Jump to content
Allen C.

Wish list-Need to compress list of endnotes

Recommended Posts

I have a large database and the book will be hundreds of pages long. The endnotes report is monstrously long. The rigorously correct endnotes format is impractical for a long genealogy report since many sources such as Bible records may have been cited dozens of times creating many ibids.

 

It was my thought that I would be happy to list each unique source only once and have the exponent numbers in the report use that number whenever that source appears in the report. I found on the TMG Tips forum that there is a macro available that does that. I am not 100% satisfied with the macro because it uses different size exponents for first time used sources and repeat sources. This needs to be built into the program.

 

In my frustration to deal with this problem I evaluated several of the leading, most highly ranked softwares and found that two of the top softwares, Legacy and Roots Magic, both present endnotes in this style by default. I still like the other report features of TMG and don't want to have to transfer all my data over to another software. I would hope that an issue as central and important as endnotes would be addressed soon in a future version of TMG. The top competitors are doing it now. Surely a 700 page book with a 1400 page list of sources is a problem!

 

Allen C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unique endnotes is not the same thing. "Unique" combines all sources cited for a given tag and assigns then a single endnote. The sources cited in that endnote can appear over and over again if they were used to cite other tags.

 

Allen C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a large database and the book will be hundreds of pages long. The endnotes report is monstrously long. The rigorously correct endnotes format is impractical for a long genealogy report since many sources such as Bible records may have been cited dozens of times creating many ibids.

 

It was my thought that I would be happy to list each unique source only once and have the exponent numbers in the report use that number whenever that source appears in the report. I found on the TMG Tips forum that there is a macro available that does that. I am not 100% satisfied with the macro because it uses different size exponents for first time used sources and repeat sources. This needs to be built into the program.

 

In my frustration to deal with this problem I evaluated several of the leading, most highly ranked softwares and found that two of the top softwares, Legacy and Roots Magic, both present endnotes in this style by default. I still like the other report features of TMG and don't want to have to transfer all my data over to another software. I would hope that an issue as central and important as endnotes would be addressed soon in a future version of TMG. The top competitors are doing it now. Surely a 700 page book with a 1400 page list of sources is a problem!

 

Allen C.

 

Allen,

 

My full footnotes and short footnotes are identical in definition. Couple this with "unique" and you end up with one endnote list entry per source. Should I have used the CD field when cited, well that becomes a new source entry on the endnote listing. I use the CD field but rarely.

 

The combination of the two has decreased the number of sources listed on the endnote listing considerably. In a 300 page book, endnote pages account for but 50 pages. Before using unique and duplicating the short footnote definition, the endnote listing was some 900+ pages.

 

In the overall though, the final size of the endnote listing is dependent on how you source and how you cite. For me, pre 1850 events are mostly lumped (from microfilmed church books). Events after 1850 are pretty much uniquely sourced. (Parents of spouses are identified but their events are not sourced nor cited)

 

My single project of multiple families, and others, contains:

 

19, 394 people

4,268 sources

58,901 citations

 

The book noted above is from but a small portion of this project. It does though reflect the book/source page size relationship for this project (using the above technique).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unique endnotes is not the same thing. "Unique" combines all sources cited for a given tag and assigns then a single endnote.

You are talking about "Combined" endnotes. That feature combines all citations for a tag into a single note.

 

"Unique" endnotes makes one note for each source/CD combination, and then uses the same note reference number for each additional citation to that exact source/CD combination. If you don't use CDs, you get only one note per source. I think that's what you are asking for.

 

Of course if you have lots of different enteries in the CDs you get lots of different notes.

 

By the way, you do not have to make the full and short footnote template the same for this to work as Donald suggests. If there are no entries in the CD, you only get one note per source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,

 

I tried the settings with unique endnotes without anything else checked and it did make a report like what I was looking for. I am finding though that for a given tag I am getting the same exponent number several times in many cases which doesn't make sense. This is progress though.

 

Thanks,

 

Allen C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tried the settings with unique endnotes without anything else checked and it did make a report like what I was looking for.

Good, we're making progress. :)

I am finding though that for a given tag I am getting the same exponent number several times in many cases which doesn't make sense.

Would that be for the first tag, by chance? In narrative reports the first tag for a person you would get, by default, a set of note reference numbers after the name, then another set at the end of the sentence. And, the set after the name may have the same note referenced three times - here's why:

 

After the name, you get the citations for the name tag. Then, immediately following them are the citations for the person's father relationship, then those for the mother relationship. Finally, at the end of the sentence you get the cites for the first event tag, normally a birth tag.

 

The problem is the cites for the parent/child relationship tags. There's really no logical place to put them in a narrative, so they are just added to the end of the name tag cites. But you can't really tell which are which, and often they are the same, so you may see the same source referenced three times in a row.

 

You can turn off the parent/child citations on the Sources tab of Options by unchecking "Include relationship sources." Trouble is, these are the most important citations of all - they are the ones that prove that a parent and child are linked. Without them, you don't actually have a genealogy. :(

 

When you use Second Site to create narrative style web pages there is a better solution, created by the slightly different style afforded in the web environment. There is an option to add a "was the son of..." or "was the daughter of..." tag, and if you do, the relationship citations are attached to that sentence, where their meaning is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,

 

Perhaps I need to reflect on this a little longer, but here are my first thoughts. The Roots Magic and Legacy programs do not have this problem with redundant citations for a single tag. I think TMG can improve on that.

 

Yes, most of the redundancies occur on the first time the name appears. Would it make sense to cite the relationship sources in the section where they are all listed under the parents rather than at the beginning of a new section? When there is an unmarried child the ralationship citations are given there.

 

When I correspond with a contact I usually send out a list of generations (composed on a word processor) in the tree down trom the first generation down to that persons family. Each generation is a new paragraph starting with the generation number. It will say something like: A was born, died, buried etc. He married B at place and date, the daughter of so and so. She was born on date and place, etc. Any other details. The had issue: Names of next generation. This would be a good place to cite the relationship, not the beginning of the next paragraph.

 

I am trying to iron this problem out because I am near my endgame strategy for a long project and need to begin some serious composition work. This is crucial and I need to settle on it before I proceed.

 

I do appreciate your help!

 

Allen C. (also a Ter heel)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I need to reflect on this a little longer, but here are my first thoughts. The Roots Magic and Legacy programs do not have this problem with redundant citations for a single tag.

Neither does TMG. The issue is the citations for four tags appearing in a single sentence of narrative output.

 

But, more to the point, where do RM & Legacy place the citations for the parent/child relationships? (Do they allow citations for those relationships? I don't know.)

Would it make sense to cite the relationship sources in the section where they are all listed under the parents rather than at the beginning of a new section? When there is an unmarried child the ralationship citations are given there.

I can see that might help some for children who then have their own paragraph. But how would the reader could understand it was the relationships that were being cited, and not the name? And how would you distinguish the father cites from the mother cites? Even it that was done, it still leaves the same issue we already have for those children who are not continued in their own sections in the report.

I am trying to iron this problem out because I am near my endgame strategy for a long project and need to begin some serious composition work. This is crucial and I need to settle on it before I proceed.

Allen C. (also a Ter heel)

My wife is the Tar Heel - I'm an immigrant. :)

 

The root of the problem, in my view, is that the Journal format doesn't really offer a place that makes it clear what the father and mother relationship cites are for. You need a statement that Robert was the son of John, and attach the father cites there, and Robert was the son of Martha, and attach mother cites there. But there is no such statement in the Journal format, thus no clear place to put the relationship citations. I agree that putting them with the name cites doesn't work.

 

The suggestion I've made is to offer an option to add explicit statements of the father and mother relationships, and place the cites there. But that is not part of the generally accepted "Journal" format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They both seem to cite at the same place but they do not have multiple identical numbers shown in a group of exponents and they are arranged in order. My impression is TMG philosophically does not like this style of citation!

 

I also looked at Descendant narrative outlines and the Legacy program lists the names of children in the paragraph with the parents and then lists them below. That is not where they cite the relationship, that appears to come after the name is introduced in a birth statement. For me to speak with any certainty about how these programs work I need to do more work with them. I just imported my files and cranked out some reports. I am unable to input more data into the Roots Magic free trial version.

 

I want to make it very clear where I got information because my book will go up to the present date and include living persons. I feel that I must document where I got information about living persons because I was not able to interview each and every one.

 

This opens a whole new topic which may not be suitable for a forum like this, and that is legal issues relating to publishing information about living persons. I do not plan to publish anything about living folks on the Internet.

 

Allen C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They both seem to cite at the same place but they do not have multiple identical numbers shown in a group of exponents and they are arranged in order.

I'm confused. How can they include citations for the name, father relationship, and mother relationship, all in the same place and not have multiple cites to the same source if that source was used for each of the three? Are you sure they actually provide citations for the relationship? If not, you can duplicate that result in TMG by turning off the display of relationship sources.

I also looked at Descendant narrative outlines and the Legacy program lists the names of children in the paragraph with the parents and then lists them below. That is not where they cite the relationship, that appears to come after the name is introduced in a birth statement.

That's where TMG puts them too. Is there something different about how it's done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,

 

Earlier you said:

"You can turn off the parent/child citations on the Sources tab of Options by unchecking "Include relationship sources." Trouble is, these are the most important citations of all - they are the ones that prove that a parent and child are linked. Without them, you don't actually have a genealogy. " :(

 

Your point earlier about the problem with the journal report really is central to this whole endeavor. I was inspired to write a genealogy after reading one on my family that was written in 1923. It used the outline descendant narrative format and the author went into lengthy discussion of various pieces of evidence. I saw your web-site with the analogy of tags as being like "sticky pad notes" and it seems that there is a limitation inherent in that style of writing and citation. Another excellent book is "Adventurers of Purse and Person" which provides the proof of the early families of Virginia who had settlers who arrived before 1625. The relationship proof was of paramount importance.

 

I want to be able to discuss the merit and fallacies of conflicting evidence and think that a more free flowing approach will be more suitable. Perhaps that will be better accomplished in the descendant outline narrative. My frustration has to do with the fact that when I print out all my tags it doesn't have the flow and feel that I want it to have. Perhaps I could take a long look at them and then use a separate tag to write my paragraphs using embedded citations and simultaneously deactivate the various fact tags.

 

I have never written abook using TMG and know there may be features I have not yet discovered so maybe I need to study a while longer. I am not familiar enough with the other programs to say exactly what they are doing, but it appears that the both can recognize a redundancy in a group of exponents and are able to arrange them in order. I suppose I could run the macro to accomplish this.

 

Allen C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×