* One niggle re creating census entries with AS...

[fhtess65]

The one thing I have noticed is that by creating a census entry with a whole family on it in AS is that every person in the household has the same source. My template (which I use in AS) has a Person of Interest field as well as a Head of Household field which now doesn't work, as it only applies to the first person entered (generally the HoH).

I see two possible solutions:

a) for mutli-person households, don't add everyone else and just use the option auto-fill option for the next entry to make things faster to enter each person individually

b) edit my template so there's no Person of Interest and where necessary in reports just add the extra information for each person after exporting to a word processor.

Just wondering how others deal with this, if you're like me and prefer a lot of detail in a census source/citation. Overall, I really do like the way AS works now I understand its full power.

Thanks,

Teresa

Teresa

[ADC65]

I don't record to this level of detail, I capture the Household Schedule number as the lowest level, so excuse my thoughts if they are not correct on a solution.

If the Person of Interest field is a citation-level field, a third option could be to carry on as you currently enter a census in AS, but then manually change the source citation in FH afterwards, just changing the Person of Interest field for each person to what you want it to be.

I'd be interested to know what advantage you see in recording this level of detail, i.e., what extra information does it give you? I ask as I'm just trying to figure out my own custom census template, but had not considered adding each person, and I don't see what benefits it would bring me.

[tatewise]

Teresa, as hinted by Adrian, it is useful to know more about the style of your source citations and templates.
Are they 'splitter' or 'lumper' source citations?
Are the Template fields Source Record or Citation-specific?
Do you record a transcript table (of the AS Grid) in the FH 'Text from Source' field?

IMO The most popular convention is to use a 'splitter' Source Record for each Household Schedule of family members.
That Source Record 'Text from Source' holds a transcript table that captures the household details and mimics the rows and columns of the original Census record. A Media image of the Census page is often attached with a Detail Frame focusing on the Household Schedule rows.

Every member of the household has an Individual Census event with a minimal Citation linked to the Source Record.
All those Census events and Citations are identical except for the Age of each person.
Typically, Occupation facts and optionally Birth facts will also be created each with the same Citation.

Since all the detailed relationships to HoH are in the 'Text from Source' there is no need for further details.

[NickWalker]

Have you watched the video I made about using source templates in AS? This shows how the Head of Household field in the template can be automatically filled in by AS. You could similarly have AS automatically fill in a 'Person of Interest' field in the template if you record that in the 'Other Info' field (which is what I use it for). Or do you mean use 'Person of Interest' as a Yes/No against every individual in the entry?

[fhtess65]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it. I've had trouble in the past changing citations in FH as it seems to change for everyone attached to it, but that could be my inexperience showing - I'm still learning my around using the sources/citations in FH. I'm likely doing something wrong. One of the few changes I liked in RM8 was the ability to copy and paste a citation from one individual to another and then edit it, without affecting the original citation.

And the reason for my level of detail is because I'm a librarian and cataloguer, so tend to go into great detail on any kind of information recording. Also, I use my citations in my blog posts where others can read them - this way if a family member decides to try to reproduce my work, they have all the information they need. There are cases where the handwriting is so atrocious. knowing the line number on the census is important! But mainly, as I said, it's my own need to be precise.

Thanks again

Teresa

I don't record to this level of detail, I capture the Household Schedule number as the lowest level, so excuse my thoughts if they are not correct on a solution.

If the Person of Interest field is a citation-level field, a third option could be to carry on as you currently enter a census in AS, but then manually change the source citation in FH afterwards, just changing the Person of Interest field for each person to what you want it to be.

I'd be interested to know what advantage you see in recording this level of detail, i.e., what extra information does it give you? I ask as I'm just trying to figure out my own custom census template, but had not considered adding each person, and I don't see what benefits it would bring me.

[fhtess65]

I'm definitely a splitter. And the template fields are a mix of source record and citation-specific. Since starting with AS fairly recently, I've definitely recorded the transcript table so it shows up in the FH 'Text from Source' field. Before that, in many cases, I was doing the same thing in a table in my word processor. AS saves me time!

I guess in the end it all depends on how we use our citations. I include mine in blog posts, so like them as detailed as possible so people reading the post can see my facts are well-supported.

FWIW, here's a recent census entry I captured using AS - I'm sure there are problems with my template. It has taken me a while to get the hang of creating something half-way useful for my purposes.

CensusCitation-FH7.jpg (343.77 KiB) Viewed 1394 times

Thanks for taking the time to give me your insight.

Teresa, as hinted by Adrian, it is useful to know more about the style of your source citations and templates.
Are they 'splitter' or 'lumper' source citations?
Are the Template fields Source Record or Citation-specific?
Do you record a transcript table (of the AS Grid) in the FH 'Text from Source' field?

IMO The most popular convention is to use a 'splitter' Source Record for each Household Schedule of family members.
That Source Record 'Text from Source' holds a transcript table that captures the household details and mimics the rows and columns of the original Census record. A Media image of the Census page is often attached with a Detail Frame focusing on the Household Schedule rows.

Every member of the household has an Individual Census event with a minimal Citation linked to the Source Record.
All those Census events and Citations are identical except for the Age of each person.
Typically, Occupation facts and optionally Birth facts will also be created each with the same Citation.

Since all the detailed relationships to HoH are in the 'Text from Source' there is no need for further details.

[fhtess65]

Hi Nick,

No, I haven't watched that video yet, just the introductory one. I will watch it now and see if it helps. I have posted my template in my response to Mike, so you can see what I'm working with (for better or worse). Thanks for the tip re using the Other Info field - just to be sure I'm not misinterpreting, is this the one you mean?

AS-Census-OtherInfoField.jpg (129.11 KiB) Viewed 1393 times

As always, thanks for your help!

Have you watched the video I made about using source templates in AS? This shows how the Head of Household field in the template can be automatically filled in by AS. You could similarly have AS automatically fill in a 'Person of Interest' field in the template if you record that in the 'Other Info' field (which is what I use it for). Or do you mean use 'Person of Interest' as a Yes/No against every individual in the entry?

[NickWalker]

I'm definitely a splitter. And the template fields are a mix of source record and citation-specific. Since starting with AS fairly recently, I've definitely recorded the transcript table so it shows up in the FH 'Text from Source' field. Before that, in many cases, I was doing the same thing in a table in my word processor. AS saves me time!

I guess in the end it all depends on how we use our citations. I include mine in blog posts, so like them as detailed as possible so people reading the post can see my facts are well-supported.

FWIW, here's a recent census entry I captured using AS - I'm sure there are problems with my template. It has taken me a while to get the hang of creating something half-way useful for my purposes.

In your template I think all the fields you have as citation fields should be source fields. This is really the key thing about method 1/splitting - all of the information you are recording (location, address, person of interest, reference, head of household, note) are facts about the source itself and not each individual linked to the source. You probably don't want to store anything in the citation because all of that information should be recorded in the source. Your source (in this example) is the census household record for George and Elizabeth at 1 Violet Cottages, Sutton-at-Hone. Have a look at the Essentials Collection Census template and you'll see that all of the place, address, reference information is recorded in the source rather than in the citation. In a way you need to separate what you think of as a citation from the way this is recorded in FH and what FH calls a citation. You will still be recording all your citation details but they should be recorded in the source itself not within the FH citations.

[tatewise]

I think the only exception to what Nick is suggesting is the Person of Interest field, which I understand to be the person whose Census fact has the Citation attached. So its content is a different person of the household for each Census fact.
However, it is not clear to me why it is needed because you can see who is the principal person for the Census fact, so why repeat it in the Citation-specific details?

[NickWalker]

I think the only exception to what Nick is suggesting is the Person of Interest field, which I understand to be the person whose Census fact has the Citation attached. So its content is a different person of the household for each Census fact.
However, it is not clear to me why it is needed because you can see who is the principal person for the Census fact, so why repeat it in the Citation-specific details?

I wonder how you interpreted that from the image? You may well be right but I'd assumed it would be a Yes/No flag to tag that this is a person of interest rather than naming a particular person? I assumed 'person of interest' was the way that I've always used it to name the key person in the entry that is of particular interest. e.g. my grandfather might be living as a boarder with a family: The head of household would not be my grandfather but I'd put my grandfather's name as the 'person of interest' (though as I don't use templated sources I put that into the source title in brackets at the end via the 'Other Info' field).

[ColeValleyGirl]

you can see who is the principal person for the Census fact, so why repeat it in the Citation-specific details?

For instance, because the names may differ significantly, Mike -- I have an individual whose primary (birth) name is Stanley Reynolds Wright. He never showed up in any census as that however -- in the last census record (1921) I have for him he was John Wright. So identifying in the citation which individual in the census record is relevant is quite useful.

[tatewise]

I inferred my assumption from Teresa's original posting yesterday.
Nick, it is definitely a name and not Yes/No because Teresa says so and it is a name in the Citation window screenshot.

[NickWalker]

I know it's a name but I meant that if it was being used for the purpose you inferred then a flag would make more sense to me. Although Helen has mentioned one possibility as to why a name may be used instead. I assumed the name was the key person as I mentioned.

[fhtess65]

Thanks, Nick - I was beginning to suspect that. What would happen if I edited the current template (with many citations against it)? Would it make a mess? Or am I better off cloning it, making all the fields source ones, and using it going forward?

Coming from RM, it's been a learning curve using FH - one I've enjoyed, btw - so I've made some errors in how I set things up. I'm exceedingly grateful for this forum where long-time users share their knowledge.

And I did watch your video last night - it's helpful as well.

Thanks again

Teresa

In your template I think all the fields you have as citation fields should be source fields. This is really the key thing about method 1/splitting - all of the information you are recording (location, address, person of interest, reference, head of household, note) are facts about the source itself and not each individual linked to the source. <SNIP> In a way you need to separate what you think of as a citation from the way this is recorded in FH and what FH calls a citation. You will still be recording all your citation details but they should be recorded in the source itself not within the FH citations.

[tatewise]

I think it would make a mess. A plugin could move the Citation-specific fields to the Source record, assuming the values in all the Citations are all the same. Then they would match the new Template.
We are still not sure of the purpose of the 'Person of Interest' field. Is the name the same in every Citation or not?

[fhtess65]

Ok - I will go with creating a new template.

Person of interest field will be different each time. My great-grandparents had 10 children - if I want to write about two different ones and cite the 1911 census, I would want a separate citation for each of them with each listed as the person of interest and my great-grandfather listed as HoH.

I think it would make a mess. A plugin could move the Citation-specific fields to the Source record, assuming the values in all the Citations are all the same. Then they would match the new Template.
We are still not sure of the purpose of the 'Person of Interest' field. Is the name the same in every Citation or not?

[ADC65]

Person of interest field will be different each time. My great-grandparents had 10 children - if I want to write about two different ones and cite the 1911 census, I would want a separate citation for each of them with each listed as the person of interest and my great-grandfather listed as HoH.

I've previously read some of your blog, and it is interesting, informative and very well written and researched. So I can see from what you're saying here you want to have a level of detail beyond the norm - which is fine, of course, we all have different requirements and one of the great things about FH is it normally allows the flexibility for creative use. I'm sure you're aware there is a school of thought that says the source/citation should be used for referencing the material itself, and that the information contained in the source should be in the fact/event/attribute/note itself. But for the purposes of publishing in your blog I understand the reasons behind your practice.

However (and please excuse me if I'm misunderstanding), what it appears you are going to be doing is creating a SOURCE record for every person, that is, every line of a census. Each person will have his/her own SOURCE record, since there will be no citation-level fields. If I were to try doing the same as you are trying to achieve, I think I would move all the fields to source fields, except Person of Interest, which would be a citation-level. In effect, this means you can create a SOURCE for the household with all its details, and then CITE that source for each person, with Person of Interest being the citation field. I'm not sure that AS could do that for each person, so you might need to go into FH afterwards and change the citation field. One of the advantages with this is if you change something on the SOURCE (say the Schedule number, which you might have mistranscribed, for example) you would only have to change it in the one source record rather in every individual source record for that household.

Just some thoughts!

[tatewise]

Yes, Adrian has the same understanding that I posted earlier and exactly as I inferred from the OP.
The 'Person of Interest' must be a Citation-specific field holding the name of the person who owns the Census event and is therefore different for each Citation.
I'm not sure whether AS can automatically complete that field or whether you must manually enter it in FH afterwards.

[NickWalker]

I still don't really understand what the reason for the Person of Interest is.

Person of interest field will be different each time. My great-grandparents had 10 children - if I want to write about two different ones and cite the 1911 census, I would want a separate citation for each of them with each listed as the person of interest and my great-grandfather listed as HoH.

If you didn't have the person of interest field and produced a report on two of the children or your great-grandfather then they would all have separate citations for any census, occupation and births linked to the source. So I don't understand what additional benefit that 'person of interest' field would bring you?

If you absolutely need to record a person of interest field for every citation then as Mike and Adrian have said, this would need to be a citation field which you could create as part of your template, but AS wouldn't be able to fill it in for you. You would need to fill this in manually in FH afterwards.

[fhtess65]

Thanks for the compliment re my blog

I see what you're saying now. At this point, I may just dump the Person of Interest field completely, knowing I can add it if necessary manually to the citation where I might decide I need it.

AS does so much that I DO like, it seems to make sense for me to adjust my template, rather than faffing about afterwards in FH - I don't really need that PoI field in FH anyway.

Thanks again

I've previously read some of your blog, and it is interesting, informative and very well written and researched. So I can see from what you're saying here you want to have a level of detail beyond the norm - which is fine, of course, we all have different requirements and one of the great things about FH is it normally allows the flexibility for creative use. I'm sure you're aware there is a school of thought that says the source/citation should be used for referencing the material itself, and that the information contained in the source should be in the fact/event/attribute/note itself. But for the purposes of publishing in your blog I understand the reasons behind your practice.

However (and please excuse me if I'm misunderstanding), what it appears you are going to be doing is creating a SOURCE record for every person, that is, every line of a census. Each person will have his/her own SOURCE record, since there will be no citation-level fields. If I were to try doing the same as you are trying to achieve, I think I would move all the fields to source fields, except Person of Interest, which would be a citation-level. In effect, this means you can create a SOURCE for the household with all its details, and then CITE that source for each person, with Person of Interest being the citation field.<SNIP>
Just some thoughts!

[fhtess65]

Understood - I can see now why it's really not necessary, especially as so many of the households I'll be entering using AS won't have people in them that will need that one specific field, one I can add manually in my word processor if I decide to feature them in my blog post.

Appreciate your input.

Yes, Adrian has the same understanding that I posted earlier and exactly as I inferred from the OP.
The 'Person of Interest' must be a Citation-specific field holding the name of the person who owns the Census event and is therefore different for each Citation.
I'm not sure whether AS can automatically complete that field or whether you must manually enter it in FH afterwards.

[fhtess65]

I see your point now and agree - it was just one of those things I'd found useful in some ways, but am not sure I really need it for the majority of people in my database. That detail can always be added manually when I copy the citation from FH to my blog post, if necessary.

Will ponder a little longer, just to be sure...I really appreciate the way AS works overall, especially the census transcriptions it produces.

Thanks again

I still don't really understand what the reason for the Person of Interest is.

If you didn't have the person of interest field and produced a report on two of the children or your great-grandfather then they would all have separate citations for any census, occupation and births linked to the source. So I don't understand what additional benefit that 'person of interest' field would bring you?

If you absolutely need to record a person of interest field for every citation then as Mike and Adrian have said, this would need to be a citation field which you could create as part of your template, but AS wouldn't be able to fill it in for you. You would need to fill this in manually in FH afterwards.