Jump to content


zeegal

Member Since 26 Mar 2014
Offline Last Active Dec 10 2014 03:06 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Definition of a tree

10 December 2014 - 07:54 AM

Ha! I think I finally found it. I unlinked one person from the next generation down, and one of my red people showed up as a descendant in the none red colored group. In the file I inherited, one person was linked to two sets of parents in two different generations. Well, quite the learning curve. Thank you so much for your assistance. That was a tricky thing to uncover! Jacque


In Topic: Definition of a tree

09 December 2014 - 04:43 PM

As to color coding, I didn't dare color all descendants, as I thought there was a chance all would be colored. I tried ancestors, but it only colored the direct line, not the siblings.

I checked for persons with two spouses, per Jerry's suggestion and my oldest ancestor's wife had an unknown spouse. I watched the video suggested by Renee and figured out how to resolve that, thank you!

There was one more person with two spouses, but both spouses are in my red colored group. I did check to make sure that both spouses are linked to the same husband's record number.

I also ran all of the database tools suggested in the video, plus the one that had been added since.

I turned on the record numbers and checked to make sure that each person listed in the red group is only listed once in the left-hand column of "everyone". I do have a few with duplicate names, but they all have different dates of birth. And, I do have people with "alt name" facts but assume that isn't a problem.

They still are linked somehow; I know I must be overlooking something, probably simple... Any other thoughts? thanks for the suggestions.

In Topic: Definition of a tree

08 December 2014 - 09:44 AM

I will post this here, as it may be related. This situation happened as a result of copying records in from a second file, then merging "duplicates". Does it matter which record merged into which?

 

Here are two other problems that I have noticed since that may be related. Some of the merged people do not show a birth date in the left-hand column, even though they have one. Also, at least one person, when I do pedigree view, shows no parents, yet when I go to his father, he shows as a child. I tried unlinking child from parents and relinking, and it has not made a difference. I'm "sure" it is the same person as he is the only Jan with a birth date of 1865. He does have an alternate name fact, if that is relevant. Is it possible I have somehow messed up the database?


In Topic: Definition of a tree

08 December 2014 - 09:18 AM

Hi Jerry - That certainly makes sense, but can't find another connection. I individually color coded each of those 50 people, then in descendant view, clicked on each of them and in no case were any of the descendants not color coded. What am I missing?

In Topic: Definition of a tree

07 December 2014 - 05:24 PM

I should have clarified. I did do count trees and although I have a few 1 or 2 person trees, thise detached group is not listed. But what I just realized is that even if they are not in the tree, they still show in the list of people, so the fact that they are detached, but apparently not in a separate tree is more of a curiosity. I was thinking that when I do count trees and then click on go to tree, it would only show me the people in the tree.