Hello Jonathan,

I recently found a couple of very good research sites.  For you and
anyone else whose search has led them to the Basque Country, in Spain,
the links below provide a way to do online queries of parochial
records in a similar way to familysearch.  Hope this is helpful to
someone.

Have ancestors in Gipuzkoa?
Make an online search of parochial archives at "Archivo Histórico
Diocesano de San Sebastián"
http://www.elizagipuzkoa.org/artxiboa/

What about Biskaia ancestors?
Check "Archivo Histórico Eclesiástico de Bizkaia"
http://www.aheb-beha.org/

Or here's a single site where you can search the three Basque
Diocesis: Araba, Biskaia and Gipuzkoa.
http://www.irargi.org/

Un Saludo Cordial!
Victor Villarreal

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "mexicanfhr" <jonathan@m...> wrote:
> When there is a IGI record, says that the record was submitted by a 
> LDS Member.  Especially, if it was submitted in the 1970's, 1980's, 
> and the early 1990's, on paper.  The church kept a copy on the 
> submission on film.  They are sorted into batch numbers and into 
> Serial or sheet numbers.  These numbers are so that you can find the 
> record on the film.  As far as I know, you can only use the Batch 
> number, when performing a online search. 
> 
> The submissions films, are restricted to the Family History Library 
> in Salt Lake.
> 
> thanks,
> Jonathan

Hello Stuart,

Thanks for your response.  Sounds like you have had extensive
experience using these search tools.  Thanks!

Saludos
Victor Villarreal
Reynosa, México


--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Armstrong <stuarta@a...> wrote:
> Hello v.h.villarreal,
> 
> Thursday, August 25, 2005, 1:30:18 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > Angie,
> 
> > And speaking about research tips, I don't have a clear idea what's the
> > purpose of the fields [Serial/Sheet Number] and [Film Number] in the
> > IGI search page.  Have you found any use for those?
> 
> The best time to use these is when you find a record of interest that
> has a batch number. Records were submitted by extraction workers or by
> church members in batches. So it is often the case that the records in
> a particular batch are either for related persons or persons who lived
> in the same area at the same time.
> 
> So whenever a batch number exists, try searching for all the records
> from that batch. (I think you have to entry a country too.) Some
> batches are very large and may have sheet numbers too. If these were
> microfilmed or extracted from a microfilm, there may be a Film number.
> -- 
> Best regards,
>  Stuart                            mailto:stuarta@a...

Victor,

The only thing I know about [Film Number] Field is what it says in help:

"If a record contains both a batch number and a film number, then use 
only the batch number for your search. Film number searches are valid 
only when there is no batch number."

And as far as [Serial/Sheet Number] I have only ever seen it to be 
[00].  So I don't think that is any help.

Personally, I have never used either field in my searches.

Angie

P.S.  I knew you were jk ... ;-)

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "v.h.villarreal" <raices_regias@y...> 
wrote:
> Angie,
> 
> Thanks.  I was just joking!
> And speaking about research tips, I don't have a clear idea what's the
> purpose of the fields [Serial/Sheet Number] and [Film Number] in the
> IGI search page.  Have you found any use for those?
> 
> I've tried entering data into the [Film Number] field in a similar
> fashion to the [Batch Number] as some recommend field but nothing 
happens!
> 
> Victor 
>

Angie,

Thanks.  I was just joking!
And speaking about research tips, I don't have a clear idea what's the
purpose of the fields [Serial/Sheet Number] and [Film Number] in the
IGI search page.  Have you found any use for those?

I've tried entering data into the [Film Number] field in a similar
fashion to the [Batch Number] as some recommend field but nothing happens!

Victor 

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
> Victor,
> 
> Thanks for the info!
> 
> After all the information you have given me, your honor was never in 
> question.  :-)
> 
> Thanks Again,
> Angie
> 
> --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "v.h.villarreal" <raices_regias@y...> 
> wrote:
> > Angie,
> > 
> > I found that the percentage sign does act as a wildcard, at least in
> > some instances.  For example if you enter a last name and want to
> > apply a filter in Events, and/or Year Range and/or State, if you leave
> > the First Name field blank you'll get an arror message.  But doing
> > that same query with "%" in the First Name field you'll get back a
> > recordset.  Have I saved my honor? -- jk -- ;-)  
> > 
> > Victor
> >

Victor,

Thanks for the info!

After all the information you have given me, your honor was never in 
question.  :-)

Thanks Again,
Angie

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "v.h.villarreal" <raices_regias@y...> 
wrote:
> Angie,
> 
> I found that the percentage sign does act as a wildcard, at least in
> some instances.  For example if you enter a last name and want to
> apply a filter in Events, and/or Year Range and/or State, if you leave
> the First Name field blank you'll get an arror message.  But doing
> that same query with "%" in the First Name field you'll get back a
> recordset.  Have I saved my honor? -- jk -- ;-)  
> 
> Victor
>

Angie,

I found that the percentage sign does act as a wildcard, at least in
some instances.  For example if you enter a last name and want to
apply a filter in Events, and/or Year Range and/or State, if you leave
the First Name field blank you'll get an arror message.  But doing
that same query with "%" in the First Name field you'll get back a
recordset.  Have I saved my honor? -- jk -- ;-)  

Victor

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
> Victor,
> 
> Too funny...when I started working on my family tree in 1998, I did 
> create my own program, which I still use today.  But my program 
> doesn't do all the fancy charts and reports.  So I was going to add 
> that to my program when I found the PAF program.  I liked the reports 
> and tools in that program so instead of adding that functionality to 
> my own program, I created a tool to convert the data in my program to 
> a GED file and I then import it into a PAF file.  All this probably 
> sounds confusing but it works for me.  The reason I haven't gotten 
> rid of my own program is cause it still does things that PAF doesn't 
> do...and besides it has sentimental value...jk... :-)
> 
> Talk to you later,
> Angie Godina
> 
> 

Angie,

I forgot to mention in my last post about one thing that I like in the
Legacy software, which is the Merge function.  That really helps to
trim up your records, find and eliminate duplicate persons or families
with slightly different names and other things.

By the way, regarding the use of the percentage sign as a wildcard,
now that you asked me if it is the same as leaving a blank field I
feel like a total fool.  However, I'm totally positive and I could've
swore that when I started using the IGI database if you left blank
either the first or last name fields you'd get an error back.  So I'm
assuming that they made a code update that I wasn't aware of.  Anyway,
when I find the time I'll try to write down a few other tips for those
who are new to these searching tools.

Victor

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
> Victor,
> 
> Too funny...when I started working on my family tree in 1998, I did 
> create my own program, which I still use today.  But my program 
> doesn't do all the fancy charts and reports.  So I was going to add 
> that to my program when I found the PAF program.  I liked the reports 
> and tools in that program so instead of adding that functionality to 
> my own program, I created a tool to convert the data in my program to 
> a GED file and I then import it into a PAF file.  All this probably 
> sounds confusing but it works for me.  The reason I haven't gotten 
> rid of my own program is cause it still does things that PAF doesn't 
> do...and besides it has sentimental value...jk... :-)
> 
> Talk to you later,
> Angie Godina
> 
> 

Victor,

Too funny...when I started working on my family tree in 1998, I did 
create my own program, which I still use today.  But my program 
doesn't do all the fancy charts and reports.  So I was going to add 
that to my program when I found the PAF program.  I liked the reports 
and tools in that program so instead of adding that functionality to 
my own program, I created a tool to convert the data in my program to 
a GED file and I then import it into a PAF file.  All this probably 
sounds confusing but it works for me.  The reason I haven't gotten 
rid of my own program is cause it still does things that PAF doesn't 
do...and besides it has sentimental value...jk... :-)

Talk to you later,
Angie Godina


--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "v.h.villarreal" <raices_regias@y...> 
wrote:
> Angie,
> 
> So we have one more thing in common, eh?  Our interest in databases
> and programming, besides having ancestors in Colotlán, Totatiche and
> Tlaltenango.
> 
> I have PAF 5 but I use it mainly to export my Gedcoms to a Palm 
Pilot.
>  The software that I'm currently using for my genealogy is Legacy 5,
> which I believe is a very complete application.  When I started
> compiling my genealogical data I considered creating my own data
> tables and user interface in Access, but after trying Legacy I
> realized that it would be an enormous time investment to create an
> application from scratch with all that functionality so I changed my
> mind.  
> 
> What I'm storing is Access are the batch numbers of the church 
records
> I'm currently researching, which at present include only a few from
> the State of Nuevo León. 
> 
> Regarding the information at FamilySearch, actually there are 
several
> databases, of which the IGI is just one.  But their databases are 
not
> Access based, that's why the Access default wildcard does not work. 
> The wildcard for the IGI database is the percentage sign (%) but you
> have to use it just by itself as a substitute for a whole word, that
> is, not as a substitute for single letters within a word. For 
example,
> 
> First Name: %
> Last Name: Raygosa
> 
> You can apply other filtering criteria as usual.  I've tried using 
the
> wildcard in the Father, Mother and Spouse fields but it doesn't 
always
> work; I think it is better to fill those one at a time in each query
> if you have available data or just leave blank.  Play around a 
little
> bit and you'll soon be doing wonders.  Like I said previously, for 
me
> the easiest and most productive way to search the IGI is entering 
the
> batch number for the locality and date period and then run a lot of
> queries changing the filtering criteria, trying different spellings,
> using the wildcard, etcetera, etcetera, until I exhaust all 
possibilities.
> 
> Just imagine how great it would be if we were able to obtain all 
batch
> numbers from the Family History Library Catalog, instead of having 
to
> run a generic search and then guessing them by trail and error.  
That
> is one of the other things that I don't understand about the 
thinking
> behind the designers and/or administrators of Familysearch.  But I
> guess we can't have it all, can we?
> 
> Un Saludo Cordial
> Victor Villarreal
> 
>

Angie,

So we have one more thing in common, eh?  Our interest in databases
and programming, besides having ancestors in Colotlán, Totatiche and
Tlaltenango.

I have PAF 5 but I use it mainly to export my Gedcoms to a Palm Pilot.
 The software that I'm currently using for my genealogy is Legacy 5,
which I believe is a very complete application.  When I started
compiling my genealogical data I considered creating my own data
tables and user interface in Access, but after trying Legacy I
realized that it would be an enormous time investment to create an
application from scratch with all that functionality so I changed my
mind.  

What I'm storing is Access are the batch numbers of the church records
I'm currently researching, which at present include only a few from
the State of Nuevo León. 

Regarding the information at FamilySearch, actually there are several
databases, of which the IGI is just one.  But their databases are not
Access based, that's why the Access default wildcard does not work. 
The wildcard for the IGI database is the percentage sign (%) but you
have to use it just by itself as a substitute for a whole word, that
is, not as a substitute for single letters within a word. For example,

First Name: %
Last Name: Raygosa

You can apply other filtering criteria as usual.  I've tried using the
wildcard in the Father, Mother and Spouse fields but it doesn't always
work; I think it is better to fill those one at a time in each query
if you have available data or just leave blank.  Play around a little
bit and you'll soon be doing wonders.  Like I said previously, for me
the easiest and most productive way to search the IGI is entering the
batch number for the locality and date period and then run a lot of
queries changing the filtering criteria, trying different spellings,
using the wildcard, etcetera, etcetera, until I exhaust all possibilities.

Just imagine how great it would be if we were able to obtain all batch
numbers from the Family History Library Catalog, instead of having to
run a generic search and then guessing them by trail and error.  That
is one of the other things that I don't understand about the thinking
behind the designers and/or administrators of Familysearch.  But I
guess we can't have it all, can we?

Un Saludo Cordial
Victor Villarreal


--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
> Victor,
> 
> I have experienced the same issues as you.  It is very frustrating 
> not to be able to download more than 50 records.  Also I own the VRI 
> cds and they have the same limitations, except the cap is 100 
> records.  As a mentioned in a previous post, I tried to download all 
> the records into my family tree program and then reconcile them.  
> Except, (i am little slow, and...) it took me a while to realize that 
> even though I would tag over a hundred records it was only 
> downloading the first 100.  Had to throw out that work and start 
> again, since I couldn't figure out which records I was missing.  So I 
> started again and downloaded a 100 records at a time.  But then I 
> realized that I was downloading some records twice...argh...  
> Needless to say...I gave up.  Couldn't figure out a good way to do it.
> 
> I wish I had access to the raw data.  Then I could manipulate it as I 
> pleased.  I figured since I had the cds, it must be on there 
> somewhere.  But I have not been able to figure it out.
> 
> I imagine that the reason they have the cap at 50 records is because 
> anymore would put a strain on the server...well not more then 50 but 
> if you think about it... 100's of people each downloading more then 
> 50 would put a strain on the server.  But I don't know why there is a 
> cap on the cds...
> 
> This is what I have done for myself.  All the information that I get 
> from IGI/VRI I have placed it in a Access database that I have 
> created.  This gives me an easy flexible way to search the data.  
> Once I put all my data in Access, which is over 6000 records, I 
> created a program that converts this information into a GED file.  
> Then I open the GED file in PAF.  Well I only needed to do that part 
> once.  Now I have all my data in an Access database and PAF.  I use 
> PAF for the reports and tools and I use access for cataloging my data 
> and searching through it...which allows me to find more records, etc, 
> etc...
> 
> I imagine that all the information on familysearch website is in some 
> database...I wish...that I had access to the raw data instead of the 
> download records...I can work wonders with databases... ;-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Angie Godina
> 
> P.S.  I haven't been able to get the wildcard to work...and I have 
> tried them all...
> 

Victor,

I have experienced the same issues as you.  It is very frustrating 
not to be able to download more than 50 records.  Also I own the VRI 
cds and they have the same limitations, except the cap is 100 
records.  As a mentioned in a previous post, I tried to download all 
the records into my family tree program and then reconcile them.  
Except, (i am little slow, and...) it took me a while to realize that 
even though I would tag over a hundred records it was only 
downloading the first 100.  Had to throw out that work and start 
again, since I couldn't figure out which records I was missing.  So I 
started again and downloaded a 100 records at a time.  But then I 
realized that I was downloading some records twice...argh...  
Needless to say...I gave up.  Couldn't figure out a good way to do it.

I wish I had access to the raw data.  Then I could manipulate it as I 
pleased.  I figured since I had the cds, it must be on there 
somewhere.  But I have not been able to figure it out.

I imagine that the reason they have the cap at 50 records is because 
anymore would put a strain on the server...well not more then 50 but 
if you think about it... 100's of people each downloading more then 
50 would put a strain on the server.  But I don't know why there is a 
cap on the cds...

This is what I have done for myself.  All the information that I get 
from IGI/VRI I have placed it in a Access database that I have 
created.  This gives me an easy flexible way to search the data.  
Once I put all my data in Access, which is over 6000 records, I 
created a program that converts this information into a GED file.  
Then I open the GED file in PAF.  Well I only needed to do that part 
once.  Now I have all my data in an Access database and PAF.  I use 
PAF for the reports and tools and I use access for cataloging my data 
and searching through it...which allows me to find more records, etc, 
etc...

I imagine that all the information on familysearch website is in some 
database...I wish...that I had access to the raw data instead of the 
download records...I can work wonders with databases... ;-)

Thanks,
Angie Godina

P.S.  I haven't been able to get the wildcard to work...and I have 
tried them all...


--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "v.h.villarreal" <raices_regias@y...> 
wrote:
> Jonathan,
> 
> Good to know about your work.  When it comes to doing research on 
the
> IGI, I've always wondered if it would be possible to query the
> database thru a more flexible or versatile user interface, like one
> that could use a greater number of filtering criteria, among other 
things.
> 
> I don't understand either the reasons, for example, of limiting the
> download of recordsets to 50 records at a time.  Why aren't we 
allowed
> to download a full recordset by batch number instead. Just imagine 
if
> we could process a batch of records at once and have some kind of
> tools to normalize and reconcile all the records in a whole book!  
> 
> That would be a blessing not only for genealogists but for the 
Church
>  own purposes and everyone else.  Short of being able to display
> online the digital image of the parochial records, these are some of
> the things that I would like to see.  Just some thoughts!
> 
> Best Regards!
> Victor Villarreal
>

Jonathan,

Good to know about your work.  When it comes to doing research on the
IGI, I've always wondered if it would be possible to query the
database thru a more flexible or versatile user interface, like one
that could use a greater number of filtering criteria, among other things.

I don't understand either the reasons, for example, of limiting the
download of recordsets to 50 records at a time.  Why aren't we allowed
to download a full recordset by batch number instead. Just imagine if
we could process a batch of records at once and have some kind of
tools to normalize and reconcile all the records in a whole book!  

That would be a blessing not only for genealogists but for the Church
 own purposes and everyone else.  Short of being able to display
online the digital image of the parochial records, these are some of
the things that I would like to see.  Just some thoughts!

Best Regards!
Victor Villarreal

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "mexicanfhr" <jonathan@m...> wrote:
> Victor,
> 
> I am in the process, of developing my own tools.  Because several
> years ago, I went to the FHL in Salt Lake, looking for some tools. 
> And I was told that what I was looking for did not exist,  And that if
> I wanted it.  I would have to write myself.  So That is what I am
doing.  
> 
> And I figureed who should know better about what researchers need and
> want, that people who are doing reseach.  And that is why I was asking.
> 
> Jonathan
> 

Hello Jonathan,

Could you please elaborate a little on your question.  Are you
currently developing research tools on your own or do you mean tools
at familysearch, etc.?

Victor


--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "mexicanfhr" <jonathan@m...> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> 
>  
> 
> I wanted ask, the Ranchos, Juarez, and Mexicanfhr groups,  what
> research helps or tools, would you all like to see developed.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jonathan