Search for content in message boards


Replies: 35


Posted: 1354730590000
Classification: Query
Edited: 1354730852000
"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 don’t 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 Citations—my 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 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 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?
SubjectAuthorDate Posted
MarcoScavo 1354679588000 
kj_norway 1354682050000 
MarcoScavo 1354721937000 
KATHYMARIEANN 1354726876000 
MarcoScavo 1354730590000 
silverfox3280 1354743079000 
MarcoScavo 1354748447000 
KATHYMARIEANN 1354751123000 
MarcoScavo 1354757302000 
kj_norway 1354760562000 
per page

Find a board about a specific topic