Genealogy Software Selection

PyreneesPirate · Post by **PyreneesPirate** » 06 Feb 2009 20:49

Hello everyone,

I just need a little more convincing on the purchase of FH3. I am trying it out at the moment.

Unfortunately, I have been a bit unlucky in the past when selecting Genealogy software.... I started with Reunion for PC (then they made it Mac only), then I selected Generations GS (I still think that this is a good program), but alas, it has been swallowed up and no further support given.

So now I am looking to purchase my third / fourth software program. I searched the internet for reviews and it seems that the main ones are: FH3, Rootsmagic and Legacy.

Can anybody give me some feedback on this?

I am swaying towards FH3, because it is a UK product etc and it imported my current file fairly easily. My next job is to tidy up my database and input sources and citations (I still dont fully understand this though), What the heck is a Sourcewriter? (lol)

Anyway, I would appreciate some feedback, should you be willing to give any.....I understand that it might be slanted towards FH3!

All the best

PyreneesPirate

ID:3408

rclrocco · Post by **rclrocco** » 06 Feb 2009 21:34

Not necessarily, Pyrenees! OK this is an FH Forum, but others are hovering like you. I have purchased FH3 and think it's excellent. However I also have an iMac and run Reunion 9.07 on that; I really like Apple products, their design is way ahead of the PC world; and the Mac and Reunion, but I'm uncertain about my final choice of software. often I like the fact that I can use both Mac and PC.

For some seventeen years, I have used the English programme, Pedigree and now PediTree. This is a fabulous program, powerful and very customiasble if that is your thing, but it is not in the same league as FH3 and Reunion when it comes to marketing, screen attractiveness and customer base etc. It, Pedigree, has been going strong since 1990 or so, does everything I want but is not so graphically appealing or as well presented as FH and Reunion, both of which have I'm sure a much bigger number of users.

All 3 programmes have excellent support with the software designers very much involved, and happy to directly help users via the various forums (fora?)

For me, FH is by far the best programme in the Windows world, and it almost wins that accolade alone on its interactive diagrams; and it's British, which I like. My only minor issue is that unlike Reunion or PediTree, it doesn't feature a three generation family display as standard, but the ease of navigating and live editing of diagrams almost makes up for that. I like Macs more and more and Reunion looks good, but its an American programme and I don't know it well enough to know its strengths and weaknesses yet. Like FH, it has an excellent user group forum, which you're reading!! So far all Gedcom files which I have imported from Peditree into FH have worked fine but I can't always say the same about import into Reunion. But bear in mind this is a PC to Mac import so any issues perhaps come from that rather than the software itself

For now, I am inclined towards Family Historian and am looking forward to version 4 coming next month which perhaps will make it better yet. Most of my databases remain on PediTree with which I am really familiar, and just to really sit on the fence I plan to use each of Reunion 9, PediTree and Family Historian 4 extensively over this coming year for different surnames. If I make a final and single choice, it will rest on the ease of importing Gedcom files, and being able to communicate with others. At the moment Family historian is ahead in both those departments, for me.

There is no such thing as the ideal all round programme, but FH 'hits most of my buttons'

Hope this helps?

RalfofAmber · Post by **RalfofAmber** » 07 Feb 2009 07:31

Just to echo rclrocco, I was swayed by the UK origin of FH, and as a beta tester can confirm that FH4 is a good step forward.

I have never looked at peditree (which I will now) and would make the point from playing with various demos that all these packages have a way of working that takes time to get into, and all have aspects that one feels could be different. It may be that one of these makes FH unsuitable for how you want to work.

This has led to Nick Walker's excellent Gedcom Census tool, and I like many people am building up various spreadsheets / databases in other packages which allow me to work better in my own way.

PyreneesPirate · Post by **PyreneesPirate** » 07 Feb 2009 07:58

Thank you very much rclrocco for your kind response.

I used Reunion as well on an early PC and thought that it was good, but alas, I do not own a Mac (yet)!

Your idea of using separate programs for different families is a good idea, I might just try this.

My database has been built up over thirty years and I have just returned to the files to really try to revalidate, reproduce and organise a professional family database (whether I can or not is a bit questionable!), plus, I have a little more time on my hands at the moment.

I like FH3 and it is ahead of the other ones that I am currently trialling and I like the Census import program which links to it. It has been a bit of a pain for me to document census' (censii?) and I have fallen into the trap of using up credits purchasing census info when I have already paid before!

The Source / Citation facility is also important to me, as I wish to really seal the data as much as I can. This could be an interesting time as I do not really understand the Source / Citation process in full yet.

Does anybody know if there is a FH3/4 training dvd?

You make some interesting points and it really does helps to have one's input.

PyreneesPirate.

YouTube · Post by **Jane** » 07 Feb 2009 08:40

I am a bit short of time this morning, but will come back latter, on the Training have you watched the short How To items in the Knowledge Base. The Entering data from a Birth Certificate one covers a good bit on using the source tools on FH.

I wouldn't spend a lot of my spare time running this site if I did not think FH was a good product.

jmurphy · Post by **jmurphy** » 07 Feb 2009 19:07

I tested several programs before deciding to get Family Historian. My general advice would be to get trial versions wherever you can, then pick some family you have not yet worked on in a location you are familiar with (perhaps a neighbor or business associate of someone in your main file) and enter the data into the program to see how it feels to you.

I tested RootsMagic, AncestralQuest, The Master Genealogist, GenBox Family History, Legacy, and Family Tree Legends before I chose Family Historian.

I am in the US (as you probably guessed from my spelling above) but am researching on both sides of the pond, so one of the things that attracted me to FH is the ease of entering things like quarter dates.

However, the feature of FH I like the most is Auto Source Citation. Here's how it works.

Assume you have an obituary, like my aunt's. It lists the following people:

deceased
husband
two daughters and their husbands
son and son's wife
sister
sister's husband
four grandsons
grandson's fiance

Enter the name of all the people in the database. Next go to the Sources tab and create the source for the obituary. For clippings in my family's possession I have a source called 'Family Papers' and I make a note about which member of my family has the original. For things downloaded from sites like Ancestry I cut and paste the information given online:

Source Information:
Ancestry.com. United States Obituary Collection [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 2006. Original data: See newspaper information provided with each entry.

Once I enter the data into the header fields it looks like this:

Title: United States Obituary Collection [database on-line].
Short Title: United States Obituary Collection
Author: (title of original newspaper)
Publication Information: Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 2006.
Repository: Ancestry.com

[For source type I create entries in the form 'Census -- transcript' or 'Census -- image' to show which have come from images and which not. For this obit I only have an online version so I'd put 'Newspaper -- online edition' or 'Newspaper -- transcript' depending on what was appropriate. (For things like RootsWeb where I only have an index to the obituary I put 'Obituary -- index'.)]

In the note box I paste both the Source Citation as given by Ancestry and the Source Information (the bit I quoted above). If I transcribe the obituary that goes into the 'text from source' box.

Once the Source is created, turn on 'Auto Source Creation'. I like to check the checkbox for 'Automatically Add Citation to New Fields'. (I used to check the box to add the source to new Individual, Family, and Note Records, but I'm finding that it is confusing me to have that Source attached to the whole record, so I'm considering not doing that anymore.)

Now enter all the data from the obituary. You can add the source to people's names by clicking on the name field and using 'Paste Auto Citation'. When you enter the deceased's dates of birth and death, the residences of all the children, etc., then Family Historian will automatically assign the source to all those things.

Be sure to turn off Auto Source Citation when you are finished!

I find this much easier than entering data then going to the list of sources and attaching the sources, as most of the other programs seem to ask you to do.

Others may do things differently, and if so, I invite them to discuss their methods. [wink]

Hope this helps.

Jan

PyreneesPirate · Post by **PyreneesPirate** » 15 Feb 2009 11:19

Sorry for the delay in responding to the replies that I have received via e-mail, I have been away for a week or so.

Thank you all for your input, I shall have to make a decision soon as my trial is finishing!

Thnaks also to jmurphy for the Source / Citation explanation, I shall carry out a test run.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the feedback I have received from FHUG and it gives me a bit more confidence in the overall purchase of the product.

All the best,

PyreneesPirate

jmurphy · Post by **jmurphy** » 15 Feb 2009 19:33

I recommend entering one source and the individuals' names listed in that source and testing it with the different options checked or unchecked so you can see what the results are.

That gives me a better feel for how the program acts than simply reading about it in the manual or on a help screen.

For instance, someone on the RootsWeb mailing list pointed out one difficulty with having the Auto-Source adding the Source for ALL fields -- they had things like Gender with the source attached.

If you think this is TOO much sourcing, then put in the people's names and gender before you turn on Auto-Source, or if the source is already there, you can always delete the link to the source for that one field.

Try it out on a fresh database so you won't mess up your main file as you play with the program.

Hope this helps.

Jan

JonAxtell · Post by **JonAxtell** » 16 Feb 2009 10:39

'For instance, someone on the RootsWeb mailing list pointed out one difficulty with having the Auto-Source adding the Source for ALL fields -- they had things like Gender with the source attached.'

Actually it's not a source against the gender, but a source for the whole record. You do need to look closely in the source pane to see that it says Source For: .

jmurphy · Post by **jmurphy** » 17 Feb 2009 03:19

JonAxtell said:
'For instance, someone on the RootsWeb mailing list pointed out one difficulty with having the Auto-Source adding the Source for ALL fields -- they had things like Gender with the source attached.'

Actually it's not a source against the gender, but a source for the whole record. You do need to look closely in the source pane to see that it says Source For: .

Having a source for the whole record makes sense if you have one and only one source for a person, but as soon as you find other evidence, I find it confusing.

As for the source against gender comment, I admit I did not have time to check to see if the comment I read on the mailing list was accurate. But I should have said 'they said they had XYZ' to make that more clear.

Jan

JonAxtell · Post by **JonAxtell** » 17 Feb 2009 16:04

Having a source for the whole record makes sense if you have one and only one source for a person, but as soon as you find other evidence, I find it confusing.

That's why I only use the whole record source for the first occurrence of a person.

So if I find a person for the first time on a Census page, that will the source for the whole record.

Family Historian User Group