Re: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter
This is implication that the owner's address is that of the compiler is recorded in our problem tracking system. Brian Customer Support Millennia Corporation br...@legacyfamilytree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com We are changing the world of genealogy! When replying to this message, please include all previous correspondence. Thanks. Jenny M Benson wrote: > Charles Apple wrote >> My understanding is that the "supplied by" or "supplied date" is for >> the puposes of showing the Provenance of a particular record. > > Oh yes, I have no problem with that at all. The two things I do have a > problem with is that it some of the citations automatically assume that > the Report was supplied by the Compiler and then put *my* residence so > it reads as if that is the Compiler's residence. 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter
Once again the LUG has helped me find a better way. I have several "Modified Register" reports on family members that were sent to me by a cousin. These reports are like the Descendant Book Reports we have on Legacy. Some of them are more than 20 pages. I tried the Family Group Sheet template, but that does not allow page numbers to show on the Source list for an Individual. I have been using the Book template because I could easily cite the page number. I've just tested and determined that using the Artifact template allows for this. It's actually called "Item of Interest," but I don't see why putting the page number wouldn't work? Any thoughts? Dede Holden P.S. Is "over-eggs the pudding" something like "too much sugar for a dime"? That was one of my grandmother's favorite expressions. And, in Jenny's defense, my mother's pudding recipes all call for eggs. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Deborah Trounstine wrote: > > Thank you, Charles. > That is a great idea and I'm going to change the few I have to that > designation. > Deborah > > Charles Apple wrote: > > Jenny, > > > > I just ran an example on my Test database using the Pedigree template and I > > can now see what your concerns are. > > > > I did not run into this problem because, on page 142 of "Evidence Explained" > > by Elizabeth Shown Mills, Family Group Sheets, Charts, etc. are Artifacts. > > Based on this I used the, Artifacts > Privately Held, template for the > > Family Group Sheets and Pedigree Charts that I have received from others. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > Charles > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jenny M Benson [mailto:ge...@cedarbank.me.uk] > > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 6:19 PM > > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter > > > > Charles Apple wrote > > > >> My understanding is that the "supplied by" or "supplied date" is for > >> the puposes of showing the Provenance of a particular record. > >> > > > > Oh yes, I have no problem with that at all. The two things I do have a > > problem with is that it some of the citations automatically assume that the > > Report was supplied by the Compiler and then put *my* residence so it reads > > as if that is the Compiler's residence. > > -- > > Jenny M Benson 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter
Thank you, Charles. That is a great idea and I'm going to change the few I have to that designation. Deborah Charles Apple wrote: > Jenny, > > I just ran an example on my Test database using the Pedigree template and I > can now see what your concerns are. > > I did not run into this problem because, on page 142 of "Evidence Explained" > by Elizabeth Shown Mills, Family Group Sheets, Charts, etc. are Artifacts. > Based on this I used the, Artifacts > Privately Held, template for the > Family Group Sheets and Pedigree Charts that I have received from others. > > Hope this helps, > > Charles > > -Original Message- > From: Jenny M Benson [mailto:ge...@cedarbank.me.uk] > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 6:19 PM > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter > > Charles Apple wrote > >> My understanding is that the "supplied by" or "supplied date" is for >> the puposes of showing the Provenance of a particular record. >> > > Oh yes, I have no problem with that at all. The two things I do have a > problem with is that it some of the citations automatically assume that the > Report was supplied by the Compiler and then put *my* residence so it reads > as if that is the Compiler's residence. > -- > Jenny M Benson > > > > 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ > > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature > database 4776 (20100115) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature > database 4776 (20100115) __ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ > > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > > 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter
Jenny, I just ran an example on my Test database using the Pedigree template and I can now see what your concerns are. I did not run into this problem because, on page 142 of "Evidence Explained" by Elizabeth Shown Mills, Family Group Sheets, Charts, etc. are Artifacts. Based on this I used the, Artifacts > Privately Held, template for the Family Group Sheets and Pedigree Charts that I have received from others. Hope this helps, Charles -Original Message- From: Jenny M Benson [mailto:ge...@cedarbank.me.uk] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 6:19 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter Charles Apple wrote >My understanding is that the "supplied by" or "supplied date" is for >the puposes of showing the Provenance of a particular record. Oh yes, I have no problem with that at all. The two things I do have a problem with is that it some of the citations automatically assume that the Report was supplied by the Compiler and then put *my* residence so it reads as if that is the Compiler's residence. -- Jenny M Benson 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4776 (20100115) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4776 (20100115) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter
Charles Apple wrote >My understanding is that the "supplied by" or "supplied date" is for >the puposes of showing the Provenance of a particular record. Oh yes, I have no problem with that at all. The two things I do have a problem with is that it some of the citations automatically assume that the Report was supplied by the Compiler and then put *my* residence so it reads as if that is the Compiler's residence. -- Jenny M Benson 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter
Hmmm...and I'm thinking that eggs are not used in a puddingunless you are talking about custards. "over-eggs the custard"? :-) OK, I better quit before Sherry chimes in and says this is all off-topic. Unless she knows a good recipe. Brian in CA -Original Message- From: RUNION ROBERT [mailto:s...@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:21 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter '...over-eggs the pudding...'. I never heard that expression but I like it!! Bob On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Jenny M Benson wrote: > On the whole I am a great fan of SourceWriter, but there are times when > I feel it rather over-eggs the pudding! Such as when it offers 4 > templates for recording genealogy reports: Family Group Sheet, GEDCOM > file, Pedigree Chart and Research Report. > > Largely because I've forgotten what I've used before, I've ended up > using all 4 at random for all sorts of Reports - handwritten trees, > Register Reports, FGS ... > > I'm not really sure why it's necessary to distinguish between them, > anyway. The main elements of the Citation for FGS, Gedcom and Pedigree > Chart are all the same: compiler, report title, supplied date & > supplier, with just the option of adding some specifics in the case of > the Gedcom. With all 3 it is not possible to suppress Master Source > Comments in Reports, which is *annoying*. All three included "supplied > by" or supplied [date] by" and then pick up on the compiler's or > author's surname which is sometimes misleading and sometimes just wrong. > (I have a Tree compiled by a deceased relative which was given to me by > his son who does have the same surname, it might well have come from > another member of the family with a different surname.) > > The Pedigree Chart citation is slightly misleading because it reads, for > example, "Ralph Hare, "Rev Edward Hare Tree," supplied 2005 by Hare, > [ADRESS FOR PRIVATE USE,] Wrexham, Wales" which may be a correct form of > Citation (I don't know) but implies that the person who supplied the > Chart is from Wrexham, Wales whereas it is me, the current owner, who is > from there. > > As usual with Legacy, I suppose it boils down to "you pays your money > (or not if you're using the standard edition!) and you takes your > choice." I have decided that the FGS output suits my needs and I shall > use that for all manner of Reports. > > I'd be interested to hear the musings of other LUGgers on this subject, > though. > -- > Jenny M Benson > 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter
'...over-eggs the pudding...'. I never heard that expression but I like it!! Bob On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Jenny M Benson wrote: > On the whole I am a great fan of SourceWriter, but there are times when > I feel it rather over-eggs the pudding! Such as when it offers 4 > templates for recording genealogy reports: Family Group Sheet, GEDCOM > file, Pedigree Chart and Research Report. > > Largely because I've forgotten what I've used before, I've ended up > using all 4 at random for all sorts of Reports - handwritten trees, > Register Reports, FGS ... > > I'm not really sure why it's necessary to distinguish between them, > anyway. The main elements of the Citation for FGS, Gedcom and Pedigree > Chart are all the same: compiler, report title, supplied date & > supplier, with just the option of adding some specifics in the case of > the Gedcom. With all 3 it is not possible to suppress Master Source > Comments in Reports, which is *annoying*. All three included "supplied > by" or supplied [date] by" and then pick up on the compiler's or > author's surname which is sometimes misleading and sometimes just wrong. > (I have a Tree compiled by a deceased relative which was given to me by > his son who does have the same surname, it might well have come from > another member of the family with a different surname.) > > The Pedigree Chart citation is slightly misleading because it reads, for > example, "Ralph Hare, "Rev Edward Hare Tree," supplied 2005 by Hare, > [ADRESS FOR PRIVATE USE,] Wrexham, Wales" which may be a correct form of > Citation (I don't know) but implies that the person who supplied the > Chart is from Wrexham, Wales whereas it is me, the current owner, who is > from there. > > As usual with Legacy, I suppose it boils down to "you pays your money > (or not if you're using the standard edition!) and you takes your > choice." I have decided that the FGS output suits my needs and I shall > use that for all manner of Reports. > > I'd be interested to hear the musings of other LUGgers on this subject, > though. > -- > Jenny M Benson > > > > 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ > > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > > 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter
Jenny, My understanding is that the "supplied by" or "supplied date" is for the puposes of showing the Provenance of a particular record. If you are the "Supplier" then it would probably be "Privately Held," I think. I am rather new at Legacy and learning, so you may want to get responses from others in the group, to further clarify your questions. Charles -Original Message- From: Jenny M Benson [mailto:ge...@cedarbank.me.uk] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 1:15 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter On the whole I am a great fan of SourceWriter, but there are times when I feel it rather over-eggs the pudding! Such as when it offers 4 templates for recording genealogy reports: Family Group Sheet, GEDCOM file, Pedigree Chart and Research Report. Largely because I've forgotten what I've used before, I've ended up using all 4 at random for all sorts of Reports - handwritten trees, Register Reports, FGS ... I'm not really sure why it's necessary to distinguish between them, anyway. The main elements of the Citation for FGS, Gedcom and Pedigree Chart are all the same: compiler, report title, supplied date & supplier, with just the option of adding some specifics in the case of the Gedcom. With all 3 it is not possible to suppress Master Source Comments in Reports, which is *annoying*. All three included "supplied by" or supplied [date] by" and then pick up on the compiler's or author's surname which is sometimes misleading and sometimes just wrong. (I have a Tree compiled by a deceased relative which was given to me by his son who does have the same surname, it might well have come from another member of the family with a different surname.) The Pedigree Chart citation is slightly misleading because it reads, for example, "Ralph Hare, "Rev Edward Hare Tree," supplied 2005 by Hare, [ADRESS FOR PRIVATE USE,] Wrexham, Wales" which may be a correct form of Citation (I don't know) but implies that the person who supplied the Chart is from Wrexham, Wales whereas it is me, the current owner, who is from there. As usual with Legacy, I suppose it boils down to "you pays your money (or not if you're using the standard edition!) and you takes your choice." I have decided that the FGS output suits my needs and I shall use that for all manner of Reports. I'd be interested to hear the musings of other LUGgers on this subject, though. -- Jenny M Benson 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4775 (20100115) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4776 (20100115) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] Genalogy reports - SourceWriter
On the whole I am a great fan of SourceWriter, but there are times when I feel it rather over-eggs the pudding! Such as when it offers 4 templates for recording genealogy reports: Family Group Sheet, GEDCOM file, Pedigree Chart and Research Report. Largely because I've forgotten what I've used before, I've ended up using all 4 at random for all sorts of Reports - handwritten trees, Register Reports, FGS ... I'm not really sure why it's necessary to distinguish between them, anyway. The main elements of the Citation for FGS, Gedcom and Pedigree Chart are all the same: compiler, report title, supplied date & supplier, with just the option of adding some specifics in the case of the Gedcom. With all 3 it is not possible to suppress Master Source Comments in Reports, which is *annoying*. All three included "supplied by" or supplied [date] by" and then pick up on the compiler's or author's surname which is sometimes misleading and sometimes just wrong. (I have a Tree compiled by a deceased relative which was given to me by his son who does have the same surname, it might well have come from another member of the family with a different surname.) The Pedigree Chart citation is slightly misleading because it reads, for example, "Ralph Hare, "Rev Edward Hare Tree," supplied 2005 by Hare, [ADRESS FOR PRIVATE USE,] Wrexham, Wales" which may be a correct form of Citation (I don't know) but implies that the person who supplied the Chart is from Wrexham, Wales whereas it is me, the current owner, who is from there. As usual with Legacy, I suppose it boils down to "you pays your money (or not if you're using the standard edition!) and you takes your choice." I have decided that the FGS output suits my needs and I shall use that for all manner of Reports. I'd be interested to hear the musings of other LUGgers on this subject, though. -- Jenny M Benson 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/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
