MMj

Hi Tammy I would think it depends mostly upon what you want to accomplish with the device. I'm not sure what you mean by "large" database. 10,000 people? 100,000 people? I don't actually have a pocket PC. I use a Palm LifeDrive instead, with GedStar Pro installed on it. I've had it for about a year now, and have found it to be a priceless asset, especially at times when it is inconvenient (or just plain impossible) to have my laptop with me. The LifeDrive has a nice big (for a palm device) display and a 4 GB internal hard drive. My database is smallish, perhaps 7,000 people or so, and the device handles it beautifully. The downside of my device is that I can't do data entry into TMG on it, only viewing. In a pinch, I can enter notes in my version of pocket word on the device. I went the Palm route because the device was simplicity itself to set up, use and maintain. The lack of data entry capability into TMG causes no heartburn for me because I don't care to ever update my TMG database on that device. That would just give me yet another device to try to keep in sync with the main database on the desktop and the backup database on the laptop. And the idea of trying to enter data into a device that small has no appeal for me. But when I bring it out at family reunions during conversations about who is related to who, and things like that, people say "Wow, I want one of those!". Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

Thanks for the clarification on that point, John. I wish there was an option to turn that off too. Perhaps if enough of us wish hard enough... Mike

Hi In my own TMG database, I have often noticed that TMG will take offense if I use the [M] variable at the very beginning of a sentence, before the [P] variable or one of its deritives. For Example, <[M]> [P] was born <[D]> <[L]> results in the following when the contents of the memo field is empty: John Smith (2401). John Smith (2401) was born on 21 Jan 1900 in St. Mary's Co., Maryland. Equally unfortunately, this is what I get if I stick some text in the memo field and then use the same sentence: John Smith (2401). After a really tough day for his mother, John Smith (2401) was born on 21 Jan 1900 in St. Mary's Co., Maryland. Seems like TMG really wants to start that first sentence with the name of the principal, which, upon reflection, doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing for it to want to do. I tripped over this anomaly (at least I think it is an anomaly) about a year ago when I was playing around with using split memos to try to give myself the flexibility to add text before the principal subject of the sentence. I believe I reported the issue at the time, but I'm not certain that I did. Is something like this causing your double-name problem? Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

Hi Maureen I thought that perhaps images added to events rather than to people was the problem with the images. But I believe you are quite correct about pdf images, in that they will not display in the image window, even though you can designate them as primary. I don't believe that TMG's rudimentary image viewer is capable of dealing with them. You can insert them as images, and you can view them in TMG by double-clicking on their image icons, because then they are opened up in the Adobe reader that you have installed on your PC. I, personally, have found pdf images to be something less than ideal as a format for my use in TMG. I typically use a non-lossy format like TIFF or PNG for photos and other things that I might care to edit or enhance, and a good quality JPG for things like census documents and draft registrations that I need to be able to read well, but will never edit. Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

Hi Maureen If Mike's suggestion about the "Primary" designation is not the answer, is there any chance that you have placed the photos as exhibits to events, rather than to the actual person themselves? Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

Hi This is the output I get when I run the report after embedding the <[PAR]> variable in the sentence structure of the birth tag. For brevity, I limited the tags that were printed in the report to just Birth, Marriage and Death. I also only printed the report for 2 generations, and eliminated a few of the children from the report. This ancestor (Samuel Turner) had a total of 20 children by 3 different wives. The original Birth tag sentence structure was: [P] was born <[D]> <[L]> The modified sentence structure is: [P] <[PAR]> was born <[D]> <[L]> The <[PAR]> in the above structure instructs TMG to include "son (or daughter) of", followed by the names of the parents, right after the name of the principal in the Birth tag. That takes care of all people who have a Birth tag that actually contains data in it that is going to cause it to print. However, if you have Birth tags for some of your people that have nothing in them except a Sort Date, you will need to force those tags to print. I actually have very few empty Birth tags, because I usually know at least the U.S. state in which my person was born. But I have a few where that is not the case. Then I modify the Birth tag sentence structure (for that individual person) to make TMG print the tag in the report. After modification, the Birth tag sentence for the individual person reads something like: [P] <[PAR]> was born <[D]> <[L]> <[M]> Then, since my Memo field in the Birth tag was also empty, I include the exclusion code <[M0]> in it. There doesn't have to be any actual text. The code itself is enough to trigger the inclusion of the Memo field, and then to tell TMG not to include it. I ran a quick test to see what would happen if I did the things that I outlined above. The following text is the result. I hope this helps. Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland I. Samuel Turner (223), son of William Turner Sr. (13) and Rhoda Dent (14), was born on 18 Sep 1784 in Charles Co., Maryland. He married Elizabeth Ann Dent (224), daughter of Hatch Dent (254) and Susahanna Edwards (255), either 25 Sep 1806 or 25 Jan 1806. He married Mary Tucker (273), daughter of Robey Tucker (274), on 2 Feb 1826. He married Clarissa Nichols (285), daughter of John Nichols (286) and Jean Stinson (287), on 21 Aug 1835. He died on 16 Jul 1857 in Iredell Co., North Carolina, at age 72. A. William Hatch Dent Turner (256), son of Samuel Turner (223) and Elizabeth Ann Dent (224), was born on 27 Jun 1807 in Charles Co., Maryland. He married Elizabeth Campbell (257), daughter of Aeneas Campbell (321) and Lizann Belt (322). He died on 10 Oct 1842 in Iredell Co., North Carolina, at age 35. B. Wilford Dent Turner Sr. (258), son of Samuel Turner (223) and Elizabeth Ann Dent (224), was born on 15 Feb 1809 in Charles Co., Maryland. He married Dorcas Tomlinson (259). He died on 27 Jan 1893 in Turnersburg, North Carolina, at age 83. C. Rhoda Susan Turner (260), daughter of Samuel Turner (223) and Elizabeth Ann Dent (224), was born on 9 Feb 1811. She married her first cousin, William Turner (262), son of Wilson Turner I (211) and (--?--) (--?--) (2366), on 1 Feb 1827. She died on 24 Feb 1896 at age 85. She died on 24 Mar 1896 at age 85. D. John Chapman Turner (261), son of Samuel Turner (223) and Elizabeth Ann Dent (224), was born on 7 Mar 1813 in Iredell Co., North Carolina. He died on 6 Jul 1897 in Fayette Co., Tennessee, at age 84. E. Kitty Elizabeth Turner (263), daughter of Samuel Turner (223) and Elizabeth Ann Dent (224), was born on 10 Aug 1815. She died on 11 Jun 1825 at age 9. She died on 11 Jun 1826 at age 10. F. Henry Turner (264), son of Samuel Turner (223) and Elizabeth Ann Dent (224), was born on 5 Sep 1817. He married Margaret McKnight Webb (265) on 26 Nov 1840. He married Mary Ann Maston (266) on 14 Nov 1865. He died on 17 May 1883 in Cool Spring, North Carolina, at age 65. G. Emily Turner (269), daughter of Samuel Turner (223) and Elizabeth Ann Dent (224), was born on 19 Oct 1822. She married Belt Campbell (270) on 27 Sep 1836. She died on 23 Dec 1906 at age 84. H. Catherine Turner (275), daughter of Samuel Turner (223) and Mary Tucker (273), was born on 25 Dec 1826. She married M. M. Leach (276). She died in Little Rock, Pulaski, Arkansas. I. Benjamin Turner (279), son of Samuel Turner (223) and Mary Tucker (273), was born on 21 Jun 1831. He married Mary Jane Pickler (280). He married Elizabeth Smith (281). J. Mary Elizabeth Turner (282), daughter of Samuel Turner (223) and Mary Tucker (273), was born on 11 May 1833. She married (--?--) Anderson (283). She died in Apr 1921 at age 87. K. James Martin Turner (290), son of Samuel Turner (223) and Clarissa Nichols (285), was born on 29 Jun 1836 in River Hill, North Carolina. He married Emaline Julianna Gaither (291), daughter of Greenberry Gaither (330) and Joanna Gray (331), on 14 Jan 1858. He died on 17 Mar 1885 in River Hill, North Carolina, at age 48. L. Alfred Turner (292), son of Samuel Turner (223) and Clarissa Nichols (285), was born on 6 Nov 1838. He married Sarah Ann Gaither (293) in Mar 1867. He died on 27 Jan 1910 at age 71. M. Dorcas Elvira Turner (295), daughter of Samuel Turner (223) and Clarissa Nichols (285), was born on 4 May 1843. She married Dr. John Ellis (296). She died in 1916. N. Samuel Turner (297), son of Samuel Turner (223) and Clarissa Nichols (285), was born on 31 Dec 1846. He died on 22 Jul 1865 in North Carolina at age 18.

Hi Have you tried embedding the <[PAR]> variable in the sentence structure of your birth tag (or alternatively, in a role in the birth tag that you could use when you want to). In its simplest form, something like: [P] <[PAR]> was born <[D]> <[L]> That will give you a starting sentence of something like "Person A, son of Person B and Person C, was born..." If you embed the <[PAR]> variable in the actual birth tag it will give you that sentence syntax for every person in your database who has a birth tag. For my purposes, I actually use a role in the birth tag so I can easily control whether the names of the parents show up in the sentence. I have a similar role in my death tag that I use when the occasion warrants it. One downside of this approach is that you only get a birth sentence for people for whom you have created a birth tag. For me, that is no issue, because I create a birth tag whenever I add a new person to my database, because I like to use the sort date field in the birth tag to help out with making sure my people appear in the right order in reports. I know this isn't exactly the solution you are looking for, but I thought it might perhaps be an acceptable work-around for your problem. Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

Hi Bryan Thanks for the reply. I'm interested in PathWiz too, having seen a demo of V6 at our RUG TMG user group meeting in Falls Church VA some months ago. But I'm still a bit "light" on the exhibit side of things in my database, so I don't have that much use for it yet. TagWiz, on the other hand, would be of great benefit right now and my day was brightened considerably at even the possibility of an interim release. Thanks also for fixing the contact link. Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

Hi Perhaps some of you old-timers at this game could give me some pointers on how to thoroughly cite all of my tags but avoid making my reports totally unreadable when I include footnotes in them. I'm finding that this problem proliferates as the number of cites attached to tags grows. In a perfect world, I wish TMG had a checkbox in the citation entry dialog that would allow me to determine whether each citation should show up in my reports or not. It could be defaulted to "checked" or "unchecked". Then I would be able to cite the dickens out of my tags, but would be able to control which cites appeared on the reports. I would like to add this functionality (or some other solution that accomplishes the same objective) to the wish list. Are there any work-arounds to the problem? Thanks Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

Cool!!! I can't believe I've been using this software for a year and didn't know you could do precisely what I just asked for. This forum is a great place to learn. Thanks Mike

Hi Has anybody heard anything about a prospective release date for TagWiz. I have long since downloaded the demo, and would love to buy the program. But when I use the contact link for Bryan at BeeSoft I get an error and my messages don't get through. There have been literally dozens of times for me already when a tag-oriented utility program would have come in handy. Any information will be greatly appreciated. Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

You are welcome, Ken. I adopted that approach about a year or so ago when I was having the exact same problem that you are having right now. So I now include a birth tag for each new person as I add them, and I find that this approach solves a multitude of little problems. Plus, it gives me at least 1 tag for each person. Mike

Hi Ken The way I handle that is to give every one of my people a birth tag, since I know they were born, whether I know the DOB or not. Then I put an approximate year in the sort date field for the birth tag that will place each child in the order that I would like them to appear. Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

Hi Phil, You've probably thought of this already, and it's just a shot in the dark, but... Is there any chance that you already have a "Bio" tag out there, but as inactive, and maybe your Show Inactive checkbox isn't checked? Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

I had what seemed like a really screwy thing happening in my individual narrative report endnotes today. It took me about 3 hours to isolate what was happening, and it just about drove me crazy. I would be very interested to know if this is a known problem, if anyone else can reprodue it, or if it is just me... I noticed this morning that when I generated an individual narrative report, the endnotes for it were all printing in the short version of the note. And it was only happening in the individual narrative report. Or at least, it worked properly in the individual detail and journal reports. I didn't try it in all of the others. I finally isolated the problem as coming from my birth tag. Then I removed each component of the tag individually until I found the one that was causing the problem. What it turned out to be was that I was using a custom role in the birth tag, and the part of the sentence structure that the individual narrative report didn't like was that I had started the sentence with [P+], rather than with [P]. As soon as I removed the offending "+", the endnotes were generated properly. If I added the "+" back in, all I got was the short form of the endnotes. The individual detail and journal reports ran properly whichever way I set up the sentence. Then I set the variable in the sentence to read [P+], and re-ran the report. It worked fine. Then I changed the death date so that it happened before the birth date (to make it the first tag for the person), left the sentence variable as [P+], and re-ran the report. I got the short form of the endnotes again. The only conclusion that I can reach is that the individual narrative report takes offence at finding [P+] as the first thing that it encounters, at least so far as the endnotes are concerned, while other reports seem to run properly regardless... Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

You're welcome Vera. I've been designing and analyzing database applications for nearly 25 years now, and one of the reasons that I chose TMG in the first place, and will stick with it, is that it is one of the best thought-out database products that it has ever been my pleasure to work with. And it is easily the best genealogical database that I have tried. The other thing that TMG has going for it is the quality of it's user base. Here, and on the RootsWeb forum, on the mail list, and at the RUG user meetings in Virginia. Just about everywhere I encounter TMG users. I've never run across a bunch of people who are more willing to help someone out. Thanks for your efforts! Mike

Hi Glenn Thanks for the help...and the reassurance that I'm not seeing things that aren't there. Thanks also for the samples. You got all of that done and posted while I was trying to figure out how to do it within the forum. I didn't notice the undated tags. They sort to the bottom in my setup and I didn't even see them. I don't think they mattter, though. I had selected that record in the sample database because it had a relatively large number of tags in it with citations, and so I knew that I would get a reasonable sized endnote output. After I saw your post I went back to both my database and the sample database and tried the test again on very simple records that only had 3 or 4 tags in them, like birth, marriage, death, burial, and where all had dates in them. I got exactly the same results. One of the things that I found most interesting about this whole thing (and the main thing that caused me to take so long to isolate the problem) was that the problem only appears to happen in the individual narrative report. I haven't tried it in all of them, but the individual detail and journal reports seem to work fine with the "+" in the sentence. Thanks again Mike

Hi Vera, Thanks for the reply. I am quite dismayed that you didn't encounter the same problem, because I can replicate it over and over again. I can also replicate it in the sample database (which I have never modified in any way). I went to the sample database and ran the report for Benjamin Franklin Keebler (21). The first time I ran it was without any changes. I left the sentence structure for the birth tag as the default [P] was born <[D]> <[L]> Then I ran the narrative report and then the endnote report. The narrative report output looks fine. The endnote report output also looks fine and has 10 endnote references in it, the first one of which is referencing Benjamin Franklin Keebler's name in the first line of the narrative report. Then I went into his birth tag and added the "+" so that the sentence reads [P+] was born <[D]> <[L]> Then I ran the narrative report and then the endnote report again. The narrative report still looks just like it did before, except that now it only has 9 endnote references. The place where the #1 endnote reference was in the earlier version of the report was on Benjamin Franklin Keebler's name. Now the #1 reference is on his birth date in the first record instead, and his name has no endnote reference number. The endnote report after the change now only has 9 endnotes in it, and the first one is ibid, rather than the letter reference that it should have been. If you can't replicate this, can certainly send you pdf's of the reports run both ways. Mike Thanks for your help. This has really had me scratching my head...

This morning, I was looking back over this message that I posted here yesterday, and realized that it reads like it was written by someone under the influence of controlled substances, which wasn't the case, although I had just gone through a few pretty dizzy hours trying to figure out why my endnotes wouldn't print properly for one person, while they printed fine for others. It is actually a very easy thing to test: 1. Go to any person in your database who has a birth tag as their first tag. 2. Go into the tag entry form for the birth tag. 3. Click on the sentence button and change the [P] variable in the sentence to [P+]. 4. Exit from the tag entry form. 5. Pick the Individual Narrative report from the Reports menu. 6. Go into the report options before running the report and make sure the Endnotes under the Sources tab are turned on. 7. Close your Individual Narrative report. 8. Run Endnotes report. If you have the same issue that I have with the report, the notes will be all screwed up. 9. If you run this same test on the Individual Detail report, everything will work fine. 9. When you remove the "+" from the [P] variable back in your birth tag for that person, the Individual Narrative report will work fine too. Any assistance here would be greatly appreciated, because I would really like to know if this is a general TMG issue, or if it is an idiosyncrasy on my PC. Thanks Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

Is there any way to make the births of children appear on the Individual Narrative report? I fully realize the implications of the word "individual", but still, the birth of a child is such a major event in virtually anyone's life that it would seem to me to have a place in their narrative, at least optionally. Is there an easy way to accomplish this? Thanks Mike

Thanks for the suggestion, Jim. That, at least, puts all of the information that I am looking for on the same page, if not in the format that I might have chosen. It still would be nice, though, if the narrative report could have the added flexibility of being able to include sentences about the births of the children. Thanks again, Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

I think you've hit upon the problem that some of the other TMG users and I have run up against, except in a relationship tag, rather than in an event tag. I haven't run into it in the same place that you have yet, because I haven't been adding group pictures to my database (yet). But what I have been doing is adding things like census and obituary and marriage announcement scans so that anyone who wants to can see where that information came from. Well, if I have a census tag where I have added a man and his wife as principals, and their children as witnesses, TMG will show the exhibit as an event for both principals, but it doesn't show up in the events for the witnesses. The exhibit shows up for the two principals with just one of the image showing up in the exhibits window. The only way that I can get it to show up for the witnesses is to go to the detail record for each of the five children and add it to them as an exhibit. But then the exhibit window gets clogged up with five more images of the same thing. What I would love to see the gods and goddesses of TMG do is to modify the application so that the witnesses also show the exhibits to an event that they are hooked to. Even better would be a checkbox that would allow you to include the exhibit for the witnesses (or not) at your discretion. Mike Daugherty Frederick, Maryland

I have been doing a lot of work with census lately, and I have been attaching an image of the census record to the census event as an event exhibit. The good news about it is that the exhibit shows up in the event exhibits of both principals with just that one link. But the bad news is that it doesn't show up in the event exhibits for any of the children and/or other family members who are attached to the event as witnesses. It would be really helpful if it did, because then you wouldn't have to work your way back to the head of household for a census event to pull up the exhibit to look at it. Has there ever been any discussion about the possibility of having exhibits that are associated with an event show up in the witnesses event exhibits too? Mike

Thanks, it's nice to know I'm not the only cry in the wilderness... So who do we have to bribe to get it? Mike

There is a rather large Rebuild all Sentences button on the Tag Type Definition form. I have not touched it yet, because I am uncertain as to exactly what the words all and rebuilt refer to in this context. My assumption is that it means that all sentences for all of the roles in the tag that is currently being edited will be rebuilt. Is this correct? And rebuilt? Does that mean set back to the TMG standard default sentences? I took a pretty good look through the user manual and also went to the index of the TMG help system, but didn't find anything talking about the button (but that doesn't mean I didn't miss it). Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Mike