Jump to content


Photo

Register Report


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 mjweeks

mjweeks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:56 AM

Why can't we have a real register report? People may argue about what "real" is, but including a main paragraph for people that are married without children is not standard. One little checkbox is all we need. This is not rocket science.

#2 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:34 PM

NGSQ (modified register) conforms to the National Genealogical Society Quarterly standards.

NEHGS (register) conforms to the New England Historic Genealogical Society standards.

If these standards are different than you prefer, save the file and make changes in a word processor.

#3 Jack

Jack

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:49 PM

GEDCOMS also conform to outdated standards.
Jack

a posteriori

#4 mjweeks

mjweeks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:51 PM

I beg to differ.

See http://www.gen-find....ploads/9864.pdf

If that is not authoritative enough, Google Books has copies of the Register going back a hundred years that you may read. I agree that in the age we live that people ignore standards just because they can. I don't roll that way.

#5 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8491 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:13 AM

I beg to differ.

See http://www.gen-find....ploads/9864.pdf

If that is not authoritative enough, Google Books has copies of the Register going back a hundred years that you may read. I agree that in the age we live that people ignore standards just because they can. I don't roll that way.


Maybe I'm just not finding the differences between the report formats above with the matching RM NEHGS (register) narrative and the NGSQ (modified register) narrative. Could you point out the differences you see? Compare your example with it's corresponding format in RM.
Renee
RootsMagic

#6 mjweeks

mjweeks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:01 PM

The RM Register is described in the Help File:

"..., except that unmarried descendants who are not carried forward are not assigned a number."

The rule should be:

"descendants without children are not carried forward."


Legacy provides 3 options for narratives:

Include Main Entries For
1. Individuals with children (Standard Format)
2. Individuals with children or spouses
3. All Individuals

RM only has option 2.

AQ, BK, Reunion, and everything else seems to do it right.

I like RM 6, so I also want standard reports.

Thanks

#7 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:29 PM

I set up the family relationship in RM 6 as they are shown in the pdf. I entered the marital status and whether they had children in the next generation in square brackets. I didn't enter any other facts.

I printed both register reports and they were the same people shown in each generation as the Figure 1 NGSQ example and Figure 2 NEHGS example in the pdf. RM didn't center the generation labels as in the pdf.

RM 6 register report:


First Generation


1. Samuel Cassada [Married, had children]

Samuel Cassada and Jane Howell were married. Jane Howell

Samuel Cassada and Jane Howell had the following children:

+2 i. Henry Cassada, married Lydia Eiza Lapierre.
3 ii. Issac Cassada Cassada [No marriage]
4 iii. Sarah Cassada [Married, had no children]
5 iv. Alice Marie Cassada [Never married]


Second Generation


2. Henry Cassada (Samuel-1) [Married, had children]

Henry Cassada and Lydia Eiza Lapierre were married. Lydia Eiza Lapierre

Henry Cassada and Lydia Eiza Lapierre had the following children:

6 i. Lewis Charles Cassada [Never married]
+7 ii. Eliza Jane Cassada, married John W. Sutton.


Third Generation


7. Eliza Jane Cassada (Henry-2, Samuel-1) [Married, had children]

John W. Sutton and Eliza Jane Cassada were married. John W. Sutton

John W. Sutton and Eliza Jane Cassada had the following children:

8 i. J. P. Sutton [Married]
9 ii. J. Stanley Sutton [Married]

Perhaps the Help file needs reworded or possibly updated from how a report used to print in previous versions.

-----

"Legacy provides 3 options for narratives:

Include Main Entries For
1. Individuals with children (Standard Format)
2. Individuals with children or spouses
3. All Individuals"

I don't know what Legacy is covering with those narrative reports, but RM has:

Ancestors: by generation and you can include just the ancestors only or ancestors with their children

Descendants:

2 Registers, NGSQ or NEHGS formats by generation for all spouses and descendants

3 numbering systems choices, Online, Henry, and D'Aboville, for a report of all descendants or with choice of number of generations.

#8 Glenn

Glenn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 562 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:04 PM

Hi Laura,

I'm just a bit curious about your marriage sentences (using Sutton/Cassada)
"John W. Sutton and Eliza Jane Cassada were married. John W. Sutton"

Why does the first of the spouses appear by him/herself after the sentence? :huh:

Glenn


Good real estate may be based on location, location, location;
but
good sources are based on citation, citation, citation!


Glenn


#9 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:34 PM

Glenn, I had no birth or other facts entered and I only had [Person] in my Narrative default sentence so just the spouse's name was printed.

#10 mjweeks

mjweeks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 06:49 AM

A report snippet from RM6:
6 and 7 below are carried forward from above. They are both married WITHOUT children.


6. Charity C. Runyon was born (date unknown).

Charity C. Runyon and Isaac N. Hawkins were married on 25 Oct 1837 in Madison, Kentucky, USA.4 Isaac N. Hawkins was born (date unknown).

7. Matilda Runyon was born (date unknown).

Matilda Runyon and Lewis Gillespie were married. Lewis Gillespie was born (date unknown).

These people should not be carried forward. It is redundant and a waste of paper.

#11 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3608 posts

Posted 19 January 2013 - 10:12 AM

These people should not be carried forward. It is redundant and a waste of paper.


I beg to differ. And indeed I constantly run into the need for people to be carried forward even if they were never married AND had no children. That's because if a person who never married and had no children has lots of data that I want to print out then the report looks absolutely terrible trying to put all that data into the summary list of children.

And not carrying people forward can create a number of inconsistencies and lack of parallels even when there is not too much data to include in the summary list of children. People for whom I create the reports at family reunions notice the inconsistencies and lack of parallels and tell me I have "errors" in my report. For example, "Mary doesn't appear in the same generation with the rest of the cousins" (she had no children and never married, and therefore was not carried forward into the generation with the rest of the cousins, so there is no "error" in RM, but there is a lack of consistency and parallel in the report). For another example, "The report says that Mary was adopted but it doesn't say that John was adopted" (Mary and John were sister and brother, both of whom were adopted, Mary had no children and was not brought forward to the next generation, John married and had children and was brought forward to the next generation, the note about Mary's adoption was in the summary list of children, but the note about John's adoption was where he was brought forward, so again there was no "error" in RM, but there is a lack of consistency and parallel in the report).

In Jerry's perfect world where I could wave a magic wand and reports would look exactly as I wish, all individuals in register and modified register reports would be brought forward to the next generation irrespective of marriage or parentage status, except possibly for the most recently born children - say those born about 1995 and after. I realize this approach would totally violate all standards, and I really don't care. I care about my readers and their understanding of the report.

I've also tried the outline style reports for family reunions (outline, Henry, and D'Aboville), but they all suffer from the serious problem that children are never listed together in a single list with their parents. In Jerry's really perfect world, I think what I really want is an outline style report except with the (surely non-standard) addition of a summary of the children associated with each set of parents. I've seen a lot of narrative reports created by hand that take this approach (often old ones created on manual typewriters, not even created with word processors), and they read much better for a family reunion than the new fangled reports that follow the ugly standards.

Jerry

#12 mjweeks

mjweeks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 07:04 AM

I'm just asking for the option to not carry people forward.

#13 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3608 posts

Posted 20 January 2013 - 08:59 AM

I'm just asking for the option to not carry people forward.


I can't disagree with that. :)

I'm asking for the option to carry people forward when otherwise the report would not do so. You are asking for the option not to carry people forward when otherwise the report would do so. Either way, the option would need to be specified on a person by person basis. So there would need to be a way to flag individual people as "carry the person forward in register reports in the default way", as "unconditionally carry the person forward in register reports", or as "unconditionally do not carry the person forward in register reports". Well, I guess you wouldn't need "carry the person forward in register reports in the default way" as an option because that's already the default

Jerry

#14 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8491 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:49 AM

Confirming enhancement requests are in our tracking system.
Renee
RootsMagic