* On the fence FH7

[PyreneesPirate]

Hello all,

I am an average user of FH, I have used it since version 3. I have been watching this site over the last few days with great interest......as yet, I haven't taken the plunge to v7 or AS7. I have always been an avid upgrader, but something is stopping me from paying the fee pressing the button to move forward. FH6 works well for me. I use Nick's Ancestral Sources for all the options that his program offers, I find it a very easy and simple way of inputting standard type docs. I export to the TNG website via Mike T's export gedcom plugin (using the TNG fields that he showed me). All in all, this works very well.

OK, I have a few questions. The main one being, if I upgrade to FH7 and AS7, will I just be able to carry on unhindered with the processes above?

There has been a lot of discussion on the new source templates option on FH7......... How do you actually use them in real life? I have always tried to follow the videos that Jane produced and found them very informative. Is there one available on using this new feature in FH7?

What is the difference between inputting the documents in AS7 and inputting data via the new source templates in FH7?

Sorry to be a pain.

By the way, thanks to all the testers of the product FH7 and AS7 who have given up plenty of time to come up with the new versions (even though I haven't yet bitten the bullet).

Hope to hear some views on this,

PP

[NickWalker]

Ancestral Sources v7 works with FH6 and earlier so is worth getting - it has some bug fixes and also some additional features that you may find useful.

FH 7 has incorporated some of the basic concepts of AS. When I first heard about FH7 I did initially wonder if there was a need for AS anymore but I quickly decided that at this stage AS still offers some distinct advantages in terms of ease of use and particularly for census sources the main grid and ability to auto-fit and resize columns is a major benefit. There are also lots of optional settings in AS for those who want to do things in slightly different ways from the norm. The fact that AS 7 also supports the FH7 source templates and is automatically able to fill in some of those fields is also a benefit. Of course there are also source types other than the main 6 offered by Ancestral Sources that FH7 may cater for. So I fully expect one day that I'll be able to retire AS and put my feet up, but for now I still think it's the best option (but I would wouldn't I).

[ColeValleyGirl]

Adding to what Nick says, I'm developing a set of Data Entry Assistant plugins (DEAs) that will cover Birth, Death, Burial, Baptism and Marriage Sources, with the ability for users to define their own text templates for Text from Source. or use templates that others have developed. (Census, Electoral Rolls and Passenger Lists are next on the list but I have to sleep sometime -- and Mike Tate advises that eating is advisable as well )

My DEAs are not as configurable as AS7 -- they're not intended to be; they're meant for use by people who are happy to follow mainstream data recording methods. I don't rule out adding options in the future, but it's early days...

Re Source Templates, see Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for Upgraders) for info on the pros and cons, and how to continue working in a similar way to FH6 if that's what makes most sense.

Mike Tate's still ironing out some bugs with his Export Gedcom File plugin but his intention is that exporting to TNG will work.

Other changes you might find useful: Autotext, Research Notes, formatted text in notes... Only you can know what's important and useful to you.

I suspect a lot of thoughtful users will hold off on the upgrade for a while.

[Mark1834]

If FH6 works for you, my advice would be to read up on the new features, both on the FH website and here on the new KB, and come to a view as to which of them you are likely to use.

I had the opportunity to play with FH7 during the testing phase, and appreciated many of the minor improvements rather than the big attention grabbing headlines. Report formatting is significantly better, as is handling of lumped sources, where it is easier to input longer transcripts or extracts. I found the biggest difference was how FH7 displays source record, which is more complex in the new version. Whether it is “better” or “worse” tends to divide opinion, but like most such changes, it’s probably more a case of what you are used to.

Source driven data entry seems to be a bold attempt to take some of the features of AS and integrate them into the core program to provide a feature that no other competing product offers. It doesn’t work for me, as I find it far too restrictive, but it should be given a chance to settle down and mature. Remember that if you do upgrade, you are free to ignore new features that you don’t want to use initially. You can then experiment with them over time as you become more familiar with the product. You don’t have to do everything at once.

My “bottom line”? I’ll almost certainly upgrade, but probably not until the New Year, and it will be more for the minor incremental changes than the new big ticket features.

[ColeValleyGirl]

It doesn’t work for me, as I find it far too restrictive

Out of interest, have you looked at the new DEAs I've posted -- are they still 'too restrictive' and if so, how?

[jbtapscott]

PP - I have upgraded both FH and AS to the latest and carried on "as normal". I use AS for capturing BBMDB and for Census details, and utilise the AS Auto Text Templates - the latter I find particularly good as, ultimately via my GedCom export to GedSite (using Mike T's Export plugin), I have well formatted data and grid style census detail in the Source information on my website. Previously when capturing something that AS does not handle (eg Passenger Ship Lists, Grant of Probates, etc etc), I have just used the Clone plugin on a Source record of the same type, changed the details and cited that.

I have started to look through some of the new stuff (eg Source Templates) but am in no rush to change processes which, for me, already give me consistently formatted data / output on my website. In some instances I currently cannot see how I would even use some of the new features, but at the end of the day, I don't have to jump in to them today and therefore will just try them out over the coming months (much as I did when I originally moved from TMG to FH some years ago!).

[Mal]

PP - Like you I’ve not been persuaded to upgrade yet. To find out whether I should I’m testing the FH7 Trial Version using the FH7 Sample Project in a standalone setup, so as not to affect my FH6 datasets.

First off I tried to get to grips with the Template/Data Entry Assistant approach to entering information in FH7. It’s a fundamentally sound way of working, and I really was looking forward to a slicker way of entering data and speeding up the citation process, particularly regarding Census information for large households. I was willing it to work for me, but I’ve found issues.

Using the Ancestral Sources V7 plugin I created 2 dummy Census Records for 1881 and 1891. I input some of my ancestors details. Added media. Then saved everything. Ancestral Sources correctly added all the information to the Sample Project. Just like I’ve been used to with FH6; no surprises. So, for Census citations, I’m very happy with Ancestral Sources V7. As a so-called “Source Lumper” I can also click on the dummy 1881 Census Record and, with the new Source button in the Menu Bar, choose “Prepare Citation to Existing Source…” and a new Blank Prepared Citation window opens up. Just as one would expect.

My next step was to create a dummy Census Record for 1901, this time using the FH7 Prepared Citation window - Data Entry Assistant Button. The first attempt went wrong because I’d not added my census image in the Media (4th Tab) before going through the procedure invoked by the Text from Source (2nd Tab). In consequence the citations were added to the Sample Project instantly, but without the associated image. I was definitely not expecting that.

However, there is a bigger problem (for me). When I select the FH7-created 1901 Census Source Record and go through the above-mentioned process to “Prepare Citation to Existing Source…” the Prepared Citation window is not Blank (as it is in the Census Records generated using Ancestral Sources), but each Tab is fully populated with all of the information added via the FH7 Data Entry Assistant (DEA). Whilst this may be OK for some it’s unhelpful to me. All I can guess is that the FH7 DEA is set up for “Source Splitters”. It’s not clear how to change the Census DEA behaviour. Like you, I feel the need for a Calico Pie real-world, walkthrough of the new Data Entry/Citation approach relating it to practical genealogy cases like Census Return and Marriage Register.

Although I didn’t know it at the outset I now realise Ancestral Sources and FH7 can behave very differently as regards handling Sources and Citations. I've been unable to get FH7 to handle my "lumped" Census Sources and Citations correctly so I'll continue with Ancestral Sources (grateful thanks to Nick Walker). Maybe the other FH7 DEAs create Sources and Citations differently, and can be adjusted to suit “Source Lumpers”. If not I'll continue to use Ancestral Sources and FH6.

Mal

[ColeValleyGirl]

The first attempt went wrong because I’d not added my census image in the Media (4th Tab) before going through the procedure invoked by the Text from Source (2nd Tab). In consequence the citations were added to the Sample Project instantly, but without the associated image. I was definitely not expecting that.

You can add the image to the source at any time -- before or after you run a DEA. Or are you wanting to link the image to a Citation?

"When I select the FH7-created 1901 Census Source Record and go through the above-mentioned process to 'Prepare Citation to Existing Source…' the Prepared Citation window is not Blank"

I think you're misunderstanding what a PreparedCitation is -- it'd not intended to be blank, it's intended to be the last Citation you prepared.

If you want to prepare a citation to a different source, you can select 'Prepare Citation to an Existing Source' which will show you details of that existing Source and allow you to fill in the Citation Details. (DEAs don't generally speaking change the details of a source). Or you can Create Source From Template, which provides you with the blank you're looking for to create a new source.

You might find Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for Upgraders) helpful.

[Mal]

The image is required to be attached to the Citation, not the Source.

I am not requiring a Citation to a different Source. As a Source Lumper my (say) 1881 Census is the Source to which I wish to add as many Citations as are needed. The key point I made is that the dummy Census Source Records (1881 and 1891) and the corresponding Citations created by Ancestral Sources allowed me to open a Blank Prepared Citation which is required in order that I can create a new Citation against these Sources (eg for a new household). The 1901 dummy Census Source Record created by FH7/DEA produced a fully populated Prepared Citation and set of Tabs.

I do not understand why Records created by Ancestral Sources and FH7 exhibit different behavour when creating a Prepared Citation.

I have read the Reference you attached, but it doesn't address the above points.

[ColeValleyGirl]

It's probably wise to use either AS or DEAs for a single source type -- there's no benefit on switching between the source-driven data entry types (except when experimenting to see which you prefer). Nick has designed AS7 to work differently from FH7 -- in FH7 there is no such animal as a dummy source.

In the Prepared Citation window you can add Media to the Source or Citation in the Media tab. Right click there to see your options -- as you'd expect, Adding to the Source adds the media to the Source. If you add Media to the Citation, it will be associated with the Prepared citation and added when you use the citation.

Working as a lumper purely in FH, you'd create a single source record for say the 1881 census and then prepare citations to it with the specific details for a particular entry (plus attach the image to the Citation via the Media tab); you'd then apply that prepared citation (via Automatic Source Citation, Copy Citation or a DEA) to the relevant facts.

[NickWalker]

Nick has designed AS7 to work differently from FH7 -- in FH7 there is no such animal as a dummy source.

There's no such thing as a dummy source in Ancestral Sources either! I think Mal just means she created a record as a test.

I haven't spent much time recently looking at DEAs Helen, but when I did look at them it seemed to me that they were expecting to apply to splitter (method 1) sources rather than the lumper (method 2), particularly as the source templates in FH mainly have their fields being written to the source rather than the citation. Is that not the case?

[Mark1834]

I'm not sure I've seen the answer to this question, so I'll ask it here as it seems relevant to this discussion. What exactly is the problem with AS that source driven entry and DEAs is designed to fix? As a neutral observer who doesn't use either (I've tried both), I’m still not clear why we need two heavily overlapping methods that seem to be in competition with each other...

[ColeValleyGirl]

it seemed to me that they were expecting to apply to splitter (method 1) sources rather than the lumper (method 2),

They can work with either lumped or split sources -- it doesn't matter which -- the user defines the source and the citation details and the DEA applies the resultant citation to facts. And they can work with generic sources as well as templated ones.

What exactly is the problem with AS that source driven entry and DEAs is designed to fix?

FH has always supported source-driven data entry via automatic source citation; DEAs just take it to the next step.

Problems with AS? I know a lot of users who find AS complex and the customisation options daunting. They find it hard to understand why they should run a separate programme (and cope with the data being saved in AS and needing to 'refresh' FH or vice versa); and get confused between AS the programme and the plugins that have been written to invoke the AS programme.

If somebody is used to AS, there's no reason why they should stop using it, especially with the changes Nick has made in AS7. Somebody new to FH might find DEAs simpler. It isn't a zero-sum competition -- just alternatives for doing the same job -- and doing everything manually is another alternative. FH has always supported multiple way of doing the same thing.

[NickWalker]

Equally I've found a lot of users who find AS very easy to use and I found the whole DEA side of things really confusing at first, which is unusual for me as I'm a very experienced IT professional. But let's not debate that!

I think it makes sense from Calico's point of view to try to put AS functionality into FH. They can see the benefits that AS has brought to the FH eco-system over the years and that having this built into the program itself means that more users will find it (lots of FH users don't know about FHUG or AS) and that they're not relying on me to always be there. If I'd not updated AS to work with FH7 and disappeared from the scene then suddenly lots of users would be stuck without an equivalent product.

From my viewpoint I'd been begging for 'rich text' sources in FH for the last 15 years and I'd have hated to give up on AS without ever having the chance to implement them. I also tried the DEAs and really felt that currently AS could still do a better job. But this is only the first iteration of all this in FH and I'm sure it will improve.

If the users of AS slowly disappear and the donations dry up then I'll get the message and go away!

I should also say that Simon has been very encouraging of Ancestral Sources. Calico even advertise it in their website shop here: https://store.family-historian.co.uk/

[ColeValleyGirl]

Nick, I'm not saying AS isn't very good at what it does, just that one solution doesn't fit everybody.

[NickWalker]

Agreed that was the point I was making, horses for courses.

[Mark1834]

There’s the answer then - Simon offers Nick a contract (or vice verca) for a joint development, and we have one fully optimised product...

[Mal]

I'm still in the dark! My testing of the FH7 trial version agrees precisely with Nick’s second posting on this topic.

However, the way in which FH7 and the Data Entry Assistant (DEA) handles Citations is still unclear. I don’t believe the foregoing posts or the Help file or the Knowledge Base pin down what the User needs to do to interact with the new way of working and to achieve the user-desired results.

I really do want to understand the process. Below are the steps I’ve taken to try to get to grips with the DEA approach:

I’m what is known as a “Source Lumper”. So I associate all my Citations with a high level Source description. For Census returns I typically use a high level Source Record for each Census year. For testing the FH7 Trial Version I’ve created a new Source Record for the 1891 England Census, as follows:

Using the Source button drop down list in the FH7 Icon Bar I selected “Create Source from Template/Prepare CitationCensus…”. In the following screen I selected the Template for Census Return. A Dialog screen informs that a new Source record had been created. Closing the Dialog the Prepared Citation screen comes up on screen, allowing me to fill in the details of the Source Record.

I next click the Data Entry Assistant button, confirmed my Census was for England and the Data Entry screen appeared. Interestingly the Title at the top reads: Enter Source Facts for England and Wales 1891. (not Enter Citation Facts). I pressed the Add Detail Line button and fed in my facts for the household in question. Finally I pressed the Complete and Close button.

The Source Records screen confirms that my new Source is listed, together with the number of Citations created by the Census DEA.

Now let’s say I wish to add a second household to my 1891 England Census (which has the one Citation I’ve just created). Being a Source Lumper the process is to add a second Citation to the Existing 1891 England Census Source Record for the new household.

To do this I Click the Add button on the Top Menu Bar of FH7. Then choose Source/Citation in the drop down menu. As I require this second Citation to be attached to the 1891 England Census I then select the option in the drop down to “Prepare Citation to Existing Source…”

The Prepared Citation Screen then appears, fully populated with data relating to the Source Record, which is OK. But the front and subsequent tabs also include all of the Citation details for the first citation I created (and which is not relevant to the second Citation).

So, it would seem that in order to create my second Citation to this Source Record I need to delete all of the information in the Prepared Citation which relates to the first Citation. Using the DEA approach to data entry I can’t see a way that I can add new citations cleanly and efficiently, without the palaver of deleting data from a Prepared Citation.

Is what I’m doing correct? If not, does anyone know how a Source Lumper like me can get FH7 to add new Citations in a pain-free manner?

Mal

[PyreneesPirate]

There is one thing I can say about this site and the people who use it............they are ALL passionate about improving the the way the programs work. Streamlining the input of the information whilst making it as accurate and error free as possible for me is the key. Followed very quickly by how we can "show off" our Genealogy work via diagrams and data transfer to websites etc.

Thanks to everyone for the input re "Sitting on the fence", I know that a lot of people have worked very hard to enhance both FH7 and AS7, thanks for that.

I have picked up from the responses that there appears to be some overlap between AS7 and the new Source Template option in FH7. I have downloaded the trial version of FH7 on a another machine and have had a little look at the new Source Template option, it looks good and I can see what it is trying to achieve.

"Like you, I feel the need for a Calico Pie real-world, walkthrough of the new Data Entry/Citation approach relating it to practical genealogy cases like Census Return and Marriage Register.

I agree with this, maybe a 5 min vid with some standard docs like above and maybe a few non-standard like a Will/Probate and maybe Paper entry of an Obituary etc. because these type of entries are open to input and mismatch errors. Once we have grabbed the process, I am sure it will be quite straightforward!!

This is just a suggestion and I know there is probably more pressing things to do at the moment. Is there any kind soul that can put something practical together?

Thanks again for all the reponses.

PP

[AdrianBruce]

... "Like you, I feel the need for a Calico Pie real-world, walkthrough of the new Data Entry/Citation approach relating it to practical genealogy cases like Census Return and Marriage Register.

I agree with this, maybe a 5 min vid with some standard docs like above ...

Um. Simple walk through - yes, that would be nice. But.... Censuses and marriage registers prompt the splitter / lumper (aka Method 1/2) debate - is the source record, e.g., the entire 1901 Census for England & Wales or is it a single household? And if it is the entire 1901 Census for England & Wales, is the source record to be the 1901 Census for England & Wales (Ancestry collection) and / or the 1901 Census for England & Wales (FindMyPast collection), or is it simply the 1901 Census for England & Wales (TNA)? (Which may be down a salt-mine in Cheshire, rather than at Kew?).

I am absolutely not trying to denigrate the plea - just pointing out the complexities of those standard documents. It may be something more simple, such as a Directory, which I reckon even the arch-splitters will record as a single, lumped source, would be a better choice.

Of course, if some of the lack of clarity is around which bits are citation specific and which not, then a Splitter explanation may not help a Lumper or vice versa.

[PyreneesPirate]

Hi Adrian,

What you said almost reinforces my point...........When a new feature is included in an update it has probably come from a pre-existing user wish list. The new Source / Citation option is probably very good in what it intends to achieve (and I would really like to use it!). But if users are holding back on using it because they don't know how to use it or are frightened that if they use it, they may get it wrong and have to back track at sometime in the future (like I had to do with the Witness feature last year), then that can't be good.

I never even considered the Method 1 / 2 issues that it may have raised. Again, I think it reinforces the need for some person from CP to put a small training vid for all the new features, because that's all they are at the moment, features. They don't become benefits until one knows how to use them properly and with little error.

[David2416]

Hi Adrian,

What you said almost reinforces my point...........When a new feature is included in an update it has probably come from a pre-existing user wish list. The new Source / Citation option is probably very good in what it intends to achieve (and I would really like to use it!). But if users are holding back on using it because they don't know how to use it or are frightened that if they use it, they may get it wrong and have to back track at sometime in the future (like I had to do with the Witness feature last year), then that can't be good.

I never even considered the Method 1 / 2 issues that it may have raised. Again, I think it reinforces the need for some person from CP to put a small training vid for all the new features, because that's all they are at the moment, features. They don't become benefits until one knows how to use them properly and with little error.

I do so agree, am planning to upgrade but would like to see how it all works. (Yes, I know I can do a trial but still need explanations).

I was and still am attracted to FH for three reasons - firstly it uses an open text file for the data source so I can see my raw data, secondly it's flexibility and extensibility via plugins (but I really want to do family history not programming despite my long career as a programmer) - and thirdly and very importantly this excellent user group. There are regular contributors and a huge amount of advice. CONGRATULATIONS and MANY THANKs to you.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I suspect some of the problems for lumpers, at any rate, are because they're using a Source template designed for splitters (the Census template from the Essentials collection?), so the DEAs associated with that template assume they're spliiters and behave accordingly.

I'm having a look at how I can change my new 'Any' DEAs to accommodate lumpers as well... Plus DEAs are the next area I intend to attach in the KnowledgeBase -- I'm definitely not promising a video (over my dead body) but will see what I can do about a tutorial.

[LornaCraig]

Mal wrote:

…To do this I Click the Add button on the Top Menu Bar of FH7. Then choose Source/Citation in the drop down menu. As I require this second Citation to be attached to the 1891 England Census I then select the option in the drop down to “Prepare Citation to Existing Source…”

The Prepared Citation Screen then appears, fully populated with data relating to the Source Record, which is OK. But the front and subsequent tabs also include all of the Citation details for the first citation I created (and which is not relevant to the second Citation).

I have not been able to replicate this problem. When I use “Prepare Citation to Existing Source…” and select the source from the list of existing sources the Citation window opens with the source details complete but the citation details are blank.

Are you sure that the main tab has some citation details showing? If it’s only the Text from Source and Note tabs that have details showing this suggests that when you created the first citation you accidentally attached the text from source and/or note details to the Source record rather than to the Citation. You will see that when you click Add Text from Source you have the choice of adding to Source or adding to Citation. And the heading at the top of the tab by default is set to display both. If you change this to Citation-specific only, does the text still show?

[PyreneesPirate]

Thanks for the input Helen,

Like I said in a previous mail, I really want to use what you have produced, but I would like to use the feature properly and know what I am doing with the data, hence less possible backtracking in the future. A tutorial would be great....I have used AS extensively and am happy with that so I am capable of picking up on new software.

I am a splitter, so it is probably easier for me to use what you have produced. My main bug bear are the non standard types of docs. Like I said before Wills/Probate and more recently articles out of the papers. Any help would be appreciated, but I realise you must be busy developing the templates etc for a wider audience.

Thanks
PP