Dates Leading Zeros

[JohnR 0]

In reports I can't get rid of leading zeros in years before 1000. The leading zero option doesn't seem to apply (whether I check it or not I still get the same). Entering the date 975 in data entry automatically changes to 0975.

Suggestions please?

[Paul Lawrence 0]

In reports I can't get rid of leading zeros in years before 1000. The leading zero option doesn't seem to apply (whether I check it or not I still get the same). Entering the date 975 in data entry automatically changes to 0975.

Suggestions please?

 

Which "leading zero option" are you referring to??? On the reports? That's the only place I am aware of a leading zero option and that affects the printing only...not data entry...as far as I know all dates will be entered and stored with leading zeros but you can suppress the printing of the leading zeros in reports...

[Jim Byram 0]

Leading zeros are stripped from each date part in report output if the option to retain leading leading zeros is not selected. However, there is a limitation... only one leading zero is stripped from each date part. I tested several date formats but not all. You didn't say which format you are using.

 

So... 01-01-0975 would be output as 1-1-975. However, 01-01-0001 would be output as 1-1-001.

 

Not an issue that I recall coming up but I'd guess that the failure to strip all leading zeros from a year is a bug.

[retsof 0]

I don't really mind the leading zeros being there in the data, as it permits a better computer sort of 4 digit years, as in a picklist search of birthdate or deathdate. If they are stripped in reports, then that would save space on the line.

 

We have to go through an extra step to fix century for years 1-99, with up to 3 leading zeros, as 0001. That is no problem for me.

 

Now, about those BC dates... They are all invalid dates, so at least I try to be consistent ... and enter them as 4 digit years BC to allow the same type of consistent computer sorting.

 

After all of that, I was curious about the other direction. 3000 seems to be the last valid year permitted. 3001 is an invalid date. I may not see it unless I find a suspended animation chamber in time.

Edited October 26, 2007 by retsof

[Mike Talbot 0]

I don't really mind the leading zeros being there in the data, as it permits a better computer sort of 4 digit years, as in a picklist search of birthdate or deathdate. If they are stripped in reports, then that would save space on the line.

 

We have to go through an extra step to fix century for years 1-99, with up to 3 leading zeros, as 0001. That is no problem for me.

 

Now, about those BC dates... They are all invalid dates, so at least I try to be consistent ... and enter them as 4 digit years BC to allow the same type of consistent computer sorting.

 

After all of that, I was curious about the other direction. 3000 seems to be the last valid year permitted. 3001 is an invalid date. I may not see it unless I find a suspended animation chamber in time.

 

I agree with you completely. The leading zeros and editor gymnastics in dates from 1 -99 and some reports are annoying but I can live with them.

 

The bigger problem is that TMG does not address BC dates.

 

I would settle for just making negative years legal for BC years. The drawback to that (other than being ugly) is that age calculations would be one year off in transitional calculations that crossed AD/BC (there was no year zero nor Roman Numeral for zero, darn it).

 

The TMG date year restrictions eliminate many potential customers like ancient historians, role playing and war gamers, and science and historical fiction writers.

 

Best wishes,

Mike Talbot

[retsof 0]

I would settle for just making negative years legal for BC years. The drawback to that (other than being ugly) is that age calculations would be one year off in transitional calculations that crossed AD/BC (there was no year zero nor Roman Numeral for zero, darn it).

 

The TMG date year restrictions eliminate many potential customers like ancient historians, role playing and war gamers, and science and historical fiction writers.

I wondered about that, but BC gets very fuzzy very fast. Astronomers have gone to the Julius Scaliger "julian days since Monday, January 1, 4713 BC in the proleptic Julian calendar. Their formulas DO take 1BC as 0 and 2BC as -1 and go from there, if they really need a year.

 

753 BC was the start of A.U.C. (Ab Urbe Condito, or the founding of the Roman Empire) The Calendar was juggled many times since then due to politics.

 

The 12 month 354 day lunar calendar (+1 day because even days are unlucky) started around 715BC. The Islamic Calendar (A.H.) is still lunar based.

 

In addition to no year zero, BC has more fun. 46 BC (708AUC) Annus Confusionus, "Year of Confusion." had 445 days, to align the equinoxes. Julius Caesar set 365.25 days for a year, but even that got lost for awhile. We are not still sure whether some of the leap years after J. C. died were every 4 or every 3, until the mistake was noticed around 9BC by Augustus Caesar. That also aligned the months to have the number of days that they have now.

 

Our own calendar started after 531 (A.D.) and was predetermined to start at year 1 AD. Jesus was born somewhere between 4BC and 6BC, we think, but not on Dec. 25, the Saturnalia that was appropriated by Constantine the Great to bring the Pagans into Christianity by taking over a celebration day.

 

The Holocene calendar, popular term for the Holocene Era count or Human Era count, uses a dating system similar to astronomical year numbering but adds 10,000, placing a zero at the start of the Human Era (HE, the beginning of human civilization) the approximation of the Holocene Epoch (HE, post Ice Age) for easier geological, archaeological, dendrochronological and historical dating. The current Gregorian year can be transformed by simply placing a 1 before it (ie: 12007). The Human Era proposal was first made by Cesare Emiliani in 11993 HE.

[Mike Talbot 0]

I wondered about that, but BC gets very fuzzy very fast. Astronomers have gone to the Julius Scaliger "julian days since Monday, January 1, 4713 BC in the proleptic Julian calendar. Their formulas DO take 1BC as 0 and 2BC as -1 and go from there, if they really need a year.

 

753 BC was the start of A.U.C. (Ab Urbe Condito, or the founding of the Roman Empire) The Calendar was juggled many times since then due to politics.

 

The 12 month 354 day lunar calendar (+1 day because even days are unlucky) started around 715BC. The Islamic Calendar (A.H.) is still lunar based.

 

In addition to no year zero, BC has more fun. 46 BC (708AUC) Annus Confusionus, "Year of Confusion." had 445 days, to align the equinoxes. Julius Caesar set 365.25 days for a year, but even that got lost for awhile. We are not still sure whether some of the leap years after J. C. died were every 4 or every 3, until the mistake was noticed around 9BC by Augustus Caesar. That also aligned the months to have the number of days that they have now.

 

Our own calendar started after 531 (A.D.) and was predetermined to start at year 1 AD. Jesus was born somewhere between 4BC and 6BC, we think, but not on Dec. 25, the Saturnalia that was appropriated by Constantine the Great to bring the Pagans into Christianity by taking over a celebration day.

 

The Holocene calendar, popular term for the Holocene Era count or Human Era count, uses a dating system similar to astronomical year numbering but adds 10,000, placing a zero at the start of the Human Era (HE, the beginning of human civilization) the approximation of the Holocene Epoch (HE, post Ice Age) for easier geological, archaeological, dendrochronological and historical dating. The current Gregorian year can be transformed by simply placing a 1 before it (ie: 12007). The Human Era proposal was first made by Cesare Emiliani in 11993 HE.

 

Your history of the calendar was enjoyable. The one fact to add is that "our calendar" began in 1582 AD, commisioned by the Vatican and directed by Pope Gregory XIII. It took until 1752 for Protestant countries, led by England, to accept it.

 

I wonder how many genealogical dates have had multiple compensations applied in an attempt to correct for that period? Messing with the calendar, again, would just cause more historical date confusion and anachronisms in the future. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (The calendar was broken before 1572.)

 

Modern science confirms that the 1582 Gregorian Calendar is just off by 26 seconds per year. At that rate our calendar will be incorrect by one day, 3000 years from now.

[JohnR 0]

Leading zeros are stripped from each date part in report output if the option to retain leading leading zeros is not selected. However, there is a limitation... only one leading zero is stripped from each date part. I tested several date formats but not all. You didn't say which format you are using.

 

So... 01-01-0975 would be output as 1-1-975. However, 01-01-0001 would be output as 1-1-001.

 

Not an issue that I recall coming up but I'd guess that the failure to strip all leading zeros from a year is a bug.

 

I am using dd Mmmy yyyy format. However this "bug" seems to be limited to "between" dates. I am using a birth tag "between 0970 and 0975" and this is producing the report output "b. between 0970 and 0975" I haven't tried it with other conditionals.

 

John

[retsof 0]

Your history of the calendar was enjoyable. The one fact to add is that "our calendar" began in 1582 AD, commisioned by the Vatican and directed by Pope Gregory XIII. It took until 1752 for Protestant countries, led by England, to accept it.

 

I wonder how many genealogical dates have had multiple compensations applied in an attempt to correct for that period? Messing with the calendar, again, would just cause more historical date confusion and anachronisms in the future. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (The calendar was broken before 1572.)

 

Modern science confirms that the 1582 Gregorian Calendar is just off by 26 seconds per year. At that rate our calendar will be incorrect by one day, 3000 years from now.

Our calendar STARTED to begin in 1582 AD, you mean. I didn't mention it before because it is in the range of TMG valid dates. The Roman Catholics went ahead with it because Pope Gregory was one of their guys. I picked up a few more paragraphs from wikipedia.

 

Spain, Portugal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and most of Italy implemented the new calendar on Friday, 15 October 1582, following Julian Thursday, October 4, 1582. The Spanish and Portuguese colonies adopted the calendar later due to the slowness of communication in those days. France adopted the new calendar on Monday, 20 December 1582, following Sunday, December 9, 1582. The Protestant Dutch provinces of Holland and Zeeland also adopted it in December of that year.

 

Britain considered the Gregorian calendar a papist plot and Catholic invention so didn't change until 1752. The Kingdom of Great Britain and thereby the rest of the British Empire (including the eastern part of what is now the United States) adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 under the provisions of the Calendar Act 1750; by which time it was necessary to correct by eleven days (Wednesday, September 2, 1752 being followed by Thursday, September 14, 1752)

 

Denmark, Norway and the Protestant states of Germany adopted the solar portion of the new calendar on Monday, 1 March 1700, following Sunday, 18 February 1700.

 

Sweden's relationship with the Gregorian Calendar had a difficult birth. Sweden started to make the change from the OS calendar and towards the NS calendar in 1700, but it was decided to make the (then 11 day) adjustment gradually, by excluding the leap days (29 February) from each of 11 successive leap years, 1700 to 1740. In the meantime, not only would the Swedish calendar be out of step with both the Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar for 40 years, but also the difference would not be static but would change every 4 years. This strange system clearly had great potential for endless confusion when working out the dates of Swedish events in this 40 year period. To make matters worse, the system was poorly administered and the leap days that should have been excluded from 1704 and 1708 were not excluded. The Swedish calendar should by now have been 8 days behind the Gregorian, but it was still in fact 10 days behind. King Charles XII wisely recognised that the gradual change to the new system was not working and he abandoned it. However, rather than now proceeding directly to the Gregorian calendar (as in hindsight seems to have been the sensible and obvious thing to do), it was decided to revert to the Julian calendar. This was achieved by introducing the unique date 30 February in the year 1712, adjusting the discrepancy in the calendars from 10 back to 11 days. Sweden finally adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1753, when Wednesday, 17 February was followed by Thursday, 1 March, Since Finland was under Swedish rule at that time, it did the same.[6]

 

In Alaska, the change took place when Friday, October 6, 1867 was followed again by Friday, October 18 after the US purchase of Alaska from Russia, which was still on the Julian calendar. Instead of 12 days, only 11 were skipped, and the day of the week was repeated on successive days, because the International Date Line was shifted from Alaska's eastern to western boundary along with the change to the Gregorian calendar.

 

In Russia the Gregorian calendar was accepted after the October Revolution (so named because it took place in October 1917 in the Julian calendar). On 24 January 1918 the Council of People's Commissars issued a Decree that Wednesday, 31 January 1918 was to be followed by Thursday, 14 February 1918.

 

The last country of Eastern Orthodox Europe to adopt the Gregorian calendar was Greece on Thursday, 1 March 1923, following Wednesday, 15 February 1923.

 

There are more dates to consider in Asia. I will not go there. Here's the link.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

 

Russia and the Soviet Union converted to the Gregorian Calendar after the Revolution, in 1918.

 

The Eastern Orthodox Churches continued observing the Julian Calendar until 1923, at which time some, but not all, skipped the first 13 days in October, and introduced a "Revised Julian Calendar" with a unique variation on the leap-year rule. This has caused a schism between New Calendarists and Old Calendarists. The problem remains unresolved.

 

The range of time between those dates and between Jan 1 and Feb 28/29 is dealt with in the old style/new style notation of two adjacent years during that time. Recall that George Washington was born Feb 11, 1731 old style, but after the change, we celebrate his birthday as Feb 22, 1732. We had to muck it up by combining Washington and Lincoln to get "Presidents day". In the old days, Feb 29 was at the END of the year, before we started the year on Jan 1. The Russian Orthodox still uses the Julian calendar.

 

To fit that 3000 year correction you mention, the Gregorianites could put in a correction of omitting a leap year every 4000 years, maybe. Was that 26 seconds in the same direction?

Edited October 28, 2007 by retsof

[Mike Talbot 0]

Our calendar STARTED to begin in 1582 AD, you mean. I didn't mention it before because it is in the range of TMG valid dates. The Roman Catholics went ahead with it because Pope Gregory was one of their guys. I picked up a few more paragraphs from wikipedia.

 

Spain, Portugal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and most of Italy implemented the new calendar on Friday, 15 October 1582, following Julian Thursday, October 4, 1582. The Spanish and Portuguese colonies adopted the calendar later due to the slowness of communication in those days. France adopted the new calendar on Monday, 20 December 1582, following Sunday, December 9, 1582. The Protestant Dutch provinces of Holland and Zeeland also adopted it in December of that year.

 

Britain considered the Gregorian calendar a papist plot and Catholic invention so didn't change until 1752. The Kingdom of Great Britain and thereby the rest of the British Empire (including the eastern part of what is now the United States) adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 under the provisions of the Calendar Act 1750; by which time it was necessary to correct by eleven days (Wednesday, September 2, 1752 being followed by Thursday, September 14, 1752)

 

Denmark, Norway and the Protestant states of Germany adopted the solar portion of the new calendar on Monday, 1 March 1700, following Sunday, 18 February 1700.

 

Sweden's relationship with the Gregorian Calendar had a difficult birth. Sweden started to make the change from the OS calendar and towards the NS calendar in 1700, but it was decided to make the (then 11 day) adjustment gradually, by excluding the leap days (29 February) from each of 11 successive leap years, 1700 to 1740. In the meantime, not only would the Swedish calendar be out of step with both the Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar for 40 years, but also the difference would not be static but would change every 4 years. This strange system clearly had great potential for endless confusion when working out the dates of Swedish events in this 40 year period. To make matters worse, the system was poorly administered and the leap days that should have been excluded from 1704 and 1708 were not excluded. The Swedish calendar should by now have been 8 days behind the Gregorian, but it was still in fact 10 days behind. King Charles XII wisely recognised that the gradual change to the new system was not working and he abandoned it. However, rather than now proceeding directly to the Gregorian calendar (as in hindsight seems to have been the sensible and obvious thing to do), it was decided to revert to the Julian calendar. This was achieved by introducing the unique date 30 February in the year 1712, adjusting the discrepancy in the calendars from 10 back to 11 days. Sweden finally adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1753, when Wednesday, 17 February was followed by Thursday, 1 March, Since Finland was under Swedish rule at that time, it did the same.[6]

 

In Alaska, the change took place when Friday, October 6, 1867 was followed again by Friday, October 18 after the US purchase of Alaska from Russia, which was still on the Julian calendar. Instead of 12 days, only 11 were skipped, and the day of the week was repeated on successive days, because the International Date Line was shifted from Alaska's eastern to western boundary along with the change to the Gregorian calendar.

 

In Russia the Gregorian calendar was accepted after the October Revolution (so named because it took place in October 1917 in the Julian calendar). On 24 January 1918 the Council of People's Commissars issued a Decree that Wednesday, 31 January 1918 was to be followed by Thursday, 14 February 1918.

 

The last country of Eastern Orthodox Europe to adopt the Gregorian calendar was Greece on Thursday, 1 March 1923, following Wednesday, 15 February 1923.

 

There are more dates to consider in Asia. I will not go there. Here's the link.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

 

Russia and the Soviet Union converted to the Gregorian Calendar after the Revolution, in 1918.

 

The Eastern Orthodox Churches continued observing the Julian Calendar until 1923, at which time some, but not all, skipped the first 13 days in October, and introduced a "Revised Julian Calendar" with a unique variation on the leap-year rule. This has caused a schism between New Calendarists and Old Calendarists. The problem remains unresolved.

 

The range of time between those dates and between Jan 1 and Feb 28/29 is dealt with in the old style/new style notation of two adjacent years during that time. Recall that George Washington was born Feb 11, 1731 old style, but after the change, we celebrate his birthday as Feb 22, 1732. We had to muck it up by combining Washington and Lincoln to get "Presidents day". In the old days, Feb 29 was at the END of the year, before we started the year on Jan 1. The Russian Orthodox still uses the Julian calendar.

 

To fit that 3000 year correction you mention, the Gregorianites could put in a correction of omitting a leap year every 4000 years, maybe. Was that 26 seconds in the same direction?

 

Thanks for your added detail on the confusion caused by the adoption of the needed new calendar. A million years would be way too soon to do it again. I trust the folks 3000 years from now to do the right thing.

 

Best wishes,

Mike Talbot

[Pierce.Reid 0]

All these different ways of specifying and calculating dates points to what I consider a significant limitation of TMG around dates.

 

Good genealogical practice is that you should report dates as you find them. However, as this date history lesson has shown, dates as originally recorded often are not compatible with current date schemes. Trying to standardize date formats the way TMG does means that dates may appear in TMG reports in a form incompatible with the original record.

 

You can make a date "irregular", in which case TMG only reports it as you entered it. However, then you do not have a date you can use for calculations. You can specify a Sort date but I believe that is just used for putting tags in sequence. In any case, the sort date does not appear in any reports.

 

Many of the dates we encounter that are some variation of Julian, rather than the current calendar, are only a few days off. They are usually adequate enough for showing just the year, or for calculating an age in years. But they are not as accurate as genealogists often like to be.

 

TMG really needs a third form of date. Ultimate Family Tree provides three date fields: a free format date that can be anything you wish, a structured date, and a sort date. For most dates we input, UFT can usually figure out the correct structured and sort dates automatically. However, you can change the structured date and sort date independently of the free format date.

 

TMG insists that you choose either the free format ("irregular") or the structured date format. If you choose the structured date format, all dates in reports will appear in one standard format (our choice), which may not match the way the date was recorded.

 

In the UFT database, you can record the date in the format in the original record (or any other format you want). If you want to convert it to the current calendar, you can apply the appropriate conversion algorithm for the time and place the original record was created and put that in the structured date field. Or you can enter a date that is more compatible with the original record. You can enter a sort date that is consistent with your other dates.

 

As a somewhat extreme example, the original date may have been in another language and that is what you want to report in text reports. You may want the structured date to reflect that date. If, for example, that date used the Julian calendar, you may want the sort date to be compatible with the current calendar.

 

In UFT, that scenario can be handled just by filling in the appropriate date fields. In TMG, you might be able to do the same thing by modifying the role sentences for each tag occurrence, to hard code the date as you desire it reported. If you have several role sentences you want that date in, each has to be modified separately. That date is not part of the basic database, but rather is off in the role sentence(s) customized for that particular tag occurrence.

 

The lack of a third date fields is one of the things that frustrates me about TMG, and is fairly high on my "wish list" of features I'd like to see.

 

Pierce

[Mike Talbot 0]

All these different ways of specifying and calculating dates points to what I consider a significant limitation of TMG around dates.

 

Good genealogical practice is that you should report dates as you find them. However, as this date history lesson has shown, dates as originally recorded often are not compatible with current date schemes. Trying to standardize date formats the way TMG does means that dates may appear in TMG reports in a form incompatible with the original record.

 

You can make a date "irregular", in which case TMG only reports it as you entered it. However, then you do not have a date you can use for calculations. You can specify a Sort date but I believe that is just used for putting tags in sequence. In any case, the sort date does not appear in any reports.

 

Many of the dates we encounter that are some variation of Julian, rather than the current calendar, are only a few days off. They are usually adequate enough for showing just the year, or for calculating an age in years. But they are not as accurate as genealogists often like to be.

 

TMG really needs a third form of date. Ultimate Family Tree provides three date fields: a free format date that can be anything you wish, a structured date, and a sort date. For most dates we input, UFT can usually figure out the correct structured and sort dates automatically. However, you can change the structured date and sort date independently of the free format date.

 

TMG insists that you choose either the free format ("irregular") or the structured date format. If you choose the structured date format, all dates in reports will appear in one standard format (our choice), which may not match the way the date was recorded.

 

In the UFT database, you can record the date in the format in the original record (or any other format you want). If you want to convert it to the current calendar, you can apply the appropriate conversion algorithm for the time and place the original record was created and put that in the structured date field. Or you can enter a date that is more compatible with the original record. You can enter a sort date that is consistent with your other dates.

 

As a somewhat extreme example, the original date may have been in another language and that is what you want to report in text reports. You may want the structured date to reflect that date. If, for example, that date used the Julian calendar, you may want the sort date to be compatible with the current calendar.

 

In UFT, that scenario can be handled just by filling in the appropriate date fields. In TMG, you might be able to do the same thing by modifying the role sentences for each tag occurrence, to hard code the date as you desire it reported. If you have several role sentences you want that date in, each has to be modified separately. That date is not part of the basic database, but rather is off in the role sentence(s) customized for that particular tag occurrence.

 

The lack of a third date fields is one of the things that frustrates me about TMG, and is fairly high on my "wish list" of features I'd like to see.

 

Pierce

 

TMG has a memo field with every tag that has a structured date field (and sort date). You can record the non-standard format date, exactly as found, in the memo field.

 

I have seldom encountered original records that contained a non-standard format date, but do so when it happens. (An exception would be the French 1st Empire period.) As part of the great unwashed masses, I prefer a structured standard date format, such as "1 Nov 2007", with or without the leading zero, for reports and charts. (one should never use an ambiguous format like "1-11-2007" for genealogy data).

 

It's hard to see a TMG issue or significant difference with UFT, other than semantics, here. No commercial program would ever support the semi-infinite number of date formats that have been used, worldwide. My only problems with TMG dates are the unjustifiably restrictive year validity checks and failure to address BC dates when most of human history happened.

 

Best wishes, no pun intended,

Mike Talbot

[Pierce.Reid 0]

TMG has a memo field with every tag that has a structured date field (and sort date). You can record the non-standard format date, exactly as found, in the memo field.

 

I have seldom encountered original records that contained a non-standard format date, but do so when it happens. (An exception would be the French 1st Empire period.) As part of the great unwashed masses, I prefer a structured standard date format, such as "1 Nov 2007", with or without the leading zero, for reports and charts. (one should never use an ambiguous format like "1-11-2007" for genealogy data).

 

It's hard to see a TMG issue or significant difference with UFT, other than semantics, here. No commercial program would ever support the semi-infinite number of date formats that have been used, worldwide. My only problems with TMG dates are the unjustifiably restrictive year validity checks and failure to address BC dates when most of human history happened.

 

Best wishes, no pun intended,

Mike Talbot

 

Mike,

Most event sentences have an explicit date reference. It is reasonable to want reports to record what was in the original document, assuming the reader can understand that date format. Alternately, some people may want the report to record the date in a standard format (the way TMG currently does). Or, some people may want the original and the standard date formats reported next to each other (e.g. "on Michaelmas last (29 September 1801)").

 

With three dates, as with UFT, journal reports will report the date anyway you want, simply by entering that text in the Free-format date field. UFT has enough smarts to convert a wide range of "normal" dates into the correct structured date. But you can change that to something you think is more appropriate, or if UFT cannot figure out the correct structured date. Of course, you would want a standard structured date for reports such as charts where arbitrary text would not fit.

 

Putting the date in the original format into the Memo field might make the sentence more awkward than you would want, and/or require modification of the sentence structure each place you want the original date to be reproduced. Sure, you can make TMG produce any text you want for a tag, but having a Free-format as well as a structured date could eliminate or reduce the customizing required. And reducing work is what computers are all about.

 

Pierce

[Mike Talbot 0]

For those who like to play with different calendars, see:

 

http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo?lang=en;m=CAL

 

Four different calendars are displayed, the display is set to today's date when you first enter the webpage. You can change a date in any one calendar, then see that date as converted on the other 3 calendars.

 

You might also like to check out the site's co-op genealogy database of 2.2 million people (Roglo). There are dynamically generated reports. Members (there were about 50 member genealogists last I knew) can dynamically update the data on-line and/or off-line. Unfortunately, many folks in the data base are x'ed out, due to France's overly oppressive privacy laws. Many don't need to be x'ed, but the university that sponsers the site takes no chances. They have an accompanying forum that anyone can access.

 

The information there is reasonably accurate. (no database is totally accurate, including mine, and should be used wiith care.)

 

There is a web-friendly version of the software that you can download and try, free. It also functions nicely, off-line. TMG might get some features and speed ideas for version 8. The 2.2 million individuals don't slow it down. Don't get too excited. Overall, TMG 6.12 features are still better for most folk's purposes, including mine.

 

Best wishes,

Mike Talbot