* Sources

[hf]

I am new to FH and am having great trouble in creating new sources. How do I do it?
I have printed off the manual and looked at the 'How to get Started' items but just cannot find anything that seems to be the same as appears on my screen. The fly-out source is yellowed out for all but new birth and death items.
I may be being very thick but so much difficulty in a basic operation is seriously putting me off this software. I have seen Roots Magic and source creation therein is simple.
Please can someone tell me what I am doing wrong.

ID:2820

[davidm_uk]

If you're new to FH it's well worth running through the tutorial, that will cover the basics including creating sources.

From the FH main menu click in Help, Getting Started and then read the section on that page called The Quick Start Tutorial.

The way I create a new source is (usually) as follows:
Double click on a persons name in the Individual Records list to bring up their properties box,
Click in the Name box to position your cursor there, (NOTE - you can't create a source record until you have entered something in the field for which you want to create the source, eg the persons name, date of birth etc),
In the set of icons at the top right of that box click on the little yellow scroll symbol, which will open the Sources flyout,
To create a new source for the Name, click on the scroll symbol in that flyout (the tooltip shows Add Citation),
In the Select Source window that then opens click on the New button at the bottom of that window,
That opens the New Source Record window in which you add details about the source. When you have added some information just click on Create and the new source record will be created.

You can edit and add to it later, so don't worry if you don't have all the details to start with. I find it helpful later, when you may have many sources, to have some sort of naming convention for the source title, eg Marriage Certificate for xxxx, Document from xxxx, Genes Reunited contact xxxx and so on. You can edit these titles later if you want to change the naming convention.

Having Created a source record you can then link objects to it, such as scanned images of certificates, census pages, photos etc. I also try to use a naming convention for these objects.

Hope this is helpful, but come back here if you are stuck, lots of people willing to help out!

David.

[hf]

Many thanks David, that is very helpful indeed.

[jmurphy]

I chose Family Historian after several months of trying several different programs precisely because of the ease it provides in creating new sources and citing them vs. the other programs I tried.

FH has a wonderful feature called Auto-Source citation. So in contrast to what most other programs encourage you to do, which is working off the records for individual people, as davidm_uk describes, I enter the source first and then extract the data and apply the source citation to the individuals mentioned in it.

There are generally two methods for creating and handling sources -- for example, for a census, some people make just one source for a particular year for each country (one source for 1841 UK, one source for 1951 UK, one source for 1930 US, and so on), and then make individual 'where within source' notes to say where the particular family record can be found. Or you can treat each individual census page as a separate source, in the same way you might list a birth certificate. Nick Walker explains this difference quite well in his Gedcom Census help, so you may want to read what he says to help you choose which style to use.

I tend to use a hybrid approach with one source for each page for the census records, but one big source for things where the same person might be cited multiple times (e.g. books like NEHGS's Massachusetts City Directories which collect multiple city directories and years under one cover).

So: let's say I have a pile of photocopies / digitized pages from that one source. To create a new source, go to the records window in FH and choose the sources tab. From the menu, choose 'Insert / Source'. A box will pop up with various fields you can fill in about the source. From there I can fill in

Title: Massachusetts City Directories

Short title: (same)

Type: Directory -- image (I have a separate type which is Directory -- index for online indexes that do not have images available)

Publication Information: Ancestry.com. Massachusetts City Directories [database on-line]

Repository: Ancestry.com

In the Note field, I copy and paste in whatever general information is available about the source (in this case, the text listed under 'Source Information' and 'Description' in the Ancestry search result screens). Multimedia objects which belong to the source can be linked in on the Objects tab.

Then I go to the Tools menu and select Auto Source Citation, putting the information about 'where within source' and 'text from source' as needed.

From there I can either create new records or 'touch' existing ones and the source will be attached automatically.

I can take my pile of printouts, and work my way through, adding in the data from the several different city directories contained in MCD at once, doing all the 1887 entries at once, all the 1900 entries at once, all the 1901 entries at once, and so on. As I add name variations, residences, occupations, and so on, the auto-source will add the source automatically. If the information is not new to the database, I can choose 'Paste Auto Citation' from the context menu (right click), to add this source to the existing data, and add in 'text from source' for each person as needed.

IMHO this is much easier than entering the data for a person piece by piece and then having to click on the little yellow scroll button to choose the source and add the source for every little bit of information.

The only tricky thing about doing it this way: be sure to turn off auto source citation when you are done!

Jan

[hf]

Jan,

Many thanks for taking the time to reply in such detail.
I shall carefully work through your comments to fully understand them. FH seems such a complicated programme with a massive learning curve and, to be honest, I don't find the manual or help files written with a first time user in mind. They seem to assume of deal of knowledge about how these geneology programmes work.
I have read the GedCom information but am having problems with that programme as well since it won't transfer information into my FH files!
LIfe is Soooo complicated sometimes that I wonder whether sticking to traditional paper files isn't easiest - yes, I know, computerised stuff gives much easier questioning etc.
Very many thanks for your help.
hf

[Jane]

Try checking out some of the animated tutorials in the How to section here.

Sourcing is a complex subject, on paper or in the computer, but it's worth getting it right first time. I speak from experience as I started out not sourcing and then had to spend weeks when I moved to FH getting all my source information correct.

FH does need some time to learn, but it makes it easy to 'do the right thing' once you have.

[ChrisBowyer]

We too found out the hard way that often the most important question to be able to answer later is 'says who?'.

We now have a mental rule never to do anything in FH without first going Tools > Set Automatic Source Citation... and then selecting an existing census or certificate or parish register, or whatever you're looking at at the time, or Select... then New... and adding 'Correspondence with...' or even 'Conversation with...'.

Be aware it only adds your source to new information. It's also useful to be able to Copy and Paste citations using the buttons in the Sources For: section of the properties form where your new source confirms information you already have.

[jmurphy]

ChrisBowyer said:
'Correspondence with...' or even 'Conversation with...'.

Yes, absolutely! I have information in the files for my husband's family which is part of their family tradition, and all those bits and pieces should be tagged with the name of the person you learned them from. I also record which parent told him that (both parents are deceased so we can't ask them to tell the story again).

I have census transcriptions which were sent to me in email -- so I note this on the source, whose transcription, when the email arrived, and then I make a note that I need to check this transcription against an image when I have access to one -- Named Lists can be handy for that.

I also have a source called 'Jan's speculations' so if I put in a guess, it is flagged as such, and I can attach a note saying what information made me to make that guess.

Jan

[jmurphy]

hf said:
LIfe is Soooo complicated sometimes that I wonder whether sticking to traditional paper files isn't easiest - yes, I know, computerised stuff gives much easier questioning etc.
Very many thanks for your help.
hf

You're quite welcome.

I don't know how others feel about this, but I think one should also keep traditional paper files. When I was trained in data handling (not in genealogy, in another academic discipline), I was taught to take notes in the field, then transcribe them and add comments and supporting material into permanent journals. We also made paper slips the size of standard note cards which could be shuffled about and filed in different ways to aid in data analysis.

The computer is the modern-day version of those paper notecards -- it does NOT replace the permanent notebooks.

Of all the people here, I should have known better than anyone that 'who says so' is the most important thing to keep track of -- but I too did what everyone else does, accumulating bits and pieces everywhere, without sourcing things properly!

If I had turned in my data for review to my instructor and I had only turned in my final analysis and my note cards and had not done a permanent journal, oh boy, would I have been in trouble!

I should have been keeping proper records all along, but I have spent the past year and a half learning how to do genealogy so I could see how to apply my training to this new discipline. I tried to learn how to source properly, but I was too new to genealogy to see how it was supposed to be done, so the methods in books like Mills' Evidence! only confused me more. It took me a long time to understand why it was important to record not only the 'what [document] says this' but also the 'who says it says so' (that is, Rootsweb vs. Ancestry vs. FreeBMD vs. some other place).

It does take time to absorb new things, but don't despair.

I find it helpful to think in terms of simple questions. Don't be distracted by all the things you don't know, because it is too easy to become overwhelmed. Choose one thing which you don't know and investigate that one thing. That might mean thinking about which records might hold the answer to ONE of your brick wall questions, or thinking about how to use ONE new feature of Family Historian per day.

If you look at my other posts here, you can see I have littered the place with threads where I say 'I don't think I am using Family Historian effectively enough, what does everyone else do?' as I was exploring some new feature.

Don't be afraid to ask for help or to post what you are thinking so you can talk things out. Sometimes even when you have a seemingly clear explanation of how to do something, it doesn't make sense when you don't have enough experience to understand why it is done that way.

I often experiment with new features by deliberately starting a new database and re-entering the data I already have or examining some problem that I want to review. That way if I mess up, I haven't spoiled my main database.

Actually using the program rather than just reading a manual gets the 'how to do it' into your muscle memory -- where a command is on a menu, and so on.

Jan

[rclrocco]

This is an interesting thread which gets right to the heart of FH programs and this hobby.

Sources are a complex issue as stated above and are one of the reasons why many amateurs get turned off certain programs because entering sources correctly is perceived as 'difficult', wrongly of course.

I too am new to FH and am still finding my way with entering sources. I've learnt the hard way that entering sources properly as you go, is really the way to organise your research. I would go further and suggest these two rules of thumb, born of my twenty plus years of not entering sources thoroughly: make sure that you have more sources in your database than people. Don't enter any fact without an accompanying source.

I know that sounds pedantic to beginners often anxious to print out a first diagram etc, but you will SO thank yourself in coming years when you come back to a database and find all the sources and justification for your data entries.

From what I've seen so far, FH has a good and comprehensive Source handling capability, so my advice, hf, is to persevere and use this Forum to help you with specific probs [smile]

Jan, the paper files being kept is vital to me too, but I do find that increasingly and as a database expands, the computer ought to be the place where you keep the majority of data. This is probably a subject for a longer and alternative thread, and perhaps to stimulate that can I end with two thoughts which relate to how one stores information

Firstly, how do you enter details of a person's life story, ie a mini biography, in Family Historian?

And secondly, how do you want to leave all your research, both on paper and your work with Family Historian, to your family and posterity?

A bit philosophical maybe, but if you answer that issue thoroughly, it can often provide the clue as to whether you want to commit to everything on the computer or to a balance of paper files or book, and FH as Jan is suggesting

Oops, better get off the soapbox now and enter a few sources

[confused][confused]

[jmurphy]

One of my instructors used to question any hypothesis we made with 'what does it buy you?' He wanted us to go straight to the essence of our proposed theory and articulate what advantage it made if we put it in that form.

Paper records are sequential, like a videotape. Computer records can be accessed at any point we choose, because of queries. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Paper records have greater longevity and don't need to be re-done every few years as technology changes.

Computer records, done properly, make it easy to index and cross-reference and give you great analytical power.

Both are great at what they do, but they do different things.

Jan

[AnneEast]

If you are new to FH don't be afraid of it. The beauty of the program is that you can use it at many levels. Start off just using what you need - don't worry about all the super complicated things! If you are like me you would never start if you tried to understand all the advice above all at once!

In the end after a few months/years of using the program in your own way you will start to think 'I wonder if it will do ....' and then is the time to work through the detailed advice and the great 'walk through' demos that Jane has provided on this site.

Anne