Thanks, Ron. Just wondering how "treated as Biological" would be programmed. Will wait and see what Legacy "patrol" says tomorrow. --Paula in Texas Researching: Adair Baker Beasley Benson Betz Bigley Blagrave Burton Chapman Clement Clough Coppernoll Costine Daulton Dinwiddie Doody Ellis Exline Field Floran Floyd Gates Goodale Gordon Gump Hale Harbaugh Hind Hopkins Hughes Hurdle Jones Klein Koyle Laswell McDonald Misner Passwaters Pelton Roberts Roche Ryburn Short Singer Sullivan Weller Williams
________________________________ From: Ron Ferguson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, August 28, 2011 3:50:13 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] relationship to parent field blank but not really blank??? Paula, I don’t know how it works ( have not looked at the Access defaults), but with respect to your final points, it is my understanding that an unknown father, or a ‘father’ with no specific designated relationship are treated as Biological. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ From: Paula Ryburn Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 9:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [LegacyUG] relationship to parent field blank but not really blank??? Been pulling my hair out on this one. I searched for individuals with relationship to father equal to blank. (1875) Then I tagged those. (#3) Then I searched for individuals not tagged on #3. (777) That does equal my total number of individuals. Then I searched for individuals with relationship to father equal to each of the values in the drop down list to see what the heck was going on. However, I found only 11 "adopted" and 6 "unproven" ...that's IT. What's up with the other 760 that were supposed to be not blank? I got to this point, because I'm trying to mass source a book (to all fields with a value), and the results are showing the source being assigned to the relationship to father and mother fields on 100's of people. I do not use those fields very often and long ago zapped the "Natural" that had been populated there on my original import in 2004. So this does not look right at all. In just looking at the list of individuals, it seems if a person does not have a father (or it's listed as "unknown") then the individual is treated as though there is something in the relationship to father field---in both the search logic AND in the mass sourcing logic. (ditto for the mother field) Does that make sense? Can anyone recreate this? Or explain it? Or tell me how I might get around it? Thanks in advance, --Paula in Texas Researching: Adair Baker Beasley Benson Betz Bigley Blagrave Burton Chapman Clement Clough Coppernoll Costine Daulton Dinwiddie Doody Ellis Exline Field Floran Floyd Gates Goodale Gordon Gump Hale Harbaugh Hind Hopkins Hughes Hurdle Jones Klein Koyle Laswell McDonald Misner Passwaters Pelton Roberts Roche Ryburn Short Singer Sullivan Weller Williams ________________________________ Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
