Jane,

I thought that I had made it clear that my reservation was to changes being 
made to Legacy which may encourage others, less careful than yourself, to 
create “possible” links which may over time, and perhaps after transcription by 
others, become “facts”. This sort of thing can and does happen, after all one 
only has to look at Ancestry public trees and the old IGI and many many other 
on-line “resources” to see the process in action.

Very, very few of us actually know what will happen to our work after we are no 
longer here, something about which one becomes more aware of with age.

Ron Ferguson
http://www.fergys.co.uk/

From: Jane Sarles
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:36 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Legacy Family Tree 8 Revealed - Q/A, new Tagging 
options, and other surprises

Ron,

Far be it from me to suggest a less than pristine data set.  I do not plan to 
publish mine but use it primarily as a research tool to help me add to it.  
However, if the prospective parent is clearly labeled as such, as I suggested 
in the first place, it should not sully up the work by suggesting that it was 
gospel truth, but only a candidate as a parent.  If the person's possible 
connection is given in notes, or events, or some other tactic, how is it 
different from being clearly labeled a candidate?.

Jane


On Sunday, June 16, 2013, Ron Ferguson wrote:

  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
  Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:45 PM
  To: javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com');
  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 <sarlesinsi...@gmail.com> 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 <robert...@gmail.com> 
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 PARENTÂ  (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.

        Â  Â  (Dag Hammarskjold)



        On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Jane Sarles <sarlesinsi...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

          Geoff,

          Excited to see the new version and it's looking super. Â If I Â may 
make a suggestion- someday I should like to see an enhancement that would solve 
many problems for me: Â I have several ancestors for whom I have POSSIBILITIES 
as their parent - but nothing set in stone. Â 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? Â 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:
          Â  Â  Â  Jim Jones (RIN#), born 1744, etc., etc.Â
          Â  Â  Â  Jerry Jones (RIN)#, died 1682 in Portugal, etc. etc.
          Â  Â  Â  Jeffrey Jones, (RIN#) Â 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 possibi




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

Reply via email to