This is the kind of stuff I put in Note - Research. I'll bold a title like Parents, then list my thinking and leads etc under that. ChasH On 6/16/2013 10:53 AM, David Abernathy wrote: > > "There are more than enough rubbish trees published without additional > encouragement being given." > > I have to agree, we do not need a tool to improve this process. > > Thanks, > > David C Abernathy > > Email disclaimers > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This message represents the official view of the voices in my head. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > http://www.SchmeckAbernathy.com > > == All outgoing and incoming mail is scanned by F-Prot Antivirus == > > *From:*Ron Ferguson [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:31 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [LegacyUG] Legacy Family Tree 8 Revealed - Q/A, new > Tagging options, and other surprises > > Jane, > > I would almost suggest that there as as many ways of referring to > possible parents/relatives as there are users of Legacy. Personally, I > would never link persons who might possibly be related, no matter what > device might be used to indicate that the link is only a possibility. > > If the intention is to publish the tree then the link would have to be > rendered private or invisible, but even so there is a risk of a > mistake or someone seeing the raw data of deciding the link is certain > without definitive evidence. > > I am not suggesting that anybody else should take my viewpoint, but I > for one would be reluctant to see similar practices as described > incorporated into the program. There are more than enough rubbish > trees published without additional encouragement being given. > > Ron Ferguson > > http://www.fergys.co.uk/ > > *From:*Jane Sarles <mailto:[email protected]> > > *Sent:*Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:45 PM > > *To:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > *Subject:*Re: [LegacyUG] Legacy Family Tree 8 Revealed - Q/A, new > Tagging options, and other surprises > > After trying several reports, it looks like that goes part way to > solving the problem, although it doesn't allow for multiple > possibilities for father identity. In addition, it would be nice if > those people whose line is not proven (the prospective father, his > wife, ancestors, and other children, could all be in a different color > print, signifying that they are only "possible" relatives. Perhaps I > am asking for too much here. > > Jane > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Jane Sarles <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Interesting. I did not know there was an option to show "Possible not > proved" in the children's settings. I wonder how that prints in a > report? Say - a descendant's narrative report? > > Jane > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Robert57P_gmail <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I like the below suggestion - obvious in all reports. But that > POSSIBLE would show up for ALL children and it may only be one child > that you are unsure of. Another option: > In family view, right click on ANY child > Select CHILDREN'S SETTINGS > Hi-lite the appropriate child > Under RELATIONSHIP TO FATHER (or MOTHER), you can create your own > options - click the down arrow and a new window pops up > Click ADD > Put in POSSIBLE PARENT (side note - I preface my own manual entries > with a period (.Possible Parent), or you could make them all CAPS or > some such other indicator. This reminds me that it is not a > pre-canned item. Since I added it some wordings and such may need > tweaking.) > > I really wish Legacy allowed us the OPTION of having this box come up > on every child add (just like the Marriage window auto-pops up when > adding a spouse). This way we could remember to set if it is a > "blood-line" (Biological) child or some other relationship. > > I also wish this would show up in the child's listing on Family View > (as an option). You'd think that going to OPTIONS, CUSTOMIZE, VIEW, > SHOW STATUS ON FAMILY VIEW would cause this to happen, but it > doesn't. And I think I ran into a report or two where I wish this > could optionally show up - but I could be wrong about that. > > Do not get RELATIONSHIP TO xxx mixed up with CHILD STATUS that is also > on this screen. Use CHILD STATUS for something that pertains ONLY to > the child (twin, still-born, etc). (I originally was putting > "guardianship" in the CHILD STATUS field, but that ended up not > working well because it implied that relationship for both parents.) > > Bob > > > > On 06/15/2013 12:39, Eliz Hanebury wrote: > > I use Possibly as part of the first name, cheap and easy to figure <G> > > Eliz > Not Today and Not without a Fight > (Anon) > > For all that has been, thanks. > For all that will be, yes. > >   (Dag Hammarskjold) > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Jane Sarles > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Geoff, > > Excited to see the new version and it's looking super.  If I >  may make a suggestion- someday I should like to see an > enhancement that would solve many problems for me:  I have > several ancestors for whom I have POSSIBILITIES as their > parent - but nothing set in stone.  Is it not possible to > have a category of "parent possibility" or some such name, > which would link to an ancestor SEVERAL people as prospective > fathers or mothers?  It would need to have an option to print > or not print of course, so that a print out might say: > > Candidates for the father of Joe Jones are: > >    Jim Jones (RIN#), born 1744, etc., etc. > >    Jerry Jones (RIN)#, died 1682 in Portugal, etc. etc. > >    Jeffrey Jones, (RIN#)  living next to Joe in the 1800 > census. > > I realize that it is possible to manually type in the above > information, but when I haven't worked on a person for a > while, it would be helpful for research to review the > possibilities. It would seem (to someone who knows nothing > whatever about programming and development) that links to > several persons who MAY be parents could be done.  Something > I have needed for a long, long, time. > > Thanks for listening. > > Jane Sarles > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Geoff Rasmussen > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Here's the next article: > > > http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/legacy_news/2013/06/legacy-family-tree-8-revealed-qa.html > > > Thanks, > >  > > Geoff Rasmussen > > Millennia Corporation > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > www.LegacyFamilyTree.com <http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/> > > > > > 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
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
