Search the Community

I am a bit lost and hope somebody can help find my way back. I have read nearly everything (also Terry's explanations and examples) but am still puzzled by what the real benefit of the variable is. When should (or must) I use it to get exactly what effect? I understand that it has some extra flexibility (with the [sx] variants) but there must be something more to it that still escapes me. Please help.

I am having trouble with FGS and Individual Detail report output of sentences containing memos with roles. I am running v8.07 on Windows 7. (I was also having this problem in 8.04, so I backed up my databases first, upgraded to 8.07, and then restored from backup.) Example memo in a ResearchNote tag: Joseph Lybundgutt is probably the man by that name [R:Witness] who married (1) [R:Witness3] 31 Aug 1595 at Melchnau, and (2) [R:Witness4] 27 Jun 1603 at Melchnau. There are 3 witnesses for the ResearchNote tag: Witness: Joseph Leibundgut Witness3: Esbeth Dambach Witness4: Raegula Arber The sentence structure: [:CR:]Research note:[:CR:]<[M]> The sentence preview is just as expected (although it needs a bit of cleaning up, I must admit): Research note: Joseph Lybundgutt is probably the man by that name Joseph Leibundgut who married (1) Esbeth Dambach 31 Aug 1595 at Melchnau, and (2) Raegula Arber 27 Jun 1603 at Melchnau. The Individual Narrative, Journal, and Descendant Indented Narrative reports are also as expected: Research note: Joseph Lybundgutt is probably the man by that name Joseph Leibundgut (273) who married (1) Esbeth Dambach (35) 31 Aug 1595 at Melchnau, and (2) Raegula Arber (36) 27 Jun 1603 at Melchnau. However, the FGS and Individual Detail reports are bad: Witness; Joseph LEIBUNDGUT (27); Joseph Lybundgutt is probably the man by that name [R:00002] who married (1) [R:00004] 31 Aug 1595 at Melchnau, and (2) [R:00005] 27 Jun 1603 at Melchnau. What am I missing? Thanks for any help!! Barbara

I have noticed in 8.06 that what appears to be a hyphen or dash is being appended to name tag sentences and custom role sentences in report screen preview. If a .rtf report is created it appears to be a D with a dash in the back. IN-EH-971.rtf If the report is sent to Word it appears that a carriage return or line feed is generated before the period. IN-EH-971.doc If the report is sent to .pdf it appears as a hyphen or dash. Name Marr tag is using default sentence. Custom role sentence is [+]<; [M]> I get the same hyphen or dash in the sample project with report defaults. Also seeing the same in Descendancy Narrative and Journal reports. IN-EH-971.pdf

I created new roles within a custom tag. I set up witnesses within the tag, using multiple roles. I have witness memos set up was well as a sentence using the roles for the 2 principles. When I run validate file integrity, the pop up says NO PROBLEMS FOUND, but sometimes the role is changed to 'witness' instead of my custom role. AS AN EXAMPLE - My principle sentence is - [:CR:]In the census taken on the night of 7th April 1861 [P] was the wife of the head of the household, [PO]. The address was [L]. <[M].> <Their children [RF:with par] were living with them><Her children [RF:with moth] were living with her><, [M2]>[:CR:] My memo for the principle is - ||along with 2 grandchildren [R:WITNESS], and Mark's wife [R:WIT2] I have 6 witnesses. 3 are 'with par' - 2 are 'Witness' - 1 is 'wit2'. (note the case is an exact copy) Sentence reads correctly before the validation - In the census taken on the night of 7th April 1861 Caroline Chapman was the wife of the head of the household, Mark Culling. The address was Campsall, Yorkshire, England. Their children Mark, Honour and Laura were living with them, along with 2 grandchildren Arthur Mark Culling and Caroline Louisa Culling, and Mark's wife Sarah Harriet Moore. After validation 'wit2' has been changed to 'Witness' - In the census taken on the night of 7th April 1861 Caroline Chapman was the wife of the head of the household, Mark Culling. The address was Campsall, Yorkshire, England. Their children Mark, Honour and Laura were living with them. I have 7 custom tags that read the same except for the census date. I do not have this issue with them all. I can confirm that at least one of the others retains the role selected after a file validation. I cannot see a difference in the files, but just in case I will copy/paste as above for one that did not get changed. Principle sentence - [:CR:]In the census taken on the night of 3rd April 1881 [P] was the wife of the head of the household, [PO]. The address was [L]. <[M].> <Their children [RF:with par] were living with them><Her children [RF:with moth] were living with her><, [M2]>[:CR:] Memo - Mary Ann's daughter-in-law [R:WITNESS] and [R:WIT2] are using the name of BAYFIELD but in all civil registrations of this family they are named WOODHOUSE Sentence reads correctly before AND after validation. - In the census taken on the night of 3rd April 1881 Mary Ann Woodhouse was the wife of the head of the household, William Plane Hodds. The address was 5 Wellington Place, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England. Mary Ann's daughter-in-law Susannah Woodhouse and William Henry Woodhouse are using the name of BAYFIELD but in all civil registrations of this family they are named WOODHOUSE. Her children Ann and Walter were living with her. The underlined portions have been cut/pasted from my database. I am using the UK version, and I am using the database to produce a web site. I set up the tags and the roles using 'copy' then edit wherever I could. I have copied the UK sentence over to US, again using copy/paste. At times I edited the US sentence and copied it over to UK, but I have no idea on which roles. Certainly I would NOT have been consistent within any specific tag. i.e. 1861 was NOT all copied UK to US and 1881 was NOT all copied US to UK (or vice-versa) I filtered my data to show 1861 census that had wit2 roles, and (after the validation) came up with zero. I changed ONE census tag, and ran the filter again, and it came up with just the people with the tag I had edited. I ran more tests that PROVE that only the tags for the years 1861 and 1871 are effected. This assumes that the issue is Tag-wide, as I do not know if 'some tags' in other years are effected. Gut feel is that it IS Tag-wide All help will be appreciated. This is NOT urgent as I can live without using wit2 and wit3 for 1861 and 1871. I would, though, like to understand what I did wrong for these 2 tags, as I have plans for more custom sentences in the future. SHIRLEY