Yes, you will get "larger" images. They will not be "full-size" images. Census images will be too small to read.

TomD

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?

TomD

 

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.

Right on, Laura, for your last two posts! Use county (political divisions), full names, and place names. Heck, I thought, until recent years, that was the standard.

Thank you, Jerry, for a well thought out and written post. You have expressed my thoughts for me. The non-use of the word "county" has been a real thorn in my side and I absolutely refuse not to use it.

TomD

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.

TomD

I might add that there should also be a method available to zoom in/out on the picture. Perhaps by clicking on the picture, taking the user to another screen and getting rid of the box constraints.

TomD

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.

TomD

Bob, will you share with us the name of the 'stand alone' program you use to create your website?

TomD

Since I simply couldn't accept what I was reading, I had to wait a couple days before typing anything.

Words cannot begin to describe my thoughts at this moment. I'm devastated.

TomD

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.

Hi Renee,

I'm just wondering in what context the statement was made. Was it:

1. pertaining only to this discussion.
2. to be taken literally that there won't be any forthcoming changes to HTML generated websites in future releases of RM.
3. to be taken that there won't be any changes to HTML generated websites as of the current release of RM. (No patches.)
4. or...

TomD

I'll be 73 in January. Not nearly as quick as I once was -- WAIT, I never was quick. I guess I've just gotten slower. LOL

I made Favorites of both of those based on your original post. I appreciate the follow-up post. It made sure I knew what I was doing (that's questionable at times).

Thank you, Laura. 

TomD

Very, very helpful, Laura. It's probably my age, but I find that these short tips/hints seem to sink in quicker and easier than using Help. Not to say that the Help feature of RM isn't great, but it can easily overwhelm the reader.

Thank you, TomD

Great! Maybe this will be implemented in the next version of RM. Thank you, TomH 

TomD

Really nice, Jerry! You've done so much that it is hard to pick a favorite item. For me, I think I might need to rethink.

Tom

 

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.

 

Jerry

Jerry,

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

TomD

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. 

TomD 

Ah-ha! I didn't know how you handled all of these various things, so I just wanted to check with you.

Thank you, TomD

Source Templates:

 

Census, U.S. Federal (Online images):

 

Bibliography:

 

Missing italics around [WebSite].

 

Ref: EE, QC-6, p 240

 

TomD

Hi Renee, I'm just wondering if you picked up on this for the tracking system?

TomD

I put my pictures in a separate folder on my D drive. Called it R2RMedia. Then I went to RM, Program Options, Folders. In the Multimedia files entry I put D:\R2RMedia. That was all I did and, yes, the very next upload worked.

TomD

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.

TomD

Hi Laura,

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

TomD

This is the same thing I am seeing. I've been through the webinars, help, and a lot of the forum posts and still cannot find an answer. I'm baffled, but know it's some tiny detail I have forgotten about.

TomD

Hi:

 

First post as a new user.

 

Did what Laura suggested and it works for 1 couple.

How can I set it for all couples?

EG - Program wide setting not individual couples?

 

Thank you

I ran into the same thing. After looking and experimenting and kicking and screaming and pulling my three strands of hair out the only solution I found was to do them individually. Ugh!

TomD

Source Templates:

Census, U.S. Federal (Online images):

Bibliography:

Missing italics around [WebSite].

Ref: EE, QC-6, p 240

TomD