Morbius

Interesting, I learned something new today.

FYI, I am happy to announce that I have version 9 installed and operating. So far no problems, and it didn't take near as long as I though it might.

A general question about website login. I have an account with user ID and password. It works just fine from my lap, and even my computer at work. But when I try to login from my iPhone, it just doesn't seem to take. I type in the user ID and password, but all I get is an error message or nothing. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong?

There are two results. Either nothing seems to happen, or I get an error that reads "Oops, something went wrong" I should say, I have only had this phone a couple of weeks, and my daughter has been desperately trying to teach me how to use it. So, I suspect it is not a problem with the website or phone, just "operator headspace" as we say in the army (which means I am doing something wrong, just not sure what).

This is going to sound like a dumb question, but do you mean "BC" as in before "AD"? If so, I am wondering what events you are dating that are before the first century; if y ou don't mind my asking.

Two questions. Is there a limit to the number of records that can be exported into a GEDCOM file? Haven't tired it, but my computer hates me, and if it can mess with me this way it will. Is there a limit to the number of records that can be exported to a journal report? I have used these reports with previous versions (I have v8.04) and have had problems with the resulting file size. I had some success by using the function (I forget what it is called) that split the report into different parts for each generation

I am coming late to this; I don't internet all that much, but I use a different naming convention for digital research files (I scan everything, documents, photos, books, etc), and keep files in all sorts of digital formats (.doc, .pdf. .jpg, etc). I let TMG name the files, with some modifications. Every source is entered into TMG, and TMG gives that source a source ID number - I name the file that number. The digital file of source number 8212 (a photograph), is named "TMG Source 8212.jpg". Some files require a little more information. The digital files for source number 8232 (a book) is named "TMG Source 8232 Page 11.jpg" indicating the page number. There are other various of the file name, depending upon the kind of source (e.g. a blowup of a photograph includes "Zoom" in the file name), but you get the idea. With a lot of sources it may seem difficult to find a particular source, but I let the program do that for me. If I need to find a particular source, I do a search in the Master Source List, look for the source number, and that tells me which file I am looking for.

A couple of more questions. I see TMG v9 installers on this website, but not really sure what that means. I also saw what I think are upgrades from previous versions (I have version 8.04, Gold Edition, which appears to be dated 2016), but I am not sure if they are usable upgrades (since there seems to be no way to get a users license) or if they are just a demonstrator model. Like many others, I have been using TMG since the earliest versions, and have stuck with it for the same reasons - it is easier to modify for my needs. I have over 103,000 records, and a great many modifications, to everything from sentence structure to citation structure. Which brings up the question, of what do I do when I am forced to change to a different program. I know it isn't an unusual dilemma, and am wondering how others are dealing with it.

I am using V7.0, and have been experiencing a problem trying to open MS Word files created with the Journal Report. I suspect the problem has to do with file size. I have set the report to create a separate file for each generation, and run the report (there are 11 generations and over 14,000 descendants, and a very large number of endnotes). The files take quite a while to generate (it seems about 45 minutes, but I haven't time it), but the files are created as MS Word / Window V6.x files. I can open some of the files (earliest and latest generations), but the larger files (the cutoff seems to be about 2meg) will not open. I get an error message, that they may be scrambled. The report works fine with progenators with fewer descendants (11 generations and 2500 descendants worked), but with this one line, I cannot open the middle (largest) generations. I have tried different fonts, and different versions of MS Word, but the result is the same. I have photographs in the database, but do not export them for this reportl; only text is generated by the report. I am considering breaking the descendants of the original proginator into four or five different lines, and running a separate report for each generation, but wasn't sure I could merge all the data back into a single (though very large) file. I have tried to cut the number of endnotes, but the only way I could think of was to up to Surety Threshold to 2 or 3 (I have it sent to include blank surety, as not all tag are yet sourced, a left over from an earlier program), but that doesn't reduce the number of footnotes; as I understand it adjuting that setting would elminate the tags with lower surety values. I would like to end up with a single MS Word file for the whole line. I have accomplished this in previous years using the one file per generation setting, and merging the generations. Last year I ended up with a 39.6meg file, which was a little slow to work with, but I managed. I seemed to have crossed some unidentified threshhold, and was hoping others in this forum would have some ideas.

Terry, thanks for the reply. I have been thinking all along, it was just file size, but that didn't realy make sense, as I have opened larger files. I didn't know about the end/note limit, but that does kind of make sense. Probably about half the document, there abouts, is footnots and bibliography. I have been working on thinning them some. Is there a way in TMG V7 to limit the number of footnotes/endnotes for a given citation to 3 or 4? I will try the other formats, and see what happens.

I have on DVD, a news broadcast from a local TV station, which includes an interview with a relative. I would like to cite this as a source in TMG, but have no experience with this kind of source. I was hoping others might have some ideas as to what source type, citation elements, etc would work for such a source.

This is probably a beginner's question, but I haven't been able to figure it out. I have been working with names in event tags. In this specific instance a name for a princpal in a Funeral Tag. The sentence structure is simple "Funeral services were conduced <[D]><at [L]><. [M]>" I would like to add the principals name, something like "Funeral services for [P] were conduced <[D]><at [L]><. [M]>" When I generate the Individual Narrative Preview, the sentence begins with "Thomas Hager (12345) . . . . " the number being the number assigned by the program, when I first entered Thomas Hager. I would like to generate the full name without the number. I have tried different variables, but haven't been able to figure it out. Anybody have any ideas? Thanks

I just recently upgraded from V5.something to V7. I importated the V5 data into V7 by creating a backup in V5 then restoring the backup in V7. I worked with the new screens, etc a couple of days and noticed it seemed to be running slow compared to V5. I ran the three maintenance programs "Reindex", "Optimize", and "Validate File Integrity" in that order. When the computer completed "Validate File Integrity" I got a message that read "Validation Complete 34,670 Potential Problems Fixed." The number alone is pretty scary. and I am wondering if I should be worried about it since they were "fixed" and if there is something else I should do to ensure the validity of my data. I still have the V5something files (not overwriting the old program and its files is a really good idea). I would appreciate any thoughts and comments other users might have. Jim Claunch

I am wondering if any one can explain the effects of the various options for BACKUP and RESTORE? For example, what is the effect of selecting "Save as a New Configuration" vs. "Use Without Saving Changes" or under "Other Types of Data" what effect the various selections have?

Maybe I am doing this wrong, but it has always worked. I use a laptop and a desktop; the laptop for most of the work, and the desktop for reports, etc. When I am done on the laptop, I do a back up. Then I copy the backkup file to a thumbdrive, and transfer it to the desktop. Then run a restore on the desktop. It taks a little time, but the result is two identical files on different computers, and at least three copies of the backup file on different media.

Below are the fields for a census citation as I have modified them, and an example of the output. Bear in mind, I am one of those who cites to a lot of detail. I treat each household as a separate source, and each gets a separate citation. [TITLE], [HOUSEHOLD], [LOCATION]<, [RECORD TYPE]><, enumerated [DATE]><, [RECORD INFO]><, [PAGE]><; [FILM]><, [CD]><. Saved in digital format as file name «[FILE NAME]»><. [COMMENTS]><. Held by [REPOSITORY]><, [REPOSITORY ADDRESS]>. Hereinafter cited as "[sHORT TITLE]". Tenth Census of the United States (1880), Thomas J. Claunch household, Justice Precinct 6, Henderson County, Texas, Schedule 1 - Inhabitants, enumerated 21 June 1880, Supervisor's District 1, Enumeration District 33, page 28, lines 1 through 5 (dwelling 241, family 241); National Archives and Record Administration microfilm publication T9, roll 1310, from 556<, [CD]>. Saved in digital format as file name «TMGSource0383.doc». Held by National Archives of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D. C. 20408, 202-501-5340. Hereinafter cited as "U. S. Census (1880), Thomas J. Claunch household."

Another point would be how much work you are willing to do in the future. I would catorgorize reserachers a bit differently, and argue that the kind of researcher you are will determine whether "lump" or "split" (I expect I would be the latter, and am now dealing with over 6000 sources without difficulty). I would describe researchers as "data acceptors" or "data analyzers" with the first group being people who lump (minimal work) and the latter group being people who spllit (maximum work). If you are an experienced researcher, you have experienced many times the phenonomon of inconsistent data. This pehnonomon, I think, serves to illustrate the differences in the two types of researchers. Those who are "data acceptors" tend to be people who don't intend to put a tremendous amout of time into research, or are working a small project for specific purposes Some "data acceptors" accept the first data they find as correct and make no changes at all. Other "data acceptors" accept the last data they find as correct and make changes with every new bit of information. Many such people don't even bother to source their work (a real shame), and really shouldn't have a lot of confidence that they have the correct data. Those "data acceptors" who do source their work, do so only in general terms (e. g. one source for all information from the 1860 census), as they don't intend to spend much time analyzing their data and don't really need very detailed source information. Knowing that data came from a census record is sufficent for their purposes, and they don't need to go to the extra work involved in detailed sourcing. These are the lumpers. Those who are "data analyzers" see a piece to a puzzle in every bit of information, maybe a bit of a chalange, and will spend a lot of time wrestling with conflicting information in order to be as accurate as possible. Such researchers will spend a lot of time comparing and contrasting conflicting information in order to resolve the conflict, or at least better understand the parameters of the conflict. Such reserachers require very detailed sourcing. It would simply take too much time to go back over all the possible sources of information, and need to be able to quickly identigy the specific sources of each bit of informaton (e.g the household of John Jones, Farpoint County, Idaho, 1860 census v. the household of his nearby brother, Tom Jones, Farpoint County, Idaho, 1860 census). So it seems that lumper or splitter tends to be a function of available time and intent. If time is short and you don't intend to spend a lot of time analyzing data, lumping will provide basic source information and save time. If you do spent a lot of time analyzing data, then splitting will actually save time searching for where the data came from. The great thing about TMG is that you can go either way, but understand that having made a choice you are generally stuck with it. To change in mid-project would cause inconsistencies that would prove problematic. It sounds as though you are experimenting a bit to see which you would prefer before leaping fullscale into the project. A very wise way to proceed. I am a splitter for a variety of reasons, including the wrestling with the data one. Sometimes the data wins, but at the very least I get a better idea of where I need more information. "Mills" is a good basic template, but lacks sufficient detail and hasn't caught up with the digital age. Photocopies are no longer really necessary, as portable scanners are plenty cheap and produce very good results. I take one to the library and photocopy only when I have no choice. The digital images are hundreds of time better, and more detaild than photocopies, and they are in color and can be manipulated. The TMG Source List makes it pretty easy to catalogue sources, so I can "recheck" sources without opening a drawer.

Some pretty interesting comments, including a few things I hadn't thought about. I don't use the statistical reports that Earl mentioned (I concern myself primarily with keeping place names in their historical context, which is easily done using the 'bracket technique' mentioned a couple of times), so that hasn't been a problem for me. Given that, and the uncountable variations of nations and states in Europe (mine tend to all be Germany, or some variation, so I haven't encounted the full effect of this problem), maybe a 'compicated scheme' that can be simplied would be better. I may be showing off my ignorance here, but I am wondering, what is the adantage of being able to connect to Google Earth?

I'll just deal with the first question about places in time. Your proposed scheme seems to be a bit complicated, given that a specific event can only happen at one location in time and space - that is one time and one place - even if the place changes names. I say this because I think it important to keep events in their historical perspective. Something not done very much, or so it seems to be. For example, a person born in Hawaii in 1895 was actually born in the Kingdom of Hawaii (not the state, Hawaii); someone born there in 1910 would have been born in the Territory of Hawaii, and someone born there in 1960 would have been born in the State of Hawaii. All three events occured in the same location, which over time had three different names. In no instance would the person have been born in the Kingdom of Hawaii AND the State of Hawaii. These two events are mutually exclusive. You could develop some sort of software scheme to track all this, but when you consider 50 states, dozens of territories, hundreds of counties, and maybe through in Europe with its kingdoms, nations, nation-states, dukedoms, etc, it could quickly turn into a nightmare. An alternate proposal - use the name that is correct for that time [thus keeping the event in its historical persepctive] followed by brackets which list the current name; eg. "born 1895 in the Kingdom of Hawaii [now the state of Hawaii]. Now the reader will know what was and what is, and gain a better appreciation for the history of the person being recorded The detail for the tag may get a bit long, but it would me relatively easy to manage, If more detail were needed, you could follow that tag (a birth tag in this case) with another giving a more fuller expalantion of the place name changes. That would give you the flexibility of including the additional information, or not. This does require some research in the historical names of places, but you appear to already be doing that, and are just looking for a way to record your research. A simpler way might be better, and would be easier for your descendants to figure out.

I have gone in the other direction - I am trying to get rid of filing cabinets by keeping all source records in some digital format. The only documents I keep are those I want to keep permanantly, such as original documents, photographs, letters, newspaper clippings, etc, which I record and store in archival boxes. Everything else (photocopies and such) I scan and get rid of. I scan all sources, whether I intend to keep them or not, and identify each with a file name using the TMG generated source number and file format (e.g. "TMG Source 5242.jpg"). Sometimes, I will add additional information, such as page number from a book ("TMG Source 5323 Page 113.tif"). I make a backup to CD, then discard everything I don't intend to keep permanantly. This allows several things. Orignal documents I can look at and show without handlling them. Other documents, I don't have to keep buying filing cabinets and filing cabinet storage. The numbering system allows me to use the TMG picklist to keep track of them all, and I don't have to keep track of some elaborate file naming scheme. I can put several hundred on a CD, so they are also portable.

I am having difficulty generating some journal reports. I attempt to generate files from TMG (13,339 people, ten generations) into MS Word files, using one file per generation (ten files in this instance). In some instances I get some generation files which produce as MS Word error ... Word was unable to read this document. It may be corrupt. Try one of the following: Open and Repair the file" The open an repair function in MS Word produces no results. I suspect the problem lies with the size of the files. Of the ten files generation, 1-4 are ok and 9 and 10 are ok. Only files 5-8 generate the error code. These files are 2,958 to 4,194KM in size. I can vew the files in MS Wordpad, but much of what is there is gibberish. I have tried generating the files without a bibliography, but the results didn't vary. I am hoping someone will have an idea as to how to generate usable files. I am sure it is possible, but I just am not sure what I am missing. thanks