Budgie Code

I would/have used the base number for myself, 0001, and apply the same children pattern as for anyone else. Thus, my son and daughter are 0001.1 and 0001.2, my daughter-in-law is 0001.1s and her parents 0001.1s/2 and 0001.1s/3. Grandchildren would be 0001.1.1, 0001.1.2, etc.

 

My admiration to all the contributors on this thread. After having read all the comments and attempting to digest all the IT information, hints and advice, I was left feeling a somewhat disadvantaged family historian as I have not embraced these skills to enhance my researches and storage of findings.

So, with the greatest respect, I am adding my comments to possibly help those like me and any fledging family historians who may also feel the same, I am putting forward and hopefully reassure all that with the help of Peter and a good family history tree maker and its associated software to store and produce personalised information reports, that family history can still be as successful.

Peter’s latest Lost Cousins Newsletter – 23rd May 2013 –is full of good knowledge and advice and is a ‘Must Read’ in my opinion. Back numbers: “…. The LostCousins newsletter is usually published fortnightly. To access the previous newsletter (dated 12 May 2013) click here, for an index to articles from 2009-10 click here, for a list of articles from 2011 click here and for a list of articles from 2012-13 click here…..”.

I suggest after reading through these, save any/all information either by bookmarking (or saving to Favorites) in a separate folder and/or in a word document or similar. These folders could be entitled “LC info’ or similar. Then, to help yourself and others and in appreciation of Peter’s vision and endeavours, add your family tree names to “My Ancestors”. Straight away you’ll feel part of a whole new supportive ‘family’ and will be most-likely to find similar-minded, blood or by marriage, Lost Cousins and the more you enter the more chance you have of this happening.

And lastly, to all you technical whizz-peeps, sorry I can’t add to or “Test Drive” but my enduring thanks to you for enabling me to take these non-technical choices and routes!

 

I read elsewhere in the Forum of over complication by Ancestry in describing recent access problems as being caused by “Re-architecting our base development framework”. Now, with the deepest respect to all, are we not attempting the same thing by embroidering Ahnentafel numberings?

Tim hit the mark with the question ‘what does it solve’? It reminds me of the time I produced a magical (as I thought) graphic Energy Usage Chart in Excel, only to be greeted by my wife with “well I don’t think we need a chart to tell us we use more electricity & gas in the winter than summer do we?”

Any half decent FT program will produce relationships more than sufficient for purpose, and whilst I know people, as individuals – me included – will adapt and modify data to suit a particular need of our own, I am afraid for me ‘Budgie code’ is re-architecting the base development of the Ahnentafel framework!

With apologies to Suffolk Budgie who only set out to explain his own system in the first place.