Census, U.S. Federal (Online images):
Missing italics around [WebSite].
Ref: EE, QC-6, p 240
Hi Renee, I'm just wondering if you picked up on this for the tracking system?
Jump to content
There have been 29 items by Lethdun (Search limited from 22-September 19)
I do believe that Jerry has hit the nail squarely on the head. He very nicely covered not just the advantages of having baptism options, but the disadvantages too. I do know that when I grew up (pre-Noah's Ark) many Baptist children were baptized between the ages of 8 and 12 -- not all, but many. That, in some instances, gives me a starting point for when a person might have been born. On the other hand, if you had said that child was christened, his or her parents would have invited me to a nice family gathering picnic and poked my eyes out with a stick. Just saying... they were very nice people.
If just one piece of information is lost doing a "Drag n Drop" is it advisable to continue recommending "Drag n Drop" for anything? Who knows what lurks in the dark, mysterious corners of a users database? Is all the data in a users database GEDCOM compatible? Who knows? How would a user go about determining if the data was 100% transferred? How would a user find out exactly what data was missing if it was not 100% transferred?
We won't be making any changes to the HTML generated websites. I don't see why the new Publish Online website doesn't work. You can still use the RM6 style ones and have them on your own server. That website adds everyone in your database if you want.
I'm just wondering in what context the statement was made. Was it:
It's beyond me, dsheridan. I'm down to trying things like clear your cache, restart your computer, and use RM Database Tools. That's pretty standard stuff, but it's all I've got. Now you need a RM "heavy hitter" to help with the problem.
The correct answer was behind door number 3. Sometime, over the past three or four days, I had changed my path/directory and promptly forgot about it. Problem solved. At one time in my life I knew a lot about nothing. Luckily, now that I'm old, I still have more things I can forget. Thank you for clearing some cobwebs from my memory
Ok, I said that wrong. The website never uploads the full images. There is a size limitation on images. But, the issue I was referring to was when you Re-Publish the website. When you re-published the images were even smaller than the original ones uploaded. Never full-size but I called them that. That is what's being worked on. The images are suppose to be identical to the size of the original upload of the website.
With those stipulations, I wonder if anyone uses the website for anything other than 5x7 head shot or gravestone photos? Thinking about it, gravestone photos could be very difficult to decipher under those conditions.
Apparently I missed out on the "full size images will be there" episode. I followed Renee's instructions to the letter and "all the full size images" were not there. Following is an extract of the HTML from the picture box:
<div id="colorbox" class="" style="padding-bottom: 42px; padding-right: 42px; top: 376px; left: 631px; position: absolute; width: 600px; height: 462px;">
<div id="cboxWrapper" style="height: 504px; width: 642px;"><div>
<div id="cboxTopLeft" style="float: left;"></div>
<div id="cboxTopCenter" style="float: left; width: 600px;"></div>
<div id="cboxTopRight" style="float: left;"></div></div>
<div style="clear: left;">
<div id="cboxMiddleLeft" style="float: left; height: 462px;"></div>
<div id="cboxContent" style="float: left; width: 600px; height: 462px;">
<div id="cboxLoadedContent" style="width: 600px; overflow: auto; height: 434px;">
<img class="cboxPhoto" src="cache/media/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-large.jpg" style="float: none;"></div>
It appears that pictures are limited to 600px width. Hm-m-m-m, the last time I checked 600px and full size were two different things.
The Newbury Library website historical maps were based on the AniMap software. You could purchase the software from Goldbug but its pricey - http://goldbug.com/animap/.
I'd LOVE to have AniMap, but the cost is prohibitive right now. There are just too many other genealogy needs/wants to justify the purchase. Hm-m-m-m, maybe for Christmas!
I would really, really like this feature.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.
Egad! Gadzooks! What a timely post for me to run across.
I am on the tedious and boring mission of sorting Sources in the Citation Manager. I am attempting to put them in order of importance from "most" to "least" (top to bottom). My relatively simple task has turned into pure torture with no sort mechanism in place in RM7. I've tried poking my eye, but that didn't stop the agony. The Memorize/Paste feature(?) is limited to a single Citation and simply does not handle the task at hand. I sincerely hope that an "up/down arrow" feature is present in RM8.
Reporting out detailed information in various forms should be a prime objective of any genealogy program so this wish gets my vote.
Absolutely! This is just one more in a long list of much needed enhancements, additions, improvements, etc. that RM needs.
Several experiments seem to prove that Renee is correct. I would have sworn on a thousand bibles that unlinking would only undo one of the links and not both. I feel confident that I have done it that way before. Yet, Renee is demonstrably correct. Has the behavior changed, or (more likely) am I incorrect about how the behavior has always worked?
In any case, it seem to me to be much more useful to get rid of only one link at a time than to remove both links at the same time.
I'm going to join you at the "Cuckoo's Nest" as soon as I finish typing this note. I'm positive (I guess not) that I used the unlink feature less than 2 weeks ago and it only unlinked one of the links. "Strange Days." Have we just returned from a "Magical Mystery Tour" or have we gotten stuck in the "Twilight Zone?" Hm-m-m-m
I know this has probably been asked before, but I just can't find the answer.
Can the image size on a web page be enlarged -- at least to 100%? E.g., the image of an actual census page is attached to the Census Fact. Once it is uploaded to the website, click on the Person, then click the little camera icon. What appears is a greatly reduced, illegible image with no visible means to make it larger. It isn't the thumbnail image, but it certainly isn't a usable census image either.