Family Historian User Group

Hi,

I am in the initial stages of using Family Historian after importing a Gedcom from Ancestry. That being the case most of the sources link back to Ancestry, except for a few for which I have designated the Source as being various Parish Registers.

If there is such a thing I would like to follow 'best practice', and specify sources which are correct for things like Baptisms, Marriages, Burials, Wills, Census etc....

Is there a right and a wrong regarding this, does it matter that Ancestry is treated as the Source/Repository....?

There is much for me to learn about FH and from what I have seen so far I think that I am going to enjoy that, but at the same time I don't want to cause myself a whole heap of work if that is not necessary.

I am gradually going through the Online Manual, and in fact have ordered myself a hard copy (might receive it tomorrow), so, how would those of you who are 'experienced' FH devotees suggest I proceed? Is there a good way to 'clean up' the imported information by removing the Ancestry links, and then creating the correct detail for the Source information and Repositories etc...?

I have not used it yet but I have downloaded Ancestral Sources, and ultimately I am sure that will be helpful to me, but I want to understand what I should do regarding the existing Ancestry sources first.

Regards,

AlanF

Is it really your Source Records that link back to Ancestry, or is it the Multimedia Records attached to the Sources that link to Ancestry?

There are several other threads on this topic of importing from Ancestry:
Ancestry to FH - Media File path (5823)
how to download images from ancestry (5829)
downloading images from ancestry.co.uk (5830)

Best Practice
The last thread gives links to the KB on Using and Recording Sources and to the Ancestral Sources add-on.

After digesting those topics it should be apparent that there are essentially two methods for recording Sources.
Method 1: Each and every Source Document, such as a single Birth/Marriage/Death Certificate or Census page, has its own Source Record, with a transcription, and linked Multimedia image, so very little if any details are needed in the Citations.
Method 2: Classes of documents, such as all Birth Certificates, all Marriage Certificates, all Death Certificates, or all 1901 Census records, have a group Source Record possibly with all the Multimedia images attached, so individual document transcriptions, etc must be entered in the Citations or linked Note Records.

Some FH users always use just Method 1, others always use just Method 2, while others use a combination of Method 1 & Method 2 for different classes of document (perhaps Method 1 for BMD Certificates, but Method 2 for BMD Indexes) - the choice is yours.

Re Method 1 and Method 2, I'd ended up with a fairly random mixture of each, but when I first started using Gedcom Census (Ancestral Sources predecessor) I decided I ought to tidy things up, and after carefully reviewing what I'd done against both methods came down firmly on Method 1, and many years later have never regretted this decision.

All of my sources, be they BMD Certs, BMD Index entries, Census entries, Baptism Index entries, documents, photos etc, have a descriptive title for the source record (the Citation), then the source record has multimedia link(s) to the images of the above documents, or the document itself (eg a text or PFD document), with sometimes some commentary in the source record if I feel the need to clarify something, or remind myself of something that may not be clear on the source image. For example if I've found some information on an unusual web site I might put the url in the Publication field, or the name and contact details of the person who sent me some information into the Note field.

As far as possible I try and keep to a consistent naming convention for Sources and their associated multimedia records eg.

Birth Certificate - Frederick Jones (b1853)
Birth Index ANC - Frederick Jones (b1853)
Baptism Index FS - Frederick Jones (bap 1853)
Census 1861 - Frederick Jones (b1853)

(the ANC and FS signify Ancestry and Family Search - I started out like this and have just kept it going).

All of the multimedia files are in a structured set of folders, by type, and then for census by ancestor branch.

I think that the key thing is to be consistent, so that in a few years time you know why things are the way they are, and where you can expect to find that bit of information that you're sure that you recorded ages ago.

Hope this helps.

AlanFlint wrote: ... does it matter that Ancestry is treated as the Source/Repository....?

A bit dangerous for me to try to reply without seeing exactly how your stuff looks, or how you might be thinking of altering it to look, but here goes...

Lots of people use Ancestral Sources and it may be a good idea to get that, use it to load up a census image or two from scratch first and see what the resulting stuff looks like in FH. Then you can try and replicate that for the stuff that AS doesn't do. (Consistency is nice...)

What's useful is if you then run off a report and examine the footnote that cites the source in question. If it looks like only a Jedi Master can read the footnote and you can't really understand it, don't go thinking that's how it must be. Alter the items in the property box for the source record until it's understandable.

As a personal thing, I seem to find myself writing slightly longer items to go into the various items on the property box for the source record to make it clearer. For instance, here's some of the items for a source for a divorce case I downloaded from Ancestry:

Author: Supreme Court of Judicature, Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division

Title: petition of John Doe v. Agnes Roe & John Smith in "Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Files", filed 6 May 1893

Publication Information: digital image of original published in "UK, Civil Divorce Records, 1858-1911" [database on-line], Ancestry.com

Repository: Ancestry (UK)
Identification: reference of original at TNA: J 77/515/15695

Author - yes, it is a bit long, but that's what it says in the TNA Catalogue.
Title - lots of people will omit the "petition of" and just start with the three names, but why not make it obvious? You are supposed to understand these things, after all. In addition, there are times when having names at the front of the title results in confusion with the names in the author, so sticking in something to describe what the thing is, separates the two sets of names.
Publication - saying "digital image of original" makes it clear whether you're looking at the original set of papers (in Kew) or a digital version of it. Notice I also include in there the name of the collection on Ancestry and say it's on Ancestry.
Repository - this describes where you found your source. I'm not happy that I have duplicated the word Ancestry twice.
Identification - strictly, this is supposed to be the id of the source within the repository but its id within Ancestry is unknown and pointless. Instead I use the reference at Kew because this is unique to this set of papers whether it's on Ancestry or at Kew.

Gentlemen,

What can I say - I am so grateful for all your very detailed and thoughtful responses. Whilst further contributions are always welcome, you have, between you, already given me so much to think about. I will need to go through each note very carefully, trying to assess which method will work best for me.

I appreciate the time you all took explaining how you work with FH & AS. I will, no doubt have further questions as I go along, so I will likely be back to solicit more wise advice.

Best wishes,

AlanF

I should have made it clear above that I use those titles for the sources AND the filenames of the multimedia records themselves. There have been times when I have wanted to find a particular multimedia file, or set of files, belonging to a particular individual, and it's been much quicker to search via Windows Search than to look for it via FH.

Again, after time, consistency pays dividends!

David, why not just use the List All Related Media Plugin?

Indeed!!

If only I could keep up with all the goodies that FH and FHUG has to offer

Have just downloaded this plug in - excellent, didn't realise I had so much media attached. Will help me with my current task to compare my Explorer source files with the media in FH, and with my printed off records (why have 1 record when you can have 3) as I know they have got a bit out of kilter.
Thanks Jane