I have to admit that I stopped reading these posts long ago, as I was tired of the thread. But today I discovered one of the best reasons for people to do splitting of sources, rather than lumping (which is my favorite way of doing it). This may have been already raised, and if so, I apologize fully.
I am editing a book I plan to publish soon. I am still working just on the PDF print outs, rather than the RTF file which I will do when I am done with entering Legacy data. I am doing a Descendants Book. I have started editing the sources. Well, what a pain in the butt! I have to go back and figure out where I've used source number 112, for example, so that I can edit EACH instance where I attached it. Only one source was I able to edit from the Master list, and what a relief that was, as that saved me hundreds of citations. And when I did that Master Source edit, and it asked, do you want to apply these changes to All occurences of this source (or do you want it to be new), and I was able to say, YES- to ALL! I thought hmmmm - so that is what everyone has been talking about - splitting vs lumping! Granted I'd still have to edit some of them (adding page numbers, etc., which are the details), but boy, I suddenly understood one of the best reasons to do splitting!! Regards, Susan Daily On 9/26/07, Janis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Understanding that some people are tired of this thread, I contend that it > is one of the most important issues with which we deal. It is on-topic, > because we have to figure out how to handle these issues in this software. [snip] Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
