It's hardly intuitive. I've often thought the term "print" on the place list should have been "report" or some such.
- RootsMagic Forums
- → robertjacobs0's Content
There have been 48 items by robertjacobs0 (Search limited from 31-March 19)
Thanks, mjashby & bscott26. I'm in the throes of moving to a new house and can't undertake the project for another month or so, but will try RM7 under WINE as soon as I get the chance. I notice that neither of you mention Ubuntu. When I do undertake the conversion is there a distribution which you think preferable?
Thanks, Keith. I'm having my semi-annual "abandon Microsoft" fit, and am thinking of limiting my Windows use to RM7 in a VM running under Linux. The project is probably an uneconomical use of time and effort, as I do have everything running very smoothly under Win10 Pro. If I go ahead I'll keep your advice in mind. Thanks again.
I had occasion to invoke the Who Was There List report this morning, I think for the first time. I wanted to know who was in Kansas from 1880 to 1890. The report spat out the Kansas events — and also Arkansas events. I can see how this happened and why the search may have produced it. I'm wondering if there's any way to avoid it.
I hope I'm not missing the point here, but doesn't the media album/tools allow one to rearrange the order of exhibits? There's no need to delete and reinstall an item. GedSite seems to pick the exhibits up in the order one has prescribed.
Would it be possible to authorize a willing enthusiast to filter and remove the spam?
It's not just that I abhor Facebook, it's a lot easier to read and follow technical discussions — and perhaps occasionally contribute — on the forum. And, as TomH has said, both images and the like/dislike feature can be authorized for the board.
You can use search and replace for surnames. Once the screen opens, you can choose between "replace" and "replace all." "Replace all" obviously isn't suitable in this case because you evidently have people who kept the original surname.
Unless you have a very large number of people to screen, search & replace is still probably your best bet. RootsMagic won't, AFAIK, descend the ladder.
Another option would be to make a named group consisting of the person who changed the name and all of his descendants. You could export the named group to a new database, make the change globally (i.e., "replace all"), import the people back into the main database and use the merge function to make it all coherent again. The first method looks better to me.
Isn't this a little silly? RootsMagic is castigated if they release nothing and again if they release some but not all, and still again if they don't adhere to a "schedule" established by the pace of their releases. They can't win.
That said, I've believed for years that software companies are insufficiently transparent regarding their plans. RootsMagic isn't alone in being secretive. It seems to be a shibboleth in the industry that disclosure will give competitors an advantage. Since that's the case, there little's point in inveighing against the practice and even less point in criticizing RM8 for its failings before we've seen it.
Did you check the index for the entries of people with missing surnames? RootsMagic, like every other genealogical program, would surely be making unwarranted -- and unwanted -- assumptions by assigning surnames automatically.
The father probably showed up on the pedigree screen as well.
I grant that single names are a problem; there are a few Native Americans in my wife's tree and I've entered their names as surnames. There may be other and better ways of dealing with those names, but I wouldn't expect much help or consistency from Ancestry trees in that regard.
I agree. I've thought -- going back to my TMG days -- that the distinction was artificial. It may have made more sense before Ancestry.com and other internet collections became the dominant research technique.
Similarly, while tracking repositories is suitable for identifying libraries, courthouses and the like, it doesn't really speak to the realities of internet research.
I think the idea is that one would have a "source" -- say a book -- and that subsequent citations of it would only involve typing in a page number.That is, it was supposed to be a time and effort saver. I fear that the source/citation bifurcation has mostly served to confuse thousands of people.
As I look at my own report footnotes I see that most of them can adequately guide researchers, but they are all higgledy-piggledy and inconsistent with one another.