Thanks again to all for their comments. On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 08:12:01 -0700 Jenny M Benson wrote
> Did you read (and try) the method I offered? I cannot see how it does > not do exactly what you want. Yes, Jenny, at least here's what I did. 1. My existing search list is actually Tag1=tagged AND tag3=tagged (Tag1 is people likely to be alive in 1911, in the UK, without a 1911 source and Tag3 is all blood relatives and their spouses). 2. I created a new search list Tag6=tagged and navigated to the middle of that, double-clicked a random person. Did a find Next (either F3 or search menu>find next) a few times and it restarted from the start of the list. 3. I then recreated my first list (Tag1=tagged AND tag3=tagged), navigated to the lady I'm looking for, double-clicked her and she appeared in the pedigree view. 4. I did a find next and the second person on the list appeared. I may have done something wrong, but I believe that this is analogous to what you suggested. It is certainly what I want to do. On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:53:44 -0700 Mike Fry wrote > So! What's wrong with using two tags as I have previously suggested? Firstly, I don't have any spare tags. In the reply to Jenny above, I said that I'm using Tag1=tagged AND tag3=tagged. It would make life easier if I could combine those into Tag10=tagged, but I don't have a tag10. That's also the reason why I can't simply use the tag arrows. Secondly, it relies on me doing something extra and I'm highly likely to forget to do it in the haste of getting to the next person. I have frequently forgotten to untag tag1 when I find that a person died before 1911. That doesn't matter too much as I can always set Tag1=untagged for all people with a death date before 1911 prior to my next pass. Thirdly, it would fine when i start my next exercise, but I already have a couple of hundred people in the processed but not found part of the list so it's a bit late to start for this run. Yes, your way would work. However, it would be prone to human error and it would be far simpler if the search list pointer did what it was supposed to do. I started this thread simply to find out if the behaviour I was experiencing was a bug, a feature or something wrong with my setup. I've reported it as a bug and, hopefully, it will be fixed sometime. Cheers Tony Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ 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
