Blank field: I have for many years written ?date? for an unknown date (free format) - and ?place? for an unknown place. This makes it clear in reports and charts that the information is missing. It's actually more informative than just a blank field. /Torben --- sendt fra --- Anni og Torben Poulsen Lyngby, Danmark --- --------- --- -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Bruce E. Hall [mailto:brucehall@ameritech.net] Sendt: 5. april 2004 17:30 Til: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com Emne: [CFTW] Printing Family Group Charts I'd like to be able to print out Family Charts for our next reunion, such that the data I know is shown, and that data that I don't know (such as a birthdate or burial place) is blank. Then the attendees can review it and fill in the blanks. Has anyone been able to do this with CFT? My printed Family Charts show only the events that I have entered, and do not leave room (labeled or otherwise) for the missing information. Bruce. ==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe from CFT-WIN, send an e-mail message to: CFT-WIN-L-request@rootsweb.com (for individual messages) CFT-WIN-D-request@rootsweb.com (for Digest mode) Subject: unsubscribe In the body include only one word: unsubscribe (Turn OFF your signature file when sending this command) ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce E. Hall" <brucehall@ameritech.net> To: <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 12:30 PM Subject: [CFTW] Printing Family Group Charts > I'd like to be able to print out Family Charts for our next reunion, > such that the data I know is shown, and that data that I don't know > (such as a birthdate or burial place) is blank. Then the attendees can > review it and fill in the blanks. > > Has anyone been able to do this with CFT? My printed Family Charts show > only the events that I have entered, and do not leave room (labeled or > otherwise) for the missing information. > > Bruce. I am looking for the same thing. Anybody know of a program that uses the information from a GEDCOM file to do such a thing? Uses the entries but allows printing of a selected number of events that are blank and prints in large format for posting on a wall. Hance.

Hi, Bruce, look at the standard reports - pedigree, 4 generations, vertical, you will find a printout with boxes, which include some dates, if available, and leave some place for fill in new data. Small handwriting is neccesary! M. Peter Wilimek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce E. Hall" <brucehall@ameritech.net> To: <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 5:30 PM Subject: [CFTW] Printing Family Group Charts > I'd like to be able to print out Family Charts for our next reunion, > such that the data I know is shown, and that data that I don't know > (such as a birthdate or burial place) is blank. Then the attendees can > review it and fill in the blanks. > > Has anyone been able to do this with CFT? My printed Family Charts show > only the events that I have entered, and do not leave room (labeled or > otherwise) for the missing information. > > Bruce. > > > > ==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from CFT-WIN, send an e-mail message to: > CFT-WIN-L-request@rootsweb.com (for individual messages) > CFT-WIN-D-request@rootsweb.com (for Digest mode) > Subject: unsubscribe > In the body include only one word: unsubscribe > (Turn OFF your signature file when sending this command) > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >

Thank you, Peter. The closest I could get what I'm searching for, the "fill-in-the-blank Family Group Sheet" was the Descendant Tree Chart. This report contains the small boxes, like you suggested, but it doesn't give much room for write-in answers. I was hoping for something like a standard Family Group Sheet, the kind used by before-the-computer genealogists... Bruce > -----Original Message----- > Hi, Bruce, > > look at the standard reports - pedigree, 4 generations, vertical, you will > find a printout with boxes, which include some dates, if available, and > leave some place for fill in new data. > Small handwriting is neccesary! > > M. Peter Wilimek > > ----- Original Message ----- > > I'd like to be able to print out Family Charts for our next reunion, > > such that the data I know is shown, and that data that I don't know > > (such as a birthdate or burial place) is blank. Then the attendees can > > review it and fill in the blanks. > > > > Has anyone been able to do this with CFT? My printed Family Charts show > > only the events that I have entered, and do not leave room (labeled or > > otherwise) for the missing information. > > > > Bruce.

Does anyone have a good way to mark an individual as "sensitive"? For example, a child is born out of wedlock and given up for adoption. The parents subsequently marry and have other children. The family would like to keep the first birth a private matter, and not published in any form. Is there a good way to suppress this data in the printed reports? I know I can mark all of the first child's events, including birth, as sensitive. But the existence of the child is not hidden. Bruce.

I'd like to be able to print out Family Charts for our next reunion, such that the data I know is shown, and that data that I don't know (such as a birthdate or burial place) is blank. Then the attendees can review it and fill in the blanks. Has anyone been able to do this with CFT? My printed Family Charts show only the events that I have entered, and do not leave room (labeled or otherwise) for the missing information. Bruce.

Hi all, Perhaps an idea for others as well: As CFT-win software does not 'registrate' itself in your PC at installation and is only based in a single and dedicated directory you might consider to make the application portable like I currently do. I use a laptop- and a desktop PC and have the CFT-win directory copied to a single SD Memory Card that is now my MASTER COPY of the CFT APPLICATION and DATABASE. When working with my Laptop I connect the Memory Card to my Laptop and when working at my desktop PC I insert the card in the media card adapter slot of my PC. Simple as that. I do keep an up-to-date copy of the the CFT-win directory on both computers and -of course- have a copy on CD-ROM that I keep in a safe at my local bank to avoid that 30 years of work is lost some day sooner or later... Working with the portable application is very convenient if you own more than one PC! Regards, Ted Voordouw The Netherlands

G'day , FWIW - I just use it as suggested in the manual. Basically 0 = rumour/family myth/heresay up to 3 = (Almost ;-)) Absolute certainty. - I stood at the graveside and saw her/him buried. Mike CALDER http://members.optusnet.com.au/mikecalder/

At 3/29/04 07:19 AM Monday, Ira J Lund wrote: *********START OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT********* >The idea would not be difficult to implement. > >As far as the meaning of the number: 0 least certain on a scale to 3 most >certain. This field actually gets exported to GEDCOM QUAY which is a >"standard" and as I understand the standard all other programs would >interpret as stated. Thus where one person said they use 1 to indicate >primary, 2 as secondary source, etc. I think that most other >users/programs would misinterpret such information and read the 3 as being >the most reliable data. > >Ira >(snip) **********END OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT*********** I absolutely agree with Ira. He must keep such fields compatible with other genealogy programs, especially when they have been "universally accepted" as a standard. If those using the field for 1=primary, 2=secondary, and 3=tertiary, export a GEDCOM to be imported into someone else's program, which is NOT CFT-WIN, then the information in that field will certainly be misinterpreted. And, vice-versa. I don't think we need to mess with that field and make it represent something it was not intended for. Better to either add a note as to the type of source, or to have another CFT-standard field; of course, the latter would cause more work for Ira and wouldn't get imported into other programs anyway. Regards, George -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.230 / Virus Database: 262.6.4 - Release Date: 3/29/04

Right, I use it the same way, that is: - 0 for not certain, no prove at all - 1 information from other persons/ websites - 2 good reliable information but no proof - 3 have (seen) the proof myself (photocopy of original) This works absolutely fine. In general I still have to work on those events who do not yet have a certainty level of "3" . Let's keep it like that pls. Regards, Ted Voordouw ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens E. (Mik) Brammer" <brammer@ddf.dk> To: <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:10 AM Subject: SV: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > Rosemary, > In the User Manual for CFT for Windows, ver. 1.00, Ira writes on page 85: > "Sure Fields. You may enter a number from 0 to 3 in this field. ... If you > are absolutely certain of the information, enter a 3. If you are totally > uncertain, enter a 0. All sure fields default to 0 when an individual is > first added." > I have used it that way ever since - quite happily. > Jens Brammer, Denmark > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Rosemary (by way of "George W. Durman" <GeorgeWDurman@comcast.net>) > [mailto:rjorg@tbaytel.net] > Sendt: 29. marts 2004 00:22 > Til: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com > Emne: Re: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > > > > Although I like this idea, I think we would need to all use the same scale > for defining our sources. It sounds like you use the scale from 0 - 3 as 0 > being unsure and 3 being the most sure. I wonder how many of us use 0 for > no proof or unsure but allow 1 to represent primary sources and 2 for > secondary sources and 3 for tertiary sources. Actually even if Ira doesn't > make the change suggested, I would be interested in knowing how everyone > else codes their data. What are most of us doing? > Rosemary > > > > ==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== > You can contact the List Manager at: > CFT-WIN-admin@rootsweb.com > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >

Thanks folks for everyone's feedback. I too have my data organized this way and as a very early user of the original DOS program I likely saw it in the first manual like Jen quoted and set it up that way. I must confess though that over the past year I have been wondering if I had misinterpreted the coding system and maybe I should take all my data and start to recode it to be 1 for primary and 2 for secondary etc. I didn't do it yet because the thought of it was so daunting but it has bugged me all year. Now I am happy as a clam again and don't need to worry about painstakingly changing every one of my codes. Thanks for everyone's input and I really appreciate your comments Ira that this is the agreed upon standard. When I first started out with this hobby I didn't know my butt from my elbow and have just tried to figure things out as I went so I am never really sure if I am doing things absolutely according to standards. Now that I have about fourteen years invested! in this work it is more and more important to me that it is of good quality and worthy of the time invested. I lament my lax standards & inexperience of the early years but I guess that most people must be in the same boat too. Thanks for the reassurance. Rosemary ----- Original Message ----- From: Ira J Lund To: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list The idea would not be difficult to implement. As far as the meaning of the number: 0 least certain on a scale to 3 most certain. This field actually gets exported to GEDCOM QUAY which is a "standard" and as I understand the standard all other programs would interpret as stated. Thus where one person said they use 1 to indicate primary, 2 as secondary source, etc. I think that most other users/programs would misinterpret such information and read the 3 as being the most reliable data. Ira ------------------------------------------------ Mr. Ira J. Lund Cumberland Family Software E-mail: ira.lund@cf-software.com Web: http://www.cf-software.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens E. (Mik) Brammer" <brammer@ddf.dk> To: <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:10 AM Subject: SV: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > Rosemary, > In the User Manual for CFT for Windows, ver. 1.00, Ira writes on page 85: > "Sure Fields. You may enter a number from 0 to 3 in this field. ... If you > are absolutely certain of the information, enter a 3. If you are totally > uncertain, enter a 0. All sure fields default to 0 when an individual is > first added." > I have used it that way ever since - quite happily. > Jens Brammer, Denmark > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Rosemary (by way of "George W. Durman" <GeorgeWDurman@comcast.net>) > [mailto:rjorg@tbaytel.net] > Sendt: 29. marts 2004 00:22 > Til: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com > Emne: Re: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > > > > Although I like this idea, I think we would need to all use the same scale > for defining our sources. It sounds like you use the scale from 0 - 3 as 0 > being unsure and 3 being the most sure. I wonder how many of us use 0 for > no proof or unsure but allow 1 to represent primary sources and 2 for > secondary sources and 3 for tertiary sources. Actually even if Ira doesn't > make the change suggested, I would be interested in knowing how everyone > else codes their data. What are most of us doing? > Rosemary ==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== You can contact the List Manager at: CFT-WIN-admin@rootsweb.com ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

Rosemary, In the User Manual for CFT for Windows, ver. 1.00, Ira writes on page 85: "Sure Fields. You may enter a number from 0 to 3 in this field. ... If you are absolutely certain of the information, enter a 3. If you are totally uncertain, enter a 0. All sure fields default to 0 when an individual is first added." I have used it that way ever since - quite happily. Jens Brammer, Denmark -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Rosemary (by way of "George W. Durman" <GeorgeWDurman@comcast.net>) [mailto:rjorg@tbaytel.net] Sendt: 29. marts 2004 00:22 Til: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com Emne: Re: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list Although I like this idea, I think we would need to all use the same scale for defining our sources. It sounds like you use the scale from 0 - 3 as 0 being unsure and 3 being the most sure. I wonder how many of us use 0 for no proof or unsure but allow 1 to represent primary sources and 2 for secondary sources and 3 for tertiary sources. Actually even if Ira doesn't make the change suggested, I would be interested in knowing how everyone else codes their data. What are most of us doing? Rosemary

Ok. When I first looked at it I was in a "mode" where I was able to look at it reasonable quickly. Right now I have a number of things on my "plate" and am uncertain when I might get to it. I will have to seriously think about it since I have no quick clues as to what else to check into. But I will make not of this. Sorry, Ira ------------------------------------------------ Mr. Ira J. Lund Cumberland Family Software E-mail: ira.lund@cf-software.com Web: http://www.cf-software.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Helmer Nielsen" <ehelmer@boerne.dk> To: <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [CFTW] CFT Ver 3.14 and Windows XP > Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:16:06 -0600, Ira wrote > > >I have finally tracked down a slowdown problem with the Rebuild - a hold > >over from old code....... > >... Same kind of action you describe with the GED > >problem. I have searched the code for other areas where I may be closing the > >database and re-opening like this. I have removed this problem from the > >Rebuild and am posting a 3.14.d. > > > >If this still is not the solution it will have to wait a while since I will > >be traveling this next week - > > The problem with the slow Gedcom export is still not solved in > vers 3.14d. > The problem is found only in WinXP, not in Win98. > The export uses only a few pct of the CPU power. It seems to be > limited by excessive harddisk accesses, the use of RAM is very > moderate. > > The Rebuild works well in its first 1-5 parts, in part 6 the CPU > slows down to abt. 10 pct, in part 7 to abt. 50 pct. It is > remarkable that the Rebuild still uses a large heap of RAM, abt. > three times the size of the database. > > When do you (Ira) get time to look at it again? > > Erik > > > ==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== > You can contact the List Manager at: > CFT-WIN-admin@rootsweb.com > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >

The idea would not be difficult to implement. As far as the meaning of the number: 0 least certain on a scale to 3 most certain. This field actually gets exported to GEDCOM QUAY which is a "standard" and as I understand the standard all other programs would interpret as stated. Thus where one person said they use 1 to indicate primary, 2 as secondary source, etc. I think that most other users/programs would misinterpret such information and read the 3 as being the most reliable data. Ira ------------------------------------------------ Mr. Ira J. Lund Cumberland Family Software E-mail: ira.lund@cf-software.com Web: http://www.cf-software.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens E. (Mik) Brammer" <brammer@ddf.dk> To: <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:10 AM Subject: SV: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > Rosemary, > In the User Manual for CFT for Windows, ver. 1.00, Ira writes on page 85: > "Sure Fields. You may enter a number from 0 to 3 in this field. ... If you > are absolutely certain of the information, enter a 3. If you are totally > uncertain, enter a 0. All sure fields default to 0 when an individual is > first added." > I have used it that way ever since - quite happily. > Jens Brammer, Denmark > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Rosemary (by way of "George W. Durman" <GeorgeWDurman@comcast.net>) > [mailto:rjorg@tbaytel.net] > Sendt: 29. marts 2004 00:22 > Til: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com > Emne: Re: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > > > > Although I like this idea, I think we would need to all use the same scale > for defining our sources. It sounds like you use the scale from 0 - 3 as 0 > being unsure and 3 being the most sure. I wonder how many of us use 0 for > no proof or unsure but allow 1 to represent primary sources and 2 for > secondary sources and 3 for tertiary sources. Actually even if Ira doesn't > make the change suggested, I would be interested in knowing how everyone > else codes their data. What are most of us doing? > Rosemary

Although I like this idea, I think we would need to all use the same scale for defining our sources. It sounds like you use the scale from 0 - 3 as 0 being unsure and 3 being the most sure. I wonder how many of us use 0 for no proof or unsure but allow 1 to represent primary sources and 2 for secondary sources and 3 for tertiary sources. Actually even if Ira doesn't make the change suggested, I would be interested in knowing how everyone else codes their data. What are most of us doing? Rosemary ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill LaBarge To: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 12:45 PM Subject: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list Ira: I try to reference each piece of information that I enter into my database to the source from which it came. Many of the sources I use are very old church records and family bible entries, the dates of many of the events (births, marriages, deaths, etc.) from these sources differ. The criteria used to identify the Event date to be displayed on the Family Group Window appears to be the "latest date" in the Individual's Edit Window for the Event. A suggestion would be the "Sur" field entry - for example a SUR=3 would identify the event date as the most probable and therefore the date to be displayed on the Family Group Window and also any other window or report the displays a most probable date. Thanks for all you past help and interest. Bill LaBarge -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 7.0.230 / Virus Database: 262.6.3 - Release Date: 3/28/04

From 0=unsure to 3=most sure. Floyd [SNIP] make the change suggested, I would be interested in knowing how everyone > else codes their data. What are most of us doing? > Rosemary

I am not locked into any specific method, just a way for me to define which date I want displayed as probable in the Family Group window and reports. I picked the SUR parameter as a possibility because it is discussed in the manual (page 58) - 3 as absolutely certain (I would interpret most probable) and 0 as unsure. Also using the SUR parameter would not require a new parameter to added to the program just the added criteria for its use. Good to here other's ideas Bill Rosemary (by way of George W. Durman ) wrote: > > Although I like this idea, I think we would need to all use the same > scale for defining our sources. It sounds like you use the scale from > 0 - 3 as 0 being unsure and 3 being the most sure. I wonder how many > of us use 0 for no proof or unsure but allow 1 to represent primary > sources and 2 for secondary sources and 3 for tertiary sources. > Actually even if Ira doesn't make the change suggested, I would be > interested in knowing how everyone else codes their data. What are > most of us doing? > Rosemary > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill LaBarge > To: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 12:45 PM > Subject: [CFTW] Suggestion to add to update list > > > Ira: > > I try to reference each piece of information that I enter into my > database to the source from which it came. Many of the sources I use > are very old church records and family bible entries, the dates of many > of the events (births, marriages, deaths, etc.) from these sources > differ. The criteria used to identify the Event date to be > displayed on > the Family Group Window appears to be the "latest date" in the > Individual's Edit Window for the Event. A suggestion would be the > "Sur" > field entry - for example a SUR=3 would identify the event date as the > most probable and therefore the date to be displayed on the Family > Group > Window and also any other window or report the displays a most probable > date. Thanks for all you past help and interest. > > Bill LaBarge > >

Hi Ira, One way to solve the search problem is simply to scan a temporary free format field generated from the true date fields, not really any different to what you have to do with the dates to use them anyway. Cheers, Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Ira J Lund To: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 28 March 2004 0:32 Subject: Re: [CFTW] V2 vs V3 Global Search on Date Ver 2 date field was pretty close to a free format text field. Ver 3 date field uses internally the UCC date type which is actually saved as 3 numbers - which makes for more accurate and easier calculations for ages, etc. So there is a very large difference in the way dates are internally saved between the two versions. So you request is not an easy one. In Ver 3 it won't allow you to enter a date that is day and month only. It will allow month and year only or year only - all because internal numbers and calculations that are part of UCC. So it is not as easy as it might appear - not saying it can't be done, but it all works differently. Will add to my list of ideas. Ira ------------------------------------------------ Mr. Ira J. Lund Cumberland Family Software E-mail: ira.lund@cf-software.com Web: http://www.cf-software.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Myers" <emquad@worldnet.att.net> To: <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:39 AM Subject: [CFTW] V2 vs V3 Global Search on Date > Ira and Friends, > > Every once in a while I like to enter a date (such as today's date) and see > what family events occurred on that date. It is easy in V2: just type, say, > 26 Mar at top and check the box for Events > Date. It just takes a few > seconds and lists all the BMD events that took place on that date. But when > I try this in V3, there is no corresponding Date entry, only Free Format > Date, which is not relevant--it take several minutes and does not return > any hits. I am talking about the General Search here, not the Date Search, > which only seems to search a range of dates and does not return all events > on such-and-such a date regardless of year. Can this inconsistency be > addressed or am I missing something? > > Rgds, > > Jon > > > ==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from CFT-WIN, send an e-mail message to: > CFT-WIN-L-request@rootsweb.com (for individual messages) > CFT-WIN-D-request@rootsweb.com (for Digest mode) > Subject: unsubscribe > In the body include only one word: unsubscribe > (Turn OFF your signature file when sending this command) > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > ==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== You can contact the List Manager at: CFT-WIN-admin@rootsweb.com ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:16:06 -0600, Ira wrote >I have finally tracked down a slowdown problem with the Rebuild - a hold >over from old code....... >... Same kind of action you describe with the GED >problem. I have searched the code for other areas where I may be closing the >database and re-opening like this. I have removed this problem from the >Rebuild and am posting a 3.14.d. > >If this still is not the solution it will have to wait a while since I will >be traveling this next week - The problem with the slow Gedcom export is still not solved in vers 3.14d. The problem is found only in WinXP, not in Win98. The export uses only a few pct of the CPU power. It seems to be limited by excessive harddisk accesses, the use of RAM is very moderate. The Rebuild works well in its first 1-5 parts, in part 6 the CPU slows down to abt. 10 pct, in part 7 to abt. 50 pct. It is remarkable that the Rebuild still uses a large heap of RAM, abt. three times the size of the database. When do you (Ira) get time to look at it again? Erik

Ira: I try to reference each piece of information that I enter into my database to the source from which it came. Many of the sources I use are very old church records and family bible entries, the dates of many of the events (births, marriages, deaths, etc.) from these sources differ. The criteria used to identify the Event date to be displayed on the Family Group Window appears to be the "latest date" in the Individual's Edit Window for the Event. A suggestion would be the "Sur" field entry - for example a SUR=3 would identify the event date as the most probable and therefore the date to be displayed on the Family Group Window and also any other window or report the displays a most probable date. Thanks for all you past help and interest. Bill LaBarge