and the scripts can be modified by you.
To be fair, Mike, most people are not like us and do not enjoy maintaining or modifying plugins, especially complex ones like Add Source From Template. So for those people, they are dependent on the producers of plugins maintaining and updating them. I have a modified version of that Plugin that also allows you to add Media to your sources, and view the details of the source that would be created before saving it, but I'm not releasing it because of the maintenance workload I might incur.

avatar
USMC7312
Silver
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Jul 2019 23:09
Family Historian: V6

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by USMC7312 » 15 Jul 2019 14:11

So all these addons are LUA? That is cool and nice to know they can be modded as needed.

Are you serious that FH does not use a relational dB? It really uses a flat file? That is scary! So performance degraded with size exponentially? How does the software do with large trees?

I can only say that if FH really does use flat file storage, I have all sorts of Klaxon alarms screaming. For a small tree I can see a flat file being reasonable. I can even be agreeable to a medium sized tree using a flat storage file that was wide or deep in structure but if it were both, wow...

avatar
USMC7312
Silver
Posts: 8
Joined: 12 Jul 2019 23:09
Family Historian: V6

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by USMC7312 » 15 Jul 2019 14:14

So Tate,

1. Where is it documented how to createcustim templates.
2. If it is not documented, then what steps do I perform to create a custom EE bibliography and citation?

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1296
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 15 Jul 2019 14:20

It uses a flat text file and performs very well.

See https://www.tamurajones.net/ARealDatabase.xhtml (and note that tamura is not a user and has no axe to grind).
Calico Pie Family Historian
The best known genealogy application to use GEDCOM as its database format is Calico Pie's Family Historian, and Calico Pie's Family Historian is an exception to the rule. Developer Simon Orde knows what he is doing; he knows about databases, but deliberately does not use a database system because he considers them a bad fit for genealogy, and he is right about that, genealogy applications should really be using objectbases instead of databases. Alas, Family Historian does not use an objectbase but a GEDCOM file, and using a GEDCOM file instead of a database brings all the GEDCOM-as-a-database issues with it, but all these issues are handled well. Family Historian supports GEDCOM import and export to deal with differences between its and other GEDCOM dialects. Family Historian loads and saves its GEDCOM files quite fast, often faster than other desktop programs load and save their own database format. Auto-save works well, and does not get in the way, not even with large databases. Family Historian does not only use a temporary file to avoid losing data on a crash, but keeps multiple older copies, so-called snapshots, around, and allows you to switch back to an old version.
In the case of Family Historian, the use of GEDCOM as a database isn't a mistake, but a conscious choice by a developer who knows what he's doing. Family Historian is a fast and stable genealogy application that handles large genealogy databases with ease.
And yes, plugins are coded in Lua.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16462
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by tatewise » 15 Jul 2019 15:43

To avoid any confusion, FH does not read/write every data change to the flat GEDCOM file.
FH loads the GEDCOM file into some internal (thus RAM based) data management record structure.
All data operations are performed internally within the FH program and thus fast even with VERY large databases.
The internal data is auto-saved to the flat GEDCOM file at intervals chosen by user (default 5 mins) &/or by using the Save command.

There are no Source Citation custom template features built-in to FH.
That is why users have written Plugins to support such customisation.
(I know templates exist in some other products, but those customisations do NOT migrate from product to product.)
Have you reviewed Knowledge Base > Source Records that explains the FH/GEDCOM perspective of Sources and Citations?
However, there may not be a 1:1 mapping from EE Bibliography to FH Sources and from EE Citations to FH Citations.
That is what you are evaluating, and to do so you will manually create and edit those Sources and Citations character by character, inserting whatever words and punctuation are required by EE.
All that the Plugins do is provide consistent shortcuts to enter the data and automatically insert standard words and punctuation where required.
The net result in the Source and Citation records will be EXACTLY the same as if you had entered it all by hand.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
Gowermick
Megastar
Posts: 725
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 07:22
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Swansea

Re: Trying to Evaluate Family Historian But Can't Use Sources Because Eval Version

Post by Gowermick » 15 Jul 2019 18:10

USMC7312 wrote:Are you serious that FH does not use a relational dB? It really uses a flat file? That is scary! So performance degraded with size exponentially? How does the software do with large trees?
As someone with 18 K ancestors in my tree, I can only say that it handles the data extremely well. Starting FH, I only have wait 2-3 seconds for it all to load. If I compare that with charting companion, ( supposedly designed for scalability!,) which takes 20-30 seconds to load a gedcom ( and makes it practically unusable for large trees :oops: ) am am truly happy with the speed of FH.

Although it doesn’t use a relational database, it has the advantage that nothing is hidden from the user in a bespoke database like FTM. Everything is open to the user, and for those with a modicum of computer programming skills, it is a true joy to work with.
Mike Loney

Using FH 6.2.7, with CC 6.7.37 Windows 10.0.14393 Build14393, LibreOffice 6.1.4.1(x64), Firefox 67.0.1(64Bit) & Thunderbird 60.7.0
Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com

Post Reply