Wow - thanks Renee
Jump to content
There have been 10 items by RetiredBri (Search limited from 20-July 18)
I have searched for but have not found how I can count the number of persons in a tree that I assign a colour to.
For example, If I assign red to all descendants and spouses of Samuel Smith b1730 then the reports show red but I do not know how many persons there there are.
Am I missing something simple?
Here is a progress report.
Just dealing with the “Main Smith Tree, I have split off 19 sub trees (comprising 586 people not meaningful to my living Smith descendants) and effectively “put them into store”. I have created only 19 duplicated persons.
I now have 84 persons in "my Smiths Descendant chart" Edit: I think the number of persons in this tree would have been about 280 if I had not split out the "non meaningful" persons.
It took some effort but I feel it was worthwhile.
I do not think it could have been done with colours.
If required I could always print off this main Smith chart plus a separate chart of a sub tree if any "distant Smith relative" were to contact me. It wouldn't need any rules.
Thanks to all
I'm now trying to "break" the method (to see how robust it is) and to get some idea of how much work is involved. So far, it is not difficult as long as you are methodical (I use a tick-list for each person)
I'm pleased that see, that once done, I will be able to produce reports without ever having to "to remember the rules" as Jerry puts it ,
Thanks Jerry & TomH
I was hoping for some easier way than colour coding/groups because the “Smith” family is only on my wife’s side. I’m trying to “trim up” my side as well AND have an easy life now I’m 75!
Much of the data for the Smiths that I’m now putting “into store” was acquired in the 1980s and at that time, many Smith families were involved and pleased to see who, in the town, was related to whom.
Many of the older Smiths have died and hopefully, the younger Smiths have taken up the job of maintaining the branches that I’m putting into store.
I haven’t heard from these families for at least 10 years and could just delete these branches it BUT the “into store” approach is a way of easing my conscience, similar to all the thousands of photos in albums that no-one wants discard but, at the same time, we don’t look at!
I’m also at the stage of my life where I’m focussing the Family Tree on the new and younger generations.
Because the “in-store” branches are maintained by the RM excellent database management and because I still only have one database, I think I’ll try and put a few more old branches “into store” and see if causes problems.
I can, of course, revert back if required and will have not lost anything (except the time when I should have been helping with the household chores that have absolutely no appeal whatsoever!)
Thanks to all
My wife hit the nail on the head and explained it as follows (using simple names)
Samuel & his wife have John and 2 other children. Ignore the 2 and continue with just John. =3
John & his wife have Peter and 9 other children. Ignore the 9 and continue with just Peter. =3
Peter & his wife have David and 6 other children. Ignore the 6 and continue with just David. =3
David & his wife have James and no other children. =3
James & his wife have Mark and 4 other children. Ignore the 4 and continue with just Mark. =3
Now, we are getting close to my generation and I need to show second cousins/aunts/uncles/grandparents etc.
Mark and his wife have Peter, Sally and James. =5
Peter and his wife have Alan, Brian and Margaret =5
Sally and her husband have Robert and Rachel =4
James and his wife have Rupert, Paul and Wendy =5
Let’s stop there and count up the descendant tree: =34
If I had not ignored anyone, the number would be at least 55 but with all the children of the children of the ones ignored, the number could feasibly be 200 plus.
I can see a clear line from Samuel to my generation (and so can my children) with only 34 persons BUT, with possibly 200, the picture is confusing to say the least.
I have found that by splitting off the descendants (the “ignored children) I have not thrown away the data that took years to acquire but effectively put it into store in case it is needed.
Now, with RootsMagic, I have not found a way for my children, grandchildren cousins and relatives to have a clear view of their 34 ancestors rather then 200. It may seem drastic but I will not be around for ever and wanted to leave something meaningful,
Does this make sense?
Thanks Jerry for the reply.
Ancestor tree and reports are not a problem. Descendant trees/charts/narrative reports are.
Without me "removing" the Josselyn and Kebel families from the Smith main tree, a 2 generation report contains data and notes for 29 persons.
With the Josselyn and Kebel families removed, there are only 17 persons.
With 3 generations, the figures are 67 with and 52 without.
If I continue to "remove the non-blood line" members, I believe I can get the chart/report down from 480 persons to a manageable 105 persons.
What prompted me to go this route was to make the descendant chart/report simple for family members who only want to know their blood line ancestors and not the many hundreds of Smiths descended from Samuel SMITH, born 1819.
If I ever want the Josselyn "sub tree", I select that small Tree and generate a report from it.
Sorry to be a bit vague
I actually use the Reference Number fact to put in my relationship codes. Then I can display them after the person's name when I want to see it in reports, or while working.
Thanks for all your contributions to the forums.
I had a vague recollection that if a person is deleted then the Reference Number is not reused BUT, if the database is cleaned, rebuilt or compacted, then the numbers shuffle and do not, necessarily stay with the persons. The worse case is to delete person with record number 2, the best case if it it's the last number.
If the numbers were reallocated, would your method get out of sync. Unless i'm missing the point completely?
This came up when using a version of RM/FO where I could copy some of the database elements (when they existed) and look at them in Excel. (I'd never alter the originals - only the copies)
I believe this may be variation of the “One Database” theme but I haven’t found any topics that cover my particular concept.
I have one database not only with my and my wife’s family but with the families of siblings, cousins etc.
When I started, I contacted lots of people and added their data to the tree (and shared how they fitted into the overall scheme of things). Now with 2900 names, I need to tidy things up and simplify the views and reports from RootsMagic.
Firstly, an Ancestor View clearly shows the picture of a person’s ancestors but a descendant view is obscured by all the siblings and their families of the one ancestor. I’m reluctant to discard all this extra data and wanted to avoid using groups or colours.
Here is an idea I wanted to bounce off the forum.
As an example, Samuel Smith who was married to Rebecca COMMINS. They had the following children:
1 Elizabeth (Betsey) SMITH, born 1818, Gt Oakley, Essex; married Charles JOSSELYN, 18 Sep 1842, Dovercourt, Essex; died 22 Oct 1849, Dovercourt, Essex.
2 Samuel SMITH, born 1819, Gt Oakley, Essex; married Maria HARMON, 13 Sep 1840, Dovercourt, Essex; married Eliza SIDER, 17 Aug 1856, Harwich, Essex.
3 William SMITH, born 19 Sep 1823, Dovercourt, Essex; married Sarah KEABEL , 20 Nov 1845, Dovercourt, Essex.
Of these children, Samuel SMITH b1819 is the blood line. The other two children and their spouses/children cause the “descendant view to be obscured”
I did the following:
I now had 3 trees in the Database.
I saw that in the “Sidebar” view of names in the database and with birth year and Record Number (RN) showing. I had two entries for Elizabeth (Betsey) SMITH b1881 RN603 and Elizabeth (Betsey) SMITH b1881 RN2915.
Clicking on RN2915 showed the tree with Elizabeth Smith married but without parents and on RN603 showed Elizabeth married without children.
Using this Sidebar/RN view, I could instantly know which “sub-set records of the overall database I was working on”.
I can see immediately that I had more names in the database but that is not a worry.
The outcome is that the descendant tree and reports, are now much cleaner, easier to read and, for novice family members to understand.
With just 2 names done, I can see an automated route for rest of just the “Smith” family by cutting and pasting from Narrative Text reports.
I will await Forum Members comments before moving further!