Donald Joseph Schulteis

What does a person have to do to _automatically_ email receive new posts and _replies_ to these posts?

As I want everyone to readily see the information, I put it in the tag's memo.

There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the backup and recover of user photos. This might help to clear things up some. Photographs and images of documents are the users, not TMG's. The user adds them to a folder or folders and places the folders somewhere on the computer. Where the user places them and how the user organize them is up to the user. This includes their maintenance, and backup; just like any other data on your computer. Now first does the user share these photos with TMG. When the user identifies (links) a photo to TMG, the linked photo is then considered an exhibit. So in any folder the user may have photos and they may have other photos known to TMG as exhibits (photos that have been TMG linked). TMG can manage "exhibits", it does not manage photos. So you say, you have TMG on your system and you would like for TMG to use some of these photos. You link (identify) the photo of your mother. When we say link, we mean when you are in the detail view for your mother, you click on the camera icon on top the screen and you receive the "select file for new exhibit" sub-window. Here you find the folder containing your mother's picture and select that file. The photo becomes linked and is now known to TMG as an exhibit. TMG provides support to back up exhibits, that is, the photos you have linked to it. But, just because the user links their photos does not cause TMG to back them up. When backing up a project, the user must specifically identify to TMG that it is also to back up the exhibits. At this point we all seem to be in agreement. Everything rolls along file until the user encounters a situation where the user has lost a photo or two or the entire folder. So the user shouts, OK TMG, recover my folder. We started this discussion with identifying that you, the user, are responsible for the maintenance and backup of your photos/exhibits. The recovery problems arise when the user does not fulfill their backup responsibilities or relies on TMG to do it for them, but fails to tell TMG to do so. For example, lets say the user stores their photos in a folder called "my pictures". In this folder there are 100 photos of which 60 have been linked (identified) to TMG and are referred to as exhibits. Should the user loose the folder "my pictures", the _best_ TMG can do, assuming TMG backed up the exhibits, is to recover the 60 exhibits. Unless the user backed up the other 40 photos, they will be lost, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. This is not a TMG problem, it is solely a user problem as the user did not back them up. On the other hand, the user might loose all 100 photos if they forgot to tell TMG to back them up. Bottom line, you, the user are responsible for "user data management". This is the environment the user must operates under. Donald Schulteis

Works fantastic, thank you.

The entire forum is presented at 8-9 point. Very difficult to read. This is the only site in which I encountered this. How can I get the font size on this site to be larger and not affect the other sites I look at?

The Master Genealogist supports the user to be able to identify a focus person in Preferences=>Current Project Options=>Other and once done, the detail window will identify how the viewed person is related to the focus person. Quite often, as I am working on the details of a person, I say to myself, who is this person? I look to the top of the details window and it tells me the person is not related. The next obvious question that comes to mind, why is the person here? That is when I become frustrated as I cannot answer it without doing some research. By the way, my project contains information on some 25,000 individuals. Have been using TMG for some fifteen years and this has bothered me from the start, but not near as much as it does now. Back in 1995, it bothers me as does one mosquito buzzing around your ear. Today, it is as though a swarm of mosquitoes are doing so. This put a bit more pressure on me to see if I could do something which might help answer the question, "why is this person here". This is what I came up with. Task A - Established a flag called "relationship" and defined values and their meanings: 0 = unknown 1 = descendant 2 = spouse 3 = spouse parent 4 = spouse grandparent 5 = spouse sibling 6 = spouse of spouse sibling Task B - Set Up Base To Determine Relationships. Set up six temporary flags. Only one flag is needed but should you make a mistake at calculating say "4", you can go back to "3" and continue again. The proceed to establish the temporary "flagn" values uses six list-of-people reports and secondary output. Run #1 - is a descendant of ID "NNN" end (set flag1 to Y) (NNN is your progenitor) Run #2 - flag1 = Y end and select "include spouse" ( set flag2 = Y) Run #3 - flag2 = Y end and select "ancestor = 1" (set flag3 = Y) Run #4 - flag3 = Y end and select "ancestor = 1" (set flag4 = Y) Run #5 - flag3 = Y end and select "descendant = 1" (set flag5 = Y) (please note flag3, not flag4) Run #6 - flag5 = Y end and select "spouse" (set flag6 = Y) Task D - Establish Relationship Flag Values Using another six list-of-people report and secondary output: Run #7 - set relationship flag to 1 - descendant flag1 = Y end (set relationship = 1) Run #8 - Set relationship flag to 2 - spouse flag2 = Y and flag1 = N end (set relationship = 2) Run #9 - Set relationship flag to 3 - spouse parent flag3 = Y and flag2 = N end (set relationship = 3) Run #10 - Set relationship flag to 4 - spouse grandparent flag4 = Y and flag3 = N end (set relationship = 4) Run #11 - Set relationship flag to 5 - spouse sibling flag5 = Y and flag3 = N end (set relationship = 5) (please note flag3, not flag4) Run #12 - Set relationship flag to 6 - spouse of spouse sibling flag6 = Y and flag5 = N end (set relationship = 6) When I look at the details for an individual in this family line, look at the relationship flag's value, and you immediately know "why this person is here". If the "relationship" flag's value is "0", you know the person is not related to this family line or the person is beyond these relationships. You might want to do this for all your family lines. Task E - Do This For Your Other Family Lines Once a "relationship" value has been set, you don't want to downgraded it, say from a descendant in one family line to a a spouse of a descendant on another. As you go through your other family lines, you don't need to change anything in runs 1-6 other than the starting progenitor. You do though need to change the filter for runs 8-12 because of the possible downgrading potential. Run #8 - flag2 = Y and flag1 = N and (relationship = 0 or relationship comes after 1) (set relationship = 2) Run #9 - flag3 = Y and flag2 = N and (relationship = 0 or relationship comes after 2) (set relationship = 3) Run #10 - flag4 = Y and flag3 = N end (relationship = 0 or relationship comes after 3) (set relationship = 4) Run #11 - flag5 = Y and flag3 = N and (relationship = 0 or relationship comes after 4) (set relationship = 5) Run #12 - flag6 = Y and flag5 = N and (relationship = 0 or relationship comes after 5) (set relationship = 6) After this relationship flag has been set for all four family lines, you can look at the details for anyone and know exactly how the person fits in. Please note, this is a one time shot. Once completed, and you add a person, that person has not been evaluated and will be assigned a relationship flag value of "0".

I had looked there but did see where the search wold be limited to topics I started. I "assumed" both searches would return all topics I started or replied to. I see where that is not the case. Thank you.

There are times, actually many times, when I which to review a topic I submitted. I know the general area, such as journal report or preferences but cannot come up with a search value to limit the topics presented to only those which I started. Searching for "journal report" you might get hundreds of hits. Sure would be helpful if a person could amend the search to include topic started. For example, "journal report schulteis (TS)" "schulteis (TS)"

From time to time you see on TMG-l where a user would like for the birth sentence to be a little more family friendly. Specifically the child may have been adopted or was a step daughter but this relationship is not identified by the program in the birth sentence. A user can achieve this desired result using the sentence memo. For example, Mary Jane Johnson was the biological daughter of Henry Johnson and Cynthal Kools and she was the stepdaughter of Albert Lofy. To have the birth sentence reflect these relationships code the following: In the birth centence - [P]<, [M],> was born <[DD]> <in [L]> Begin the birth tag memo field with the relationship information- daughter of Henry Johnson and Cynthia Kools and stepdaughter of Albert Lofy The resulting birth sentence might be- Mary Jane Johnson, daughter of Henry Johnson and Cynthia Kools and stepdaughter of Albert Lofy, was born on Tuesday 10 March 1964 in St. Michael Hospital, Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, USA. Should the user wish to add other memo information, then the sentence might be coded - [P]<, [M1],> was born <[DD]> <in [L]>. <[M2]> (you may wish to check the TMG HELP facility under "variables (event tags)" and "M1 through M9 elements") Begin the birth tag memo field with the relationship information followed by "||" and this followed by the remaining memo information- daughter of Henry Donald Johnson and Cynthia Katheryn Kools and stepdaughter of Albert Lofy||Mary arrived weighing 6 lbs. 7.5 oz. and 19 inches ... The resulting birth sentence might be- Mary Jane Johnson, daughter of Henry Donald Johnson and Cynthia Katheryn Kools and stepdaughter of Albert Peter Lofy, was born on Tuesday 10 March 1964 in St. Michael Hospital, Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, USA. Mary arrived weighing 6 lbs. 7.5 oz. and 19 inches ...

In the life cyle of a project, two of the of the many phases might be characterized as "gatherine facts" and "producing the family historical book." Each phase has a distinctly different requirement when producing reports. In the "gathering facts" phases. the user is identifying his/her findings, requesting confirmation, and is soliciting for contributions. In this phase, the user wishes to be precise and open about the facts. Having the sentence present in the report identifies to the reader that no research action "has been taken" regarding the presence of children. If the sentence were not present, the reader needs to question this fact. So, in this phase, the presence of the sentence is a valuable asset to the report. On the other hand, in the "producing the family historical book" phase. the user is no longer researching nor does he/she wish to highlight "researching." In this phase, having the sentence in your "heritage book" is a negative. Your book identifies that John and Mary were born, they married, and possibly they died and were buried. This is what you know and this is what you are telling the reader. There is no beneficial reason to identify that you do not know, that is, you did not research for their children. When I do know, I use a custom tag to identify this fact in the report. It is called "no-children" and has a sentence which reads "The famly reports there were no children." Please note it is not "I" who determiend this but the "family", that is, others beside myself who confirm it. Use it mostlly for living families, after child bearing age, and for near ancestor families. I both "need" and "do not want" the sentence. Theredore, I need control of producing this sentence as a runtime option. I see having the sentence in the "producing the family historical book" phase to be no better than if the program automatically produced the sentence "John Doe was buried." if there was a death group tag but no burial group tag, or, if the program automatically produced the sentence "John Doe died and was buried." if no death/burial tag was present and the person was identified as older than the "assume maximum age lifespan" value.

Allen, My full footnotes and short footnotes are identical in definition. Couple this with "unique" and you end up with one endnote list entry per source. Should I have used the CD field when cited, well that becomes a new source entry on the endnote listing. I use the CD field but rarely. The combination of the two has decreased the number of sources listed on the endnote listing considerably. In a 300 page book, endnote pages account for but 50 pages. Before using unique and duplicating the short footnote definition, the endnote listing was some 900+ pages. In the overall though, the final size of the endnote listing is dependent on how you source and how you cite. For me, pre 1850 events are mostly lumped (from microfilmed church books). Events after 1850 are pretty much uniquely sourced. (Parents of spouses are identified but their events are not sourced nor cited) My single project of multiple families, and others, contains: 19, 394 people 4,268 sources 58,901 citations The book noted above is from but a small portion of this project. It does though reflect the book/source page size relationship for this project (using the above technique).

On Wholly Genes Web Site, under "Reviews for The Master Genealogist" and review "Genealogy Software Report Card", the link http://www.mumford.ca/reportcard/rcardfrm.htm comes up in error. As it does on the linked to site.

I continue not to receive replies to topics I have posted. For example, the one which addressed updating a backup configuration. There were three replies, I received none of them.

This topic did not hit the Beta list as a new topic, at least if it did I did not receive it.

I am receiving the new topic notification on the TMG Beta list. I had been receiving the reply notifications but now I am not. I made three this morning at about 8 o'clock, that is almost nine hours ago and none of them have hit my screen, nor anyone elses. Am I alone in this?