FTAnalyzer questions.

Thanks Tim, your link seems to circle endlessly, waiting for the Codeplex site to respond, but I did read a per release breakdown of changes by switching from Issues to Documentation. Previously, I had only read the info on the announcement email which seemed to include a mention of all changes since v5.0.0.0.

I didn't know that a What's New page existed nor that it was updated by you. Sorry. One further thought/suggestion . . .
When you add details for a new release, could you please add the date of availability to the release level heading? I don't always get the latest level immediately, only when I next start FTA. Often, it remains active for several days at a time.

(I don't know what happened to this post. I submitted it and went away, only to find it still sitting here when I returned.)

 

I think this is a good place to record - in public - my thanks to Alexander for all the help he gave me - in private - after I'd sent him my Gedcom. Not only is my FTA beginning to look more reasonable but so are my own records in Legacy. Many many thanks, Alexander.

 

V5.0.3.0, just released, contains an update to "Add support for 1881 Canadian LC Census pattern". It is too early to expect all aspects of the documentation to have full details included already but can anyone please tell what the 1881 Canadian LC Census pattern might be?
For instance, I have one individual with "District 146/D, Page 5, Family 22" in a note but that does not seem to be recognised by FTA. What should I change it to or does it need further information added?

 

Oh dear! Rather than change the content of the Note, I decided to create a real CENS record, or two in fact as this individual was reported twice, at two locations in the same census. Neither has been recognised. Must go to bed now but just to whet your appetite . . .

1 CENS
2 DATE 1881
2 PLAC Rainham, Haldimand, Ontario, Canada
2 SOUR @source00040@
3 PAGE 146/B/59/273
3 NOTE 1881 census - District 146/B, Page 59, Family 273 - living at Rainham, Haldimand, Ontario, Canada.
. . .
0 @source00040@ SOUR
1 TITL 146/B/59/273 @@ 1881 Canada Census
1 PUBL Publication Date: 1881
2 CONT Media: Census
1 NOTE 1881 census - District 146/B, Page 59, Family 273 - living at Rainham, Haldimand, Ontario, Canada.

Please tell me what I have done wrong, or I will investigate further in morning.

 

Is it best to copy and paste all census refs from the Lost Cousins My Ancestors page? I'm thinking particularly of the 1911 census, which is so-0-0 long unless you take it from the Lost Cousins M.A. page. I've barely started my huge job of updating my Events and Facts so this would be a good time to get it right from the word go.

 

Oh dear. So much for trying to do things right. I can almost hear Bob chuckling away in the background. I uploaded a new Gedcom into FTA, intended to show how brilliantly I was now entering the census info into Events/Facts (Legacy), that is, by taking the ref from Lost Cousins My Ancestors . But what do I get? Unknown census ref. 826/134/7 England & Wales 1881 . So, please, Alexander, what am I doing wrong? Have I put the ref in the wrong place? Should I not have added The Hut, Mitcham, Surrey at Place. How can it be unknown if it comes straightaway?

 

Thanks Tim but I was trying to avoid coming up with lots of differing formats within my own system. Ultimately, I need to enter those details from Notes properly into the program to produce standard CENS records in the Gedcom. That is what I thought I had done as the alternative. I tried to enter details in a similar way to that which is appropriate for England and Wales.

I have never tried to copy/paste details from the LC My Ancestors page so would prefer not to start now, just for Canadian census details. I normally create the Notes before I enter the details into LC, not the other way round.

 

Sorry Alexander, I had not understood that you were expecting references to be copied from the LC My Ancestors page. I have never tried that. I fully appreciate that multiple possible formats are a pain in the **** and was trying to keep as close as possible to the 'standard' used with census references for England and Wales (and Scotland?).

The format used in the Notes is purely mine and I am not requesting that to become a standard for anyone else. It is just easy for me to enter as a temporary measure. I then copy the details into my software's standard panels/fields from which the Gedcom is produced. I included some of those Gedcom records in my earlier post just so that you could see what gets output. BTW, the double @ is written by my standard report writer and presumably means that 146/B/59/273 is part of the 1881 Canda Census.

If FTA is able to recognise census references from my Notes then that is a bonus but my intention is to conform to my standard software design as much as possible.

I don't understand this from your post. My CENS records are created by my software from the data that I have entered, whether that be for England and Wales or for some other country. When I say that I have added a CENS record, I mean that I have entered the data from which the software will create a CENS record when writing the Gedcom file.

 

The format for these notes is totally my creation and is regardless of where the information comes from. It was simply my way of trying to introduce some form of order to this information, years ago, before I knew how else to record these details within the software. For instance, another reference might be:
1881 census - Piece 2170, Folio 5, Page 3 - visitor at Seaview Cottages, Babbacombe Road, Newton Abbot, Devon.
I normally omit the country if it is England/Wales as these notes are only temporary (although never actually deleted!).

 

I would normally of course, but I read the FTA postings with great reverence; understanding very little and admiring those who know what is being discussed. I like and use FTA and have even been known to ask Alexander the occasional 'what does this mean' question (usually via personal message) but have no desire to analyse or dissect Gedcoms so leave that respectfully to the cognoscenti who do.