RGC

Some time ago I reported problems with TMG and Open Office; see (Forum) MS seems to have fixed the WORD problem (failure when too many end notes) - at least for reports of the size I create. Terry has come up with a solution for the section break problem in WORD but not one for Open Office (he didn't try because I didn't ask). But the problem with squared graphics still exists. Since it doesn't happen for reports generated by WORD, there's apparently something unique about the output from TMG that triggers the problem in Open Office Writer. It would be nice if whatever that is could be identified and avoided if possible. Creation of a macro to solve the Open Office Writer problem has met with failure because (as I recall) it's apparently not possible to address the necessary graphics feature. This was reported to the Open Office people, and although they recognize that any document which will open in WORD should open in Open Office, I haven't seen any interest in fixing it (TMG reports seem to be the only problem source, so it's likely low on their fix list). Does anyone have a solution (other than tediously fixing each graphic independently)? Dick

I very frequently move from desktop to laptop, these days at least once a week. I have built a BAT file which creates a ZIP of all files (in selected areas) which have changed since a given date; one of the areas is the TMG directory (I keep my data separate from the program). This ZIP goes onto a thumb drive and goes with me in my pocket to the other machine and gets unzipped there. It does require a copy of PKZIP Command Line. For TMG only the backup/restore process would be equivalent (I use the scheme for lots of stuff - email, web site data, etc).

Sorry, I goofed. I thought you were talking about a journal report. Missed the "chart"..... Dick

I use a flag which I set up to include all end-of-line males. The criteria is that neither the mother nor father of a male exists, and the name is not an unknown. This gives me a drop for each surname, and only omits those females who are mothers of an end-line male's mother (e.g. a grandmother) where neither father is known. Generally these are the people one hardly ever finds anyway. Of course one could use all end-of-line people if they wish. Then, of course, I do a descendant report where the criteria is persons with the flag set. This technique avoids the need to establish an imaginary super-person. Dick

In the report definition screen, select options and then the output columns tab.

One can use the SUBST command-level instruction to reassign drives. Pick an imaginary drive letter and reassign the real one. One can even (although this is not applicable here) assign a drive letter to a subdirectory. For example, if TMG were to be told that the data files are on drive W (a drive letter which is highly unlikely to be assigned in any system), and the external hard drive, when loaded on machine 1 appeared on drive G, then the command SUBST G: W:\ would do the job. If the external hard drive loaded on machine 2 were to appear as drive J, then SUBST J: W:\ on that machine would do it. These instructions can be loaded under run - command while the system is up and running or as a BAT command run during startup. I use a similar technique regularly (subdirectory reassignment) when changing machines and also to maintain programs on my machine which will be run on another with different drive assignments. Dick

I do that using the end-of-line-males so just about everybody linked in my database is included. Sorting on surname. Dick

How about a filter "ID equals a or ID equals b" where where a is the main focus person and b is the spouse that you want the other children shown? Some duplication but all in one report. Dick

Is it possible that you're in the habit of using optimize on one of the computers? That should affect the file sizes. Dic

I had this problem, but it went away when I upgraded to Word 2003. Dick

I use pdf995. It's cheap ($9.95) so little expense to obtain and try. One output can be seen at http://www.rgcle.com/stories/The%20Nobel%20Prize%20Trip.PDF. An example of an xls printed with it is attached here. Another example, this one from a ppt presentation, is also attached. Dick Sample.PDF Sample2.PDF

Here is an idea you might use. This would not satisfy your ultimate objective but may come close enough. First, for each event use the place consistently by either the current name or the original name. The latter may be preferred because the name may change yet again and later readers of your work may prefer that. Second, insert an asterisk or other symbol at the end of the city, state or country name if there are other names by which that place is known. Third, for those places with that symbol, insert, in the place record, a comment field identifying the other names of the place, perhaps identifying the date range that name was in effect. Fourth, for an appendix of your document, make one or more "list of places" reports filtered on fields containing that symbol, each report sorted by the field having one of those symbols, and include in the output the comments field. In order to have the reports look nice in the final publication you might produce each report in Microsoft Excel format, then import that as a table into a Microsoft Word document. Printing either form (Excel or Word) could make it possible for the text in the comments column to wrap and make it more readable. As introduction to your document you might point out the significance of the symbol and refer to the appendices. In the event that you opt to produce an internet site using John Cardinal's program Second Site, you wil find that a place index is produced and this should serve a purpose similar to that of the proposed appendix. I an sure that we would be most interested in learning about the technique you finally choose. Dick

Why?

Just a shot in the dark, so to speak. Have you installed Internet Explorer 7 on your machine? I recently ran into a problem with scanner software that HP said was caused by IE7 (they gave me a work-around). No problem with the scanner software before IE7 and no problem with it on my laptop (which is using IE6). Dick

I took a non-TMG approach. I posted the picture separately and then pointed to it from the memo of the several people involved. The results can be seen at http://www.rgcle.com/stories/easter_group2003.htm which is the picture; mouse-over an click on any of the heads to go to the individuals to see the references. I used a witness tag for the references in the form: HID:][sS:][:CR:][:CR:]She was among those attending a pre-Easter family gathering in 2003; see <A HREF="../stories/easter_group2003.htm"><IMG SRC="picicon.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="Easter"></A> for a picture of the attendees.[:SS][:HID]||[HID:][sS:][:CR:][:CR:]He was among those attending a pre-Easter family gathering in 2003; see <A HREF="../stories/easter_group2003.htm"><IMG SRC="picicon.gif" BORDER=0 ALT="Easter"></A> for a picture of the attendees.[:SS][:HID] The form was arranged so that the references don't appear in a printed version of the data. Dick

I've seen this in another situation in XP; to get a remote computer linked to a Netlink wireless router in the secure mode, the user had to type in the access code rather than paste it from the CD I provided. Dick

This is what I do, not having a strong interest in publishing the source detail on paper. For my examples see http://www.rgcle.com/SS/s1.htm and scan down to look at the various text-exhibit icons. Dick

I have generally attached exhibits to the source, not the citation. My feeling is that the casual reader/viewer is mostly interested in the nature of the source (will, census, deed, etc) than the details. The more intent reader/viewer will go to the source description and, if a viewer of an SS site, see the exhibit and if not at least know where to find it if a reader of the TMG-printed report. As far as I can recall the exhibit will not appear as an adjunct or reference in the printed report and perhaps never will, given the variety of exhibit types. Dick

One aspect to consider is the list of sources in the printed report, The list can be huge, espcially if each document is written up as a separate source.

I don't have many, so this proposed solution doesn't apply to me. However, assuming you have many from the same jurisdiction you could establish a source such as "Vital records of Milwaukee, Wisconsin." Then you could identify the specific birth/death/marriage record in the citation detail field when citing the source. Dick

Having read all the previous postings, I deduce that many are neglecting a significant aspect of our work. Like many of us, I use prior-generation document citations as sources; my most commonly cited is an 1899 publication. That's well over 100 years old. Where will the web sites be 100 years from now? Which is a more useful citation for follow-on generations to use; a paper document, a computer file on some media (such as a web site copy) or a web site itself? The same pretty much applies to email citations. I must admit, in fairness, that I sometimes cite web sites, but in those cases where possible I use the site data as a clue as to where to find the "real" source (I deplore greatly those many sites which don't include source citations). In the case of emails I most usually copy the contents into an exhibit associated with the source. One of these days I'll find it possible to publish - both on paper and CD - "the book;" in the interim a CD copy of my Second Site presentation will have to do. But will IT be able to be read 100 year from now? Probably not (sorry, John). Please think about the distant future when it comes to citations. Dick

I didn't use Google Earth, but if it had been available then I would have. Maybe I'll update. See http://www.rgcle.com/SS/p16.htm#i305 See 41 38 55 N 85 07 40 W to compare. Dick

Two comments on this thread: First, I don't find the TMG-provided image editing a sore point. If you don't want to use it, don't. However - especially a few years ago - few TMG users really understood image handling, and having the minimal features in TMG was probably a good thing. Even today there are likely some - if not many - users what are unfamiliar with third-party editors. They are the ones who do NOT participate in this thread - or perhaps even in the forum or mailing list. That does not mean, however, that I approve of the TMG editor saving with a resolution/size different than the source if possible. Notwithstanding any third-party stumbling block, the data is obvously avaliable since it must be used in the loading process of an editor. Second, a couple of years ago I made a test of the alleged cumulative degradation of successive JPG editing runs, which many respected users contend is true. In the end I compared the original with the final by expanding down to the pixel level. I found no degradation after ten passes - and didn't go any further. I explain this with an assumption: the editor changes the JPG to bitmap (or something similar), then edits as desired, then compresses the resulting bitmap using the desired compression. At that time I posted the results (I think on the list) and asked anyone interested to make a similar test and provide the results. No one accepted the offer, as far as I saw. Of course the compression factor has to remain the same throughout the test. I used 75%, then reran with 25% for a few passes with the same result. I remain open to a well-documented test that shows other results than I got; I'm willing to be proven wrong. FWIW I have done a lot of image processing, and I agree with those who say to keep archival copies of graphics and retain separately those used for TMG/SS, mostly so that the resolution and sizing can be done to properly display the graphics for various output media. Dick

Jim, having experimented it looks like jpg files are being resaved by TMG with a compression factor of 100 - that is, no compression. Many people - such as me - normally use about 75. I guess TMG doesn't - or can't - know what the original compression factor was, so it takes the safe option and uses 100. TMG must resave the image if there is editing done; perhaps if no editing is done the resave could be avoided - or the compression factor could be an option (either a program default and/or an option on the exit of the image view). I imagine few users would like to have a choice on an individual image basis, so a default value would probably satisfy most. Of course if the original compression factor can be "seen" by the TMG image viewer, it should be used when saving. Dick