Hi BobsTree2, I thought I was done with this thread but your email requires a response.
As much as Legacy is an excellent Family Tree / Genealogy program, it is also a fine Family *History* program. And I suspect that most users who are using Legacy to record their genealogy are also documenting their family history. Why else would they be including pictures and stories and life events? And when you consider family history, you do want to record such relationships as continuing relationships with folks, of same or opposite sex, that may or may not have resulted in an extension of the gene pool. How do you consider a relationship that has only resulted in adopted children? How about relationships between seniors? After my mother died, my Dad remarried a great lady who was 81. I doubt they expected to extend the gene pool by their relationship. :-) One of the major knocks on Legacy by reviewers is that it does not support same sex relationships. I happen to know that the data model for Legacy was created long before the first gay marriage was legal in the US and, unfortunately, changing this is not going to be easy, but it is going to happen as so much of Legacy's customer base now needs it. It is needed because Legacy is a Family History program and now such relationships are becoming increasingly common within most folks family history. As an aside, I do think that there may be some truth in Bob's comment that this checkbox was meant to indicate that a person was an end of line person. Something like when you see "d.s.p." in an "old style" genealogy. But that does not mean a person had no children and did not marry. It means that the person did not leave any heirs. They could have married but did not have legitimate surviving children. If he had illegitimate children, they were never designated as heirs. In today's world, a genealogist might dig deeper. I still believe that replacing this checkbox with a dropdown list of personal attributes better allows each user to define those attributes they feel best characterize the individual in their family history. john. At 12:26 PM 4/8/2015, BobsTree2-Gmail wrote: >Good explanation, you are almost there. For a moment, forget about >relationships, marriages, civil unions, adoptions, etc. Look at >the base of genealogy, genetics, genes, etc. Genealogy was >originally intended to trace the blood sources of a being. The real >terms behind genealogy should be "egg donor" and "sperm >donor". Everything else is just a label.You can use Mother and >Father, or Husband and Wife, or Female Donor and Male Donor. > >What has happened is that people have discovered genealogy programs >and are now trying to use them for their own purposes, tracking >relationships. That is fine, but don't cry if a genealogy program >does not suit your relationship needs. If you don't like it, use a >"relationship" program instead if you can find one. In the >meantime, you can make suggestions, but don't gripe if your request >is ignored if it is not basic to tracking genes. That is why many >programs do not allow for same sex relationships, that is not >tracking a genetic flow, it is tracking a social connection. > >Re, " no known children/marriage, no further research needed" is >just as bad as the other suggestions. In fact, this could mean more >research is needed! The "no research needed" box should be a >personal tag for the individual, not tied to any specific reason; >but a text field with it to explain for personal reasons might be >good to go with the check box. Ie: "uterus removed at age 11". >Should not be exported in a gedcom. > > >On Apr 8, 2015, at 11:24, Robert57P_gmail <robert...@gmail.com> 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 > > > > > > > > >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
