Citation Medium: Webpage Sample

12/6/12
boards.rootsweb.com/thread.aspx?m=9220&p=topics.software.famtreemaker&dc=50
W e lcom e MarcoScavo Sign out My Account DISCOVER MORE >
Home
Searches
Family Trees
Mailing Lists
Message Boards
Web Sites
Passwords
Help
My Favorite s My Ale rts My Public Profile
Message Boards
You are he re : Me ssage Boards > Topics > Ge ne alogy Software > Fam ily Tre e Mak e r software > SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHA NCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS
Names or keywords
Pag e To o ls
Search
Advanced Search
Board Information Add Thread to Favorites (See All) Add Board to Alerts (See All)
All Boards Message Board
Family Tree Maker software - Family History & Genealogy
Begin New Thread
<< Prev Thread | Next Thread >>
SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

C hange to Thread View Sort Oldest First
SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

KATHYMARIEANN C lassification: Query
(Vie w posts)
Posted: 4 Dec 2012 11:41AM GMT
Following is a draft of a suggested enhancement dealing with Web Links My intention is to send this to the Development Group in the next few days, but I thought maybe some additional ideas could be obtained by posting it here first The draft I developed contains a JPEG embedded in a MS Word document ------- Apparently that is a no no. So I will try to send the JPEG separately as an attachment. Hopefully that will work
SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS The capability to create Web Links for People and Web Links for Source Citations was recently implemented in FTM 2012. This capability is a welcome addition to the system I [and I am sure other users] are taking advantage of this new
boards.rootsweb.com/thread.aspx?m=9220&p=topics.software.famtreemaker&dc=50 1/20
12/6/12
capability. From my standpoint I am beginning to see where some enhancements to the existing capability would be useful/helpful I have outlined some of these suggested enhancements below. If a particular suggested enhancement already exists in the system then please just disregard the suggestion. However, I have been unable to find any mechanisms in FTM 2012 that will achieve any of the suggestions. NOTE BENE: Recognizing that some users want things done This Way and other users want them done That Way it is important that the implementation of the suggestions be flexible, not hard wired, and include as many options as can be devised Suggestion 1 I have begun to add Web Links for People in my data base and so far I have added quite a few. My problem is I have not found a way in FTM 2012 to keep track of the Web Links for People I have added. So I developed a BASIC report in MS Word that allows me to know the Web Links for People I have created [I have over 63,000 people in my data base and find it necessary to keep track of the Web Links I have created in fact when I first started this I added a few Web Links before I started keeping track of them and quickly realized I needed this mechanism] Following is a shortened version of the Basic Report I devised to keep track of the Web Links for People.:
WEB LINKS FOR PEOPLE REPORT ID 63646 Biography of Robert de Beaumont http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_de_Beaumont,_2nd_Earl_of... ID 61536 Biography of William Fitz Robert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fitz_Robert,_2nd_Earl_o... ID 62610 Biography of Richard de Clare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_Clare,_3rd_Earl_of_H... ID 64189 Biography of Gilbert de Clare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_de_Clare,_4th_Earl_of_H...
Report Key: Line 1: FTM 2012 Individual Reference Number of Person Line 2: FTM 2012 Link Name Line 3: Web Address
2/20
12/6/12
As can be seen the above report is quite rudimentary [and only includes Web Links for People and does not include *Web Links for Source Citations] and could be made more useful through the use of filters that now exist in the Custom Report of FTM 2012. And this is what I am recommending. That way, for example, a user could obtain a listing of all ancestors of person X for which Web Links have been created and/or they could obtain a listing of all ancestors that shows those with Web Links and shows those without Web Links. The FULL capability of the Custom Report filter should be taken advantage of in this suggestion. *The Web Links for Source Citations as presently implemented appears to work satisfactorily when generating the Source Usage, Source Bibliography, Documented Facts, and Undocumented Facts Reports and no enhancements are suggested here. However, Web Links for Source Citations as presently implemented could be improved in other areas. For example, the report suggested above for Web Links for People should also be implemented for Web Links for Source Citations. And some of the suggestions dealing with reports and the Web Icon symbol discussed in suggestion 2 should be considered/implemented
Suggestion 2 As presently devised the Web Links for People Icon is somewhat hidden For example a user must be in the People/Family Window in order to see the Web Links for People Icon. This could be improved by also putting the Web Links for People Icon Symbol on the Pedigree View in the middle top panel of the People/Family Window, along side the shaky green leafs. Other ways to make the Icons more visible [and usable] is to include them [the Icon itself] on some of the charts/reports being generated by the system, e.g., the Family Group Sheet, the Family View Report, the Pedigree Chart, the Index of Individual Reports, some of the error reports, etc, etc. Suggestion 3 The Web Link Information could also be helpful as a source of Proof of data/information presently shown on some of the charts/reports being generated by FTM 2012 An example of this is shown below. The report is a small example of a Line of Descendancy Report. The top portion of the report consists of a Line of Descendancy Chart and the bottom portion of the report consists of a list of Biography Web Links for People. Note a Web Link [when available] is provided for each person shown on the Chart. Clicking on a particular Web Link will take the user back to the Web Site where a Biography of that person can be found. Clicking one by one on each of the Web Links and reviewing the Biography will allow the user to ascertain the accuracy of the information shown in the Chart and most importantly will allow the user to prove to themselves whether the linkage between and among the people shown is correct. Note in this
12/6/12
example though in three cases Web Links are not available there is sufficient information on the spouses biography to determine the accuracy of the missing spouses data and the linkage In a sense the report is similar to the Line of Descendancy Report presently available in FTM 2012 with sources listed at the bottom of the report. However this suggested report is much more than that in that the user can quickly determine [prove] whether the data is accurate and/or the linkage is accurate. This type of report is especially useful when used with Wikipedia Web Site Biographical data [which this example Line of Descendancy Report uses]. Wikipedia Biographical Data [when available] is very useful in Genealogy due to its high accuracy. It is continually being updated and new information is continually forthcoming. In this case/example all a user has to do is click on a Web Link where they will be immediately taken to the Biographical Data and they can easily determine whether they need to update their data base with any new information. Hence, in general proof reports, of which the report shown below is just an example, would be a significant enhancement to FTM 2012 and it appears that they would be somewhat easy to develop and implement
Note: This space [from here to the end of this page] is purposely left blank in order to have the entire example shown on one [the next] page Another Note: Evidently the Family Tree Maker Forum feed back mechanism wont accept a JPEG embedded within a MS Word Document Hence, I will send the chart discussed below as a separate attachment. See Note below where it fits in
4/20
12/6/12
The Chart fits in about here just above the BIOGRAPHY WEB LINKS FOR PEOPLE BIOGRAPHY WEB LINKS FOR PEOPLE ID 63646 Biography of Robert de Beaumont http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_de_Beaumont,_2nd_Earl_of... ID 61542 Biography of Amica de Gael Web Link Not Available ID 61540 Biography of Hawise de Beaumont Web Link Not Available ID 61536 Biography of William Fitz Robert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Fitz_Robert,_2nd_Earl_o... ID 62614 Biography of Amice Fitz William Web Link Not Available ID 62610 Biography of Richard de Clare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_Clare,_3rd_Earl_of_H... ID 64189 Biography of Gilbert de Clare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_de_Clare,_4th_Earl_of_H...
There are probably many more enhancements dealing with Web Links that could and should be developed. It is suggested that the Development Group brainstorm other potentialities and it might be advantageous to make contact with the user community and solicit their ideas
5/20
12/6/12
Attachments:
R e ply
R e port Abuse
Print
Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

David Abernathy C lassification: Query
(Vie w posts)
Posted: 4 Dec 2012 4:24PM GMT
KATHYMARIEANN, What happens to these links when a GEDCOM is made and then opened in a different FTM file and/or different program? Any of these "New" toys need to checked out as to what happens using GEDCOM's!
R e ply R e port Abuse Print
Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Marco Scavo
(Vie w posts)
Delete
C lassification: Query
David, I did a GEDCOM test using FTM v21.0.0.723 and looked at the results in a text editor. The web links are not included, not when attached to people or citations. There are several places where it would make sense, to wit, under a custom tag or appended to notes. They're just not there. Kathy, I haven't really used web links except for testing, so I don't have anything to add to your suggestion. I do put links into source citations (into the detail field generally or via template fields), but I always create PDFs of any pages cited because I never know how long the links will be valid, and I don't want to depend on internet access to see source media. It's one of the reasons I don't anticipate using this feature much myself. PS. *.doc and *.docx files are not supported on this forum. Would be
12/6/12
nice if PDFs were though to facilitate sharing. Anyway, until these file types are allowed as attachments here, you can always share these file via free file sharing sites, your own website, etc. PPS. (Aside) comes out in my UTF-8 export as when UTF-8 is supposed to be able to encode any character.

(Vie w posts)
David Abernathy comment What happens to these links when a GEDCOM is made and then opened in a different FTM file and/or different program? David I dont completely know the answer to this, but I will continue to check it out Some thoughts 1 - I am personally more worried about broken Web Links and/or the place where the link company goes to goes out of business and the link no longer exists 2 I dont personally use GEDCOMs except to port my data base to another system that doesnt read FTM 2012. An example being GENViewer, which I sometimes use due to its analytical capabilities and when I do this I am not worried about Web Links 3- If they dont implement this I will still keep a straight list of Web Links on MS Word and be able to use the list to get back to the Web Site. 4- A little closer to your question. This Web Link concept is not all that new to FTM 2012. Presently FTM has the capability to link Images in a users Image file to the actual Web Site where the Image actually resides. This Web Link process is technically almost exactly the same process, so if users are not worried about GEDCOMs in the presently implemented Image File concepts why should they worry about them here in this Web Link process. The only real difference between what people now do and what I am suggesting is that I am suggesting some additional software be written. Think about it this way. The so-called Media Usage Report is basically a list of Images where the image can [and probably does in a lot of user cases] reside on a website somewhere, e.g., Ancestry. Com and the Basic MS Word Report I have devised is technically just a list of Images I can call up from some Web Site The example I gave was Wikipedia, but it just as well could be Ancestry.com. Simpler said, I can make the Media Usage Report list of Images look almost exactly the same as the MS Word list of Web Sites I created and in both cases they would be linked to external Web Sites
12/6/12
As I said at the beginning, I, however, will continue to examine your question


Marco Scavo
(Vie w posts)
Delete
KathyMarieAnn wrote: "I dont completely know the answer to this, but I will continue to check it out" No need to investigate further. I did it, and posted about it above. I guess I did have something to contribute to your suggestion after all. ;) PS. The media usage report is aptly named when you have audio, video, documents (in many varieties), and image files.

keithnuttle
(Vie w posts)
While many years ago I started to collect weblinks for the information I was finding, it did not take long to realize it was a useless pursuit. Yes those links you collect may be valid for a couple of months or if you are lucky a couple of years. But I have found that after over 10 years of research all of those links are changed or abandon. It is better to keep accurate records of where you found the information. When you need to review the online source it is easy to Google it IF it is still online.

kj_norway
(Vie w posts)
@keithnuttle, You are thinking correctly as far as website links. I would do one other thing before "keep accurate records of where you found the information." I would take a screen print of the data/information you found and not only of the "fact" but of the source the website identified as the place they found the information. I am presuming that anything you copy from the web is sourced, :-)
12/6/12
R e ply
R e port Abuse
Print

Marco Scavo
(Vie w posts)
Delete
I suggest you consider PDFs instead of screenshots. PDFs will automatically record the URL, span multiple pages, recognize text (e.g., will allow you to copy and paste it), and can be annotated. It's less work, and they're more versatile.

keithnuttle
(Vie w posts)
I have used PDF's, screen shots, and several other techniques to capture date from the computer. I have even done it the "old fashion" way, capturing text in screen shots, running through an OCR, and putting the text in an FTM note. The panorama function is great for creating files from newspapers and magazines. I laugh when I hear people getting upset because someone has taken their pictures, with many messages in the thread about how to prevent it. I wish they would realize that if you can read/see it on the screen you can get a copy. Newspaper are bad on thinking they can prevent people from getting copies of their newspaper. If you can see it, its yours (Of course with plenty credits, otherwise it is worthless)

David Abernathy C lassification: Query
(Vie w posts)
Posted: 5 Dec 2012 3:40AM GMT Edited: 5 Dec 2012 3:40AM GMT
I use MS OneNotes 2010 for my research. I am able to make pages for each person (if I want to) and a folder for each surname and a BOOK for each major line or addin family. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/onenote/ Each copy and paste gets it's own link from the source, so one can go back and recheck things. I this the FREE EverNotes provides the same uses. http://evernote.com/
9/20
12/6/12

Marco Scavo
(Vie w posts)
Delete
I still like PDFs for their portability, but I agree that OneNote and Evernote (I hadn't heard of Evernote before) can capture webpages. Kudos, David, on suggesting some viable alternates. What would really be handy is if FTM had the ability to capture webpages, link them as media, and record the URLs, date, time, etc. You know, automation to save us time. And it'd be even better if the media were not saved in some proprietary format!

kj_norway
(Vie w posts)
I do save a lot of things to PDF, but unfortunatly not all display devices can display a PDF on the web while a jpg is more usable. I've also experienced cases at work where not all PDF's can be read by all PDF readers. I get hundreds of PDFs each day from clients that use various PDF creation programs some old, some new. It seams that some PDF engines do not generate a "to the book" PDF or that perhaps they produce something that has been deprecated over time. "And it'd be even better if the media were not saved in some proprietary format!" Amen brother!!

Marco Scavo
(Vie w posts)
Delete
Posted: 5 Dec 2012 3:38PM GMT Edited: 5 Dec 2012 3:41PM GMT
I'm sure you're right that there are some issues out there with the various PDF drivers. There has been a mass proliferation of them ever since Adobe issued its public patent license for PDFs in 2008. My guess is that you're experiencing issues of standards compliance rather than backwards incompability. The same thing could happen with a JPEG or some comparable image exchange standard. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference_archive.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg The only viable alternative to PDF is DjVu, but it really doesn't do all the
12/6/12
things that PDF does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DjVu Like it or not, PDF is the universal standard for document exchange, and its momentum has it set on a trajectory to remain so for many years to come. This fact, when coupled with the *functionality* of a PDF, make it the best format to preserve webpages like we're discussing. Family Tree Maker already supports saving charts and reports in PDF format. The next logical step is to do as I've suggested. When working in the Web Search workspace, FTM ought to make a PDF of the webpage whenever you use the web clipping feature. That PDF should then be merged as citation media. And the next step is to add the ability to read PDFs in FTM while still retaining the ability to open documents in more functional 3rd party apps. It's puzzling to me why this ability isn't already there, since it is such a common format for media, and it's no longer proprietary. Now, those of us who have provided feedback in this thread have all echoed the same thing. We think it's a waste of time to document the URLs alone because they have such limited lifespans, so we're discussing ways of saving local copies of webpages as citation media. Those pages will be of various sizes and contain various elements. PDF is designed to capture all of that quickly and simply, and the format supports some things that will be handy for family historians: text and images can be copied and pasted (no OCR necessary) notes and other commenting tools can be used in the document documents can be encrypted for privacy format has best prospect for long term viability
In conclusion, PDF ought to be the default option among several choices for creating citation media from webpages, and some minor editing capabilities within FTM ought to be part of such an enhancement, even if implemented in stages.

(Vie w posts)
Marco Scavo comment to David David, I did a GEDCOM test using FTM v21.0.0.723 and looked at the results in a text editor. The web links are not included, not when attached to people or citations. There are several places where it would make sense, to wit, under a custom tag or appended to notes. They're just not there. Marco the above is probably why when you run, for example, a Source
12/6/12
Usage Report, for which you have added a Web Address in a Source Citation you dont see the actual Icon Symbol. What you see instead is the Web Address itself [assuming you have checked the box to include the Web Address in the reference note], for which you must copy and paste into your browser to get back to the Web Site And it looks like, if you want to keep track of the Web sites you have included in Source Citations you need to create a report along the lines of the report I showed in my suggestion [or alternatively create a very lengthy Source Usage Report and search through the report for the Web Sites --------------------------------PS I did see your other comment to me dealing with this - Thanks ------------------------------------------------------I am not quite sure yet what I am going to do about the Suggestion ----------------------------------------------------I have no intention of using Web Links for Source Citationsmy feeling is that they are redundant with the FTM Image File process I can see where I might use them for Web Links for People [especially with something like Wikipedia where they are constantly updating their Biographies] . I have nothing to lose here, I already have accounted for the information by Creating and Sourcing Images I obtain and storing them on my computer in my Microsoft Hierarchical Folder [Exhibit/Image] File [no links to any Web Sites since they are on my computer] The only thing I would lose of any consequence if a link was dropped would be the link itself and as said elsewhere [by keithnuttle] I can just Google them and/or use my MS Word list PPS and yes I did read your last comment Now, those of us who have provided feedback in this thread have all echoed the same thing. We think it's a waste of time to document the URLs alone because they have such limited lifespans. Tongue in cheek, and I do recognize the words waste of time. It seems like I have seen them somewhere before
R e ply
R e port Abuse
Print

Marco Scavo
(Vie w posts)
Delete
Posted: 5 Dec 2012 6:03PM GMT Edited: 5 Dec 2012 6:07PM GMT
KathyMarieAnn: "Marco the above is probably why when you run, for example, a Source Usage Report, for which you have added a Web Address in a Source Citation you dont see the actual Icon Symbol. What you see instead is the Web Address itself [assuming you have checked the box to include the Web Address in the reference note]" You have to tick that checkbox to get the URL to appear in the report because the report only displays reference notes. That's a different matter altogether from what information FTM includes in its GEDCOM.
The "reference notes" don't play a role in that. There is a structure for the source/citation data defined in the GEDCOM standard. There is no element of that for URLs. The information, therefore, must be placed into one of the existing tags. FTM is not doing that. All this work you're doing will not be exportable, therefore, via GEDCOM. For future reference, it only takes a few minutes to test what FTM does with a GEDCOM. Typically, I just add something like a web link to a person in my tree and then export a GEDCOM that only contains that person. Then I open the file in Notepad and look to see what was in there. If the URL contained "google", then I just search for that. If it ain't there, FTM didn't put it there. "you must copy and paste into your browser to get back to the Web Site" Are you talking about the report not recognizing this as a link? If so, I think that depends on the format you're exporting to and what you're using to view that file. If you're talking about these links within FTM, there is no need to copy and paste to a browser. There are buttons at the end of the textboxes that take you to the links or you can right click and choose to go to the destination. "I have no intention of using Web Links for Source Citationsmy feeling is that they are redundant with the FTM Image File process" Your project, your call. I don't feel like a citation is complete without essential source information, so I include URLs with any information from the web. Sometimes I put that in the appropriate field of a template in FTM I'm using, and sometimes I put it into the citation detail when I'm using the generic template. For years, I've included the URL in the field at Ancestry.com for sources I've added through there. When you say 'FTM Image File process' it confuses me. Do you mean citation media? If so, I don't know that it's always redundant. For starters, not all media file formats support metadata or other means by which the source information can be stored. Second, the source citations (backed up by these media) cannot stand alone (e.g., in a report) if they require the media to convey essential information about the origin of the information. Third, such source citations fail to meet any standard for citing sources from the genealogical community. (I don't think you're taking that position, so my guess is that you're talking about something other than citation media.) "I can see where I might use them for Web Links for People" I'm not against some facility in FTM that helps manage URLs. On the contrary, I think it's a great idea. Anything that encourages documentation is a great idea, and I can imagine a great many people who will use these "Web Links for People" where more serious family historians would create sources and citations. That's not a bad thing. Some people don't give a hoot about documentation, and FTM needs to
12/6/12
cater to them too (probably the lion's share of their customers) with easy and quick ways of noting the location of additional information or information that was used to create facts/events. "The only thing I would lose of any consequence if a link was dropped would be the link itself and as said elsewhere [by keithnuttle] I can just Google them and/or use my MS Word list" If the URLs are no longer valid (i.e., there is no longer such a location), then that doesn't mean that the same information exists at some other location or that knowledge of the previous URL will be helpful for finding the new URL. The content of the page, rather, is what will help you find it on Google if it's still out there. 'I do recognize the words waste of time.' Your postscript comment makes worry that you didn't understand what I was driving at. I didn't say that working with web links is a waste of time. I said working with web links *alone* is a waste of time because of the short lifespan of these URLs. It's the whole crux of the feedback I'm offering for your suggestion. If this information will have any value in the long term, especially where the citation of online resources is concerned, then these URLs must be accompanied by snapshots of the source cited. I have made a case for those "snapshots" being PDFs, but not at the exclusion of other non-proprietary formats. After all, in 10 years' time, will we even be using addresses that bear anything like the modern URLs we use today?

silverfox3280
(Vie w posts)
If that is what you want, you can enter urls in an alternative way. You can setup an alternative fact for "related web links" and paste the url in the description. Maybe even a title description, then url. You can then devise a custom report that will present pretty much the "report" you say you want. I don't see the value of such a report you are suggesting or making a custom fact for web links; but there are lots of things in FTM that don't appeal to me that appeal to others and vice versa. So, I won't argue with your making this request. I would be more interested in a "reverse" list of what you propose, ie the web page followed by the people who use that web page. If the web page is used as part of a source citation, that will be automatically seen in the bottom middle pane of the Sources Workspace; so, again, I wouldn't see much benefit. Different strokes for different folks.
14/20
12/6/12

Marco Scavo
(Vie w posts)
Delete
silverfox, I think her gripe is that the new "web links" feature added to FTM was a job half done. (I think they only put it in there for sync compatibility with Ancestry.com that's had a field for URLs as long as I can remember.) In FTM they added the capability to citations *and* people (it's only available for citations on AMT), but they didn't make the *corresponding* additions to filters or reports. This is a legitimate concern for users because FTM (unlike say TMG) only presents many aggregated data through reports. If you can't aggregate it, how effectively can you manage it? I don't plan to use the feature myself, nor do I see myself using the enhancements she's described in her opening post. I see some intrinsic value, nevertheless, in the web links feature (source citation sync compatibility being foremost for me) and don't think it should be removed in favor of using custom facts for which filters and reports have already been configured. The latter ought simply to be set up for this new feature. And this shouldn't have to be the sort of thing we request either. That ought to be the standard implementation--especially in a program that only exposes some forms of aggregated data through reports. And there you have my cinquantamila lire. :)

(Vie w posts)
Marco Scavo comments His post dated 4 dec 2012 It's one of the reasons I don't anticipate using this feature much myself. His post dated 5 dec 2012 Your project, your call. I don't feel like a citation is complete without essential source information, so I include URLs with any information from the web. I guess I dont understand. I was talking about exactly the same thing in both cases, but the first time I talked about it you said you didnt anticipate using this feature and the second time I talked about you said so I include it Marco I feel we are talking past one another here [possibly I am talking
about one thing and you are talking about something else]. I dont feel it is necessary to make any further comments [except for the PS and PPS below] so I will not. Thanks for you input though
PS further on your 5 dec 2102 comment then these URLs must be accompanied by snapshots of the source cited. I have made a case for those "snapshots These snapshots are exactly what I call my exhibits/images and the are the exact things I put in my FTM Media file and they are the exact same things I reference in my Source Citation in the Source Repository Field of the Source Template work sheet [and have been doing for years] and they are the exact list of snapshots [exhibits/images] I get when I run a Media Usage Report. It appears from further looking at this I have forever been including the URL in the Source Repository Field and the recent change in FTM 2012 has been to provide a Web Address Field so that I can move the URL from the Source Repository Field to the Web Address Field PPS In the main I am using MS Word Documents with embedded JPEGs for my snapshots/exhibits/images and not PDFs. I do this because I have always done it this way and also because sometimes I revise my snapshots and it is easier to do in MS Word

Marco Scavo
(Vie w posts)
Delete
Posted: 6 Dec 2012 1:28AM GMT Edited: 6 Dec 2012 1:45AM GMT
Hey, it's your suggestion. If you don't want the input, don't use it. That was my risk, I suppose, in spending the time to write it. Perhaps there has been some cross talk because we've both been loosely using URL and web links interchangeably. The two quotations of mine you referenced are *not* talking about the same thing. A Universal Resource Locator (URL, also generically called link, address, web address, and web link) is not the same thing as the newly introduced field in FTM labeled "web link" on the person tab or "web address" in the citation dialog. This new feature in FTM is designed to house a URL, but it's certainly not the only place that a URL can be inserted. On 4 Dec 2012 I was referring to the "web link" feature in FTM, not a URL in general. If you had quoted more of what I said, you would have included my explanation of where I place the URL in a citation. I did not write that I use the "web address" field for that. So my comments today were just repeating the same thing. I include the URL because the citation is incomplete without it. I omitted telling you where again, which I should not have done. To repeat, I'm talking about
12/6/12
either the field in the template that asks for it or in the citation detail field for the generic template. Finally, I made an argument that citations do not stand alone if they require readers to look at corresponding media that may or may not be included. Omitting a URL from a citation pointing to an online resource is an example of an incomplete citation. (Even if its connected to citation media, because, again, citation media doesn't always go where the citation goes.) Now you've mentioned repositories, but that's not a complete answer either. First, not all of FTM's templates use repositories. Second, a link to a repository is probably insufficient to help someone locate a particular record. In other words, a URL should, whenever appropriate, be included with a repository, source, citation, and citation media. This is not redundant. A repository points to a domain like familysearch.org. A source points to a particular record collection like a parish register, e.g., new.familysearh.org/parishregisterX. The citation will have a link to the particular record (or page) of that register, e.g., new.familysearch.org/parishregisterX/page52. All three of these will be different URLs. Only the citation and citation media will contain the same URL, but that is necessary for each to stand alone. (These three examples involve the use of the same domain name. That might not always be the case.) (I do admit to using the web address field at Ancestry.com for many years, but I stopped using it when I realized that it didn't synchronize with FTM or export from Ancestry.com via GEDCOM. And since this feature has been added, I have not verified that it now syncs, though I assume it finally does.) And speaking of GEDCOM, that's some feedback from me that you left on the table without a response. David asked a good question. Data portability is something we all should be concerned with. You don't know how much longer Ancestry.com or FTM will be around--or if something a million times better won't be available for free in five years. None of us should want our data going into a black hole. If you're going to request a change to the handling of web links in FTM, therefore, it would be to the benefit of all customers if you asked that "web links" not only be integrated with filters and reports but with GEDCOM exports as well. And then there is the argument I've been making for having FTM automatically create citation media (that you call "exhibits/images") from webpages when you're using web clipping. This would be a great boon to all users of FTM. I'm a bit baffled why you wouldn't want to include this in your enhancement request. Seems like a no-brainer when we're all spending time doing something that FTM could automate. Last but not least there was mention of using MS Word. In my first message to you, I merely pointed out that the forum doesn't support that as an attachment, but that you could share your document nevertheless by one of the means I listed. (You were complaining that
12/6/12
you couldn't attach a .doc to your message.) I went on to lament that the forum doesn't support PDFs for attachments, because those are more portable. (Not everyone has MS Word.) If you have a system using MS Word that gets the job done, I'm not advocating that you change. I invested the time in this thread to make a case for PDF as the *default* format that FTM should use when it creates citation media from webpages during web clipping. Again, I'm a bit confused why you would ask for input on this subject and then ignore the lion's share of what I offered--without even discussing the merits of my suggestions--without, in fact, even responding to them.

kj_norway
(Vie w posts)
I have not investigated the "web link" feature in FTM, in the least, so I can't explain or understand the need or use at this time. However, purely from a GEDCOM standpoint the following is how I might set up a source_citation to have a URL link and media in my DB. 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 MARR DATE 17 MAY 2008 PLAC Windsor, Berkshire, England ADDR St Georges Chapel, Windsor Castle SOUR @S1@ PAGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Phillips OBJE @M30@
How does this translate to FTM?


Marco Scavo
(Vie w posts)
Delete
If imported to FTM, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Phillips will be found in the citation detail field.


Marco Scavo
(Vie w posts)
Delete
And, this doesn't have to do with the link, but I'm pretty sure that the address would be dropped. I think they are level one tags in FTM, but would need to verify.
12/6/12
R e ply
R e port Abuse
Print

kj_norway
(Vie w posts)
Thanks Marco, After I included it I thought that that would happen. Every time I import a GEDCOM I lose stuff and forget the specifics of each loss.

kj_norway
(Vie w posts)
So for FTM I would have to change it to: 1 2 2 2 3 3 MARR DATE 17 MAY 2008 PLAC St Georges Chapel, Windsor Castle, Windsor, Berkshire, England SOUR @S1@ PAGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Phillips OBJE @M30@

kj_norway
(Vie w posts)
Marco Said: "Now you've mentioned repositories, but that's not a complete answer either. First, not all of FTM's templates use repositories. Second, a link to a repository is probably insufficient to help someone locate a particular record. In other words, a URL should, whenever appropriate, be included with a repository, source, citation, and citation media. This is not redundant. A repository points to a domain like familysearch.org. A source points to a particular record collection like a parish register, e.g., new.familysearh.org/parishregisterX. The citation will have a link to the particular record (or page) of that register, e.g., new.familysearch.org/parishregisterX/page52. All three of these will be different URLs. Only the citation and citation media will contain the same URL, but that is necessary for each to stand alone." I agree with everything except the last point. The source_citation and source_citation.media probably will not point to the same place if the media is a picture representation of web page where you found the information at the time you collected the citation that you captured and saved to your hard drive. This way you can show users and yourself what you found years down the road when the site moves the data or
12/6/12
the site goes away.

C hange to Thread View
indicates an unread post
Find a board about a specific topic

Surnames or topics
Go
Request New Board | Community Guidelines | Board Help | Board FAQ | Send Feedback
R ootsW e b is funde d and supporte d by Ance stry.com and our loyal R ootsW e b com m unity. Le arn m ore . About Us | C ontact Us | Acce ptable Use Policy | PR IVAC Y STATEMENT | C opyright 2012 Ance stry.com
20/20

Citation Medium: Webpage Sample

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Citation Medium: Webpage Sample

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

12/6/12

W e lcom e MarcoScavo Sign out My Account DISCOVER MORE >

My Favorite s My Ale rts My Public Profile

All Boards Message Board

Family Tree Maker software - Family History & Genealogy

Begin New Thread

<< Prev Thread | Next Thread >>

SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 4 Dec 2012 11:41AM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 4 Dec 2012 4:24PM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Posted: 4 Dec 2012 6:45PM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 4 Dec 2012 7:42PM GMT

As I said at the beginning, I, however, will continue to examine your question

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Posted: 4 Dec 2012 7:57PM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 4 Dec 2012 9:56PM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 5 Dec 2012 12:25AM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Posted: 5 Dec 2012 12:33AM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 5 Dec 2012 1:19AM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Posted: 5 Dec 2012 3:53AM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 5 Dec 2012 4:34AM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 5 Dec 2012 5:01PM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 5 Dec 2012 9:31PM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Posted: 5 Dec 2012 11:00PM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 5 Dec 2012 11:45PM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 6 Dec 2012 2:22AM GMT

How does this translate to FTM?

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Posted: 6 Dec 2012 2:26AM GMT

If imported to FTM, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Phillips will be found in the citation detail field.

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS Edit

Posted: 6 Dec 2012 2:48AM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 6 Dec 2012 3:16AM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 6 Dec 2012 3:18AM GMT

Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING FTM 2012 WEB LINKS

Posted: 6 Dec 2012 3:39AM GMT

the site goes away.

C hange to Thread View

indicates an unread post

Find a board about a specific topic

S-ar putea să vă placă și