Vyger

I see all the time that you should split Root Magic 7.0 to help out..

My question is when should you split it into a smaller size?

how many smaller size should you have?

 

thanks

I think the answer is never,

Do so if you wish but there is nothing to be gained (with the exception of separate Ancesrtry trees) and a lot of trouble to be had

My question, and my problem,  is a little different. I have been trying for sometime to determine the best/ most efficient way to share census data from the census head to the spouse and children. I've tried using both Census (family) and sharing Census facts with other census family members. Both work, but census(family) only shares with the spouse. However, the census(family) fact does transfer to Ancestry through Tree Share. Shared facts do not.

I use both Census Shared and Individual Facts for different reasons and to better define my reasons for using both would be the need to overcome the limitations within Rootsmagic, I avoid Family Facts all together.

The advantage of the Share Census Fact is that it encompasses the people who are on the return and not part of the immediate family, one downside is I cannot search for missing Census entries for particular individuals. The argument against compatibility with other programs is moot as the other software I use imports witness facts very well from an RM Gedcom output, programs that do not need to get their act together in my opinion.

TomH has a script which converts Shared Facts to Individual Facts and can be beneficial in certain needs, the argument as to whether RM should facilitate outputing Shared Facts as Individual or whether other programs need to translate Witness Facts is certainly one for further discussion, I believe the onus should not be on RM.

Working within RM I find Shared (Witness) Facts very beneficial for the more obscure family relationships often still to be discovered, also they are also more productive to enter. On the downside the reporting/searching within RM does not realize the benefits of this Shared information and is certainly something worthy of enhancement.

I disagree that their  is anything wrong with the standard because the reporting program should have a way to take the place value as provided by GEDCOM and display in reports the way you want it displayed, rather than sending information that is not standard  and may be dropped by the receiving program.  My online viewers are from , Norway, USA, Germany, England, Denmark, Sweden, and others so I always provide a country.

Whilst this has been reported many times I agree that the reporting should facilitate the users needs especially easy on a csv field.

The other case which I feel is completely unecessary is where users input "_____", "[Jones]" etc into Name fields just because they don't like seeing blanks in their reports. A simple programmed solution to help encourage better Name standards would be an option of "What to print if a name field is blank" and allow the user to enter their preferred string.

If I am producing a report for data fishing purposes I often enter a long string of underscores for missing information to encourage the recipient to write in what they know.

Vyger, in his answer says that one can select "tools -> fix broken links" and I cant find that in my v7 RM.  I have, apparently, moved some images from one folder to another and would like to fix that link ... how can one do that.

 

Additional part to the question.  I seem to be missing several files, is there a way to have RM tell me what isn't there.  Obviously the link should be in the database, it should know if it can't find it.

Go Lists > Media Gallery > Tools > Fix Broken Links

When viewing the Gallery anything with a small red x is a broken link so needs attention, you might find my video linked below helpful.

Rootsmagic Media Management and file naming conventions

I believe, and stand to be corrected, most likely Renee made a statement that Rootsmagic would be preferring the Facebook group for future wishes and discussions. That statement was likely made on Facebook so finding it again is mostly impossible as Facebook is a very transient platform and difficult to search.

The reasoning was not explained but I do know another software I uses actively pushes posters from Facebook to their user group with most questions except the most basic. I do wonder if Rootsmagic have taken the decision that a less permanent record of problems and wishes is preferable in the future and with new membership to this forums not being allowed it will slowly die.

The other piece of software I mentioned also maintains a structured wish list where your wish is assessed before acceptance and then other users can then add their vote to it. Personally I prefer this transparent and collaborative approach to development but it may not suit RM. Facebook is so transient that simple questions are often repeated several times in the space of a week and I have all but drifted away from wasting my time replying.