zhangrau, is that true if the primary date is improperly formatted or an impossible date with a yellow warning box? The help file suggests otherwise, and I have verified it by entering "sometime in 1905" as the primary date and "2010" as the sort date. The tag sorted correctly to 2010.
- RootsMagic Forums
- → robertjacobs0's Content
There have been 62 items by robertjacobs0 (Search limited from 25-September 19)
Oy! I read the help too quickly and didn't test the age calculation. I apologize for the oversight.
"Yellow" dates do show up in reports. If I were faced with 29 February 1900 I think I'd enter it as "29 February 1900 Julian" & put the sort date to 28 February 1900. If I felt that reports needed an age calculation I'd edit the sentence templates appropriately. As to the on-screen display, age calculation is pretty easy if one starts with 1900 .
I have the same problem with a couple of people in my family tree. The initial WebHints popup shows nine total hints, but the subsequent screen lists only seven. So I have six confirmed, one rejected, and two pending. The two which are pending never show up on the screen which lists the actual hints.
It's an annoyance, but I've been able to ignore it for the most part — I'm assuming that it's an Ancestry API problem.
Why bother? Even if it works, you'll be stymied sometimes by internet outages, slow transmission times, and the like. If your internet connection fails, your work-session ends. Much better, I would think, to maintain the data on your own machines and upload only the backup files to the cloud.
I do my own work on two machines & keep them synchronized with batch files. The latest .rmgc is copied over from one machine to the other. It can be done easily on one's LAN or with flash drives. It does require a little care — one has to be careful not to add or edit data on both machines without synchronizing, but it's really not hard to remember which machine has to be brought up to date.
Another problem is that you are at the mercy of Google. IIRC (I may be mistaken about this) your agreement with Google gives them the right to inspect your data and perhaps use it to guide their advertising. Another potential issue might be the inadvertent disclosure of information about living people. Everything we know about the practices of Google and others suggest that it's not paranoid to be concerned about such matters. I don't use their cloud even for my backups.
I don't care to trust my data to any of them — fortunately, I have no need or desire to access the data from devices other than my desktop and laptop machines. I publish what I wish via GedSite on a server hosted by John Cardinal. If these practices may make me a kind of computer-age Luddite, then so be it. I guess the point is that I control the data, keep private what I wish to keep private, and send out only what I am willing to show the public.
The practical consequence for my genealogical research is that I can access the website from any computer or cell phone that connects to the net; I can only work on my RM7 database from one of the computers — desktop at home, laptop on the road. This limitation seems to me a small price to pay for avoiding Google Drive, One Drive, Dropbox, and Ancestry sharing.
BTW, I was one of the victims of the Equifax hack. There's little reason to believe that the various cloud services are hack-proof. If I may say so, you're wise to encrypt your financial data.
Thanks, Jerry. I think I recollect your post about that. But as I understood the OP, he was asking whether he could write directly to the Google cloud as though it were a drive on his own machine. If I now understand you correctly, the google drive software creates a local folder willy-nilly. I was unaware of that. If so, I can see where the other problems you discuss in your post would arise.
Synchronizing the backup seems sensible, although I still have serious reservations about Google's practices.
In Outlook, Thunderbird calendar and others, when one edits a repeating appointment, the program asks whether the change should be for the one instance or the whole series. For shared RM residence tags, and maybe others, it would be a nice feature if one could change the dates for sharers individually if desired.
Explanatory notes can also be used, I suppose: "X got a job in New York and moved out the family home in 1998."
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Windows Notepad program allows on to change the ccding of text files by loading a text file and saving it right back out with different coding. Just to the left of the "save" button is an encoding button which offers UTF8, ANSI, UTF-16 LE & BE, and UTF-8 with BOM. To get to the encoding button you probably have to start with File/Save As.
IIRC, when I converted from TMG I had to alter the TMG GEDCOM to UTF-8 to get RootsMagic6 to accept it. I may have that backwards, but Notepad's conversion facility can be useful
In RM7 one thing that can be done is to design a "fostering" fact with appropriate sentences for various roles. That would at least allow informative entries in narrative reports. A was fostered by B & C. B & C fostered A. I think I prefer "raised" or "cared for" to "fostered," but English is so nice and rich that we can all devise our own.
Ultimately computer software, even flexibly programmed software, is rigid compared to the diversity of human relations. Indeed, just in the last decade or two there has been an expansion of the terms that people use for gender, accompanied by fierce controversies about the meaning and appropriateness of the lingo. Software that only allows M & F is sure to miff someone. We've already seen genealogical programs scrambling to accommodate same-sex marriage.
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.
Doesn't this already exist? Look down in the lower left-hand corner of the screen for relationships either to Root or to whomever you've set. The facility would be strengthened if it showed relationships by marriage as well.
The dialogue to set relationships is found on the tools menu.