Follow-up: I have unlinked the 9 children from the parents; then, intentionally linked the most-recently-born, followed by the earliest-born, successively for 4 of the 9 so far.
Apart from the too-large time-gaps between children (according to Legacy's rules - which I don't care about) it seems that I will be able to get all the progeny linked back to their parents and the weird problem may disappear (until next time). Legacy is sorting the added children into DOB order now, rather than keeping them in the order that I add them to the parents. Before this, I saved a screen shot that illustrates how my problem displayed. This shows some overlapping windows that makes my word-picture a little clearer, if Legacy Support would like to put it on file. Ian Thomas Albert Park, Victoria 3206 Australia From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ian Thomas Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2016 1:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [LegacyUG] Children problem This might be easier to show with a series of pictures, or a video - but I will try to describe the problem. Despite check repair, etc I have a problem with 9 children added with birth date (no death date) for all, in a single session of about 20 minutes. This is a simple family (no half-siblings, etc) and all born between 1884 and 1900, all marked as deceased. They show as for example, "birth date of child 4 is before birth date of child 3" - previously, I thought that the order in which children are added is not important, and I believe I saw that Legacy sorts them appropriately. When I click the red exclamation mark, to display the Potential Problems red explanation/warning description, the Potential Problems List window (a rather large one) pops up - but is empty - and immediately a messagebox (Attention) pops up over it, informing me that there isn't a problem. I haven't changed the "rules" relating to births of children in any way, since starting to use Legacy v8 - I find it's simpler to leave the defaults for many/most things (so, I'm happy to accept that 120 is a reasonable age for a life, rather than change it down to 99). And, as stated above, I have done the suggested repairs and do a new backup each time I quit. There are about 500 people in the database - a modest size. My only thought is to unlink all 9 from the parents, and link them back in again. But it's worrying that (A) the program seems to think they should be in birth-date order as listed in the lower panel, and (B) the error that is generated is "dismissed" by the program itself as not real. I think there is some stuff-up in the Microsoft Access database, but I'm unwilling to delete .ldb files. Ian Thomas Albert Park, Victoria 3206 Australia
-- LegacyUserGroup mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription and unsubscribe http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
