* A plea for Updated V7 Video Tutorials Please please…please

[MelbourneDes]

Hi all. This is my first post.
I have been using FH for about 4 years. Like a few other complete beginners I ignored the offered wisdom of adding Sources & Citations because it was just too hard for me to understand how.
In my opinion this is the most difficult aspect of using Family Historian to understand.

Recently, acknowledging the error of my ways, I started to read all I could find on Sources & Citations in an effort to learn - Made my head spin!
Reading of others with the same issues in the Forum I realised that retrofitting Sources & Citations was just about impossible and I accepted that I would have to start again and rebuild my family tree. 2804 individuals 856 families.

However, no matter how many times I read the V6 Manual, the FH Help and the Knowledge Base I still struggle to fully understand how to do it. Every time I think “I Get it” and try to move ahead with my Tree I find myself getting confused again, stuck with similar terms and terminology. Then reading more instructions and clicking more links, searching the forum- again- looking for help. Endless loops and no further forward.

On the Forum I saw that when others who struggle to understand this subject and asked for help, the common response is; “Have you read...." etc..… with links to various KB articles.
Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for Upgraders)
Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for New Users)

Yes, I have read these. So many times now and I have watched all the (very) old outdated videos I can find – it must be the Old Dog - New Tricks syndrome. I want someone to show me!
I have Ancestral Sources and have watched these old videos too. I think I have worked out how to enter the UK Census and standard birth marriage / certificates correctly but I'm unsure about entering Civil Registrations information and other information that does not directly match the form & fields.
I am probably most afraid of forging ahead then having to start over again if I find out I've got it wrong.

So, on behalf of all of us who are Visual Learners, who struggle with the written instructions, and all the newbies and people who have brought Family Historian and need help beyond the written word..
Would you Experts and Teachers, experienced users and maybe Calico Pie; Please Please Please make us Family Historian users some new Version 7 How-to Videos.
Especially on the whole Source Driven Data Entry thing which is probably the hardest part of using Family Historian.
Thank you all, I'm sure new V7 videos will be very much appreciated!
Des
Wellington, New Zealand

[Mark1834]

A belated welcome to FHUG, Des.

The deafening silence in this thread probably tells us all we need to know. There is little enthusiasm here for doing CP’s job for them, and I use that slightly provocative description deliberately.

It’s now 18 months since FH7 was released, and 2 years since it went into its final beta programme. What have CP produced in that time to support the new features? No printed manual (“work in progress”). No updated Sample Project (“no plans to produce”). Little support for their new sourcing methods (almost entirely done by one or two volunteer users).

RM8 has its own issues of course, but shortage of support material certainly isn’t one of them. Yes, they’re a bigger organisation, but the contrast is still striking.

I’ve done my fair share of training videos in my old day job, so I know they don’t write themselves, but my feeling is that prioritising training material over new features for a few weeks would make a big difference.

Added in edit - out of curiosity, I checked the numbers. RM have over 60 employees and a turnover of around $20 million, CP have 2 employees and probably around $1 million annual turnover. Perhaps the surprising thing is that they compete as well as they do, but I still think a little more effort on supporting materials would be worthwhile.

[GeneSniper]

I think the problem here is that there is no exact way to enter data into FH and no one wants to say “This is how to do it” for fear that others tell them they are wrong, even though they won’t say how it should be done after saying it’s wrong. Just in case someone tells them they are also wrong. I found a little book on the myhistory.co.uk called Where to Record It: In Family Historian and had plenty of people telling me what it said was wrong, but no one was willing to put their heads above the parapets and show me what the right way was, again just in case someone else said they were doing it wrong, in my opinion.
I fully agree with you, a few basic videos of what goes where and what basic information should be filled in and in what format would help the beginner to FH. Even a photo of a certificate and a couple of screenshots of where to put the information for say Birth, Death, Wedding. & Census would help a lot and what a basic source/ citation should look like. I know there are many different certificates with lots of different information on them, but just having something to look at to begin with would set you on the straight and narrow and hopefully any extra information would fall into place by just adding to the basics.
In this life there are plenty of people willing to tell you you are doing something wrong, but the good one’s then go on to show/explain how to correct what you have done wrong and praise you for what they have done right and the bad one’s just say “because I said it’s wrong”. I waited a year for FH7 to be released, to end up along with you waiting for another year and a half for a little help with (in my opinion) a great idea, but badly implemented way to cite a document. This is a dig at CP not anyone else, but not doing the work there self in this area means that you end up with all different looks to and no control over how this information is exported/imported.

[sbell95]

I would argue that these are issues stemming from a broader misunderstanding/limited knowledge of sources and citations in genealogy, and not as a result of missing video tutorials for FH7.

There are a lot of resources out there to help you distinguish between sources, citations, evidence, information, etc. Something like Elizabeth Shown-Mills' Evidence Explained is a dry, heavy and US-centric source guide, but it provides a very good foundation for the basics. You could also try the Strathclyde citation style which is preferred by a lot of UK genealogists. You need to understand that programs like FH7 cannot cater to every possible source, and a template likewise cannot cover every situation.

The Evidence Explained forums have a few good threads which are relevant to this topic:

• https://evidenceexplained.com/index.php/node/1981

• https://evidenceexplained.com/index.php ... difference

My recommendation to you would be to work out your citation style first, then work out which source templates in FH7 are going to fit that style (if any -- or create your own).

[MelbourneDes]

Thank you Sarah for your thoughts.
You argue correctly; I surely do have a limited knowledge and so far, not much understanding, of how to enter Sources and Citations – and not get it completely wrong.

I think working out my citation style first is a bit like being handed a DSLR camera for the first time and told develop your photographic style, then I’ll show you how to use the camera!

The reason I made a request for V7 Tutorial Videos on this subject is because I would like to see and hear how its done - Source Driven Data Entry.
Show me - the how and the why - the various ways to enter Sources and Citations into Family Historian V7.

This is just a hobby, one of many projects. Thank you but I don't think I need Evidence Explained. That is way too deep.
I have no desire to have my family tree research published or peer reviewed. My audience, I hope, will be my grandchildren and, maybe one day, their children.

I just want to research my mostly English ancestors and to record what information I am able to find as best I can, along with what I know of my own more recent family history, using Family Historian V7. And not get the information entry completely wrong.

Before I Pop my Clogs, as my Dad used to say. - until he Popped his.

Des Pitfield
Wellington, Aotearoa

[sbell95]

I sympathasise with your struggles as a visual learner myself. I think you would be wise to watch (or re-watch) Jane Taubman's video tutorials posted on YT. Admittedly they are for version 6 of the program, but the principles are the same. She used source-driven data entry in her video on recording a birth certificate (ie, creating the source first, then attaching it to the relevant individuals, facts and events), and you could adopt the same for entering sources in version 7 which further supports the source-driven data entry approach. The only difference is that you can now choose to use a template instead of only having the generic template. And there are DEAs and plugins, of course -- but you don't have to jump to that advanced level straightaway.

For visual learning, I would also highly recommend Jackson Eagleson (Vyger)'s GenealogyReviews YT channel. He has a few videos about the various features on FH7, and I am sure that he has more in the works. Genealogy Software Showcase also did a video series on using the various features of FH7. It is always useful to see how other people are using the program.

If there is anything specific that you cannot do in version 7 after watching those videos, then I would be happy to make a quick video for you. The problem is that there are a myriad of ways to do things in Family Historian (as I'm sure you have discovered), and different people have different standards of proof and consistency that they want to see in their projects.

If you are just wanting to simply record your family history, you won't go wrong with using the in-built source templates that come with FH7 for entering all of the standard BMD documents. Have a look and play around with sources and templates in the sample project before implementing a system in your own project. I really don't think you can get away with just reading (or even watching) how to do things in FH7 -- you have to play around yourself and work out what works for you and your data. The flexibility of FH7 (especially sources and citations) is definitely the most daunting aspect, as you say, but once you wrap your head around it all you won't be disappointed.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I think the point that 'there is no one right way to do things in FH' is well made. I have not (and never will) produce a video -- I'm not a 'visual' learner, and hate it when a video is the only way to learn how to do something (so slow!) but if I did so, it could only ever show one way of doing something. Not necessarily the best way, but the way that I do it.

I will also note that the V6 'Getting the Best Out of ...' book didn't appear until after 6.2 was released. I suspect this was because 6.2 introduced significant features over and above version 6. I have no idea if the same will be true of V7.

[Mark1834]

Excellent- even if there isn’t much support for my suggestion, it woke the thread up nicely...

[ColeValleyGirl]

my feeling is that prioritising training material over new features for a few weeks would make a big difference.

Although it isn't just a resource deployment issue, it's a skillset issue -- developers are (almost always) not the right people to produce user documentation! (I think we'd all agree that the Help file is written in a certain style that doesn't always make it helpful, so to speak),

[davidf]

I will also note that the V6 'Getting the Best Out of ...' book didn't appear until after 6.2 was released. I suspect this was because 6.2 introduced significant features over and above version 6. I have no idea if the same will be true of V7.

Often official support material does not arrive until version X.1 arrives - for any program. When I had responsibility for PC Support (a long long time ago in the days of Lotus Symphony, Multimate, dBaseIII and netbeui, and PC-DOS and debug scripts), I used to avoid all version X.0 of programs because they were a nightmare to support. (In the days before the internet "security upgrades" were not a major issue.)

This was due to versions X.0 being released before they "were ready" and put out due to commercial pressures. End users ended up as beta testers!

In those days you would have software bugs and missing features.

I am pretty certain that FH 7.0.0 had very few obvious bugs ("anomalies" or "undocumented features") and the rapid release of minor "upgrades" does indicate that they were stamping on them fast.

But there may also have been features that did not make it to the final release. Now we have seen a slow down in the minor upgrades (?) we may see a release of V7.1 followed by V7.2 which may have in them

• features that did not make it for V7.0 because they were not ready or
• improvements to the operation of V7.0 features that
  • at the time of V7.0 they knew were possible but had not quite worked out the best way to do them, or
  • reworking of features in V7.0 which after "market feedback" they realise are not working well.

V7.0 will then look like a "compromised" release. Once V7.1 or V7.2 are out I suspect that Calico Pie will feel that "project V7" is complete from a software point of view and looks much as they hoped it would. Once they feel they are "there", I would hope that they would feel confident about producing support materials to help drive sales. Commercially that would seem to make sense.

Perhaps beta testers on this forum, without breaking confidences, can indicate if they are aware of features that they tested but which did not make it to V7.0 (i.e. just a yes or no answer)?

Then the whole cycle starts again with V8!

[ColeValleyGirl]

Perhaps beta testers on this forum, without breaking confidences, can indicate if they are aware of features that they tested but which did not make it to V7.0 (i.e. just a yes or no answer)?

No.

[neil40]

Perhaps beta testers on this forum, without breaking confidences, can indicate if they are aware of features that they tested but which did not make it to V7.0 (i.e. just a yes or no answer)?

No

[Mark1834]

That’s a good description David. It’s certainly the case that FH7 didn’t really settle down until the major printing issues were fixed in 7.0.3, and the earlier releases were very much extended beta versions.

There’s been quite a lot of significant incremental improvements since then, but the time gap since 7.0.11 was released is the longest yet by some distance. I wonder if that means they are concentrating on something else at the moment...?

[AdrianBruce]

No updated Sample Project (“no plans to produce”).

I may have said this before, but for the sake of completeness: I did play about for my personal interest only in converting the Sample Project to use templated sources.

Firstly, given that the consensus is either generic sources or templated sources but never a mix of both in the same project, CP would need to either produce and maintain two Sample Projects, or ignore "the other" audience. (Yes, they could mix but surely going against the consensus isn't sensible for a Sample?)

Secondly, it became clear to me that the range of sourcing styles in the current Sample, didn't convert easily or sensibly to Templated sources. From memory, there were MIs, e.g., that were written out in the Notes for burial events, instead of having Source-Records. Now, while that might be a bit rough for generic sources, it seems to me to be to be positively absurd for a project using Templated Sources. The whole point of Templated Sources is to indulge in greater rigour and deeper analysis, so to leave source material outside of Source Records of any sort, seems more than a bit perverse and hardly sensible for a Sample Project aiming to guide people. This means, I believe, that the workload for converting the sources became much larger than I'd imagined because of the need to convert not only Generic Source Records but also the "hidden" note-text only sources. Hence I only got so far. CP may also have decided that the workload didn't justify it.

Like others, I'd reinforce the idea that there is no "should" in relation to FH. Probably not in relation to any genealogy program. If I were to recommend ways of doing things, I'd recommend Method 1 aka Source Splitting, where each baptism (say) has its own Source-Record. But that doesn't help anyone whose desire is to lump sources together and have one Source-Record per physical parish register. Or is that one Source-Record per church? Or one single Source-Record for absolutely all parish records? We had an inkling of the workload / coverage issues as we discovered that the supplied Source Templates in the Essentials Collection appeared (again from memory) to be Level 1 / Source Splitters and people did mutter about this. A similar issue would arise with How-to videos.

None of this is intended to cast doubts on the need for video tutorials - rather I'd just like to convince people that the workload might be a bit more than expected, and the internal options a bit more complex than expected.

[davidf]

Like others, I'd reinforce the idea that there is no "should" in relation to FH. Probably not in relation to any genealogy program. If I were to recommend ways of doing things, I'd recommend Method 1 aka Source Splitting, where each baptism (say) has its own Source-Record. But that doesn't help anyone whose desire is to lump sources together and have one Source-Record per physical parish register. Or is that one Source-Record per church? Or one single Source-Record for absolutely all parish records? We had an inkling of the workload / coverage issues as we discovered that the supplied Source Templates in the Essentials Collection appeared (again from memory) to be Level 1 / Source Splitters and people did mutter about this. A similar issue would arise with How-to videos.

We I think are struggling at that nasty interface of theory and practice! I, for one, am holding off going to V7 until ideas about usage have settled (and it "plays nice" with Wine - if RTF notes are not working for Linux/Mac users much of the justification for upgrading goes?). I also get the impression from Forum comments that FH V7 is not "lumper" (Method 2?) friendly. So I am sticking with what works for me.

We can read about sourcing etc in Evidence Explained or Strathclyde or pick your "guru", but when it comes to actually applying your chosen method (or hybrid?) to FH (whatever version) you end up scratching your head.

I think the splitter vs lumper debate is fairly fundamental and may be determined by prior experience outside genealogy. I think age also has something to do with it (pre or post wide-spread use of the internet).

I learnt my "academic" referencing before the internet, so my sources were physical artefacts - usually books magazines or journals. So for my master's thesis I was required to adopt the comprehensive "List of References" at the end - a list of books etc. consulted which was keyed on [Author, year of publication - "Bloggs J., 1985"] and then within my text have citations - being the key to the reference plus a page reference (Bloggs J., 1985 p32/3). I found that the "source" in this respect was important because often you had to argue about the credibility consistency and comprehensiveness of the source as an entity as well as the relevance of the actually cited information - hence "lumping". I therefore maintained notes about the "source", eg. "Journal XYZ is a respected peer-reviewed academic journal, Newcastle University Library has it on its shelves in the Business Section", or "The Daily Mail is ..." (you get the idea!)

I found when tutoring masters students (this century) that the concept of "a source" as I knew it was blurred - everything was the "web page" - the ultimate "splitter" approach. To actually think about "where did the information on that web-page come from? (and don't say "Google"!)" was almost an alien question which lead to many treating everything on the internet has having the same credibility (as well as plagiarising!).

So for my genealogy my "sources" are diverse and reflect the depth of my enquires into the source. So I might have "FreeBMD" and "GRO indices" and "Birth Registration Indices (FMP)" (they don't always agree). But I would also have "Beaumont Parish Register (artefact)" and "Beaumont Parish Register (LDS Microfilm)" reflecting what I had looked at and enabling me to go back to the same "thing", the notes against the source detailing things such as how to access the actual "thing" (e.g. "In Strong room at Carlisle Record Office, [Ref XXXX] if the microfilm [Ref YYYY] is a poor image, ask and they will retrieve the actual register".

It also reflected how I sometimes do my genealogy. I used to visit Carlisle record office and scan the LDS microfilms or the actual registers looking for my and related surnames and seeing what these sources might reveal. I would go away with transcribed notes and occasion photographs which I would attach to the relevant lumped source. (Regulations for taking photographs at Carlisle Record Office being held on a note against the repository) And yes, an LDS microfilm at Carlisle was a different source to the nominally identical microfilm elsewhere - due to deterioration and occasional damage.

Like others, I'd reinforce the idea that there is no "should" in relation to FH.

It is what approach suits you and how you can get FH to support that approach - when FH (or whatever) ceases to support my approach I either have to change my approach or change my software.

I don't expect FH to produce "publication ready" text, I prefer to write my own using FH as a collator of evidence and bring through the source/citation information where required. That gives me a lot of flexibility and makes toleration of evolving work practices far easier - the "consistency of publication" comes at the point of writing not at the point of entry, so I don't end up having to rework my FH records.

To me ultimately it is whether I am able to answer the question "where exactly did I get this information from?" And if you can answer that question manually, (rather than through some hard-code report) your approach to using FH can be very flexible.

[Mark1834]

the consensus is either generic sources or templated sources but never a mix of both in the same project

Not sure about that - I think the consensus is against overlapping generic and templated sources (e.g., if you use a census template, it is best not to mix with generic census sources). I don’t think anybody has a major issue with (e.g.) templated censuses and generic GRO indexes coexisting in the same project.

That’s the resource challenge of a tiny operation. The bigger projects don’t progress because there is never the resource to concentrate on it, and short term firefighting inevitably comes first. Perhaps that is the gap that FHUG should fill, but I’m very conscious that really means Jane and Helen, as out of hundreds of active users, they are probably the only ones that do significant work directly with CP.

[AdrianBruce]

... I think the consensus is against overlapping generic and templated sources (e.g., if you use a census template, it is best not to mix with generic census sources). I don’t think anybody has a major issue with (e.g.) templated censuses and generic GRO indexes coexisting in the same project. ...

An "interesting" point of view. Though possibly even more subtle to get over in any training material?

[ColeValleyGirl]

I don’t think anybody has a major issue with (e.g.) templated censuses and generic GRO indexes coexisting in the same project.

From Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for Upgraders) in the Knowledge Base:

It is possible to retain existing Generic Sources and use Templates to create new sources under version 7, but before adopting this practice, you should assess how consistent your reports will appear and whether that matters to you. Consistent reports will look more ‘professional’ but you may not care about that.

they are probably the only ones that do significant work directly with CP

My 'significant work' is strictly limited to Lua stuff that I have a vested interest in (libraries and helping with the early DEAs); I'd be doing it anyway, even if CP didn't see its value.

[AdrianBruce]

... I also get the impression from Forum comments that FH V7 is not "lumper" (Method 2?) friendly. ...

Without adding up points in a spreadsheet, I wouldn't care to be too dogmatic about that, but my gut feeling is that v7 per se is no different from v6 in its friendliness to Method 1 / splitting versus Method 2 / lumping.

The difference, I suggest, lies in the fact that Source Template Definitions have been supplied with v7 and those tend to be aimed at Method 1 / splitters. So if you've gone down a templated route (e.g. because you've come from a previous templated program) and want to consider Method 2 lumping using templates, life gets a bit more difficult. Now, speaking personally, I don't consider this to be an issue. Firstly, I believe that I'm firmly up the generic, non-templated source creek, without a conversion paddle - which has everything to do with the variations in the content of my current source record items. Secondly, if I were to convert to templated source-records, I'd go for Method 1 / splitters (mostly). But thirdly, even if I were to go for some Method 2 (as I would with registration indexes, etc.), I'd be quite happy to hack the templates to get the result I wanted. (Indexes may be Method 2 templates already...)

This is not meant to be a discussion about Method 1 versus 2 but I think it's important to draw attention to the differences because I'm really, really, really not sure what I'd like to see in a v7 Tutorial re templating sources, because I feel it has to talk about Method 1 versus 2.

... So for my genealogy my "sources" are diverse and reflect the depth of my enquires into the source. So I might have "FreeBMD" and "GRO indices" and "Birth Registration Indices (FMP)" (they don't always agree). But I would also have "Beaumont Parish Register (artefact)" and "Beaumont Parish Register (LDS Microfilm)" reflecting what I had looked at and enabling me to go back to the same "thing", the notes against the source detailing things such as how to access the actual "thing" ...

I source and cite books like you appear to. Ditto FreeBMD and its variants (yes, I have separate source records for FreeBMD, Ancestry, FMP, GRO, etc.). We would diverge over our parish records but there I find it useful to have a linked note record that contains exactly the sort of notes that you refer to, so I'd have a source record for the marriage of John Doe and Mary Roe at Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, linked to a note record containing (say) "Source Collection: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh PRs (FMP) - these are in full colour on FMP".

Again, this isn't about whether Method 1 or Method 2 is appropriate for this, because clearly both methods will accommodate the info somewhere. Rather it's about whether Video Tutorials need to / can cover these aspects. I'd suggest that they are fundamental.

[Gowermick]

I agree with Adrian on the Lumper/Splitter mixing argument.

I am a splitter when it comes to Census and GRO, where I have a source for each Census Image, and a source for each GRO Reference (B, M & D).

However, when it comes to parish register entries for Baptism marriages and Burials I am a Lumper, with just four sources:
1. Parish Register baptism Image,
2. Parish Register Marriage Banns image
3. Parish Register Marriage Image
4. Parish Register Burial Image

it works for me

[davidf]

Again, this isn't about whether Method 1 or Method 2 is appropriate for this, because clearly both methods will accommodate the info somewhere. Rather it's about whether Video Tutorials need to / can cover these aspects. I'd suggest that they are fundamental.

Which raises the question "how do you start" a video when users may not be over-sure about where they stand on splitter/lumper- and are probably like us on a hybrid of splitter and lumper. (For me a WW1 Trench Map is a source and effectively the whole thing is relevant, so it stands alone splitter style - I don't try to define an area with a set of co-ordinates for the citation!).

Possibly we need to look for a supportive means for storing videos so that they can branch interactively, not just splitter/lumper but also "OK got it"/"Can you go through that in more detail" even "OK got it for my lumped sources, now can you take me back so I can go through the same thing for splitter sources".

Perhaps we need someone who has experience of creating on-line "adventure games" where you get choices as to what you want to do? I remember an Open Learn python course which used such a thing (but in text mode) as a learning example for object based programming; but I was so unfamiliar with online games that most of it went over my head.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I would be delighted to add some more videos to the KB... interactively branching or not. Although some things perhaps don't lend themselves to videos and 'lumping versus splitting' may be one of those.

[LornaCraig]

I suspect that this lively but lengthy discussion will only have left MelbourneDes more confused than he was before he made the original post!

Yes, it illustrates why it would be difficult to make a video (because there are so many ways of doing things) but it also illustrates why he wishes someone would make one! A video showing one way of doing things would be more helpful to him than no video at all, as long as it is made clear that there is no obligation to use that method.

Most, possibly all, of the people who have contributed to the discussion had already been using FH before V7 and had already developed their own ways of using generic sources. Most of us have continued to do things the way we always did, for reasons of consistency and the difficulties of converting from generic to templated sources. But we need to take a step back and think about how we would use FH if we were starting from scratch as new users with V7.

Calico Pie have supplied a set of 'Essentials' Source templates which are designed to be adequate for an amateur genealogist. They have given some thought to the lumper vs. splitter question and most of the templates are for 'splitter' style sources although the template for Civil Registration Indexes is a 'lumper' source. I suspect that many of us, if we were starting out now as new users, would adopt the Essentials templates and use them as Calico Pie have intended. Unless we happened to have strong feelings about doing things differently we would be quite content. So I suggest that what is needed is a video illustrating how record and cite sources using the Essentials collection of templates as they stand. (And CP should probably do it, as they are the ones who devised the system!)

[AdrianBruce]

Lorna, I think that would be a sensible approach - just plunge in, using the Essentials templates as they are, for starters. But it would need to come with the caveat that this is just one way, which is (a) a correct caveat and (b) explains why other people would apparently think that the Tutorial is incorrect.

[davidf]

I think Lorna's suggestion as caveated by Adrian is probably a good way to proceed. It may "meet the need" and give viewers the confidence to try other approaches. But we may find that it is merely a start and comments may lead to further needs.