ArthurK

This topic comes up fairly regularly - see for example http://forums.rootsm...tation-manager/

I have not discerned any progress towards implementing this feature in the approximately 8 years since I first asked for it (and I doubt I was the first to do so); even if it is on the list of planned enhancements, RM's policy is apparently not to make this public.

I am growing tired of waiting and am now seriously considering an alternative program.

Arthur

Thanks, Jerry and Vyger - I think I'm with you now. I've never added anything to Family Search, so is this a feature that non-LDS members would generally never come across?

Anyway, now you've explained it, it does look relatively quick and easy (though it still looks to me to be more about getting sources/citations attached rather than sorting them once they are attached).

Arthur

 

I use the Research Notes report a lot and frequently need to reorder citations. The current method of memorizing, pasting, and deleting citations is tedious. I would love to have "move up" and "move down" arrows to easily reorder.

 

I must admit that when thinking about features in other programs I overlooked this memorise/paste/delete possibility in RM. Where, say, there are only two citations in the list, it's pretty straightforward. However, since a pasted citation always goes to the bottom of the list, I agree that it can be quite tedious with a longer list.

I expect someone could come up with a formula for the number of clicks required for any given situation, but imagine you have a list of 5 citations and the first two are in the wrong order (2,1,3,4,5). I calculate that to put that right would require 12 clicks: Memorise 2, Paste 2, Memorise 3, Paste 3 etc up to Paste 5; then 4 more to delete the original 2, 3, 4 and 5. With up and down arrows a single click would fix it.

 

RM could at least adopt the Family Search method of assigning to various facts. Again to be perfectly logical when I enter a number of facts they are almost invariably from the same source so not being able to quickly assign the source to those multiple facts is a noticeable hindrance and completely unnecessary waste of my time.

I don't think I follow what you mean - we don't all have trees at Family Search! Is this any different or quicker than using the existing Memorise/Paste function? (It also doesn't seem strictly relevant to this thread )

Arthur

Thanks for your comments. In response:

RM seldom reveals any changes that may be contemplated or scheduled for implementation and never gives a frm timeline.  You can come to any conclusions you wish.

 

If you export a gedcom and mark Extra details (RM specific) and import the gedcom into RM, it works just fine.  The problem comes when importing shared facts into another program that doesn't support RM specific features which is most of them if not all of them.  The fact will be imported for the Principal but not the Sharees.

RM seem happy to flag up some forthcoming changes, such as when tablet apps were under development, or currently while they are working on a Mac version.

As for the GEDCOM issue - this does worry me a bit.

On a similar note, am I right in thinking that if a shared fact is deleted from the Principal, the Sharees then lose it too? This could sometimes be unfortunate - I'm thinking of a census return where the Sharees were definitely part of the family being researched, and the Principal had originally been thought to be, but this was later disproved.

Or, if a decision has been made to use shared facts consistently, does this mean a place has to be found in the family file for the master of a workhouse where a family member was an inmate?

The only answer you will get from RootsMagic is "Confirming enhancement request is in the tracking system". Technically, it's no big deal as demonstrated in an outboard utility in 2011: Copy Fact to Group.

I see this is part of the SQL enterprise, and I applaud the efforts to enhance RM in this way. However, I just can't see myself learning how to use this.

I do a lot of copying of citations/sources with research notes especially with census records.  

 

<snip>

 

No, I do not use the shared items except the built in marriage and census (family) [for couples]. I use the single census fact for the rest of the family.

My way of doing things is similar to yours, Nettie. There's no choice about Marriage facts, but I don't use any other family facts. I do copy sources and citations in the way you describe, but if only I could do that with everything relating to the fact...

Arthur

Just to add a little more:

This feature is provided by at least one of RM's competitors - the one I used before switching to RM, and possibly another, but I'm still researching that. I appreciate that over the past 8 years RM has seen many enhancements, some of them unique in the FH software field. However, is there not a danger that RM will lose ground if at the same time it fails to keep up with the features that attract people to its competitors?