Jump to content


Member Since 08 Jul 2012
Offline Last Active Jul 16 2012 05:01 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Are there any scripting hooks available for repeated tasks?

15 July 2012 - 08:05 AM

Thanks for all the ideas, but I don't understand how WORD/EXCEL/VBA are connected to RM, but I don't think I want to. I am looking for functionality within RM to get what I want. I don't want to massage the generated reports. (although I may do so). I want to automate the generation of reports. I've already dismissed Named Groups as too tedious. And if they are not dynamic, that's even worse. I am looking at other software packages too. I like a lot about RM, but I guess I need to see what else is out there.

In Topic: Are there any scripting hooks available for repeated tasks?

14 July 2012 - 07:42 PM

It isn't so much website generation as bulk report generation. I searched help for macro and there was nothing there. I'm not so sure that would work anyhow because there are not many keystrokes involved. I would think mouse clicks are trickier to record because there is a visual component to hover over the appropriate button. Oh, are you implying there are keystrokes (shortcuts) that might walk thru all the steps to create a report and save it?

In Topic: maternal and paternal trees separate? a/k/a why are we here?

13 July 2012 - 11:32 AM

I started to create a named group, but no way am I going to click through so many people with this interface. way too clunky. At least if there was multiple select like in Windows (select, ctrl-shift, select), that might stand a chance. For now starting person will just have to do. So far I have no need for separating into separat gc files, but I can see that might be nice.

Just perusing the people name list is awkward to even consider Marking. I named all my adult females: Jane (MaidenName) MarriedName. So the people list sorts them as (MaidenName), MarriedName, GivenName, which splits up families which makes it really hard to use that list to find things. And NameFind is horrible. Too slow and too many clicks and can't do what I want when I get there. Yes, granted, I'm still at the learning curve stage, but I think there must be better UIs out there for this sort of stuff. Maybe I should not have done the (MaidenName) thing, but it seemed necessary because it didn't look like RM would do it for me.

Anyhow, I've now got three separate conceptual "trees" of interest to different groups of people, and yes they are all linked together in the one database. I can access them via 3 different starting people. One starting person I had to invent as a parent placeholder just so I could link 3 siblings. That seemed awkward. That would be a good use of a named group, so I could identify the family without a false starting person hierarchy. (although, that might be necessary anyhow to trigger the whole descendant thing...)

I'm rambling now... thanks for your thoughts. I'll go practice more. Many dates and places to go figure out...

In Topic: maternal and paternal trees separate? a/k/a why are we here?

10 July 2012 - 06:37 PM

When you say "You can make reports on different branches from the same database." does that just mean a different starting person? That won't accomplish what I am trying to do.

If I want to show descendants of ggf, I don't want to include the gf's spouse's side, but that branch will still be "below" the starting person. Can I exclude a side (in-law) branch?

Creating a starting person of the gf's spouse is fine or even the gf, but anything higher up is picking up the in-law branch that I don't necessarily want or need to show to disinterested people.

In Topic: Relationship question - unwed parents (newbie warning)

08 July 2012 - 07:11 PM

Interesting perspectives. Thanks for the literal interpretations of RM. Of course, I as a newcomer, seeing RM for the first time, want to apply the dictionary definition of Spouse to the word Spouse, which is where the rub lies. I used "m:" as a shortcut just to indicate I entered a marriage fact. I am just starting out entering person info and will make another pass to add more details. Just because I, the user, did not enter date and place does not mean the marriage is not factual. This is a family tree for my personal reference. I am not into hard-core genealogy, which I can see is where you are coming from. I can see that RM has to appeal to hard core genealogists and must be consistent about elements and relationships, and some of these edge conditions are indeed quirky. But a casual user documenting their own family tree is not going to appreciate the nuances that you rightfully point out. If I for a fact know that the Billy Doe is illegitimate, I should be able to document it simply and clearly. I don't think the last example does that. Your examples and potential assumptions show there are multiple scenarios that son-of-unknown can imply. So what is the correct way to document illegitimacy. (which indeed is an interesting word and also points out the flaws with the English language. Common usage tells us what we mean when we say "illegitimate", but literally that word is definitely the wrong word. Illegal? "not authorized by law"... huh? .)

By the way, I have since discovered that I like the Descendant report much better without spouses at all. The formatting was really clutterred because the spouse lines were not aligned. So now I am printing reports without spouses, so this becomes a moot point (on the surface at least).

Also, I entered another family member that had 3 divorces and 3 marriages. Yet, 3 Spouses were listed in the person info. That reminded me of polygamy. The marriage facts themselves imply spouse (1 at a time hopefully), so the "label" spouse is superfluous IMO and certainly odd when multiple spouses show up with no concept of sequence attached. If there were no label spouse, I would not have had a problem entering Billy Doe with no known father.