Thanks Fran, Good thought but it's not going to do what I am after. I still want the individuals to go through and be recognised but without the tell tale information about them. Screening the people rather than deselecting them. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. ----- Original Message ----- From: Fran L To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private When creating the gedcom have you tried "deselect people", then either "Range of Numbers" then enter each BK# individually. I just tried it and it did delete the 2 #s I entered. I.E: Range of Numbers" start with 4, end with 4 and it deleted it, then did the same with #5 and both were deleted. Fran L On 16/02/2015 2:40 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: Hello people, I have a problem when I export individuals to another genealogy program in that while I can have individuals marked as Private on an age exclusion basis in BK, I can't yet export individuals who for various reasons don't want their information shared about themselves or possibly I don't want them shared yet because I want to investigate something about them further. At present with BK7 there doesn't seem to be a system where I can specifically mark individuals as Private (i.e. do not send details about this person to the GEDCOM file but allow for recordkeeping of details for this person to be maintained in the BK program like you would for any other no matter how many times you export excluded information, do reports or group sheets on, etc.) The only workaround I can see for this at present is to keep 2 databases of the information you want to GEDCOM export and physically change the individual names to read Private and remove any events/facts that will display about each ! individual in one database and not in the other and always use the excluded database to send GEDCOM exports from. This is a kind of boggy approach to handling this I believe. I would gladly publish the details in BK if there was a system that would cater better for handling situations like that on the web but at the moment there's not. It seems that I have to make improvisations in BK to adjust and convert them over as, for now, it still seems worthwhile going to other software to publish. Does John have a bandaid yet to assist with sorting out this dilemma or is work in this area still some time away? I am still finding it frustrating as you can probably pick up in this message! Do other readers have any suggestions for me dealing with this better? Hoping that there is a process out there that will in time make this procedure a lot easier. Thoughts and ideas are welcomed. Thank you for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [email protected] 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. www.avast.com

In message <[email protected]>, Andrew Jackett via <[email protected]> writes: >Thanks Fran, > >Good thought but it's not going to do what I am after. I still want >the individuals to go through and be recognised but without the tell >tale information about them. Screening the people rather than >deselecting them. > >Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [] If this should ever be considered, I'd like a privacy flag - or something similar - that I could put on each piece of information (ideally maybe several of them). I have people who give me information on the promise that I don't reveal it, and I'd like to be able to honour this. (I say ideally several, so that I could say include data tagged with A but not data tagged with B, or something like that.) It might vary across a person - such as their name is public but their age is private, or their POB, or a previous marriage - so not all or nothing about a person. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Address the chair!" "There isn't a chair, there's only a rock!" "Well, call it a chair!" "Why not call it a rock?" (First series, fit the sixth.)