I entered a branch of my family tree and have since found an entire genealogical book of the family on Google books. There's probably a couple of thousand people! And amazingly, done in 1899, long before PGV <LOL!>. I'm doing prelim work in an Excel spreadsheet, using each column as a generation. It's a very, very complex book (and profiles).
My questions:
> For the entries I have in my main tree (probably 200-300), do I leave them there? Some will be mentioned in the book (to 1899) but all relate to those listed. I already have identified which individuals make the link to my main tree. Or, should I delete from main and add to the new one?
>For the new entries, I'm not too certain how to create a new Gedcom from within PGV or would it be better to create a few names offline, import and then take it from there? I will probably use Reunion offline as 2nd step from Excel so that individuals are matched to families and there's no duplicates.
>The book is public domain, of that I'm certain. Each section is bio info on the individuals/families and done chronilogically with Xref (story of John that mentions Tom gives his ref#) and by generation. I was going to split the PDF into each Indi section and attach to their record. Then have the full book uploaded to my "index" outside PGV. Does this make sense?
I'm still doing Excel entries so it's not immediate but want some plan in place.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Mac
Not sure why you'd consider 'removing' those family members from your existing tree that may be duplicates, in that they are related to others in that GEDCOM and therefore, IOHO, belong there. And, AFA duplication, so what, if you create a 2nd GEDCOM. Among our four hosted GC's, we have many duplications and crossovers.
As to devising the best method of establishing/importing, if you aren't going to use PGV as your main entry vehicle and instead, for whatever reason meets your own fancy, choose Reunion, then by all means do it there and then export the GEDCOM for import as a new, additionally hosted GEDCOM in PGV.
Just because the book is 1899 data does not mean it is in the public domain. Use caution if you intend to 'republish' it in its entirety on your site. Certainly devise a thorough, qualified SOUR scheme for referencing the publication as the guide.
-Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Stephen:
I was going to avoid Reunion but it's too complex to take my Excel sheet and work from that, now that I've reviewed it.
Maybe I just answered my own question. Just export the Names/vital stats and import. Leave anything else in Reunion.
I know the publish date doesn't make it public domain but in this case, it is. I wouldn't put it online otherwise.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Mac, not sure I understand your question. You said you may/would have perhaps several hundred 'duplicate' indi's in your original file that would/could also be listed in the 'new', book gedcom. I'm simply saying that such duplication does no harm. Personally, I would NOT try to link each to the other as the remote linkage in PGV is still the buggiest part of the program, and I don't think I'd waste my time adding a URL reference either. Site wide searches will display the similarities, should both be exposed to the public.
-Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Stephen:
No way would I do links, just for laziness and I've seen posts about remote links. But now as I write this reply, maybe a shared note "see ABC FAMILY" will be helpful. The source uses this in a manual way and is helpful to know there is more about this person than is presented here. Of course, all might not be found immediately. For this branch, I'm finding there are so many people with the same name (like how many John's or Mary's do you need!!), thought it may be helpful.
Your tree is way larger than mine so it's helpful to have suggestions.
Off topic, no reply: we need more Olympics - it's giving me an excuse to stay at my Mac and do my entries <SMILE>
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I entered a branch of my family tree and have since found an entire genealogical book of the family on Google books. There's probably a couple of thousand people! And amazingly, done in 1899, long before PGV <LOL!>. I'm doing prelim work in an Excel spreadsheet, using each column as a generation. It's a very, very complex book (and profiles).
My questions:
> For the entries I have in my main tree (probably 200-300), do I leave them there? Some will be mentioned in the book (to 1899) but all relate to those listed. I already have identified which individuals make the link to my main tree. Or, should I delete from main and add to the new one?
>For the new entries, I'm not too certain how to create a new Gedcom from within PGV or would it be better to create a few names offline, import and then take it from there? I will probably use Reunion offline as 2nd step from Excel so that individuals are matched to families and there's no duplicates.
>The book is public domain, of that I'm certain. Each section is bio info on the individuals/families and done chronilogically with Xref (story of John that mentions Tom gives his ref#) and by generation. I was going to split the PDF into each Indi section and attach to their record. Then have the full book uploaded to my "index" outside PGV. Does this make sense?
I'm still doing Excel entries so it's not immediate but want some plan in place.
Mac
Not sure why you'd consider 'removing' those family members from your existing tree that may be duplicates, in that they are related to others in that GEDCOM and therefore, IOHO, belong there. And, AFA duplication, so what, if you create a 2nd GEDCOM. Among our four hosted GC's, we have many duplications and crossovers.
As to devising the best method of establishing/importing, if you aren't going to use PGV as your main entry vehicle and instead, for whatever reason meets your own fancy, choose Reunion, then by all means do it there and then export the GEDCOM for import as a new, additionally hosted GEDCOM in PGV.
Just because the book is 1899 data does not mean it is in the public domain. Use caution if you intend to 'republish' it in its entirety on your site. Certainly devise a thorough, qualified SOUR scheme for referencing the publication as the guide.
-Stephen
Stephen:
I was going to avoid Reunion but it's too complex to take my Excel sheet and work from that, now that I've reviewed it.
Maybe I just answered my own question. Just export the Names/vital stats and import. Leave anything else in Reunion.
I know the publish date doesn't make it public domain but in this case, it is. I wouldn't put it online otherwise.
Stephen:
When you say leave the duplicates, do you make Xreference to the other file, where possible? (Not hyperlink to allow me flexibility)
Mac, not sure I understand your question. You said you may/would have perhaps several hundred 'duplicate' indi's in your original file that would/could also be listed in the 'new', book gedcom. I'm simply saying that such duplication does no harm. Personally, I would NOT try to link each to the other as the remote linkage in PGV is still the buggiest part of the program, and I don't think I'd waste my time adding a URL reference either. Site wide searches will display the similarities, should both be exposed to the public.
-Stephen
Stephen:
No way would I do links, just for laziness and I've seen posts about remote links. But now as I write this reply, maybe a shared note "see ABC FAMILY" will be helpful. The source uses this in a manual way and is helpful to know there is more about this person than is presented here. Of course, all might not be found immediately. For this branch, I'm finding there are so many people with the same name (like how many John's or Mary's do you need!!), thought it may be helpful.
Your tree is way larger than mine so it's helpful to have suggestions.
Off topic, no reply: we need more Olympics - it's giving me an excuse to stay at my Mac and do my entries <SMILE>