How to sort out my absolute mess of a family history folder?

[Josephine]

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

[Gartag]

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

[Josephine]

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

[mike175]

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.

[guest189040]

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.

[andrewalston]

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).

[Gartag]

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