Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
Yes I do that with all my source citations that have addresses or email addresses listed in the content, so the result is that info is private and still lets me see who it was from but does not publish. -Original Message- From: Brian L. Lightfoot Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:46 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Yes, I just test that out. Good grief, why didn't I think of that simple solution earlier. Works like a charm. No need to create extra Address or Repository entries with these private notes. Thanks. Brian in CA -Original Message- From: R G Strong-genes [mailto:rgstrongge...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:54 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Brian, Another way would be to keep them private in your notes by enclosing them in the privacy brackets [[ something that you want private ]] then Legacy will not output those even in a gedcom unless you tell it to include private notes. -Original Message- From: Brian L. Lightfoot Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:20 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Ron, Thanks for the suggestion to use the Address book to store these names, address, etc., of individuals that are a Master Source (sort of like an interview with a living person but that person is not part of your family file). I can see that your suggested system would work and the Address book even has a Notes tab where I could enter my comments previously talked about. One additional factor about using the Address book is its capability of creating Mailing Lists and in the case(s) that I presented, these addresses could be tagged as part of the Research List. Plus the address book also has the ability to link to a picture. Lessons learned: 1. A GEDCOM is not a "report" created by Legacy 2. Source information is all or nothing when exporting to GEDCOM 3. The address and other personal information of a living source should not be attached to the source but held separately in either a repository or address book. Item #3 above still seems illogical to me but given the constraints of the GEDCOM file structure and the Legacy data structure, it’s a work-around. Maybe the new GEDCOM X if ever fully adopted and integrated into Legacy might allow the flexibility that I desire. I've got sufficient info to modify my records to keep everybody happy. Brian in CA -- Russell G. Strong P. S. Check out Legacy Family Tree today! This full featured genealogy program can be downloaded FREE at http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/Articles.asp?ID=133&Click=1114 Oh so many branches and not enough time to check out all the roots!!!. Check out my Genealogy Pages at http://www.rgstrong-genes.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/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
RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
Yes, I just test that out. Good grief, why didn't I think of that simple solution earlier. Works like a charm. No need to create extra Address or Repository entries with these private notes. Thanks. Brian in CA -Original Message- From: R G Strong-genes [mailto:rgstrongge...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:54 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Brian, Another way would be to keep them private in your notes by enclosing them in the privacy brackets [[ something that you want private ]] then Legacy will not output those even in a gedcom unless you tell it to include private notes. -Original Message- From: Brian L. Lightfoot Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:20 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Ron, Thanks for the suggestion to use the Address book to store these names, address, etc., of individuals that are a Master Source (sort of like an interview with a living person but that person is not part of your family file). I can see that your suggested system would work and the Address book even has a Notes tab where I could enter my comments previously talked about. One additional factor about using the Address book is its capability of creating Mailing Lists and in the case(s) that I presented, these addresses could be tagged as part of the Research List. Plus the address book also has the ability to link to a picture. Lessons learned: 1. A GEDCOM is not a "report" created by Legacy 2. Source information is all or nothing when exporting to GEDCOM 3. The address and other personal information of a living source should not be attached to the source but held separately in either a repository or address book. Item #3 above still seems illogical to me but given the constraints of the GEDCOM file structure and the Legacy data structure, it’s a work-around. Maybe the new GEDCOM X if ever fully adopted and integrated into Legacy might allow the flexibility that I desire. I've got sufficient info to modify my records to keep everybody happy. Brian in CA 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
Brian, Another way would be to keep them private in your notes by enclosing them in the privacy brackets [[ something that you want private ]] then Legacy will not output those even in a gedcom unless you tell it to include private notes. -Original Message- From: Brian L. Lightfoot Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:20 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Ron, Thanks for the suggestion to use the Address book to store these names, address, etc., of individuals that are a Master Source (sort of like an interview with a living person but that person is not part of your family file). I can see that your suggested system would work and the Address book even has a Notes tab where I could enter my comments previously talked about. One additional factor about using the Address book is its capability of creating Mailing Lists and in the case(s) that I presented, these addresses could be tagged as part of the Research List. Plus the address book also has the ability to link to a picture. Lessons learned: 1. A GEDCOM is not a "report" created by Legacy 2. Source information is all or nothing when exporting to GEDCOM 3. The address and other personal information of a living source should not be attached to the source but held separately in either a repository or address book. Item #3 above still seems illogical to me but given the constraints of the GEDCOM file structure and the Legacy data structure, it’s a work-around. Maybe the new GEDCOM X if ever fully adopted and integrated into Legacy might allow the flexibility that I desire. I've got sufficient info to modify my records to keep everybody happy. Brian in CA -Original Message- From: Ron Ferguson [mailto:ronfergy@tiscali.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:46 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Brian, Whilst I broadly agree with the bulk of your post, I am afraid that I do not agree that addresses, phone numbers, and in some instances email addresses, should be included in the Source Comments; these I put in the Address Book, along with current details of my living relatives. I never publish my Address Book, other than the details for Source Repositories. I accept that my way of using the Address Book is not that recommended by Legacy since it means that full details for an individual's place of residence is included in the Location Field (Sherry's suggestion of putting this information in the Location Details is not convenient for me). Nevertheless, so doing does give me the flexibility on publishing which I need, and you seek. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ GOONS #5307 "Brian L. Lightfoot" wrote: >Thanks Brian in Support, it's all becoming painfully clear now. > >< If it is checked all sources will be included, even though some may >not be used by the portion of the file you are exporting.> I'm a little >puzzled...make that a whole bunch puzzled as to why anyone would want to >include sources that are not used anywhere in an exported file. Seems like >a totally useless function that was there for testing purposes by the >programmers and they forgot to take it out after beta testing. I'll leave >that concept of playing around with that checkbox for some exploration at a >future date. > >< There is no way, other than editing the output GEDCOM, to >remove/exclude part of a source that is going to be included.> I'm >disappointed to learn that. Surprising that Legacy can perfectly >remove/exclude part of a source for a report but when it comes to a GEDCOM >export, it has no bladder control whatever. Manual editing of my finished >38 meg GEDCOM is feasible but I've since learned that these >un-intentionally exposed addresses in Source Comments occurs several times >in my files. Not really an elegant solution. I suppose that "R G >Strong-genes" suggested the easiest and cleanest solution by creating a >repository name and address for the person that is attached to the master >source. Seems workable but one then must make sure that the REPO item is >excluded from the exported GEDCOM. > >Am I the only one that thinks that addresses, phone numbers, and nasty >comments about old Aunt Betsey should be attached to a Comments tab of a >Master Source and that Legacy should devise a means of keeping these >comments out of an exported GEDCOM? > > >Brian in CA > -- Russell G. Strong P. S. Check out Legacy Family Tree today! This full featured genealogy program can be downloaded FREE at http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/Articles.asp?ID=133&Click=1114 Oh so many branches and not enough time to check out all the roots!!!. Check out my Genealogy Pages at http://www.rgstrong-genes.com . Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamily
Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
I think that the reason that 'source information is all or nothing when exporting to GEDCOM' is due to a bug in Legacy that makes it pretty well mandatory to check the 'override source options' box. At least that was my conclusion during testing a couple of years ago. I logged a bug. The problem was that if you didn't check that box, the source details for SourceWriter citations were not being exported. (For Basic sources, there is a user option to include source details in the citation or not. For SourceWriter sources, the details are critical and thus there is no user option. But the export seemed to behave as if there were such an option and as if it were set to exclude.) In your case, the override is overriding your option to omit the Comments field from citations. Or, perhaps the export is trying to be clever and export the Comments and also export the value of the option flag for whether to include the comments in citations. The system that imports your GEDCOM probably doesn't know what to do with that flag. If you think about the various ways that people use GEDCOMs, the ideal situation actually is to export all the information but then somehow cause the target system to honor any options to not include some of this information in specific citations. Tricky. Ward -Original Message- From: Brian L. Lightfoot Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:20 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Ron, Thanks for the suggestion to use the Address book to store these names, address, etc., of individuals that are a Master Source (sort of like an interview with a living person but that person is not part of your family file). I can see that your suggested system would work and the Address book even has a Notes tab where I could enter my comments previously talked about. One additional factor about using the Address book is its capability of creating Mailing Lists and in the case(s) that I presented, these addresses could be tagged as part of the Research List. Plus the address book also has the ability to link to a picture. Lessons learned: 1. A GEDCOM is not a "report" created by Legacy 2. Source information is all or nothing when exporting to GEDCOM 3. The address and other personal information of a living source should not be attached to the source but held separately in either a repository or address book. Item #3 above still seems illogical to me but given the constraints of the GEDCOM file structure and the Legacy data structure, it’s a work-around. Maybe the new GEDCOM X if ever fully adopted and integrated into Legacy might allow the flexibility that I desire. I've got sufficient info to modify my records to keep everybody happy. Brian in CA -Original Message- From: Ron Ferguson [mailto:ronfergy@tiscali.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:46 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Brian, Whilst I broadly agree with the bulk of your post, I am afraid that I do not agree that addresses, phone numbers, and in some instances email addresses, should be included in the Source Comments; these I put in the Address Book, along with current details of my living relatives. I never publish my Address Book, other than the details for Source Repositories. I accept that my way of using the Address Book is not that recommended by Legacy since it means that full details for an individual's place of residence is included in the Location Field (Sherry's suggestion of putting this information in the Location Details is not convenient for me). Nevertheless, so doing does give me the flexibility on publishing which I need, and you seek. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ GOONS #5307 "Brian L. Lightfoot" wrote: >Thanks Brian in Support, it's all becoming painfully clear now. > >< If it is checked all sources will be included, even though some may >not be used by the portion of the file you are exporting.> I'm a little >puzzled...make that a whole bunch puzzled as to why anyone would want to >include sources that are not used anywhere in an exported file. Seems like >a totally useless function that was there for testing purposes by the >programmers and they forgot to take it out after beta testing. I'll leave >that concept of playing around with that checkbox for some exploration at a >future date. > >< There is no way, other than editing the output GEDCOM, to >remove/exclude part of a source that is going to be included.> I'm >disappointed to learn that. Surprising that Legacy can perfectly >remove/exclude part of a source for a report but when it comes to a GEDCOM >export, it has no bladder control whatever. Manual editing of my finished >38 meg GEDCOM is feasible but I've since learned that these >un-intentionally exposed
RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
Ron, Thanks for the suggestion to use the Address book to store these names, address, etc., of individuals that are a Master Source (sort of like an interview with a living person but that person is not part of your family file). I can see that your suggested system would work and the Address book even has a Notes tab where I could enter my comments previously talked about. One additional factor about using the Address book is its capability of creating Mailing Lists and in the case(s) that I presented, these addresses could be tagged as part of the Research List. Plus the address book also has the ability to link to a picture. Lessons learned: 1. A GEDCOM is not a "report" created by Legacy 2. Source information is all or nothing when exporting to GEDCOM 3. The address and other personal information of a living source should not be attached to the source but held separately in either a repository or address book. Item #3 above still seems illogical to me but given the constraints of the GEDCOM file structure and the Legacy data structure, it’s a work-around. Maybe the new GEDCOM X if ever fully adopted and integrated into Legacy might allow the flexibility that I desire. I've got sufficient info to modify my records to keep everybody happy. Brian in CA -Original Message- From: Ron Ferguson [mailto:ronfergy@tiscali.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:46 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Brian, Whilst I broadly agree with the bulk of your post, I am afraid that I do not agree that addresses, phone numbers, and in some instances email addresses, should be included in the Source Comments; these I put in the Address Book, along with current details of my living relatives. I never publish my Address Book, other than the details for Source Repositories. I accept that my way of using the Address Book is not that recommended by Legacy since it means that full details for an individual's place of residence is included in the Location Field (Sherry's suggestion of putting this information in the Location Details is not convenient for me). Nevertheless, so doing does give me the flexibility on publishing which I need, and you seek. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ GOONS #5307 "Brian L. Lightfoot" wrote: >Thanks Brian in Support, it's all becoming painfully clear now. > >< If it is checked all sources will be included, even though some may >not be used by the portion of the file you are exporting.> I'm a little >puzzled...make that a whole bunch puzzled as to why anyone would want to >include sources that are not used anywhere in an exported file. Seems like a >totally useless function that was there for testing purposes by the >programmers and they forgot to take it out after beta testing. I'll leave that >concept of playing around with that checkbox for some exploration at a future >date. > >< There is no way, other than editing the output GEDCOM, to >remove/exclude part of a source that is going to be included.> I'm >disappointed to learn that. Surprising that Legacy can perfectly >remove/exclude part of a source for a report but when it comes to a GEDCOM >export, it has no bladder control whatever. Manual editing of my finished 38 >meg GEDCOM is feasible but I've since learned that these un-intentionally >exposed addresses in Source Comments occurs several times in my files. Not >really an elegant solution. I suppose that "R G Strong-genes" suggested the >easiest and cleanest solution by creating a repository name and address for >the person that is attached to the master source. Seems workable but one then >must make sure that the REPO item is excluded from the exported GEDCOM. > >Am I the only one that thinks that addresses, phone numbers, and nasty >comments about old Aunt Betsey should be attached to a Comments tab of a >Master Source and that Legacy should devise a means of keeping these comments >out of an exported GEDCOM? > > >Brian in CA > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
On 2012/11/06 10:27, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > < If it is checked all sources will be included, even though some may not be > used by the portion of the file you are exporting.> > I'm a little puzzled...make that a whole bunch puzzled as to why anyone would > want to include sources that are not used anywhere in an exported file. Seems > like a totally useless function that was there for testing purposes by the > programmers and they forgot to take it out after beta testing. I'll leave > that concept of playing around with that checkbox for some exploration at a > future date. This is a very simple way of starting a new file with a whole heap of sources already in place. Simply export a single individual from a much larger file and ensure all the sources from that larger file go with him. Then, start a new file with the one individual, delete him and you're left wit a file that just contains sources. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg (g) 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
RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
I also export in gedcom to worldconnect. I make sure personal details associated with a source are held in the source repository only. I then exclude the source repository on the gedcom export to worldconnect. -Original Message- From: Brian/Support [mailto:br...@legacyfamilytree.com] Sent: 06 November 2012 01:40 To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited The include all sources check box has no impact on what parts of a source is included in the GEDCOM. That setting is there more for when you are only exporting part of your file. If that is not checked only the sources linked to the individuals in the export will be included. If it is checked all sources will be included, even though some may not be used by the portion of the file you are exporting. There is no way, other than editing the output GEDCOM, to remove/exclude part of a source that is going to be included. To clarify the SOUR and PAGE tags. The SOUR contains the information about the Master Source. The PAGE tag contains, as you indicated, the Source detail entered for a particular fact for a person. Brian Customer Support Millennia Corporation br...@legacyfamilytree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com -- On 05/11/2012 19:20, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > Upon further review.. > > It turns out that my email correspondent was referring to a WorldConnect > GEDCOM report and not one of Legacy's Book Reports on my own domain web site. > I've also confirmed that Legacy seems to be correctly displaying or not > displaying the Comments tab depending whether the user has checked the box or > not. This particular master source was one of my old Basic sources and not SW > but I don't think that makes any difference. What determines whether the > comments get included on a Legacy generated report all depends on the state > of the check box. > > OK, so now my attention was turned to my customized GEDCOM. Examining it, I > see I've included two items: PAGE (Source Detail) and SOUR (Source). > Admittedly I'm not quite sure of the difference between those two parameters. > I then noticed something on the main GEDCOM Export window. Because I'm > exporting to WorldConnect, I select GEDCOM 5.5.1 Only. I then click on > Customize to load my customized .GEL file and then save the exported file as > usual. But I noticed something important. By default, if the GEDCOM export to > Legacy is selected, the checkbox "Override Source Options --- include all > Source Information" is checked as one would expect. When I switch the option > to export GEDCOM 5.5.1, THAT CHECKBOX REMAINED CHECKED ! > > Aha! That must be why I'm getting all the comment info exported to > WorldConnect. My feeble brain does not remember if I ever checked that on > purpose or if it remains checked by default but I can see lots of problems > with it remaining checked --- just as my little problem points out. What if I > had a comment about old Aunt Betsy who I said was a nasty old gossip and a > terrible . Even though I had the checkbox on > the comments tab of the master source to NOT print these comments in Legacy > generated reports, it appears that these supposedly comments get > exported to a GEDCOM if one overlooks the fact that this seemingly > un-important checkbox remains checked. > > OK, so the solution would seem to be to UN-CHECK the box. I did that and > uploaded my new GEDCOM to WorldConnect. There is no joy in Mudville as the > Comments are still exported in spite of the checkbox being cleared. > > So now this thread has two questions: > 1. Just what does this Checkbox do? Why are comments still exported if > it is cleared? > 2. How do I export a GEDCOM with the Comments of a source suppressed? > > > Brian in CA > > Problem can be viewed here: > http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=brianlightfo > ot&id=I853 Scroll down to the Sources at the bottom and look and #1 > and #2 > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Brian/Support [mailto:br...@legacyfamilytree.com] > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 2:13 PM > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited > > I tried to test this but I was not able to duplicate the addition/inclusion > of Master Source Comments in web pages. > > To confirm this as an error I need to know some details of the web pages you > created with Legacy. > What is the web page style (Ancestor, Descendant, Pedigree, Family Group or > Individual On the Other tab what are your selections for the sources On > separate page, each individual's page, Do you include the repository, > recorded dates, file ID and surety? > > Bri
RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
Brian, Whilst I broadly agree with the bulk of your post, I am afraid that I do not agree that addresses, phone numbers, and in some instances email addresses, should be included in the Source Comments; these I put in the Address Book, along with current details of my living relatives. I never publish my Address Book, other than the details for Source Repositories. I accept that my way of using the Address Book is not that recommended by Legacy since it means that full details for an individual's place of residence is included in the Location Field (Sherry's suggestion of putting this information in the Location Details is not convenient for me). Nevertheless, so doing does give me the flexibility on publishing which I need, and you seek. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ GOONS #5307 "Brian L. Lightfoot" wrote: >Thanks Brian in Support, it's all becoming painfully clear now. > >< If it is checked all sources will be included, even though some may not be >used by the portion of the file you are exporting.> >I'm a little puzzled...make that a whole bunch puzzled as to why anyone would >want to include sources that are not used anywhere in an exported file. Seems >like a totally useless function that was there for testing purposes by the >programmers and they forgot to take it out after beta testing. I'll leave that >concept of playing around with that checkbox for some exploration at a future >date. > >< There is no way, other than editing the output GEDCOM, to remove/exclude >part of a source that is going to be included.> >I'm disappointed to learn that. Surprising that Legacy can perfectly >remove/exclude part of a source for a report but when it comes to a GEDCOM >export, it has no bladder control whatever. Manual editing of my finished 38 >meg GEDCOM is feasible but I've since learned that these un-intentionally >exposed addresses in Source Comments occurs several times in my files. Not >really an elegant solution. I suppose that "R G Strong-genes" suggested the >easiest and cleanest solution by creating a repository name and address for >the person that is attached to the master source. Seems workable but one then >must make sure that the REPO item is excluded from the exported GEDCOM. > >Am I the only one that thinks that addresses, phone numbers, and nasty >comments about old Aunt Betsey should be attached to a Comments tab of a >Master Source and that Legacy should devise a means of keeping these comments >out of an exported GEDCOM? > > >Brian in CA > > >-Original Message- >From: Brian/Support [mailto:br...@legacyfamilytree.com] >Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 5:40 PM >To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited > >The include all sources check box has no impact on what parts of a source is >included in the GEDCOM. That setting is there more for when you are only >exporting part of your file. If that is not checked only the sources linked to >the individuals in the export will be included. If it is checked all sources >will be included, even though some may not be used by the portion of the file >you are exporting. > >There is no way, other than editing the output GEDCOM, to remove/exclude part >of a source that is going to be included. > >To clarify the SOUR and PAGE tags. The SOUR contains the information about the >Master Source. The PAGE tag contains, as you indicated, the Source detail >entered for a particular fact for a person. > >Brian >Customer Support >Millennia Corporation >br...@legacyfamilytree.com >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.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/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
RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
Thanks Brian in Support, it's all becoming painfully clear now. < If it is checked all sources will be included, even though some may not be used by the portion of the file you are exporting.> I'm a little puzzled...make that a whole bunch puzzled as to why anyone would want to include sources that are not used anywhere in an exported file. Seems like a totally useless function that was there for testing purposes by the programmers and they forgot to take it out after beta testing. I'll leave that concept of playing around with that checkbox for some exploration at a future date. < There is no way, other than editing the output GEDCOM, to remove/exclude part of a source that is going to be included.> I'm disappointed to learn that. Surprising that Legacy can perfectly remove/exclude part of a source for a report but when it comes to a GEDCOM export, it has no bladder control whatever. Manual editing of my finished 38 meg GEDCOM is feasible but I've since learned that these un-intentionally exposed addresses in Source Comments occurs several times in my files. Not really an elegant solution. I suppose that "R G Strong-genes" suggested the easiest and cleanest solution by creating a repository name and address for the person that is attached to the master source. Seems workable but one then must make sure that the REPO item is excluded from the exported GEDCOM. Am I the only one that thinks that addresses, phone numbers, and nasty comments about old Aunt Betsey should be attached to a Comments tab of a Master Source and that Legacy should devise a means of keeping these comments out of an exported GEDCOM? Brian in CA -Original Message- From: Brian/Support [mailto:br...@legacyfamilytree.com] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 5:40 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited The include all sources check box has no impact on what parts of a source is included in the GEDCOM. That setting is there more for when you are only exporting part of your file. If that is not checked only the sources linked to the individuals in the export will be included. If it is checked all sources will be included, even though some may not be used by the portion of the file you are exporting. There is no way, other than editing the output GEDCOM, to remove/exclude part of a source that is going to be included. To clarify the SOUR and PAGE tags. The SOUR contains the information about the Master Source. The PAGE tag contains, as you indicated, the Source detail entered for a particular fact for a person. Brian Customer Support Millennia Corporation br...@legacyfamilytree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.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/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
Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
The include all sources check box has no impact on what parts of a source is included in the GEDCOM. That setting is there more for when you are only exporting part of your file. If that is not checked only the sources linked to the individuals in the export will be included. If it is checked all sources will be included, even though some may not be used by the portion of the file you are exporting. There is no way, other than editing the output GEDCOM, to remove/exclude part of a source that is going to be included. To clarify the SOUR and PAGE tags. The SOUR contains the information about the Master Source. The PAGE tag contains, as you indicated, the Source detail entered for a particular fact for a person. Brian Customer Support Millennia Corporation br...@legacyfamilytree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com -- On 05/11/2012 19:20, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > Upon further review.. > > It turns out that my email correspondent was referring to a WorldConnect > GEDCOM report and not one of Legacy's Book Reports on my own domain web site. > I've also confirmed that Legacy seems to be correctly displaying or not > displaying the Comments tab depending whether the user has checked the box or > not. This particular master source was one of my old Basic sources and not SW > but I don't think that makes any difference. What determines whether the > comments get included on a Legacy generated report all depends on the state > of the check box. > > OK, so now my attention was turned to my customized GEDCOM. Examining it, I > see I've included two items: PAGE (Source Detail) and SOUR (Source). > Admittedly I'm not quite sure of the difference between those two parameters. > I then noticed something on the main GEDCOM Export window. Because I'm > exporting to WorldConnect, I select GEDCOM 5.5.1 Only. I then click on > Customize to load my customized .GEL file and then save the exported file as > usual. But I noticed something important. By default, if the GEDCOM export to > Legacy is selected, the checkbox "Override Source Options --- include all > Source Information" is checked as one would expect. When I switch the option > to export GEDCOM 5.5.1, THAT CHECKBOX REMAINED CHECKED ! > > Aha! That must be why I'm getting all the comment info exported to > WorldConnect. My feeble brain does not remember if I ever checked that on > purpose or if it remains checked by default but I can see lots of problems > with it remaining checked --- just as my little problem points out. What if I > had a comment about old Aunt Betsy who I said was a nasty old gossip and a > terrible . Even though I had the checkbox on > the comments tab of the master source to NOT print these comments in Legacy > generated reports, it appears that these supposedly comments get > exported to a GEDCOM if one overlooks the fact that this seemingly > un-important checkbox remains checked. > > OK, so the solution would seem to be to UN-CHECK the box. I did that and > uploaded my new GEDCOM to WorldConnect. There is no joy in Mudville as the > Comments are still exported in spite of the checkbox being cleared. > > So now this thread has two questions: > 1. Just what does this Checkbox do? Why are comments still exported if > it is cleared? > 2. How do I export a GEDCOM with the Comments of a source suppressed? > > > Brian in CA > > Problem can be viewed here: > http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=brianlightfoot&id=I853 > Scroll down to the Sources at the bottom and look and #1 and #2 > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Brian/Support [mailto:br...@legacyfamilytree.com] > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 2:13 PM > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited > > I tried to test this but I was not able to duplicate the addition/inclusion > of Master Source Comments in web pages. > > To confirm this as an error I need to know some details of the web pages you > created with Legacy. > What is the web page style (Ancestor, Descendant, Pedigree, Family Group or > Individual On the Other tab what are your selections for the sources On > separate page, each individual's page, Do you include the repository, > recorded dates, file ID and surety? > > Brian > Customer Support > Millennia Corporation > br...@legacyfamilytree.com > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.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/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
RE: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
Upon further review.. It turns out that my email correspondent was referring to a WorldConnect GEDCOM report and not one of Legacy's Book Reports on my own domain web site. I've also confirmed that Legacy seems to be correctly displaying or not displaying the Comments tab depending whether the user has checked the box or not. This particular master source was one of my old Basic sources and not SW but I don't think that makes any difference. What determines whether the comments get included on a Legacy generated report all depends on the state of the check box. OK, so now my attention was turned to my customized GEDCOM. Examining it, I see I've included two items: PAGE (Source Detail) and SOUR (Source). Admittedly I'm not quite sure of the difference between those two parameters. I then noticed something on the main GEDCOM Export window. Because I'm exporting to WorldConnect, I select GEDCOM 5.5.1 Only. I then click on Customize to load my customized .GEL file and then save the exported file as usual. But I noticed something important. By default, if the GEDCOM export to Legacy is selected, the checkbox "Override Source Options --- include all Source Information" is checked as one would expect. When I switch the option to export GEDCOM 5.5.1, THAT CHECKBOX REMAINED CHECKED ! Aha! That must be why I'm getting all the comment info exported to WorldConnect. My feeble brain does not remember if I ever checked that on purpose or if it remains checked by default but I can see lots of problems with it remaining checked --- just as my little problem points out. What if I had a comment about old Aunt Betsy who I said was a nasty old gossip and a terrible . Even though I had the checkbox on the comments tab of the master source to NOT print these comments in Legacy generated reports, it appears that these supposedly comments get exported to a GEDCOM if one overlooks the fact that this seemingly un-important checkbox remains checked. OK, so the solution would seem to be to UN-CHECK the box. I did that and uploaded my new GEDCOM to WorldConnect. There is no joy in Mudville as the Comments are still exported in spite of the checkbox being cleared. So now this thread has two questions: 1. Just what does this Checkbox do? Why are comments still exported if it is cleared? 2. How do I export a GEDCOM with the Comments of a source suppressed? Brian in CA Problem can be viewed here: http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=brianlightfoot&id=I853 Scroll down to the Sources at the bottom and look and #1 and #2 -Original Message- From: Brian/Support [mailto:br...@legacyfamilytree.com] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 2:13 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited I tried to test this but I was not able to duplicate the addition/inclusion of Master Source Comments in web pages. To confirm this as an error I need to know some details of the web pages you created with Legacy. What is the web page style (Ancestor, Descendant, Pedigree, Family Group or Individual On the Other tab what are your selections for the sources On separate page, each individual's page, Do you include the repository, recorded dates, file ID and surety? Brian Customer Support Millennia Corporation br...@legacyfamilytree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com -- On 05/11/2012 16:37, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > It's interesting that this should come up right after the recent discussion. > I was just contacted by a person whose name and address appear as a > source in a report on my online tree and while he has no objection to > the name, he'd like the address removed. I'm totally in agreement and > have indicated my intention. But in looking at the master source which > bears his name, I see that I added his address and email address on > the Comments tab of the Master Source definition. > > I've checked each individual to which this master source applies and > there is nothing about the source's address in the details. The > address only appears on the Comments tab of the master source > definition. The "Include on Reports" of the Comments tab is NOT > checked but Legacy put it out there on the ancestor and descendant > book types of reports as well as a pedigree report. > > At the bottom of the comments tab there is another check box to > Exclude this Master Source from Reports but that is not what I want to > do. I only want to exclude the info on the Comments tab. I would like > to keep the address and email address within my records of the master > source but where should it be so that it doesn't appear on reports. In > the meanwhile, I'm going to run some test reports to see if this "bug" > applies to all types of reports, or more than likel
Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
Richard, Brian, Turning off the printing of the Repository would also turn it off for all sources, if I understand you correctly, Richard. Brian, which type of source are you using – Basic or SW? I have just had a look at one of mine which uses the Basic source and the comments are not printing. If you are using SW please let us know and I will run a test. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ From: R G Strong-genes Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 9:48 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited Brian, You could add his name and address as a new repository and attach his repository to the master source then when you create the reports you can turn off printing of the repository. Also if you are creating your website from a GEDCOM you can change how the sources are exported, I believe the default is to show all source info also you can suppress address info from the gedcom if they are using the address fields. Making him a repository is the easiest way of not showing his address in sources. From: Brian L. Lightfoot Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 4:37 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited It’s interesting that this should come up right after the recent discussion. I was just contacted by a person whose name and address appear as a source in a report on my online tree and while he has no objection to the name, he’d like the address removed. I’m totally in agreement and have indicated my intention. But in looking at the master source which bears his name, I see that I added his address and email address on the Comments tab of the Master Source definition. I’ve checked each individual to which this master source applies and there is nothing about the source’s address in the details. The address only appears on the Comments tab of the master source definition. The “Include on Reports” of the Comments tab is NOT checked but Legacy put it out there on the ancestor and descendant book types of reports as well as a pedigree report. At the bottom of the comments tab there is another check box to Exclude this Master Source from Reports but that is not what I want to do. I only want to exclude the info on the Comments tab. I would like to keep the address and email address within my records of the master source but where should it be so that it doesn’t appear on reports. In the meanwhile, I’m going to run some test reports to see if this “bug” applies to all types of reports, or more than likely something goofy I did when I prepared the reports. -- Russell G. Strong P. S. Check out Legacy Family Tree today! This full featured genealogy program can be downloaded FREE at http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/Articles.asp?ID=133&Click=1114 Oh so many branches and not enough time to check out all the roots!!!. Check out my Genealogy Pages at http://www.rgstrong-genes.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/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
Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
I tried to test this but I was not able to duplicate the addition/inclusion of Master Source Comments in web pages. To confirm this as an error I need to know some details of the web pages you created with Legacy. What is the web page style (Ancestor, Descendant, Pedigree, Family Group or Individual On the Other tab what are your selections for the sources On separate page, each individual's page, Do you include the repository, recorded dates, file ID and surety? Brian Customer Support Millennia Corporation br...@legacyfamilytree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com -- On 05/11/2012 16:37, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > It's interesting that this should come up right after the recent discussion. > I was just contacted by a person whose name and address appear as a source > in a report on my online tree and while he has no objection to the name, > he'd like the address removed. I'm totally in agreement and have indicated > my intention. But in looking at the master source which bears his name, I > see that I added his address and email address on the Comments tab of the > Master Source definition. > > I've checked each individual to which this master source applies and there > is nothing about the source's address in the details. The address only > appears on the Comments tab of the master source definition. The "Include on > Reports" of the Comments tab is NOT checked but Legacy put it out there on > the ancestor and descendant book types of reports as well as a pedigree > report. > > At the bottom of the comments tab there is another check box to Exclude this > Master Source from Reports but that is not what I want to do. I only want to > exclude the info on the Comments tab. I would like to keep the address and > email address within my records of the master source but where should it be > so that it doesn't appear on reports. In the meanwhile, I'm going to run > some test reports to see if this "bug" applies to all types of reports, or > more than likely something goofy I did when I prepared the reports. 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Living persons revisited
On 05/11/2012 21:37, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > It’s interesting that this should come up right after the recent > discussion. I was just contacted by a person whose name and address > appear as a source in a report on my online tree and while he has no > objection to the name, he’d like the address removed. I’m totally in > agreement and have indicated my intention. But in looking at the master > source which bears his name, I see that I added his address and email > address on the Comments tab of the Master Source definition. > > I’ve checked each individual to which this master source applies and > there is nothing about the source’s address in the details. The address > only appears on the Comments tab of the master source definition. The > “Include on Reports†of the Comments tab is NOT checked but Legacy put > it out there on the ancestor and descendant book types of reports as > well as a pedigree report. > > At the bottom of the comments tab there is another check box to Exclude > this Master Source from Reports but that is not what I want to do. I > only want to exclude the info on the Comments tab. I would like to keep > the address and email address within my records of the master source but > where should it be so that it doesn’t appear on reports. In the > meanwhile, I’m going to run some test reports to see if this “bug†> applies to all types of reports, or more than likely something goofy I > did when I prepared the reports. > I have just run 2 different Book Reports and the Comments appeared or not just as they ought. When I checked "Include on Reports" my comments appeared and when I unchecked it they didn't. -- 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/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
