Filing Cabinets and TMG

[elevator 0]

Good evening all,

I have a few filing cabinets where I keep a physical file for some of the people in my TMG database. These files contains paper copies of important things like deeds, birth certificates, letters, id cards and even photographs. Over time the number of people in this filing cabinet has become rather large and I am trying to find a way to reference these files in the TMG database.

 

I first considered using a flag called IsInFilingCabinet with values Y and N, indicating whether or not a person had information in my filing cabinets. I would then file the file in the cabinet using a persons Reference ID (since the names may change over time). However, this seems to have it's limitations: I can for example not keep track what information is contained in these filing cabinets without physically going to the filing cabinet and pulling the persons file.

 

So my question is: does anyone else out there use physical filing cabinets for storage of paper documents and if so how do you index this information from TMG? Is a flag like I talked about above the easiest way and maybe with a tag describing what paper documents is in the cabinet for that person?

 

Any help appreciated;

Thanks,

Ken V. Nordberg

[Paul Lawrence 0]

Good evening all,

I have a few filing cabinets where I keep a physical file for some of the people in my TMG database. These files contains paper copies of important things like deeds, birth certificates, letters, id cards and even photographs. Over time the number of people in this filing cabinet has become rather large and I am trying to find a way to reference these files in the TMG database.

 

I first considered using a flag called IsInFilingCabinet with values Y and N, indicating whether or not a person had information in my filing cabinets. I would then file the file in the cabinet using a persons Reference ID (since the names may change over time). However, this seems to have it's limitations: I can for example not keep track what information is contained in these filing cabinets without physically going to the filing cabinet and pulling the persons file.

 

So my question is: does anyone else out there use physical filing cabinets for storage of paper documents and if so how do you index this information from TMG? Is a flag like I talked about above the easiest way and maybe with a tag describing what paper documents is in the cabinet for that person?

 

Any help appreciated;

Thanks,

Ken V. Nordberg

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Each of my sources in TMG has a "file reference" that references my paper files or book on my shelves...If I need to find the original document I just look at the Source in TMG for the file reference.

 

In TMG I use the standard Source Element of "File Reference"...That element is only used in a couple of standard sources which are sources I do not nor ever think I will use...

[Morbius 0]

I have gone in the other direction - I am trying to get rid of filing cabinets by keeping all source records in some digital format. The only documents I keep are those I want to keep permanantly, such as original documents, photographs, letters, newspaper clippings, etc, which I record and store in archival boxes. Everything else (photocopies and such) I scan and get rid of.

 

I scan all sources, whether I intend to keep them or not, and identify each with a file name using the TMG generated source number and file format (e.g. "TMG Source 5242.jpg"). Sometimes, I will add additional information, such as page number from a book ("TMG Source 5323 Page 113.tif"). I make a backup to CD, then discard everything I don't intend to keep permanantly.

 

This allows several things. Orignal documents I can look at and show without handlling them. Other documents, I don't have to keep buying filing cabinets and filing cabinet storage. The numbering system allows me to use the TMG picklist to keep track of them all, and I don't have to keep track of some elaborate file naming scheme. I can put several hundred on a CD, so they are also portable.

[elevator 0]

I completely agree with you and I scan most of my sources as well, but I still keep the original of most the things I scan. I hardly even open my filing cabinets except for when I add something to them or when I, for whatever reason, need to see the original document. My real issue here is not wether or not using filing cabinets is a good idea, my issue is how to handle the situation of having lots of original documents on file and being able to index all these resources directly from TMG. The problem really boils down to an organizational issue; how to index and keep track of what documents and for what people I have on file in my filing cabinets. What I was looking for is to draw from the experience of other TMG users that may have been in a similar situation and solved the problem?

 

Don't get me wrong, scanning documents is by far the best solution because digital documents don't deteriorate over time, can be e-mailed, copied and otherwise manipulated without damaging the original, but I still think than in some cases the original is nice to have. I have a rather large collection of original deeds, letters, postcards, signed photographs and the like and to me looking at the scanned version doesn't give the "warm and fuzzy" feeling (for the lack of a better term!) that the original maintains I guess you can call it sentimental value!

 

Anyway, comments greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks for your help,

Ken.

 

 

...

 

I scan all sources, whether I intend to keep them or not, and identify each with a file name using the TMG generated source number and file format (e.g. "TMG Source 5242.jpg").  Sometimes, I will add additional information, such as page number from a book ("TMG Source 5323 Page 113.tif").  I make a backup to CD, then discard everything I don't intend to keep permanantly.

 

...

[Jim M. 0]

I have gone in the other direction - I am trying to get rid of filing cabinets by keeping all source records in some digital format. The only documents I keep are those I want to keep permanantly, such as original documents, photographs, letters, newspaper clippings, etc, which I record and store in archival boxes. Everything else (photocopies and such) I scan and get rid of.

 

I scan all sources, whether I intend to keep them or not, and identify each with a file name using the TMG generated source number and file format (e.g. "TMG Source 5242.jpg"). Sometimes, I will add additional information, such as page number from a book ("TMG Source 5323 Page 113.tif"). I make a backup to CD, then discard everything I don't intend to keep permanantly.

 

This allows several things. Orignal documents I can look at and show without handlling them. Other documents, I don't have to keep buying filing cabinets and filing cabinet storage. The numbering system allows me to use the TMG picklist to keep track of them all, and I don't have to keep track of some elaborate file naming scheme. I can put several hundred on a CD, so they are also portable.

 

So I'd guess that you would NEVER EVER renumber your sources, nor perhaps even your Peeps - right? Can those two TMG functions be disabled? It sounds like there's a major league opportunity for shooting oneself in the both feet if those "handguns" were left lying around in plain view.

[tamidolan 0]

Some people create a source for each document they have. You could then use the source element "file reference" previously mentioned and put a refernece in there as to where the doument is in your file cabinet.

[janice 0]

A TMG User I know has a very simple method of filing all her documents and it is one I use now. No need for complicated numbers or to be worried about inadvertently renumbering. Each document has its own number in the form of the date which of course is already in TMG.The documents are filed in date order. KISS . As you to look at the documents to find the correct place to file the document , detail on the documents sometimes have new meaning for you.

 

I also use the date to name my photographs. It forces you to look at the photograph and estimate the date. The date is for filing purposes and is a guide only. If you have many for the same date use a,b,c etc at the end of the name.

 

Janice Cornwell

Melbourne

Australia

[Michael Hannah 0]

My wife the Librarian agrees with the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle. Especially with TMG as your tool for searching for documents, a system that simply numbers all the documents in a sequencial order, usually called the accession number, seems easy. I then use assign the Source to a Repository called "my files" or something similar, and use the Repository Reference field on the Source Attachments tag when I link that Repository to enter the accession number of that source. However, this does not help with a system to group like physical documents together in your file cabinet. You could choose some physical grouping system, maybe surname. or year of publication of the source, etc. then have sequential accession numbers within that grouping, e.g. SMITH-104.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

 

Michael

[BJHeard 0]

My form of KISS is to use the TMG source number as the file number of each document. Then I file them in my file cabinet numerically. It eliminates one more kind of number to keep track of. TMG assigns each source a number, so I use that number for each source document. I assume all of your documents, papers, photos, certificates, etc are entered into TMG, or you wouldn't be keeping them.

 

There are my two-cents worth. BJ Heard

[laura1814 0]

I have been mulling over this for a few days, and here's what I think.

 

TMG should utilize the existing organizational structure you have for your paper files, not the other way around.

 

That is, you should organize your paper files and documents in a way that makes sense to you without reference to TMG at all, and then you should record the location of the document in TMG as part of the description of the source.

 

For example, if I have a photocopy of a church register, then I include my custom Repository ("My Personal Library') in the source, and put the document's location ("Drawer 4" or "Martin Drawer" or "Martin Binder") in the Reference field.

 

I would NOT NOT NOT organize my paper files by an arbitrary accession number or date acquired or TMG-generated number. The reason is that my philosophy is that my data, all of it, should be accessible to others. Despite my best efforts, the reality is that few people in my family would be able to figure out or understand a TMG-based filing system. If I were to die suddenly, any documents organized in such a way would be basically inaccessible. So the documents must be accessible without any reference to TMG. This is not to say that my family wouldn't use TMG at all, but that I shouldn't expect them to learn a filing system on top of everything else.

 

When designing any system, the most important factor to consider, sometimes even above and beyond the type of data you are organizing, is: How will my Users use the data? Which means, of course, that you have to identify your Users. My Users are:

 

1. me

2. my heirs

 

These Users should be able to use the system without reference to other Users (including me!).

 

My Users should be able to find any document without running TMG.

 

So I have things labelled and filed in a way that makes sense to me, and I hope to them. It's not perfect, but it's straight-forward and simple. I may reorganize it at some future date, but any organizational scheme I develop will be based on the nature of the data itself and how I think people will want to access it. TMG is just a tool, and will not be a factor in that organization.

 

The major flaw-- that I would have to re-enter any location description currently in the Reference Field-- is IMO far outweighed by the system being useful outside of TMG.

 

Just my 2 cents' worth.

[Michael Hannah 0]

I have been mulling over this for a few days, and here's what I think.

 

TMG should utilize the existing organizational structure you have for your paper files, not the other way around.

 

 

Well said, Laura. Your paper filing system should be obvious to you and anyone else that does (or may have to) use it. And isn't it nice that TMG provides an easy way to link the TMG source to your filing system with the Repository Reference field on the Source Attachments tag.

 

However, I would share a lesson learned from my mother's files that I obtained upon her death. Due to the need for other siblings to deal with her effects, I received her data shipped in boxes and removed from her folders and binders. I would urge people, whatever the paper filing system they use, to write something on the document to reflect your filing and sorting. Getting a nice TMG printout, with "Drawer 4" or "Martin Binder" as the Repository Reference may not be enough to find it if you have not also written that on the paper copy, as the copy may no longer be in that drawer or binder.

 

Of course, TMG also can produce a complete bibliography as a list of sources in a particular repository, which I make a point of printing out regularly and including in my file cabinet to let others know where an item can be found. So TMG helps me utilize the organizational structure I have for my paper files.

 

Michael

[laura1814 0]

Thank you! Clearly, you are brilliant, since you agree with me!

 

However, I would share a lesson learned from my mother's files that I obtained upon her death. Due to the need for other siblings to deal with her effects, I received her data shipped in boxes and removed from her folders and binders. I would urge people, whatever the paper filing system they use, to write something on the document to reflect your filing and sorting. Getting a nice TMG printout, with "Drawer 4" or "Martin Binder" as the Repository Reference may not be enough to find it if you have not also written that on the paper copy, as the copy may no longer be in that drawer or binder.

 

It is a point well taken, but I think it's an inherent flaw with any non-arbitrary filing system. For example, I've had to subdivide those Martin binders of mine more than once. (I don't know why, but those Martins just keep multiplying!) And then I like to rearrange my shelves periodically!

 

Honestly, many of my Repository References simply say "my library" (i.e., my personal repository), not "Drawer 4" or "Martin Binder." When I record a source, say an article from The Complete Peerage, I include the call numbers and bibliographic information from the library, then add a repository with a note indicating which pages I have photocopied. When I photocopy another article, I'll add that to the first source. I very rarely go so far as to say where in "my library" something is located. I suppose that's because I've never quite gotten around to developing exactly how I want to do it! For me the most important thing is simply "do I have the original or a facsimile, or have I merely extracted data from a book/website/sacramental register."

 

This is getting beyond the scope of the original intent of this thread, but if I may be allowed to Drift for a moment: I've never been very happy with the way genealogists handle sources. I do NOT like Mills's concept of creating a new source type for every possible little variation. To me, it doesn't matter whether I access a census image on microfilm, CD-ROM, or on a website. What DOES matter to me is: am I looking at a facsimile of the original (as opposed to a data extraction, like at the LDS website)? To me, the source is the census. All the other stuff is detail. The point is to be able to identify where you got the info later, not to spend hours creating separate "sources" for every ED district. (I generally compromise with the census by creating separate sources for each decade and state, but not each county. Even that annoys me sometimes as being too many, and I decide that I need to consolidate them by decade only, but then I find a reason not to.)

 

Similarly, if I got info from a person, it does not matter to me whether it came via email, snail mail, phone, or face-to-face. I think it's appropriate to indicate in the citation detail when and how I got the info, but unless it's a single item and I don't anticipate getting any more info from that person (e.g., a gedcom downloaded from a website), I generally don't include that sort of info as part of the source itself. For just one example, my grandfather is a source. I have talked to him many times, and he has sent me emails, and documents, etc., etc. So I'll cite him as my source, and in the CD put something like "conversation on 6 July 2006 at Aunt J's House at the Martin Family Reunion in Wimberly, Texas." Later if he sends me an email, I'll put that in the CD when I cite it (and might include the text of the email as an exhibit).

 

That's just personal preference. I do like to record every detail I can, but I also try really hard to adhere to the KISS principle and remember that genealogical research is really just like any other kind of research: you should cite to and record your sources in such a way that those who come after you will be able to find them. All the formatting is window dressing, and doesn't really matter unless you're submitting a brief to the Supreme Court or a paper for academic review (or, okay, to the NHSG Register). (Is that right? NHSG? Sigh.)

 

Again, it goes back to: who is my audience? (who are my users?) How can I make sure that they will know how to find my source for this datum?

 

 

Okay, that's my essay for the evening. Have a great day!

Edited August 4, 2006 by laura1814

[Excalibur 0]

<snip>

Similarly, if I got info from a person, it does not matter to me whether it came via email, snail mail, phone, or face-to-face. I think it's appropriate to indicate in the citation detail when and how I got the info, but unless it's a single item and I don't anticipate getting any more info from that person (e.g., a gedcom downloaded from a website), I generally don't include that sort of info as part of the source itself. For just one example, my grandfather is a source. I have talked to him many times, and he has sent me emails, and documents, etc., etc. So I'll cite him as my source, and in the CD put something like "conversation on 6 July 2006 at Aunt J's House at the Martin Family Reunion in Wimberly, Texas." Later if he sends me an email, I'll put that in the CD when I cite it (and might include the text of the email as an exhibit).

 

That's just personal preference. I do like to record every detail I can, but I also try really hard to adhere to the KISS principle and remember that genealogical research is really just like any other kind of research: you should cite to and record your sources in such a way that those who come after you will be able to find them. All the formatting is window dressing, and doesn't really matter unless you're submitting a brief to the Supreme Court or a paper for academic review (or, okay, to the NHSG Register). (Is that right? NHSG? Sigh.)

<snip>

Hi Laura,

 

There are several things you said that I could comment on, but I'll go with these first. In the first para. above you say that your "grandfather is a source." In the next paragraph you say that "you should cite to and record your sources in such a way that those who come after you will be able to find them." These two statements seem contradictory. If your grandfather is a source and he passes away, how can those who come after you find him? I agree that your grandfather is a source of information and that people who come after you should be able to find the source, but it seems to me that you have a rather simplistic approach to the whole idea of repositories and sources that will lead to trouble for those who come after you.

 

I'm afraid that I also have to take issue with your statement that "All the formatting is window dressing, and doesn't really matter..." Are you saying we should just type a source willy nilly and not have some form of method to our madness? If we don't adhere to some kind of formatting standard we would end up with everyone doing it "their way." This leads to mass confusion, misinterpretation, and further complicates the problem for those that come after us.

 

Maybe I just haven't understood or tied together what you wrote.

[The Oakster 0]

Drifting from the thread again but...

 

... If your grandfather is a source and he passes away, how can those who come after you find him?

 

In my opinion , this seems as though you are saying that you cannot cite as a source anything that is not permanent. And surely nothing is guarenteed to be around for ever. Or have I taken it the wrong way too

 

I cite things the same as Laura. I put people as sources and then attach all the information to that person, emails, letters, conversations. All the information is 'lumped' together - the good old lumpers Vs splitters debate...again. When the cited person is no longer available the information they supplied is still there for everyone to see.

 

As for the question in hand about filing systems, I dont have enough physical material as yet to have a filing system but as it builds it seems that I will be a at a distinct advantage of starting from scratch. I will probably group things by surname with either the TMG generated reference number or using a file reference number relevant to the document that i will generate my self.

 

...I can ... not keep track what information is contained in these filing cabinets without physically going to the filing cabinet and pulling the persons file.

A completely different, although not neccesarily good, idea could be to create a filing cabinet tag and attach it to everyone and then when an item is added you could just add it to the filing tag. That way everytime you look at a person in TMG you can see what they have and where in the file.

 

Ben

[Excalibur 0]

... If your grandfather is a source and he passes away, how can those who come after you find him?

 

Drifting from the thread again but...

In my opinion , this seems as though you are saying that you cannot cite as a source anything that is not permanent. And surely nothing is guarenteed to be around for ever. Or have I taken it the wrong way too

 

I cite things the same as Laura. I put people as sources and then attach all the information to that person, emails, letters, conversations. All the information is 'lumped' together - the good old lumpers Vs splitters debate...again. When the cited person is no longer available the information they supplied is still there for everyone to see.

 

<snip>

Ben

Hi Ben,

 

Yes, I would use the grandfather and I do use relatives as sources. The hard part is "filtering" the information they provide. Things like age, slightly faulty memory, hidden truths, things passed to them that they are relating as first hand, the passing of time, etc. all go into evaluating that source. Using my aunt as an example, she is 83 and sharp as a tack. Her general knowledge is tremendous about her childhood. The details, well they leave something to be desired. A birth date that is slightly off, a location that is and always was several miles from where she remembers, a name slightly incorrect, a documented event that slowly changed over the years in her mind, embellishments, etc. So the problem is that some of her knowledge doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny.

 

This all takes time and effort to document. "Filtering" the spoken and even written word from a relative vs. obtaining hard sources. I think that Laura's approach, while it works for her, seemed to be overly simplified and a bit contradictory (although I'm not sure I wasn't trying to compare "apples and oranges"). Maybe all that was on my mind was trying to get across to newcomers that there is a lot of thought that goes into using a person as a source.

 

Nope! I'm not gonna get into "lumpers vs. splitters!" HA HA HA HA HA

[Terry Reigel 0]

This is getting beyond the scope of the original intent of this thread, but if I may be allowed to Drift for a moment: I've never been very happy with the way genealogists handle sources. I do NOT like Mills's concept of creating a new source type for every possible little variation.

Where does Mills every suggest how you define a source? So far as I can tell, she only suggests how the footnotes should read, and never even mentions "sources" as they are defined in genealogy programs.

 

The "Mills" source types in TMG, on the other hand, suggest each household on a census, for example, should be a new source. I agree with you that this in unnecessary. I create a new source for each roll of Census microfilm, for example, because it makes it easier to create source notes that properly describe where I found the information. But, as you can see from the census source article on my website, they still read pretty much as the examples in Mills' book.

Similarly, if I got info from a person, it does not matter to me whether it came via email, snail mail, phone, or face-to-face. I think it's appropriate to indicate in the citation detail when and how I got the info, but unless it's a single item and I don't anticipate getting any more info from that person (e.g., a gedcom downloaded from a website), I generally don't include that sort of info as part of the source itself.

I don't see that it matters a wit whether the details are recorded in the source definition or in the CD - the issue is what do the footnotes say? If they include enough information to identify exactly where you got the information, that's all that matters. It's the source notes you readers will see, not the internals of your database.

 

 

In the first para. above you say that your "grandfather is a source." In the next paragraph you say that "you should cite to and record your sources in such a way that those who come after you will be able to find them." These two statements seem contradictory.

Not at all to my reading. She's talking about what goes in the source defintion vs. what goes in the CD. As long as all the detail is in the footnotes, in an understandable format, who is to ever know where it came from? Seems to me we intend to pass on paper reports, websites, etc. with citations, not our TMG databases. So what's important is what ends up in the citations, not how it got there.

[Virginia Blakelock 0]

However, I would share a lesson learned from my mother's files that I obtained upon her death. Due to the need for other siblings to deal with her effects, I received her data shipped in boxes and removed from her folders and binders. I would urge people, whatever the paper filing system they use, to write something on the document to reflect your filing and sorting. Getting a nice TMG printout, with "Drawer 4" or "Martin Binder" as the Repository Reference may not be enough to find it if you have not also written that on the paper copy, as the copy may no longer be in that drawer or binder.

 

Fearing just this sort of eventuality, a few years ago I got rid of my filing cabinets and packed my genealogy and other records in bankers boxes. I work from the open boxes, and my heirs can simply tape the lids on and ship or store them. I've attached a photo of my system - to which I've since added 4 more boxes, including some of my less-used reference books.

 

BTW, I do not use hanging file folders - which not only add weight to a box but take up space. Recently I've seen memos from two different university archives that they will not accept archives using hanging folders because of the extra weight and unusable space. Apparently you can get 1/3 more files into the storage box using manila folders. One memo added that hanging file folders will eventually damage the box.

 

Virginia

(Looking for relatives of GIs in WWII/Battle of the Bulge photo collection;see vblakelock.com/warphotos for more info and list of names.)

 

[Excalibur 0]

<snip>

Not at all to my reading. She's talking about what goes in the source defintion vs. what goes in the CD. As long as all the detail is in the footnotes, in an understandable format, who is to ever know where it came from? Seems to me we intend to pass on paper reports, websites, etc. with citations, not our TMG databases. So what's important is what ends up in the citations, not how it got there.

Thanks for the explanation, Terry. After your statement, I went back and read Laura's post again. I see the source definition vs. CD now, but until you spelled it out for me I just didn't get it. I'm gonna blame it on Google Earth! HA HA HA HA I really should go back to bed.

[laura1814 0]

Heh. Well, you know, I was just rambling, and it was late, and maybe it wasn't the most well-thought-out post in the world. I sure am glad that Ben and Terry came along to explain it for me! :-) I'm also glad it seems to have provoked some discussion.

 

Yup, I'm a Lumper!

 

No, I don't really mean that citation format is unimportant. Actually I'm pretty strict about it. I was trying to point out though that a lot of people (in all fields, not just genealogy) get all bent out of shape over citation formats and spend a lot of unnecessary time on it. IMO, they lose the purpose of citations: to inform those who come after us where we got the info, so that they can go find it themselves. (Clearly in the case of my grandfather, they can't go find him, and they will have to cite to the documentation I leave behind-- that's another issue.) In other words, when working out how you're going to cite something, sometimes you need to stop worrying about the "right way" to do it and instead think about your users!

 

I also failed to state earlier that consitency in citations is very important.

 

And of course posting an enquiry on the boards or TMG-L is a legitimate aid to figuring out how you want to do things.

 

Viriginia, you are a treasure. I will no longer feel guilty about my boxes!!

[Excalibur 0]

Thanks for the further clarification, Laura. Now I'm a happy camper ... well, except for one teeny, tiny, little, small thing. I want to dig up one of my great-great-grandfathers and find out what he was thinking when he allowed three, and possibly four, of his daughters to produce a total of ten or more children without the benefit of a spouse.

I'm sure its all part of the popular board game back then, "Fool The Descendents!," but it would be nice if he would tell me that.

[laura1814 0]

Oh, that's easy! He wanted to keep the girls at home to work on the farm, and his ten or more grandchildren as well! Free labor! You need lots of people to run a large farm prosperously. (More prosperously if you don't have to pay them.)