• Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

FTAnalyzer questions.

Alexander Bisset said:
You could export the report to excel and email it to your 4th cousin. That's essentially what the limit to matches checkbox is for to restrict the results to only the matches so you can send just the matches to someone.
Click to expand...

I would if I could but I don't know the email address.
I only know of him through the LC matching process and he did not advise his address so contact can only be made through that LC process.
Peter has already stated that ancestor census details cannot be processed automatically after registration so any updating would have to be manual after receipt of spreadsheet details, if Peter is willing to send on my behalf.

Perhaps my cousin has lost interest and that is why there were so few matches.
If we can tidy up the few loose ends to make any manual process as easy as possible then I may ask Peter for help and see if we can get him more involved. Being a 4th cousin, my relative is sufficiently distant that any other family branches that he does enter to LC would be prime match potential for the rest of the community.
 
Tim said:
The format should look like this in the gedcom

Code: 
1 RESI Age: 11 Relation to Head of House: Daughter
2 DATE 1901
3 PAGE Class: RG13; Piece: 3507; Folio: 141; Page: 47

So it's probably the PAGE Class that you are missing.
Click to expand...

There must be more to it than that. I have changed all instances of the PAGE record in the gedcom file and still no Census References are produced after the file has been saved and reloaded.
 
I only have RESI facts in my gedcom, so in FTA I have "Treat Residence Facts as Census Facts" ticked.

This is found under Tools, Options, General Settings.

This might be causing it.

Can you just paste a segment of your gedcom here? or PM me your gedcom and I can look with you?
 
Tim said:
I only have RESI facts in my gedcom, so in FTA I have "Treat Residence Facts as Census Facts" ticked.

This is found under Tools, Options, General Settings.

This might be causing it.

Can you just paste a segment of your gedcom here? or PM me your gedcom and I can look with you?
Click to expand...

I already have RESI treated as CENS.
The attached txt file contains the records for one person from the gedcom file.
If you need more, tell me how to PM.
 

Attachments

Bryman said:
On further investigation, I have found that the data output on the PAGE record in the gedcom file comes from yet another field within my FHS.
That field is free format and I have entered data in the form . . .

Piece aaa, Book bbb, Folio ccc, Page ddd etc.

Is this incompatible with FTA and do I need to change to an alternative or can FTA accommodate?
Click to expand...
I can add extra matching formats as regular expressions. The issue is of course when formats get too similar to be able to distinguish them. The secondary issue is as you highlight the desirability of standards. I'm not aware of any standardised reference format for census references. If anyone knows of a standard I could read up on it would be most useful. The issue then would be that users may not have followed the standard.

So far I've added support for the way ancestry merges census references, and for how they seem to appear in Family Historian trees. As well as how they are displayed for Scotland's people Scottish census references. I can add more but it would be nice if there was a standard to refer to otherwise it risks getting unwieldy.
 
Bryman said:
I already have RESI treated as CENS.
The attached txt file contains the records for one person from the gedcom file.
If you need more, tell me how to PM.
Click to expand...
Interesting your individual seems to have 1 SOURce facts which is normal but then those facts have extra 2 PAGE references Rather than those being part of a source record. I'm not sure I've seen that format before hence I'd need to search for a INDI/SOUR/PAGE record rather than what I currently do as a SOUR/PAGE or a INDI/PAGE record.
 
Nope I'm wrong your format is right BUT... the format you are using is what ancestry uses and they stick a ; GSU at then end and I was looking for that which in retrospect is pointlessly specific. I'm editing the code to be less pedantic about the reference format.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
I can add extra matching formats as regular expressions. The issue is of course when formats get too similar to be able to distinguish them. The secondary issue is as you highlight the desirability of standards. I'm not aware of any standardised reference format for census references. If anyone knows of a standard I could read up on it would be most useful. The issue then would be that users may not have followed the standard.

So far I've added support for the way ancestry merges census references, and for how they seem to appear in Family Historian trees. As well as how they are displayed for Scotland's people Scottish census references. I can add more but it would be nice if there was a standard to refer to otherwise it risks getting unwieldy.
Click to expand...

Not knowing about any standard reference format, if one exists, I just documented the information in an easy way for me. I would prefer not to need to change to another format but am prepared to do so if that will avoid confusion and make life easier for everyone else. It would not be difficult; just tedious and prone to possible errors. BTW, I tend to omit the Class as the year of census is known within my record. Would I need to add that for consistency or would FTA be clever enough to make allowances?

Also, I have heard back from Genome who now accepts that there is a case for multiple RESI and CENS records. RESI can indicate a long period of residence with the census being just one day within that period, or even with multiple censuses within a single period of residence.
 
Bryman said:
Not knowing about any standard reference format, if one exists, I just documented the information in an easy way for me. I would prefer not to need to change to another format but am prepared to do so if that will avoid confusion and make life easier for everyone else. It would not be difficult; just tedious and prone to possible errors. BTW, I tend to omit the Class as the year of census is known within my record. Would I need to add that for consistency or would FTA be clever enough to make allowances?

Also, I have heard back from Genome who now accepts that there is a case for multiple RESI and CENS records. RESI can indicate a long period of residence with the census being just one day within that period, or even with multiple censuses within a single period of residence.
Click to expand...

Class as in RGxx where xx is census number?
 
Please will you tell me exactly what FTA is looking for to report census references in the Referral Report?
I have installed v3.6.0.1 and no references are being produced.

Using v3.6.0.0 and hand modified gedcom file I was able to get one reference listed for 1881 but I failed to get any more.
I must be missing something trivial.
 
Bryman said:
Request to Peter for simple enhancement, please.
Click to expand...

It may seem simple, but unfortunately it requires someone with PERL programming skills - I made a change last week that I thought might work, but sadly it didn't.
 
peter said:
It may seem simple, but unfortunately it requires someone with PERL programming skills - I made a change last week that I thought might work, but sadly it didn't.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, a bit more "trial and error" seems to have paid off. It's not perfect, but hopefully it will be adequate....
 
peter said:
It may seem simple, but unfortunately it requires someone with PERL programming skills - I made a change last week that I thought might work, but sadly it didn't.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Peter. I didn't mean to suggest that it would be just a 'five minute job' to implement but from a user perspective I was 'just' asking for an extra column of details (as on Ancestors page) rather than something which might have been complicated to determine. As it is, your insertion of the information at the head of each household looks fine and should make the referral process much easier to do when armed with the working report from FTA. Thank you.
 
In v3.6.0.1 the census reference regex strings are :
Code: 
EW_CENSUS_PATTERN = "Class: RG(\\d{2,3}); Piece: (\\d{1,5}); Folio: (\\d{1,4}); Page: (\\d{1,3})";
EW_CENSUS_PATTERN_FH = "RG(\\d{1,2})/(\\d{1,5}) F(\\d{1,4}) p(\\d{1,3})";
EW_CENSUS_1841_PATTERN = "Class: HO107; Piece: (\\d{1,5}); Folio: (\\d{1,4}); Page: (\\d{1,3})";
EW_CENSUS_1841_PATTERN2 = "Class: HO107; Piece:? (\\d{1,5}); Book: (\\d{1,3});.*?Folio: (\\d{1,4}); Page: (\\d{1,3});";
EW_CENSUS_1841_PATTERN_FH = "HO107/(\\d{1,5})/(\\d{1,3}) .*F(\\d{1,3}) p(\\d{1,3})";
EW_CENSUS_1911_PATTERN = "^RG14PN(\\d{1,6}) .*SN(\\d{1,3})$";
EW_CENSUS_1911_PATTERN2 = "Class: RG14; Piece: (\\d{1,6})$";
EW_CENSUS_1911_PATTERN3 = "Class: RG14; Piece: (\\d{1,6}); Schedule Number: (\\d{1,3})$";
EW_CENSUS_1911_PATTERN3a = "Class: RG14; Piece: (\\d{1,6}); SN: (\\d{1,3})$";
EW_CENSUS_1911_PATTERN4 = "Class: RG14; Piece: (\\d{1,6}); Page: (\\d{1,3})$";
EW_CENSUS_1911_PATTERN_FH = "RG14/PN(\\d{1,6}) .*SN(\\d{1,3})$";
SCOT_CENSUS_PATTERN = "Parish: ([A-Za-z]+); ED: (\\d{1,3}); Page: (\\d{1,4}); Line: (\\d{1,2})";
SCOT_CENSUS_PATTERN2 = "(\\d{3}/\\d{2}) (\\d{3}/\\d{2}) (\\d{3,4})";

Does that help?
 
Alexander Bisset said:
Does that help?
Click to expand...

Thank you. I had been editing the gedcom file to make a quick fix but now realise that it will probably be easier/quicker to change the fields in the FHS and re-export as there are so many differences of the odd character here and there. I had been hoping that I could obtain the references with just minor adjustments but the data appears in so many places it is easy to miss something.

I will add another post when I have brought my data into line with FTA.
 
I don't think there is a problem with FTA Referral Report generation as I am gradually getting census references appearing. I am up to 6 now!

It is a very slow process (and boring) and is down to the way that Sources are saved and matched in GenoPro. If I correct or update a Source record, the new version is saved as a separate Source with what looks like the same key, but obviously slightly (and invisibly) different somewhere. This means that I don't know which Source is being matched to a particular Census record when the gedcom is exported.

Although some individuals have both Contact/Residence and Source/Census information, the Contact does not always get matched with the Source marked as Census and so appears in the gedcom as a RESI when I am expecting a CENS. The equivalence of RESI and CENS records does not seem to apply for the Referral Report. I have updated many fields formated as "Piece xxx, Folio yyy, Page zzz" to the new "Class: RGww; Piece: xxx; Folio:yyy; Page:zzz;" and still the census reference did not appear on the Referral Report. Finding all the hidden sources and editing to the new format is taking a long time but some progress is apparent so I am confident that I am on the right track and will get there in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top