Jump to content


Record Number on Reports


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Jane_*

Guest_Jane_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2004 - 01:49 PM

biggrin.gif Please add an option to include record numbers with individual names for reports, lists, etc., etc.

#2 Guest_Guest_Bill_*

Guest_Guest_Bill_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2005 - 08:23 PM

I'll second the motion! It would make it much easier to read reports where there are many duplicate names.

#3 Guest_DonLin_*

Guest_DonLin_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2005 - 12:37 PM

I will "third" this request. We have several duplicate names within the family. In some cases a birthdate may show but this is not a practical way of doing it.

#4 Guest_Guest_John Davies_*_*

Guest_Guest_John Davies_*_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2005 - 02:49 PM

mad.gif
QUOTE(DonLin @ Aug 25 2005, 11:37 AM)
Yea please! I get fed up writing the persons reference number in every time I update my reports for printing. Unless I am doing something wrong

View Post




#5 lmparks6838

lmparks6838

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 06 September 2005 - 06:53 AM

I would like to vote for this request too!

Linda


#6 Guest_AusChuck_*

Guest_AusChuck_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2005 - 03:35 PM

While were at it with record numbers, how about the ability to re-index them. When two, same persons are merged, the numbers get out sequence. You end up with the newest person in the database having a higher record number than what is shown as total number of people when "Properties" is run. I'm not talking about breaking links, just condensing the record numbers to be totally sequential.

#7 Jim Belanger

Jim Belanger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 658 posts

Posted 24 October 2005 - 06:34 AM

I have asked for this feature several times. It used to be available in an earlier version of Family Origins and then it was dropped. This is a very valuable tool. On the record number sequence, NEVER EVER delete a person! When you want to eliminate a person, simply put a number (1) in front of their surname and unlink them from everyone. Then, next time you want to add a person, use that one you removed again. You will never have to compact your database and your record numbers for individuals will NEVER change.

But, record numbers in reports would most certainly be a desireable (and easy) feature. As a compromise, can we go a global update and make the reference number equal to the record number?
JIM.B.NH

#8 Guest_don_*

Guest_don_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2005 - 08:37 AM

Remember that the Record Number and the Reference Number serve two distinctly different purposes.

The Record Number is automatically generated by the database as a place holder and the Reference Number is a user defined number representing the users own filing system.

#9 Guest_David A. Mayagoitia Fuller_*

Guest_David A. Mayagoitia Fuller_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2005 - 08:45 AM

I agree with this request in the strongest terms possible. Many relatives in nearly 9,000 records have duplicate names causing considerable reader confusion. You can report "John Smith" opnly some number of times and afterwards no one cares. I insert the record number manually for clarification. Wow, would it ever be good to have RM do it for me with the addition of enclosue with braces such as {nnnn} where nnnn is the database number.

Thanks

#10 wleague

wleague

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts

Posted 26 October 2005 - 01:03 PM

Let me say this in the strongest terms possible.
From the beginning of FO some people have been absolutely adamant about including the record numbers as part of their permanent data no matter that the warning has gone out uncountable times not to do that. Record numbers are assigned by the program for its own use without regard to any needs of the user and it can change those numbers without notice to the user. Also, if you communicate and trade data with other genealogists, the record numbers for your data when incorporated into their databases are most likely to be different than yours and any record numbers that you have permanently included in your data are going to be useless and most confusing to them.

If you want to number your individuals then use the reference number fact and assign your numbers yourself. If you use the program's record numbers for permanent data you're only letting yourself in for grief down the road.

Wayne



#11 Jim Belanger

Jim Belanger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 658 posts

Posted 27 October 2005 - 03:51 PM

Wayne
I can't disagree with you more. As long as having the record number is an option, I don't see your argument. When printing a report to share with someone, having a record number enables one to point out James Smith Nr 1058 and compare him with James Smith Nr 33456 with ease. It would be a tool to be used by the program operator and should not enter into GedComs so would not be shared by exporting GedCom files. It's just a tool. That's why I suggested an alternative to "globally" update the reference number to equal the record number (as an option). Like motorcycle helmets - you choose to wear or not to wear. Give us choices and options. I'll risk getting into trouble since it is one "trouble" I can get out of. Can't say that about a lot of trouble I have gotten into during the past many years!!

But, thanks for your insight.

JIM.B.NH

#12 wleague

wleague

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts

Posted 27 October 2005 - 05:45 PM

QUOTE(Jim Belanger @ Oct 27 2005, 02:51 PM)
I can't disagree with you more.  As long as having the record number is an option, I don't see your argument.  . . . . .

View Post



I see I'm still not getting through . . .
You can disagree all you want . . . until you're blue in the face . . . but the fact remains, the program can change the record numbers, and if you use the program long enough, some of your record numbers WILL change and then the numbers you have recorded in your data will be referring to the WRONG people.
So, way down the road in the future, when you discover that some of the individuals your "record numbers" refer to are not the right people and you have to manually go through your whole database to discover which numbers are correct and which are not . . . don't come back here crying about it.

Now . . . if you want to globally create a REFERENCE number for everyone in your database and make it equal to the record number that exists right now, then you can do that. To find out how click on this address:
http://listsearches....0 32295761935 F

You can use MSWord to globally do this job in a gedcom file of your database. But you can only do it one time, and you must do it before you start using the reference numbers in any permanent hard copies of your data. After you globally create the reference numbers, from that point on, you must manually assign a reference number for each new person you add to the database and make sure it is a unique number.

Wayne


#13 Guest_don_*

Guest_don_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 06:42 PM

QUOTE(Jim Belanger @ Oct 27 2005, 04:51 PM)
Wayne
I can't disagree with you more.  As long as having the record number is an option, I don't see your argument.  When printing a report to share with someone, having a record number enables one to point out James Smith Nr 1058 and compare him with James Smith Nr 33456 with ease.  It would be a tool to be used by the program operator and should not enter into GedComs so would not be shared by exporting GedCom files.  It's just a tool.  That's why I suggested an alternative to "globally" update the reference number to equal the record number (as an option).  Like motorcycle helmets - you choose to wear or not to wear.  Give us choices and options.  I'll risk getting into trouble since it is one "trouble" I can get out of.  Can't say that about a lot of trouble I have gotten into during the past many years!! 

But, thanks for your insight.

View Post


Having the Record Number is not an option. Showing the Record Number on the main screen is an option. The Record Number is generated by the program and is used by the program as a place holder for the individual.

#14 Jim Belanger

Jim Belanger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 658 posts

Posted 27 October 2005 - 07:38 PM

Looks Like I struck a nerve. I thought it was everyone's right to disagree. You are right about the program assigning the record number. I agree and that's why I NEVER delete a person and create an empty record. I always re-use my records by re-using my unlinked individuals instead of deleting them. So, after 120,000 names, my record numbers are still as good as they were when I only had 1000 names. I'll keep working around it. Even so, having the record number print on reports as an option would be a good benefit, even with it's disadvantages. AND, if they change, I won't come crying to anyone!
JIM.B.NH

#15 landbrake

landbrake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 28 October 2005 - 05:42 AM

QUOTE(don @ Oct 27 2005, 07:42 PM)
Having the Record Number is not an option.  Showing the Record Number on the main screen is an option.  The Record Number is generated by the program and is used by the program as a place holder for the individual.

View Post



I'm afraid I have to agree with Wayne & Don on this one... it was probably a mistake for Bruce to ever expose the internal record number to the outside world and so give the illusion that this was a stable, usable piece of data. A far better option would have been a switch to turn on "automatic reference numbering" whereby the current reference number could be auto-generated as a sequential number by RM as new records are entered. It would then be parallel to, and, for a time, might even be identical to, the internal record number, but it would be fixed in value until manually changed by the user. So deletions and dump/loads that change the internal record number would never affect the reference number.

Better still would be two identification numbers... one generated automatically by RM (but unchangeable once set), possibly named something like "person ID", and another (the current reference number) entirely user maintained. That would give the best of all worlds, but I don't know how it would fit in with the GEDCOM standard.

To summarize, this last scheme would then employ 3 distinct "numbers" to refer to an individual:

1) the internal, changeable, record pointer that is used by RM but is never seen by users,
2) a "person ID" that is a sequentially assigned (by RM) but absolutely unchangeable integer number, and
3) A character string (any allowed printable characters) reference number that is managed totally by the user and is, as far as RM is concerned, completely arbitrary (other than that RM should force it to be unique so you don't accidentally assign two different people the "number" A53Q-6).

#16 landbrake

landbrake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 28 October 2005 - 05:44 AM

QUOTE(don @ Oct 27 2005, 07:42 PM)
Having the Record Number is not an option.  Showing the Record Number on the main screen is an option.  The Record Number is generated by the program and is used by the program as a place holder for the individual.

View Post



I'm afraid I have to agree with Wayne & Don on this one... it was probably a mistake for Bruce to ever expose the internal record number to the outside world and so give the illusion that this was a stable, usable piece of data. A far better option would have been a switch to turn on "automatic reference numbering" whereby the current reference number could be auto-generated as a sequential number by RM as new records are entered. It would then be parallel to, and, for a time, might even be identical to, the internal record number, but it would be fixed in value until manually changed by the user. So deletions and dump/loads that change the internal record number would never affect the reference number.

Better still would be two identification numbers... one generated automatically by RM (but unchangeable once set), possibly named something like "person ID", and another (the current reference number) entirely user maintained. That would give the best of all worlds, but I don't know how it would fit in with the GEDCOM standard.

To summarize, this last scheme would then employ 3 distinct "numbers" to refer to an individual:

1) the internal, changeable, record pointer that is used by RM but is never seen by users,
2) a "person ID" that is a sequentially assigned (by RM) but absolutely unchangeable integer number, and
3) A character string (any allowed printable characters) reference number that is managed totally by the user and is, as far as RM is concerned, completely arbitrary (other than that RM should force it to be unique so you don't accidentally assign two different people the "number" A53Q-6).

#17 PEBlood

PEBlood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 03:53 AM

A reference number is a great idea, but you can already do this in RM if you want to.

I have my own source naming convention that uses a number under NAME OF SOURCE TO SHOW IN THE SOURCE LIST. All of my sources start with a number. I started with 0001 and I am past 1500 now.

It works great!!! Every time I cite a book or journal article, I copy the relevant pages, number the article on the front page, and stick it in a binder. Then I add the reference to RM. For example, under NAME OF SOURCE TO SHOW IN THE SOURCE LIST, two of my entries include:

0439 Story of Old Rensselaerville
0827 1880 Census of Fulton, NY

Ever ask another researcher what was the source of their info and it takes them days to figure it out (if they can)? For any fact my database with a citation, I can locate the reference in SECONDS - and I have over 1500 references. If I want to find #951, I have a binder containing 851 to 1000. I have 20 binders so far. When the last gets full, I start a new one.

This system would help anyone who has trouble finding their references.

Peter

#18 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6254 posts

Posted 31 October 2009 - 09:17 PM

QUOTE(don @ Oct 27 2005, 07:42 PM)Having the Record Number is not an option. Showing the Record Number on the main screen is an option. The Record Number is generated by the program and is used by the program as a place holder for the individual.

View Post

I'm afraid I have to agree with Wayne & Don on this one... it was probably a mistake for Bruce to ever expose the internal record number to the outside world and so give the illusion that this was a stable, usable piece of data. A far better option would have been a switch to turn on "automatic reference numbering" whereby the current reference number could be auto-generated as a sequential number by RM as new records are entered. It would then be parallel to, and, for a time, might even be identical to, the internal record number, but it would be fixed in value until manually changed by the user. So deletions and dump/loads that change the internal record number would never affect the reference number.

Better still would be two identification numbers... one generated automatically by RM (but unchangeable once set), possibly named something like "person ID", and another (the current reference number) entirely user maintained. That would give the best of all worlds, but I don't know how it would fit in with the GEDCOM standard.

To summarize, this last scheme would then employ 3 distinct "numbers" to refer to an individual:

1) the internal, changeable, record pointer that is used by RM but is never seen by users,
2) a "person ID" that is a sequentially assigned (by RM) but absolutely unchangeable integer number, and
3) A character string (any allowed printable characters) reference number that is managed totally by the user and is, as far as RM is concerned, completely arbitrary (other than that RM should force it to be unique so you don't accidentally assign two different people the "number" A53Q-6).

So what have we got?


  • Is Rec# still the internally generated and changeable record number, now exposed but undeditable?
  • Is Ref# essentially #3 above but without uniqueness protection?
  • #2 has not been implemented.
  • Do Rec# and Ref# now appear at the users option where they are wanted?
Tom

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#19 Nettie

Nettie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1647 posts

Posted 01 November 2009 - 08:56 AM

We all probably have our own Source list number

I see #1 already in the system
#2 is the Reference no in the fact type list
#3 could be a user created fact type list,or your own numbering system in the Source Title.

My Sources are all numbered but by state KY 001 OH 001 That is done in the Source title.

Person Reference no for me is the ahnentafel list from my direct line. Which is # 2. I would rather see my own user created fact type for the one that is not generated by RM4.

I also see on many of the current lists available for reports the id number written after each name. :) That is very helpful with duplicate names so why re generate this? Yes it changes or maybe it does not change especially if you do not delete a person and reuse the person when they are unlinked as was suggested above. Which is a good suggestion by the way. :)

Genealogy:
"I work on genealogy only on days that end in "Y"." [Grin!!!]
from www.GenealogyDaily.com.
"Documentation....The hardest part of genealogy"
"Genealogy is like Hide & Seek: They Hide & I Seek!"
" Genealogists: People helping people.....that's what it's all about!"
from http://www.rootsweb....nry/gentags.htm
Using FO and RM since FO2.0 


#20 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6254 posts

Posted 01 November 2009 - 03:29 PM

Person Reference no for me is the ahnentafel list from my direct line. Which is # 2. I would rather see my own user created fact type for the one that is not generated by RM4.

I also see on many of the current lists available for reports the id number written after each name. Posted Image That is very helpful with duplicate names so why re generate this? Yes it changes or maybe it does not change especially if you do not delete a person and reuse the person when they are unlinked as was suggested above. Which is a good suggestion by the way. Posted Image

Hi Nettie, this thread is about the Record Number and Reference Number of a person. Record numbers of Sources, Facts et al are absolutely invisible and discussion of user numbering systems in Source Titles realy belongs in the Discussion Forum.

RM4's Person Record Number may actually correspond to Landbrake's #2 rather than #1 as we have no real knowledge of the internal database structure and record pointers. However, it is not unchangeable as others concern themselves with the impact of deleting persons on other persons' record numbers.

The Reference Number Fact that can be added to a person is indeed Landbrake's #3.

I don't see the ahnentafel list number as having any utility as a person who is a common ancestor to two persons will have a different ALN on the report for each. However, the Record Number will be consistent between reports unless the databaase was significantly changed in between. The Reference Number can be maintained absolutely.

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.