I changed the subject heading to fit with my question. I discovered several errors on one census covering my home town (gross misspellings, etc.). Obvious to me because I had better information, but those errors are now in a source document. My question is how seriously do people take a census document (image)? And is it really a good idea to add another layer of possible errors by transcribing it? How do people typically deal with such situations? I believe that I've simply added notes as appropriate. Just curious. //jack On 4/20/2015 11:51 PM, Michael Cant via wrote: > Hi John (J. P. Gilliver (John) > > I normally use transcribed censuses as word documents as they are easier for > other family to read (if they ever do) > > Mick. > IOW. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > J. P. Gilliver (John) via > Sent: 21 April 2015 00:19 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order not > individual then family below? > > In message <[email protected]>, Michael Cant via > <[email protected]> writes: >> Hi all, >> >> I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 >> >> I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my >> main lines. >> > I am assuming you mean images of the censuses. Is there any particular > reason you're using the media tab rather than the pictures tab? >> >> We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, > Oh, I don't know - I started off as a ... [sorry (-:] > >> normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if >> they are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it >> goes automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading >> to view the list. > Good question ... >> Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they >> are individual or family? > ... but John says (and Fran confirms) you can manually move them in v7. > (You couldn't - in the pictures tab, anyway - in v6; well, you could, but > they got moved back, with an error popup.) >> Mick. >> >> IOW. >> >> England. > [] > John, Kent, England. > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi > Rescue"], pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if your > life could ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - Russell > Howard, in Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013 Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

Hi John (J. P. Gilliver (John) I normally use transcribed censuses as word documents as they are easier for other family to read (if they ever do) Mick. IOW. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John) via Sent: 21 April 2015 00:19 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order not individual then family below? In message <[email protected]>, Michael Cant via <[email protected]> writes: >Hi all, > > I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 > >I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my >main lines. > I am assuming you mean images of the censuses. Is there any particular reason you're using the media tab rather than the pictures tab? > > >We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, Oh, I don't know - I started off as a ... [sorry (-:] >normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if >they are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it >goes automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading >to view the list. Good question ... > >Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they >are individual or family? ... but John says (and Fran confirms) you can manually move them in v7. (You couldn't - in the pictures tab, anyway - in v6; well, you could, but they got moved back, with an error popup.) > >Mick. > >IOW. > >England. [] John, Kent, England. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi Rescue"], pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if your life could ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - Russell Howard, in Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013 Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you John. Would this be something that could be included in a future change? If not I will gradually change my Media files to all as Individual. Mick. IOW. England. -----Original Message----- From: John Steed [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 April 2015 01:13 To: Michael Cant; [email protected] Subject: Re: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order notindividual then family below? To Michael Cant Sorry, I answered so fast, I missed the part where you were on the Media tab, not the Events tab. Currently the Media tab does not allow Family events above Individual events. So for now, they will be out of order unless you attach an Individual line to both the husband and the wife instead of a Family link. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Cant via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:46 AM Subject: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order notindividual then family below? > Hi all, > > I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 > > I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my > main lines. > > > > We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, > normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if > they are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it > goes automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading > to view the list. > > Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether > they are individual or family? > > Mick. > > IOW. > > England. > > > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

In message <[email protected]>, Michael Cant via <[email protected]> writes: >Hi all, > > I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 > >I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my main >lines. > I am assuming you mean images of the censuses. Is there any particular reason you're using the media tab rather than the pictures tab? > > >We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, Oh, I don't know - I started off as a ... [sorry (-:] >normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if they >are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it goes >automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading to view the >list. Good question ... > >Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they are >individual or family? ... but John says (and Fran confirms) you can manually move them in v7. (You couldn't - in the pictures tab, anyway - in v6; well, you could, but they got moved back, with an error popup.) > >Mick. > >IOW. > >England. [] John, Kent, England. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi Rescue"], pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if your life could ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - Russell Howard, in Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013

To Michael Cant Sorry, I answered so fast, I missed the part where you were on the Media tab, not the Events tab. Currently the Media tab does not allow Family events above Individual events. So for now, they will be out of order unless you attach an Individual line to both the husband and the wife instead of a Family link. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Cant via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:46 AM Subject: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order notindividual then family below? > Hi all, > > I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 > > I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my main > lines. > > > > We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, > normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if they > are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it goes > automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading to view > the > list. > > Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they > are > individual or family? > > Mick. > > IOW. > > England. > > > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:46:05 +0100, Michael Cant via <[email protected]> wrote: >I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 > >I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my main >lines. > >We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, >normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if they >are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it goes >automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading to view the >list. > >Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they are >individual or family? > I n d most scandinavian do not att cencus as direct part to a person or family. Cencus are a source and that we use that in that way to tell where they received and so on. Mostly we do not recomen bd to add this as family additonal either. We call this individual informtion con nected to resident and so on -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

Hi all, I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my main lines. We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if they are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it goes automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading to view the list. Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they are individual or family? Mick. IOW. England.

Yes, John it does work that way. Fran L On 20/04/2015 2:38 PM, John Steed via wrote: > To Michael Cant > > If you manually Move Up the family census, it should stay where you put it. > > Have you tried that? (I have not, but it should work in BK 7) > > John Steed > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Cant via" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:46 AM > Subject: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order > notindividual then family below? > > >> Hi all, >> >> I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 >> >> I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my main >> lines. >> >> >> >> We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, >> normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if they >> are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it goes >> automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading to view >> the >> list. >> >> Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they >> are >> individual or family? >> >> Mick. >> >> IOW. >> >> England. >> >> >> >> Remember - Use the Archives at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

To Michael Cant If you manually Move Up the family census, it should stay where you put it. Have you tried that? (I have not, but it should work in BK 7) John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Cant via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:46 AM Subject: [BK] BK 7.0.47 Media files could they be in year order notindividual then family below? > Hi all, > > I am using my registered BK7 Programme ver: 7.0.47 > > I use the Media section to add censuses for some families mainly my main > lines. > > > > We all start of as people so a census will be added as an individual, > normally they then marry so a census would be added as family, but if they > are then widowed and a later census added as an individual, it goes > automatically above any that are family, and can look misleading to view > the > list. > > Is there or could there be a way to set them in year order whether they > are > individual or family? > > Mick. > > IOW. > > England. > > > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

To Otto, John Steed and others, Maybe a work around would be to include a further option with parent-type called Unknown. (Currently there's natural, adoptive, step, foster and other but nothing for one where the actual type is uncertain.) Natural and Unknown could be coded to always connect with the 'bloodline' in ancestor charts and ahnentafel book reports whereas the other options might only link if the special checkbox option was selected to show ancestors of all parent-types. I like the idea for the situation where adopted, step etc. info is asked for, for the non-direct line descendants (in laws etc.) have their parent-type status (i.e. adopted, step, foster) displayed the same as do the direct-line (main focus) descendants in the descendant reports. I know this would mean quite a bit extra program code to accommodate, but it has obviously been something that is of sufficient interest for the author to put in the database and thus would be fair to treat equally to the ones that are the main focus of the report. As Otto mentioned, it would take time to prepare and test out such a thing but maybe an option for the medium to long term perhaps? Some interesting ideas coming forth from this. Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Otto Jørgensen via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:59:46 +1200, Andrew Jackett via <[email protected]> wrote: >To John Steed and all, > >Thanks John Steed for your response. > >You make mention of making an option to not show adoptive parents on the >ancestor chart. To my way of thinking the same would apply for a >stepparent >or foster parents. They would not be the 'bloodline' and yet would show in >the present report. Can those situations be worked with as well? > >Again, to my way of thinking what people would normally expect to get from >an ancestor chart report would be a linkage list of 'bloodline' ancestors >and family and so I was thinking, could the report default to the >'bloodline' and have the listing of adopted, step, foster connections where >entered (the present situation) as a checkbox option? > Even if children are fosterchilld and not in directline they can be close relatives. It was not unusual that close family did take care of children if children died Many of that family groupe did also emigrate, a child was taken care of uncle aunt and they did go e.g. to USA and was they as a normaly family. Many "forrigners" search for family in e.g. Norway and are then supprised that what they was mother and father was an other part of relatives. So what to present? Shall we forget the family also. I thik we have to deale with both in a "good" way -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014 Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:58:28 +1200, "Andrew Jackett" <[email protected]> wrote: >To Otto, John Steed and others, > >Maybe a work around would be to include a further option with parent-type >called Unknown. (Currently there's natural, adoptive, step, foster and other >but nothing for one where the actual type is uncertain.) > >Natural and Unknown could be coded to always connect with the 'bloodline' in >ancestor charts and ahnentafel book reports whereas the other options might >only link if the special checkbox option was selected to show ancestors of >all parent-types. > >I like the idea for the situation where adopted, step etc. info is asked >for, for the non-direct line descendants (in laws etc.) have their >parent-type status (i.e. adopted, step, foster) displayed the same as do the >direct-line (main focus) descendants in the descendant reports. > >I know this would mean quite a bit extra program code to accommodate, but it >has obviously been something that is of sufficient interest for the author >to put in the database and thus would be fair to treat equally to the ones >that are the main focus of the report. As Otto mentioned, it would take >time to prepare and test out such a thing but maybe an option for the medium >to long term perhaps? > >Some interesting ideas coming forth from this. There might be a three-step-process ? 1. The present version 2. The direct line solution 3. the mixed solution, that proberly will have some more coding and work to John Many like version as to day (1) Many do wish to also have the "direct-clean-line" (2) as option and would be very happy Everybody will be much more happe to have all three solutions :) -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 19:34:14 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" <[email protected]> wrote: >I don't know how far back, but I think before an approximate date, >adoption (especially where within family) wasn't that well recorded, so >if you're trying to trace bloodline, you may well include links that >aren't, without knowing. > >I would agree that on first thinking about it many people probably _do_ >think of genealogy as bloodline-based, but I can't _really_ think of >many good reasons to worry about it. There might be a _few_ medical >reasons - very rare diseases that are generic for example - but I >suspect the majority of those don't really need more than about four >generations. There might be some relevance for genetic-background >studies, but are those common here? (Finally there are racist reasons, >of course.) > >Having said all that, I agree that the option of bloodline-only, as John >implied he was considering, would be nice for those that want it. >_Perhaps_ it could be combined with my suggestion/want for the ability >for the option of making branches various shades of grey where the base >link is based on a source whose quality is [settable - I'd say less than the law about adoption in Norway is from start of 1900. But the the way of foster and step-children can go back several 100 years and when entering person to database we also include that situations and with unlimit descentand, the result can be very unclear :) I have helped some from USA and Canada to find their anscestors in Norway. And as many people did leave for America in 17-1900 there are many relatives that do not know the fact :) of relationship. -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

In message <[email protected]>, Otto Jørgensen via <[email protected]> writes: >On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:06:43 -0500, jstockham via <[email protected]> >wrote: > >>I have always been taught that genealogy is based on blood relations and a >>friend of mine who did a lot of research quit when he learned that his >>adopted daughters would not be eligible to join the DAR. Don't know if that >>is still true or not, but with BK being such a formidable source it seems >>anyone going the DAR route might have some trouble. Jean in OK >> >DAR = ????? (for the forigner and not english speaking :) >> Another foreigner guesses: daughters of the American revolution? > >There are alway question about the genectic bloodline or the >familyline. > >And there are areport and program are also able to make reports with >Adoptd, sted etc >So there will always be question om both reality > I don't know how far back, but I think before an approximate date, adoption (especially where within family) wasn't that well recorded, so if you're trying to trace bloodline, you may well include links that aren't, without knowing. I would agree that on first thinking about it many people probably _do_ think of genealogy as bloodline-based, but I can't _really_ think of many good reasons to worry about it. There might be a _few_ medical reasons - very rare diseases that are generic for example - but I suspect the majority of those don't really need more than about four generations. There might be some relevance for genetic-background studies, but are those common here? (Finally there are racist reasons, of course.) Having said all that, I agree that the option of bloodline-only, as John implied he was considering, would be nice for those that want it. _Perhaps_ it could be combined with my suggestion/want for the ability for the option of making branches various shades of grey where the base link is based on a source whose quality is [settable - I'd say less than 2]. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf science is not intended to be foolproof. Science is about crawling toward the truth over time. - Scott Adams, 2015-2-2

To John Steed and all, Thanks John Steed for your response. You make mention of making an option to not show adoptive parents on the ancestor chart. To my way of thinking the same would apply for a stepparent or foster parents. They would not be the 'bloodline' and yet would show in the present report. Can those situations be worked with as well? Again, to my way of thinking what people would normally expect to get from an ancestor chart report would be a linkage list of 'bloodline' ancestors and family and so I was thinking, could the report default to the 'bloodline' and have the listing of adopted, step, foster connections where entered (the present situation) as a checkbox option? Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Steed" <[email protected]> To: "Andrew Jackett" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... To Andrew Jackett The Ancestor chart shows the primary parents of each person. (The mother and father that show on the Edit screen) It is not currently setup to show parents only if they are the biological parents. It is currently setup to show families, and adoptive children are children in the family. And adoptive parents are the parents of those children. If you only want biological parents, then do not attach adopted children to adoptive parents. I plan to make an option in the future to not show adoptive parents on the ancestor chart. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Jackett" <[email protected]> To: "John Steed" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Otto Jørgensen" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... > Hello Otto, John Steed and all, > > The Ancestor reports show ancestors of adopted, step and foster children > incorrectly. You can indicate that a child is adopted by both parents and > it will list as though they are the person's natural parents on a register > or indented book report by saying (son of or (daughter of so and so and so > and so). The pedigree listing in the alternative register book report > assumes the pedigrees are natural ones when they can be through adoption. > Worst of all, any ancestry charts where adopted, step, foster children are > shown will assume a linkage as though the parents are natural ones when > they're not. Help! Help! It seems as though the ancestry report isn't > checking the right parent-type linkages before drawing up the ancestor > tree. > > Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. > [email protected] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Otto Jørgensen via" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 4:51 AM > Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... > > > On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:44:26 -0400, "John Steed" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>To Otto >> >>I am not sure what you mean when you say BK does not show the adoption of >>a >>near family member correctly. >> >>You can attach the child to the birth parents. >> >>You can also attach the same child to the adoptive parents. >> >>The child will show on a Descendant report as a child of the birth >>parents, >>and will also show as an adoptive child of the adoptive parents. >> >>So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports. >> >>Most reports have an option to either print duplicate lines of descent or >>not print duplicate lines of descent when a person appears in two places. >> >>Perhaps you can email me a sample of which report is not printing >>correctly >>and I will check it out. >> > > If you see to the descendant chart the Adoppted child is on bothe the > branch to the adoptence parents and to the biological parents > and even if thay in Edit are marked correctly amd the in some report are > marked as Adoptiv, the chart does not effect that. > > I know that some will have the child to the new parents, but some not. > > Itis a question of "blood-line" and descendant connected to correct > biolocical parents > > > You say > "So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports." > for many that is alright, but sometimes they wish to have clean line, > e.g. if we are thinking on DNA and so on. > > I will email you later on some samples you have had before :) > > -- > Otto Jørgensen > http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ > All email is checked by NIS2014 > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:59:46 +1200, Andrew Jackett via <[email protected]> wrote: >To John Steed and all, > >Thanks John Steed for your response. > >You make mention of making an option to not show adoptive parents on the >ancestor chart. To my way of thinking the same would apply for a stepparent >or foster parents. They would not be the 'bloodline' and yet would show in >the present report. Can those situations be worked with as well? > >Again, to my way of thinking what people would normally expect to get from >an ancestor chart report would be a linkage list of 'bloodline' ancestors >and family and so I was thinking, could the report default to the >'bloodline' and have the listing of adopted, step, foster connections where >entered (the present situation) as a checkbox option? > Even if children are fosterchilld and not in directline they can be close relatives. It was not unusual that close family did take care of children if children died Many of that family groupe did also emigrate, a child was taken care of uncle aunt and they did go e.g. to USA and was they as a normaly family. Many "forrigners" search for family in e.g. Norway and are then supprised that what they was mother and father was an other part of relatives. So what to present? Shall we forget the family also. I thik we have to deale with both in a "good" way -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:06:43 -0500, jstockham via <[email protected]> wrote: >I have always been taught that genealogy is based on blood relations and a >friend of mine who did a lot of research quit when he learned that his >adopted daughters would not be eligible to join the DAR. Don't know if that >is still true or not, but with BK being such a formidable source it seems >anyone going the DAR route might have some trouble. Jean in OK > DAR = ????? (for the forigner and not english speaking :) > There are alway question about the genectic bloodline or the familyline. And there are areport and program are also able to make reports with Adoptd, sted etc So there will always be question om both reality -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

I have always been taught that genealogy is based on blood relations and a friend of mine who did a lot of research quit when he learned that his adopted daughters would not be eligible to join the DAR. Don't know if that is still true or not, but with BK being such a formidable source it seems anyone going the DAR route might have some trouble. Jean in OK -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Steed via Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:07 PM To: Andrew Jackett; [email protected] Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... To Andrew Jackett The Ancestor chart shows the primary parents of each person. (The mother and father that show on the Edit screen) It is not currently setup to show parents only if they are the biological parents. It is currently setup to show families, and adoptive children are children in the family. And adoptive parents are the parents of those children. If you only want biological parents, then do not attach adopted children to adoptive parents. I plan to make an option in the future to not show adoptive parents on the ancestor chart. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Jackett" <[email protected]> To: "John Steed" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Otto Jørgensen" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... > Hello Otto, John Steed and all, > > The Ancestor reports show ancestors of adopted, step and foster > children incorrectly. You can indicate that a child is adopted by > both parents and it will list as though they are the person's natural > parents on a register or indented book report by saying (son of or > (daughter of so and so and so and so). The pedigree listing in the > alternative register book report assumes the pedigrees are natural ones when they can be through adoption. > Worst of all, any ancestry charts where adopted, step, foster children > are shown will assume a linkage as though the parents are natural ones > when they're not. Help! Help! It seems as though the ancestry > report isn't checking the right parent-type linkages before drawing up > the ancestor tree. > > Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. > [email protected] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Otto Jørgensen via" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 4:51 AM > Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... > > > On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:44:26 -0400, "John Steed" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>To Otto >> >>I am not sure what you mean when you say BK does not show the adoption >>of a near family member correctly. >> >>You can attach the child to the birth parents. >> >>You can also attach the same child to the adoptive parents. >> >>The child will show on a Descendant report as a child of the birth >>parents, and will also show as an adoptive child of the adoptive >>parents. >> >>So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports. >> >>Most reports have an option to either print duplicate lines of descent >>or not print duplicate lines of descent when a person appears in two places. >> >>Perhaps you can email me a sample of which report is not printing >>correctly and I will check it out. >> > > If you see to the descendant chart the Adoppted child is on bothe the > branch to the adoptence parents and to the biological parents > and even if thay in Edit are marked correctly amd the in some report are > marked as Adoptiv, the chart does not effect that. > > I know that some will have the child to the new parents, but some not. > > Itis a question of "blood-line" and descendant connected to correct > biolocical parents > > > You say > "So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports." > for many that is alright, but sometimes they wish to have clean line, > e.g. if we are thinking on DNA and so on. > > I will email you later on some samples you have had before :) > > -- > Otto Jørgensen > http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ > All email is checked by NIS2014 > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

To Andrew Jackett The Ancestor chart shows the primary parents of each person. (The mother and father that show on the Edit screen) It is not currently setup to show parents only if they are the biological parents. It is currently setup to show families, and adoptive children are children in the family. And adoptive parents are the parents of those children. If you only want biological parents, then do not attach adopted children to adoptive parents. I plan to make an option in the future to not show adoptive parents on the ancestor chart. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Jackett" <[email protected]> To: "John Steed" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Otto Jørgensen" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... > Hello Otto, John Steed and all, > > The Ancestor reports show ancestors of adopted, step and foster children > incorrectly. You can indicate that a child is adopted by both parents and > it will list as though they are the person's natural parents on a register > or indented book report by saying (son of or (daughter of so and so and so > and so). The pedigree listing in the alternative register book report > assumes the pedigrees are natural ones when they can be through adoption. > Worst of all, any ancestry charts where adopted, step, foster children are > shown will assume a linkage as though the parents are natural ones when > they're not. Help! Help! It seems as though the ancestry report isn't > checking the right parent-type linkages before drawing up the ancestor > tree. > > Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. > [email protected] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Otto Jørgensen via" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 4:51 AM > Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... > > > On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:44:26 -0400, "John Steed" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>To Otto >> >>I am not sure what you mean when you say BK does not show the adoption of >>a >>near family member correctly. >> >>You can attach the child to the birth parents. >> >>You can also attach the same child to the adoptive parents. >> >>The child will show on a Descendant report as a child of the birth >>parents, >>and will also show as an adoptive child of the adoptive parents. >> >>So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports. >> >>Most reports have an option to either print duplicate lines of descent or >>not print duplicate lines of descent when a person appears in two places. >> >>Perhaps you can email me a sample of which report is not printing >>correctly >>and I will check it out. >> > > If you see to the descendant chart the Adoppted child is on bothe the > branch to the adoptence parents and to the biological parents > and even if thay in Edit are marked correctly amd the in some report are > marked as Adoptiv, the chart does not effect that. > > I know that some will have the child to the new parents, but some not. > > Itis a question of "blood-line" and descendant connected to correct > biolocical parents > > > You say > "So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports." > for many that is alright, but sometimes they wish to have clean line, > e.g. if we are thinking on DNA and so on. > > I will email you later on some samples you have had before :) > > -- > Otto Jørgensen > http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ > All email is checked by NIS2014 > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

Hello Otto, John Steed and all, The Ancestor reports show ancestors of adopted, step and foster children incorrectly. You can indicate that a child is adopted by both parents and it will list as though they are the person's natural parents on a register or indented book report by saying (son of or (daughter of so and so and so and so). The pedigree listing in the alternative register book report assumes the pedigrees are natural ones when they can be through adoption. Worst of all, any ancestry charts where adopted, step, foster children are shown will assume a linkage as though the parents are natural ones when they're not. Help! Help! It seems as though the ancestry report isn't checking the right parent-type linkages before drawing up the ancestor tree. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Otto Jørgensen via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 4:51 AM Subject: Re: [BK] complex relationships ... On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:44:26 -0400, "John Steed" <[email protected]> wrote: >To Otto > >I am not sure what you mean when you say BK does not show the adoption of a >near family member correctly. > >You can attach the child to the birth parents. > >You can also attach the same child to the adoptive parents. > >The child will show on a Descendant report as a child of the birth parents, >and will also show as an adoptive child of the adoptive parents. > >So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports. > >Most reports have an option to either print duplicate lines of descent or >not print duplicate lines of descent when a person appears in two places. > >Perhaps you can email me a sample of which report is not printing correctly >and I will check it out. > If you see to the descendant chart the Adoppted child is on bothe the branch to the adoptence parents and to the biological parents and even if thay in Edit are marked correctly amd the in some report are marked as Adoptiv, the chart does not effect that. I know that some will have the child to the new parents, but some not. Itis a question of "blood-line" and descendant connected to correct biolocical parents You say "So BK does print the child in both places on most descendant reports." for many that is alright, but sometimes they wish to have clean line, e.g. if we are thinking on DNA and so on. I will email you later on some samples you have had before :) -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014 Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:22:14 +1200, "Andrew Jackett" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello Otto, John Steed and all, > >The Ancestor reports show ancestors of adopted, step and foster children >incorrectly. You can indicate that a child is adopted by both parents and >it will list as though they are the person's natural parents on a register >or indented book report by saying (son of or (daughter of so and so and so >and so). The pedigree listing in the alternative register book report >assumes the pedigrees are natural ones when they can be through adoption. >Worst of all, any ancestry charts where adopted, step, foster children are >shown will assume a linkage as though the parents are natural ones when >they're not. Help! Help! It seems as though the ancestry report isn't >checking the right parent-type linkages before drawing up the ancestor tree. > This is a difficultproblem. How shall we present the "not-direct-children" to the report. A child, whether it is adopted, foster or Step, have some connection to the family and many will have them as ordinary children and I understand that. Some wish to separate the from the reports and some not. But some wish also to have "clean" "boodline" as in a DNA-test I believe most do wish two basic report: - a clean "line" as in DNA and that I think is most easy to make. - a mixed report where also the "children" is included. The question (I believe) are how many generation up are to be included. They are a part of the family for the present living family, but when does that stop ? I believe JS will mange to make some good results for charts, reports, but I believe that will take some time to do. :) -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014