RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: snuttall on Thursday 20 April 17 22:12 BST (UK)
-
How do you keep yourselves organised?
I have somehow ended up with about 12 different Family Tree Maker trees, plus folder upon folder of random saved documents, images, screenshots, musings, notes, etc.
I'd really like to put some order into it. Any tips appreciated!
-
How do you keep yourselves organised?
plus folder upon folder of random saved documents, images, screenshots, musings, notes, etc.
are these computer folders or paper ones?
I've about 20 sub-folders in my FamilyHistory folder on computer
BMDs, soldiers-and-sailors, censuses, etc etc
Also my paper stuff is divided roughly the same way
I haven't bothered with a family-tree at all - just an outline I drew myself.
-
For paper records I use a separate document wallet for each branch. The first sheet in each wallet lists the people included in that one showing BMD dates and which censuses they have been found on, also which wallet their parents/spouse/children are in if not in the same one.
-
I have a folder for each grandparent. Inside that is a folder for each surname. Inside each surname folder are two word documents - one an overview of key events for each person of each generation (births/baptisms, marriages and deaths/burials), the other a biography of the family working backwards. Also in each surname folder are folders for each generation, in which I keep all census returns, copies of certificates, parish register images, wills etc relating to that specific generation.
If anyone's wondering, I'm currently at 5,679 Files in 489 Folders. ;D
-
I'm re-organising my folder too. I started off just using Ancestry online and later imported all the data into FTM 2014. But all the file names were completely meaningless. As far as I know FTM looks for all media in one folder. So I keep all my data files related to people and families (census) in one folder.
To make some sense of these, I've renamed the 'people files' so that they're ordered on surname, forenames, birth year and type (birth/baptism/marriage/household+year/death/note/photo+nr). Filenames of marriages name both partners (surnames, forenames, birth years). Census records are ordered by surname +"Household", Town or village, census year, forenames and birth year of the head of household.
I keep a To-do list and research notes (ordered on surname) in a separate folder.
The main reason for doing this painstaking work was that I wanted to 'manage my data' independently of any specific software like FTM or Rootsmagic. The system is not perfect but all the files related to families and people are automatically listed together.
Mike
-
I'm reasonably ok with computer filing but still having a problem sorting out the paper (hard copies) documents.
I stared with a specifically bought binder for certificates and thought the best order would to start with the latest and work back; i.e. my Marriage (death not available yet) then birth, Fathers Death, Marriage then Birth and onto his fathers etc etc.
I have a separate ring binder for census print outs. but dithering about whether to have them by family generation in reverse date order or surname - reverse date order. the trouble being that as the 'kids' grow up they move out and start their own family group (so do I ignore the parent and just follow down direct line?)
In several cases the family are divided across several census where the father is with a sister, the mother and 2 children with his aunts, 2 other children are with grandparents. Obviously a temporary arrangement whilst moving into new home just as the census was taken. So just how do I organise the census? Maybe multiple copies and have a file for each person with each having a copy???
Family tree? More like family rain forest!
So, has anyone worked out a nice, easy, methodical way of keeping and cross-referencing their paperwork?
B, M, D, Certificates:- Census Returns:- Bapt records, Burial/Cremation records:-
Passengers lists:-
-
Here are just a few random thoughts. I absolutely hate duplication of data, whether digital or hard copy. The only exception to that of course is having at least two backups of all your computer data.
Try and mirror your computer filing system for your hard copy documents. Many genealogy software products would give you the option to cross link to the hard copy of a document.
For example, with the one I use, you import the document from your hard disk into the software. You then attach that document to any relevant people. For example, each member of the family appearing on a census document would be linked to a census document. The bride and groom and witnesses and parents etc would be linked to a marriage document.
I also think that as you start developing a system you will think of your own additional ideas.
As I promised you, just a few random thoughts.
Martin
-
Thanks Martin,
I will definitely look into what my software (MyHeritage) can do on that. However, I was looking into how I can organise my Paper documents into a 'showcase' to be able to show family members that don't do computers. also, I don't have the equipment to take my electronic files into record offices when I'm on field trips. When searching through and find additional documentation I have no idea if I already have it. it wold be handy to easily locate what I have at the time.
Although while typing this another thought has occurred to me. As I am also compiling a short life story on each ancester i could use that to tie in the relevant documents... maybe... I think lol
Garth
-
Firstly software
I use Roots Magic on our PC and Reunion on our Mac because it does great charts and screen captures on a 5k MAC are pretty good.
Now for all the images, documents, certificates etc mine are primarily electronic so I keep track of them via an Excel spreadsheet and have it set up with filters so I can sort it and there is a link in a cell for each record so the record can easily be opened.
-
Thank you Colin,
Excellent ideas, I must admit had started a database to do a similar thing as your spreadsheet without the glamour of the links. May have to revamp lol.
However, once again, these electronic (computerised) systems are excellent but do not help me compose all my bulky documents (hardcopy) into and organised, easy to lay hands on system. But I am beginning to see how one could emulate the electronic system. If I can create a reference system for each paper document I can then have a cross reference index in each binder. Shamefacedly, I used to work in the M.O.D and HMIT as a youth and was excellent in filing but that was following an established system lol.
Thanks again
Garth
-
Gartag, although I don't use MyHeritage Family Tree Builder as my main database, I have imported my GEDCOM so that I can produce the Book Report (at the top of the Reports menu) from it. It is very impressive.
Another thing you could do is to import all your image files (such as census forms, maps, certificates, military records) into slideshow software, display them for longer than you would for holiday photos, add some music, and make films. You could even narrate over the top.
Martin
-
Ahh Colin,
Now that will be fun to do.... later lol.
Thanks
-
Gartag & snuttall,
For me, I'd say the first thing to do is to think about what makes sense to you. When you think about your family files, how do you group people and/or events? If you wanted to access the paper files that you have, what would be most important to you and in what order would you like to see them?
There are a lot of different ways to organize your genealogy-related paperwork but, ultimately, it has to make sense to you so that, when you want to file something away, or retrieve something, you won't have to do any mental gymnastics to remember how your filing system is set up.
Sometimes you have to try it one way, only to learn that you don't like it that way, so then you try it another way, but you're fine-tuning it all along, and eventually you get to a system that works for you.
The more families you are tracing, and the more branches of any families you are tracing, the more files you will have and the more complicated it might get.
I'll tell you how I organize my files, in case it might be useful to you or anyone else.
I have a Mac and I use Reunion to keep track of individuals, family groupings, relationships, etc., for my and my husband's ancestors and as many of their descendants as I can track. In the Misc. Notes section, I record the names of digital files such as their baptism, birth, marriage, death, etc., records. I don't embed links to any digital files because, if I reorganize my digital files (which I sometimes do), the link will be broken and it will be a pain in the butt to redo it. By recording the name of the file, and understanding how I set up the folders on my computer, it will be easy to find it without a link.
While I understand the appeal and utility of setting up a spreadsheet system for all of my genealogy data, it's not the right way for me to go. The Reunion interface works better with the way my brain works: it shows me a couple, their children, and both sets of the couple's parents. It starts with me and my husband and goes backwards in time. I can click on the tabs to follow the lines back in time or I can use the index; I can also use the search function. These all work well for the way I think.
I've organized genealogy-related digital files on my computer first by major family grouping and then by type. Each type is broken down by smaller family groupings, as follows:
- Barnett [main folder]
- Barnett Births & Baptisms [sub-folder]
- Barnett Birth Records [sub-sub-folder]
- Births - Barnett [you get the idea]
- Births - Samuel
- Births - Masters
- Barnett Baptisms [sub-sub-folder]
- etc.
- Barnett Deaths & Burials [sub-folder]
- Barnett Burials [sub-sub-folder]
- Burials - Barnett
- Burials - Samuel, and so on
- Barnett Death Records [sub-sub-folder]
- broken down by families
- Barnett Cemetery Records [sub-sub-folder]
- broken down by families
- Barnett Tombstone Photos [sub-sub-folder]
- broken down by families
However, my paper files are not set up this way, because they would just be piles of birth records, death records, census records, etc., without any narrative or cohesion (for the way my brain works).
To be continued below...
-
Continued...
I keep my paper files in binders. Lots and lots of binders. I keep the binders on bookcases. I used to keep books on my bookcases, but not so much anymore.
The binders are grouped by family, starting with the earliest ancestors I have been able to find for a particular family.
I use binder dividers with tabs to separate the descendants and the generations. The dividers that I use are made so you can see five at a time and each level is a different colour.
I use a Dymo label maker for the tabs, just because my handwriting isn’t nice, but back when I couldn’t afford the label tape, I printed it all out in pencil.
My binders are set up as follows. The number of binders that I use depends on how much paper is generated when I print everything out. It varies by family and also by individual.
Tab #1 (top) (orange):
Label: 1. Barnett BARNETT & Hannah ROBERTS
- I generate a Family Group Sheet in Reunion and print it out. This goes at the top. That way, I can see the information I have on this couple, plus basic information on their children and their children’s spouses. I print the Misc. Notes section as part of the Family Group Sheet, so I can make sure I’ve printed everything that I’ve got on them.
- Next: print-outs of BMD-type records for husband & wife: births, baptisms, marriage, deaths, burials, obits.
- After those, print-outs of census records, then directory pages, etc.
If someone had a busy life, which resulted in lots of paperwork for me to print out and file, I’ll use a separate binder to file print-outs of whatever might be relevant, including background info on occupation, home town, political career, newspaper reports, etc.
Then I move on to the first child of couple #1.
Tab #2 (blue):
Label: 2. Esther BARNETT & Joseph SAMUEL
- Reports & print-outs as above.
Then I move on to the first child of Esther Barnett & Joseph Samuel.
Tab #3 (yellow):
Label: 3. Mark SAMUEL & spouse [3. Mark SAMUEL & spouse (if, like me, you can't read the yellow font)]
(Each child of Esther Barnett and Joseph Samuel will be organized under their own yellow 3rd tab.)
Tab #4 (green):
- Under Mark Samuel & spouse, each of their three children will get their own green level 4 divider, listed with spouses if they got married, etc.
I’ll keep going down in tab levels, until I’ve run out of descendants of Esther Barnett & Joseph Samuel.
Then I go back up to the 2nd generation and start over again with another child of Barnett Barnett & Hannah Roberts.
Tab #2 (blue):
Label: 2. Benjamin BARNETT & Maria RELF
And so on.
To be continued...
-
Continued...
When I open my Barnett binders and look at the tabs, I can visually follow the generations down, and I can easily find and track the sub-family groupings.
1. Barnett Barnett & Hannah Roberts [orange]
2. Esther Barnett & Joseph Samuel [blue]
3. their child & spouse [yellow (yellow)]
4. their children & spouses [green]
3. their child & spouse [yellow (yellow)]
4. their children & spouses [green]
3. their child & spouse [yellow (yellow)]
4. their children & spouses [green]
2. Benjamin Barnett & Maria Relf [blue]
3. their child & spouse [yellow (yellow)]
4. their children & spouses [green]
3. their child & spouse [yellow (yellow)]
4. their children & spouses [green]
3. their child & spouse [yellow (yellow)]
4. their children & spouses [green]
If I get up to generation #6 of a family, I start at the top tab (orange) again but it’s labelled 6. (name).
Depending on the amount of luck I’ve had with research, each sub-family (say, second generation couples & their descendants) might end up with their own binders.
Once I’m done printing out reports and documents, and I know how many binders everything is split into, I’ll create Dymo labels for the outside of the binders (on the spine) to indicate which family groupings are inside. Because I have so many binders, I create labels to show the entire line of descent leading to that particular family grouping inside that particular binder, as follows.
1. Barnett Barnett & Hannah Roberts
2. Benjamin Barnett & Maria Relf
3. Benjamin Barnett & Jane Law
Then I use a highlighter marker to highlight the people whose paperwork is filed inside that particular binder.
1. Barnett Barnett & Hannah Roberts
2. Benjamin Barnett & Maria Relf
3. Benjamin Barnett & Jane Law
Also on the outside of the binders (on the spine), at the bottom, I’ll create labels that say:
BARNETT Family
Binder #1
BARNETT Family
Binder #2
And so on. I can see from the label at the bottom of the binder where each one belongs, in order, on my bookcase. And I can see from the label at the top of the binder whose info is inside, so I can pick the right binder off the shelf when I want to refer to something or update something.
This is what works best for me and the way my brain works. This system has evolved over time, so only some of my family groupings are filed in this way. I am currently in the process of updating my Barnett binders for the first time in 11 years. I’ve been doing research over the past 11 years, and filing everything electronically, and recording it all in my Reunion file, but now I need to create new reports, print out all the new stuff, set up new binders, create new binder dividers, print out a gazillion labels, etc.
You might think, from all of this, that I enjoy filing. Well, you’d be wrong. :D Filing is drudge work at the best of times, but, for me (as someone who needs to see it all on paper and who also wants to leave a record that others can follow after I'm gone), it’s necessary, and so I force myself to do it (sometimes -- at other times I procrastinate by writing long, detailed responses on Rootschat threads). :o
I hope this is helpful, even if only as an example of how one person has fine-tuned a personalized filing system over time. Ultimately, it all depends on how your brain works, and what you find, through trial and error, works best for you.
Regards,
Josephine
-
P.S. Binders are expensive, so I buy them at charity shops. I use D-ring binders of various sizes.
Also, the way I use the binder dividers means I end up with a lot of extras of certain levels/colours because I use more of the 3rd level than the 2nd and use a lot fewer of the 1st level. I either use the left-overs for filing different types of paperwork in binders (e.g. ones that aren't hierarchical, and can be simply alternated with another level or colour); or I repurpose them for use in paper crafts (e.g. for making junk journals or glue books); or I give them to a charity shop for resale to someone else who might find a use for them, or I toss them in the recycling bin.
Regards,
Josephine
-
P.P.S. Re. census records.
I file a paper copy of the census record according to the head of the household as shown in the census record in question.
If I have the 1841 and 1851 census records showing Barnett Barnett with his wife and children, that print-out goes in the section of the binder for Barnett Barnett and his wife.
If I also have separate 1841 and 1851 census records showing their daughter Esther Barnett with husband Joseph Samuel and their children, that print-out goes in their section.
But, let's say that Esther Barnett and her husband Joseph Samuel and their first child were all enumerated at Esther's parents' house in 1851; in that case, I'd put a print-out in her parents' section and I'd also put another print-out in her section, just to make it easier for me, so I don't have to flip between sections or binders when I want to look at that document.
I'll know how to find the census records electronically, because in my Reunion file I'll have made a note of the census records I've found for each individual as well as the name of each image file (e.g. 1841 Census BARNETT.jpg; 1851 Census BARNETT & SAMUEL.jpg). This information will also be printed out in the Family Group Sheet that will go at the top of the couple's or individual's section in the binder.
Of course, the folders are arranged on my computer as follows:
BARNETT [folder]
BARNETT - Census [sub-folder]
BARNETT - 1851 Census [sub-sub-folder]
BARNETT - 1861 Census [sub-sub-folder]
BARNETT - 1871 Census [sub-sub-folder]
(depending on the number of families, there might be sub-sub-sub-folders, with one per surname)
As with any such filing system, I'd say it all depends on personal preference.
Regards,
Josephine
-
Josephine oh Josephine ;D :D ;D
I have to thank you for two reasons: 1/ For such a detailed and descriptive system and 2/ Finally I'm not alone.
So many people have asked me "why bother filing and cross-referencing paper... just use the software!" and others tell me "it's a waste of time... they're all dead!". Well I do love using a computer (can't read my own writing after ten minutes) but I also need to have my paper copies, like yourself, I see a special value in them.
Today I tentatively worked out that a ring binder for census, one for certificates, and one for err 'The Story' giving details on each family member with ref to the relevant document. The reference ID for census would be CN # the number starting at 030 (1911) and increasing by 10 for each census going back. That way when you get the family split over different sheets (I have one year where the farther is with his sister in one town, the mother with 3 children with Aunts elsewhere and 2 children with grandparents.) so these could have the same number with b and c suffix. Starting at 030 so as the new (1921) is released they can be decreased by 5 as in 025 020 etc.
Similar referencing with certificates etc. However, I really like your system and may develope a crossbreed between them lol.
I still have one question; you say your filing starts with your earliest ancestor and follows down each generation. So what happens when you find your earliest ancestors parents? Start again?? :-X
Thanks again.
Garth
PS: It seems you have posted 2 more replies while I was typing this.... I'll post this anyway and respond when I've cought up.
-
Garth,
It sounds like you have made a good start at working out a paper filing system that works for you; that's great.
LOL re. starting again. Since we live in hope, I have asked myself that question, and here's what I have done.
Since I am working on detailed trees for as many ancestors as I can find for both me and my husband, with as many descendants as I can possibly trace, I can't afford to buy all the certificates, and sign up for all the necessary online resources, and do all the research, all at once. So I tend to focus on one major family grouping at a time, until I run out of money, or steam, or time, or until I get bored or frustrated, and then I'll switch over to another major family grouping. This might also happen if a genealogy service or a library or research centre releases new record sets pertaining to a particular area where a particular family lived. Me a few years ago: Whoops, such-and-such has released Cheshire records, time to switch to hubby's mother's ancestors!
This means that there have been large gaps of time, when I was doing research on my Barnett family off and on, for example, but not updating my binders as I worked.
When I finally return to my Barnett binders (as I have done recently), I may find that I have to back-track, which would require creating new labels and re-ordering the generations all the way down. If I don't want to go to the trouble of redoing all the Dymo labels, I might just strike out the number on the existing label, using a pen, and write in the new number, until I feel like tackling the bigger job of redoing it all.
I might not go to the trouble and expense of redoing all of the dividers (there is only so much time and money, after all); perhaps I would just create a binder for the earlier couple, and put it first on the shelf, and redo the labels on the outside (spine) of the binders. I might do that temporarily with a pen: scratch out Binder #1 at the bottom and write in #2, and so on.
I have not gotten to a point when all my binders for all my families are up-to-date. While I work on my Barnett binders, for example, my Beaumont binders are being neglected. (My Beaumont binders probably haven't been updated in at least 10 years.) Everything is up-to-date electronically and, ideally, I would be filing paper copies the minute after I find them, save them to my computer, and input the data into my Reunion file; however, I am still in the process of redoing all of the binders according to the way I like to do them. Once the binders have been set up properly, the goal is to print and file everything in a timely manner. But, as mentioned, this is a work in progress, and I've got a long way to go.
In the meantime, I have a few large piles of papers I printed out years ago but didn't file because I didn't have a system in place, or I needed to create new sections in a binder but couldn't afford the printer paper or toner or dividers, or I was too busy or too lazy, or whatever.
Those piles take up the top shelf of one of my bookcases. I could use that space for binders. But I get a headache just looking at the piles because everything is all jumbled together.
It's maddening to try to sort through them all and put them in temporary file folders while I work on the binders, so I've had to accept the fact that I've probably wasted a lot of that paper, which I regret. Rather than get bogged down in regret, and to prevent headaches caused by trying to make sense of confusing piles of mixed-up old print-outs, I've decided to start fresh and print out what is missing for each binder. When the binders are all done (I live in hope, remember), I'll tackle the piles of excess paper, and can then check the paper against the relevant binder section; if needed, I'll file it in the right place, and if not, I'll recycle it. (I can't just toss it all into the recycling bin, because some of the piles contain original paperwork that isn't backed up with digital copies, from back in the day when I didn't have a printer that could also do scanning.)
Regards,
Josephine
-
WOW! You are an inspiration. I think I'll do something very similar to yours but work backwards. I have got back to the change over of 1700-1800 with a marriage 'cert' in 1811. I think he's about 20-25 but no evidence so have 3 - 5 possible births between 1777 and 1794 (the last making him a bit young, but possible).
I will start with myself for reference numbers and work back (talking BMD certs here oh might get electoral roll print outs at 10 year intervals for census) increment them as I said earlier. Should later generations decide to continue they can use minus numbers for their children lol.
Hold on, I'm rambling now and dozing over keyboard. I'll finish this in a few days when I have put more thought into it.
Garth
-
Good stuff, Garth.
The important thing is to make a start, as you have done. You will figure out what works best for you as you go along.
I like your idea of working backwards, starting with yourself; that would certainly take care of any numbering or ordering issues that would arise upon the discovery of earlier ancestors.
I look forward to reading your further thoughts on this subject.
Regards,
Josephine
-
Most of us, when we were starting out, probably underestimated the amount of data we would collect. My PC family tree folder contains 6,945 files in 245 sub-folders and uses nearly 7GB of disk space . . . and this is after I eliminated a lot of duplicate files ::) I must have have spent more time lately trying to organise the data than I did collecting it! I gave up printing out paper records long ago, my filing cabinet isn't big enough :)
If I was starting again from scratch I would create folders for each type of record, e.g. Census, Parish Register, etc. with sub-folders for, e.g. Census -> 1841, 1851, etc. and Parish Register -> Baptism, Marriage, Burial.
In fact this is what I have now done but I still have a long way to go before everything is correctly filed. I use RootsMagic software for my database and link to the relevant file for each event; the big advantage of a proper database system is that you record the information only once and can then access it as many times as necessary for different individuals.
Of course this is the theory, but putting it into practice . . . . :-[
Mike.
-
What Mike does is what I also do with Roots Magic but as I mentioned in a prior post I do use an Excel spreadsheet with links to the electronic files so the spreadsheet is basically my backup.
The spreadsheet is actually a workbook with multiple spreadsheets and on each spreadsheet I have created a Family Tree, the first one being text only explaining what is what and how to use it, the second one the database, then from the third onwards is the trees.
Paper based systems become unweilding and when something happens to you the chances are all that paperwork will end up in the recycling so keep paper files to a minimum in something like a 100mm wide 4 ring A4 folder.
Certificates, census records etc are all well and good but what about the Family History, what should be paramount is the STORIES about family members and gatherings these need recording and placing at the start of the Family History A4 folder together with the Charts going back only enough generations to still be readable.
-
Having spent my whole working life in the IT industry, I'm afraid that I don't see the attraction of having paper copies of everything.
Electronic versions can be copied and stored easily, without recourse to rows of shelving. You can even keep a copy, as I do, on your keyring.
So if I buy a certificate, the first job on opening the envelope is to put it through the scanner. THEN I turn it over and work out what the filename ought to be, say "Smith, John death 1890" or "Smith, John & Jones, Mary marriage 1870". The file can then be moved to the appropriate folder, while the paper goes into a file box labelled "Certificates", which is in no particular order. It is the information on them which is important; the piece of paper could be recreated by the GRO or the local office if it were ever needed.
The image file can then be examined and the contents used to update my tree, the master copy of which is held on my laptop.
I keep census images with their references as the filename, such as "...\Census\1891\RG12-3456 fol78 p9".
Other document images are held in folders with appropriate names.
If I want to see the image of a document, the family history software can either show me it directly, or tell me the filename. The source citation tells me how to get hold of it again should that image file be totally lost (very unlikely because I have backups on more than one physical site).
-
Colin, Andrew,
Your submissions have been very helpful. I still haven't worked out how my software works with link to my electronic documents, possibly it doesn't have this utility in which case I will install another (like roots magic or similar) and export the gedcom into it.
I think there is lot to both the electronic and the paper filing systems. I started my working life when paper filing was the base of all company documentation, then computers were added as an additional tool. I still firmly believe that progress (for the most part) should be adding to and not replacing.
Two examples; 1/ A job I was in (part of which was teaching computing) kept most info on computer with individual files (paper) on each client. I printed and maintained hard copy filing system for the admin much to chagrin, and ridicule, of my superiors and colleagues in other dept. However, during a 10 day power loss ours was the only dept to continue unhampered.
2/ Following problems with job-centre and benefits agency I had to write several letters of complaint and supply information. On ringing all I could be told was "yes there is anote on the computer that you wrote (included date received, date processed) but there is no provision to enter content and we don't keep paper files to refer to."
Although probably not of great importance to most people and although I do prefer working on a computer, I also have personal experience of having it let me down. And, despite the ridicule of some of my peers, I do feel a need to SEE first hand and feel the results of all my research within the real world even more that in the virtual world of electronics.
I think that last is probably hard for most to understand but some, like Josephine, feel the same way.
Cheers again.
Garth