Maybe a better wording would be: _ end-of-line(no known relationships or children)
Again, either split it so it is more humanly intuitive/useful, or change the wording to show what that box is really trying to indicate. Bob On 04/08/2015 11:24, Robert57P_gmail wrote: > Larry, > > I think Jim was just trying to be funny/cute - trying to lighten the > mood a bit by adding the comment about hallucinogenic - since you > included that term in your earlier e-mail. > > I agree - it seems to make more sense to human thinking to have these > separate and to change the word "marriage" to "relationship". I'm sure > it makes perfect sense program-wise as it is, it allows the setting of > some flag/switch/etc and was a great thought at the time it was > originally added. And I realize there are other ways of indicating the > lack of relationship and children using different parts of this program. > > But the designers need to realize that it is time to "correct" the > "oversight" of the original field's intent, and instead make it more > "humanly intuitive": > _ This person had no KNOWN children > _ This person had no KNOWN relationships > > My understanding is the whole reason for having that (single) check box > is to indicate that this is an "end-of-the-line" person so no further > research is needed. Without that check box, one might see a person in > their tree and wonder "Gee, did I research this person already, do I > need to look for their kids/partner?" With this check box it lets me > know "oh, I'm already pretty sure that this person needs no further > research, I don't need to dig for children/partners". So another option > would be to change that single check box's wording to > _ This person needs no further research for relationships/children > (end-of-the-line, no known children or relationships) > (Would it be better worded as "end-of-line" or "end-of-tree" or > "end-of-branch" or ???) > > So, either split it in two so it make more sense "humanly" (and, if both > boxes are checked it then indicates "end-of-line"), or change the > wording to indicate what the checkbox is REALLY trying to indicate. > > And, at the risk of ruffling more feathers, I'd like to suggest the > "Marriage" heading on the Family view be changed to "Relationship" (or > "Marriage/Relationship info" like it is on the resulting pop-up > window). I say that because this section is not ONLY to record a > marriage, but also to record any relationship that resulted in children > (or may have resulted in children). > > Bob > > On 04/08/2015 08:54, Larry Lee wrote: >> Jim, et al, >> >> I agree with John (and many others) obviously since I advocated for >> the split early in this thread and in previous threads. And I am not >> hallucinogenic. >> >> I am a person born from an unknown father and a known mother, >> therefore correct recording of this fact is important to me. This man >> never married my mother but had a relationship and it is important to >> distinguish between the two. >> >> I am glad to know there is a suggestion to fix this (it's been so long >> ago I might have suggested it but I don't keep a log of my suggestions). >> >> The main issue is this has been suggested and many users have replied >> that they agree. This is such a common occurrence that it demands a >> correct method of recording. >> >> Unfortunately there seems to be a reluctance to differentiate between >> relationships and marriages in Legacy which I feel is regrettable. >> >> Larry >> >> On Apr 7, 2015 12:45 PM, "Jim Terry/Support" <jimte...@legacyusers.com >> <mailto:jimte...@legacyusers.com>> wrote: >> >> John, >> >> You seem to have a lot of anxiety over this issue, to the point of >> having >> hallucinations. If you want to submit this as a suggestion for an >> enhancement to the Legacy program, please visit >> http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Suggest.asp. We are always seeking >> new ways >> to make Legacy better. >> >> Jim, >> Legacy Technical Support >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> > From: "John Lisle" <leg...@johnlisle.com >> <mailto:leg...@johnlisle.com>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 12:38 PM >> > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com >> > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? >> > >> > JIm, >> > >> > Sure... I do it all the time, but I was not talking about marriage >> status. >> > >> > I was talking about the checkbox "This person was never married and >> > has no children" which is the subject of this thread. >> > >> > I know that a user can decide that the word "married" in that >> > checkbox can mean whatever they want it to mean, but I hallucinate >> > that most users assume it means just what it says "married" - formal >> > ceremony with "binding" contract assumption. >> > >> > But, with the checkbox being a combination of two attributes and no >> > way to identify what means married, the use of the checkbox will be, >> > in my opinion, inconsistent or ambiguous between various users. >> > >> > john. >> > >> > At 02:39 PM 4/7/2015, Jim Terry/Support wrote: >> > >John, >> > > >> > >Legacy users are free to create whatever Marriage Status they >> want and >> > >create whatever wording options they want to handle the >> majority of the >> > >most bizarre, unlikely relationships or non-relationships they can >> think >> > >about. >> > > >> > >Jim >> > >Legacy Technical Support >> > > >> > > >> > >-------- Original Message -------- >> > > > From: "John Lisle" <leg...@johnlisle.com >> <mailto:leg...@johnlisle.com>> >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11:30 AM >> > > > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com >> > > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never >> Married? >> > > > >> > > > Jim, >> > > > >> > > > I agree but... >> > > > >> > > > I think that this most people think of this attribute of "Never >> > > > Married" as being no formal marriage event, not no >> relationships. >> > > > >> > > > Further, even were it to mean No Relationships, unless we have >> > > > perfect knowledge of the person's life, we would have to say "No >> > > > KNOWN Relationships" and, of course, that attribute could >> also mean >> > > > no known marriages. >> > > > >> > > > More fuel to why those attributes need to be split. (I still >> think >> > > > those attributes need to be combines with Child Status items as >> > > > described earlier.) >> > > > >> > > > If a man was a sperm donor, he likely has children although >> he may >> > > > not know who they are. And, unless one of those children later >> > > > determines his/her biological paternity, that passing on of >> genes >> > > > will never be known. >> > > > >> > > > Of course, there is the other case of surrogate motherhood. >> It can >> > > > either be based on placing fertilized egg in surrogate or it >> could >> be >> > > > that surrogate mother provides the egg. >> > > > >> > > > Did you know that 3 of Mitt Romney's son Tagg's children >> were from a >> > > > surrogate mother? >> > > > >> > > > Modern science and 21st century laws are making >> relationships much >> > > > more complex... :-) >> > > > >> > > > john. >> > > > >> > > > At 11:10 AM 4/7/2015, Jim Terry/Support wrote: >> > > > >In a case of in vitro fertilization there is a father and he is >> Unknown. >> > >We >> > > > >haven't started cloning people yet, so for now there is still a >> > >biological >> > > > >father and biological mother. >> > > > > >> > > > >Jim >> > > > >Legacy Technical Support >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >-------- Original Message -------- >> > > > > > From: "MikeFry" <emjay...@gmail.com >> <mailto:emjay...@gmail.com>> >> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:50 AM >> > > > > > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com >> > > > > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never >> Married? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On 2015/04/07 00:19 AM, Kelly Booth wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I have a in vitro fertilization in my tree - she never >> married >> but >> > >I >> > > > >can't check >> > > > > > > that box because it includes "no children" and that is >> not the >> > >case. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > That's still a "relationship". Even if the father is >> unknown, as >> is >> > > > >likely in >> > > > > > that case. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Regards, >> > > > > > Mike Fry (Jhb) >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 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://support.legacyfamilytree.com >> > >> > 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/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://support.legacyfamilytree.com >> >> 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/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://support.legacyfamilytree.com >> 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/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://support.legacyfamilytree.com > > 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/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://support.legacyfamilytree.com 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
