cghjr
NewMembers-
Content count
5 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Community Reputation
0 Neutral-
No Parent links in Descendancy Reports
cghjr replied to cghjr's topic in Older Products and Versions
Bill, Thank you very much I'll set mine up like that. --CH -
-
In TMG Descendant reports, as in others, a child carried forward has very little information when listed with its parents. Usually just its name, birth and death and an ASSIGNED NUMBER indicating where it may be found later in the report. At the assigned number the child is listed and REPORT OPTIONS let you determine how much of its information you wish to be shown. UFT, FTM, and PAF all have an option to SHOW or HIDE spouse links to spouse information INCLUDING the names of the SPOUSE'S PARENTS. TMG has an option to show spouse events and another to show all events, but does NOT INCLUDE THE SPOUSE'S PARENTS. It does on the family report but not in the Descendant Journal. I have worked too long and too hard for the past 30 years finding the names of the parents of the spouse to have them left out of the report. Please TMG team. Come up with a solution.
-
This is my second post on this problem only because I assumed it would definitely be fixed in the first new version which came along. I grew up on Roots software, then Ultimate Family tree. I always keep PAF and Family Tree Maker on my computer. All of these take care of the problem in their ancestry reports. I have several ancestors who are repeated as many as three and four times in my reports. I have pages and pages of memoes which get duplicated each time I run them. PAF lets you select no repeat, a partial repeat, or a full repeat of these individuals. The closest TMG gets to that is to enter a "see above" by the person's name each time it repeats. It would be nice if it would give the number Ie: see person 62. It will not do even that in the ancestor journal, which looks to me like a glorified Ahnentahfal. I'm not slamming the report because I really like it. It just really bugs me to not be able to use such a quality report and have to use the simple ancestor report in PAF instead. I do that to keep from deleting out all those extra copies and then having the numbering system all messed up, which in turn ruins the index.
-
I was also brought up on "roots" and "ultimate Family Tree". I don't think I am expecting too much out of TMG to want a redundant person option.
-
I have contacted TMG for at least a year and a half about this problem. I was told on several occasions that the team was working on it and there would soon be a fix. However, when I called about two weeks ago, I was told that nothing had ever been in the works to address the problem. It was also suggested to me that I try to get some activity on the support forum and the chat room. ie: this post!!! After you read this post, if the problem described is something you would like to see changed, please help me generate some awareness of it to the proper people. When I print an ancestor journal and have all the notes and memos turned on, I have several, more than three, ancestors which print out multiple times. This is because they are common ancestors to a husband and a wife. I have two which print three times and several more which print twice. PAF, the morman free software, has an option to have a full repeat in cases like this, or a partial repeat or no repeat at all. The partial repeat only lists the person again and refers back to the number in the data where that person is first entered. In TMG there is always a full repeat. Pages and pages of Bios and memos are repeated and each time it repeats, that person is assigned a new number. I have been having to print to a file then go in and delete out all that redundant or superflorous information which has been repeated, but the whole numbering sytem is out of sequence when you do that. Most of the time I export into PAF and generate a report there, where it is not a problem. That certainly is not a nice compliment to TMG. I don't know the mechanics of getting this done in TMG or in PAF. Maybe it is much harder to do in TMG, but there certainly has been long enough to get it done. Charles Henderson, Florence, SC