One extra word of caution. Many of the Custom Queries like "Census Record Checklist" are often designed to work with UK Census dates not Canadian ones. This one excludes people born after 1902 which would not cover Canadian 1906, 1911, 1916 Census years. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jayne Harry Sent: 12 February 2012 20:55 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Individuals missing from custom query result Jayne Vancouver Island, Canada GFHS Member 8271

Have you checked how many Census Facts these Individuals have? You Row Filter is only testing the 1st Census Fact %INDI.CENS[1]%. You also need to cater for %INDI.CENS[2]% and %INDI.CENS[3]% and so on up to %INDI.CENS[9]%. I assume you will eventually want to repeat this exercise for every Census year from 1851 to 1911 and maybe 1906 & 1916. Some Individuals may be alive for every one of these years and thus may have 9 Census Facts. I would check Birth Date versus Census Date rather than the Year. Also remember to exclude Individuals with a Death Date earlier than Census Date. Are you aware of the free utility Ancestral Sources that offers not only a convenient way to enter Census and Baptism (and soon Marriage) details but also helps manage your Flags. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jayne Harry Sent: 12 February 2012 20:55 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Individuals missing from custom query result Hi Everyone, I made custom queries for each census year to help clear old flags and set new ones. When I run each query the results look good. For example, running the 1891 query gives me a list of individuals with birth dates before 1891 and the census date column shows the 1891 date for all individuals. I used the "clear flag on result set" but noticed that the flags set on an individual were still showing in the property box against his name. When I checked the results list from the query, he is not on it (and there are a couple of others who aren't , but should be.) I checked to make sure they had the census details in the "fact" box and this is ok. They have birth dates in the right place (he was born in 1859) I can't work out why he isn't showing in the query results. These are my parameters in the query" Birth Date: %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% Census Date: %INDI.CENS[1].DATE% Add if %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE:YEAR% was earlier than 1891 Exclude unless %INDI.CENS[1].DATE:YEAR% was on 1891 He doesn't show in any of my custom census queries, but I ran the standard query "Census Record Checklist" and he showed up ok in that for 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901. Obviously I have overlooked something, can anyone help please? Best Regards, Jayne Vancouver Island, Canada GFHS Member 8271

Jane I had a similar problem about 4 years ago and, rather than trying to explain it myself, I've cut-and-pasted Simon Orde's words as follows:- Brian used a filter which was intended to exclude everyone born after 1900. But he used a YEAR qualifier when specifying the required date. i.e. INDI.BIRT.DATE:YEAR That may seem like a harmless qualification, but it actually made a significant difference and stopped the filter from doing what was wanted. If you use a YEAR qualifier, you are asking for the year part of the date. For example, if you specify the date as, say, '1st Sept 1940' or as 'approximately 1940', the YEAR qualifier will return the year as 1940. But what is the YEAR if the date is given as 'after 1940'? Or 'between 1940 and 1954'? There isn't one. So when qualified for YEAR, the expression will return no value in these cases. And 'no value' is not later than 1900. So because he used a YEAR qualifier when specifying the date, the filter failed to exclude anyone whose date was recorded as 'after 1940' or 'between 1940 and 1954'. By simply removing the year qualifier for the date expression, the filter does what is required - i.e. INDI.BIRT.DATE Hope this solves the problem. Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jayne Harry" <jayne.h@telus.net> To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:55 PM Subject: [FHU] Individuals missing from custom query result > Hi Everyone, > > I made custom queries for each census year to help clear old flags and set > new ones. When I run each query the results look good. For example, > running the 1891 query gives me a list of individuals with birth dates > before 1891 and the census date column shows the 1891 date for all > individuals. I used the "clear flag on result set" but noticed that the > flags set on an individual were still showing in the property box against > his name. When I checked the results list from the query, he is not on it > (and there are a couple of others who aren't , but should be.) > > I checked to make sure they had the census details in the "fact" box and > this is ok. They have birth dates in the right place (he was born in 1859) > I can't work out why he isn't showing in the query results. These are my > parameters in the query" > > Birth Date: %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% > Census Date: %INDI.CENS[1].DATE% > > Add if %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE:YEAR% was earlier than 1891 > Exclude unless %INDI.CENS[1].DATE:YEAR% was on 1891 > > He doesn't show in any of my custom census queries, but I ran the standard > query "Census Record Checklist" and he showed up ok in that for 1861, > 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901. > > Obviously I have overlooked something, can anyone help please? > > Best Regards, > Jayne > > Vancouver Island, Canada > GFHS Member 8271 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Mike, Adding the extra rows, one for each census fact did solve the problem and now all the relevant individuals are listed. Best regards, Jayne ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> To: jayne.h@telus.net; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Received: 12/02/2012 2:26:48 PM Subject: RE: [FHU] Individuals missing from custom query result >Have you checked how many Census Facts these Individuals have? >You Row Filter is only testing the 1st Census Fact %INDI.CENS[1]%. >You also need to cater for %INDI.CENS[2]% and %INDI.CENS[3]% >and so on up to %INDI.CENS[9]%. >I assume you will eventually want to repeat this exercise for every >Census year from 1851 to 1911 and maybe 1906 & 1916. >Some Individuals may be alive for every one of these years and thus >may have 9 Census Facts. >I would check Birth Date versus Census Date rather than the Year. >Also remember to exclude Individuals with a Death Date earlier than >Census Date. >Are you aware of the free utility Ancestral Sources that offers not only >a convenient way to enter Census and Baptism (and soon >Marriage) details but also helps manage your Flags. >Regards, Mike Tate >-----Original Message----- >From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family- >historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jayne Harry >Sent: 12 February 2012 20:55 >To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com >Subject: [FHU] Individuals missing from custom query result >Hi Everyone, >I made custom queries for each census year to help clear old flags >and set new ones. When I run each query the results look good. >For example, running the 1891 query gives me a list of individuals with >birth dates before 1891 and the census date column shows the >1891 date for all individuals. I used the "clear flag on result set" but >noticed that the flags set on an individual were still >showing in the property box against his name. When I checked the >results list from the query, he is not on it (and there are a >couple of others who aren't , but should be.) >I checked to make sure they had the census details in the "fact" box >and this is ok. They have birth dates in the right place (he >was born in 1859) I can't work out why he isn't showing in the query >results. These are my parameters in the query" >Birth Date: %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% >Census Date: %INDI.CENS[1].DATE% >Add if %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE:YEAR% was earlier than 1891 >Exclude unless %INDI.CENS[1].DATE:YEAR% was on 1891 >He doesn't show in any of my custom census queries, but I ran the >standard query "Census Record Checklist" and he showed up ok in >that for 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901. >Obviously I have overlooked something, can anyone help please? >Best Regards, >Jayne >Vancouver Island, Canada >GFHS Member 8271 >

Bernard, Reading between the lines I believe you are talking about a Query and its Result Set rather than a Report. The tactic to adopt involves the function =IsAncestorOf() to determine which Spouse is the Ancestor of your starting person. Then the function =TextIf() to only show the Marriage Date of the matching Family Event. Then the function =Text() to join these alternatives together. This 1st expression will only show the 1st Marriage Date if the 1st Spouse is an Ancestor of FileRoot(). =TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[1]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) This 2nd expression will only show the 2nd Marriage Date if the 2nd Spouse is an Ancestor of FileRoot(). =TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[2]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) This 3rd expression will only show the 3rd Marriage Date if the 3rd Spouse is an Ancestor of FileRoot(). =TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[3]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) Only one of the above will yield a Marriage Date and the others empty strings. =Text( TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[1]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) . TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[2]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[2]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) . TextIf( IsAncestorOf( %INDI.~SPOU[3]>%, FileRoot() ), %INDI.FAMS[3]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%, ) ) Extend as necessary if more than 3 marriages involved. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bernard Sharp Sent: 12 February 2012 15:46 To: Family Historian Users Subject: [FHU] Ancestors' Report Query I have created a report to list all the ancestors of a specified ‘starting person’, in ascending Ahnentafel Number sequence, recording for each ancestor, the dates of their significant life events, e.g. birth, baptism, marriage, etc., together with a test (by means of the ‘text if exists’ conditional function) for the presence of the respective multimedia item for each event. The foregoing works o.k. except for multiple marriages. Irrespective of how many times a groom has married, the report always returns the date of the first marriage, the default expression for a marriage date being ‘%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%’. This is o.k. should the groom’s first bride be the starting person’s direct ancestor, but not if she is the 2nd, 3rd, etc. The default marriage date expression can be modified to return either the 1st or 2nd or 3rd, etc., but this is fixed, whereas the ancestor’s marriage could be any of them, dependent on which wife is the starting person’s direct ancestor. I am at a loss as to how to automatically return the correct marriage date for the groom. I have consulted the FHUG knowledge database but to no avail. Perhaps someone with technical expertise could help me.

I have created a report to list all the ancestors of a specified ‘starting person’, in ascending Ahnentafel Number sequence, recording for each ancestor, the dates of their significant life events, e.g. birth, baptism, marriage, etc., together with a test (by means of the ‘text if exists’ conditional function) for the presence of the respective multimedia item for each event. The foregoing works o.k. except for multiple marriages. Irrespective of how many times a groom has married, the report always returns the date of the first marriage, the default expression for a marriage date being ‘%INDI.FAMS[1]>MARR[1].DATE:COMPACT%’. This is o.k. should the groom’s first bride be the starting person’s direct ancestor, but not if she is the 2nd, 3rd, etc. The default marriage date expression can be modified to return either the 1st or 2nd or 3rd, etc., but this is fixed, whereas the ancestor’s marriage could be any of them, dependent on which wife is the starting person’s direct ancestor. I am at a loss as to how to automatically return the correct marriage date for the groom. I have consulted the FHUG knowledge database but to no avail. Perhaps someone with technical expertise could help me. Many thanks, Bernard

Brian, Thanks for your help. I don't think this is my problem because the individual has his birth entered as dd/mmm/yyyy. I tried it anyway, just in case, because I am no computer whizz. I removed the "year" from my query line, but it still didn't work. There were still a few people missing from the results that they should have been included in. Best regards, Jayne ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "Brian Horridge" <brian.horridge@btinternet.com> To: jayne.h@telus.net; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Received: 12/02/2012 2:13:56 PM Subject: Re: [FHU] Individuals missing from custom query result >Jane >I had a similar problem about 4 years ago and, rather than trying to >explain >it myself, I've cut-and-pasted Simon Orde's words as follows:- >Brian used a filter which was intended to exclude everyone born after >1900. >But he used a YEAR qualifier when specifying the required date. i.e. > INDI.BIRT.DATE:YEAR >That may seem like a harmless qualification, but it actually made a >significant difference and stopped the filter from doing what was >wanted. >If you use a YEAR qualifier, you are asking for the year part of the >date. >For example, if you specify the date as, say, '1st Sept 1940' or as >'approximately 1940', the YEAR qualifier will return the year as 1940. >But >what is the YEAR if the date is given as 'after 1940'? Or 'between 1940 >and >1954'? There isn't one. So when qualified for YEAR, the expression >will >return no value in these cases. And 'no value' is not later than 1900. >So >because he used a YEAR qualifier when specifying the date, the filter >failed >to exclude anyone whose date was recorded as 'after 1940' or >'between 1940 >and 1954'. By simply removing the year qualifier for the date >expression, >the filter does what is required - i.e. > INDI.BIRT.DATE >Hope this solves the problem. >Brian >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jayne Harry" <jayne.h@telus.net> >To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:55 PM >Subject: [FHU] Individuals missing from custom query result >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I made custom queries for each census year to help clear old flags >and set >> new ones. When I run each query the results look good. For >example, >> running the 1891 query gives me a list of individuals with birth dates >> before 1891 and the census date column shows the 1891 date for all >> individuals. I used the "clear flag on result set" but noticed that the >> flags set on an individual were still showing in the property box >against >> his name. When I checked the results list from the query, he is not >on it >> (and there are a couple of others who aren't , but should be.) >> >> I checked to make sure they had the census details in the "fact" box >and >> this is ok. They have birth dates in the right place (he was born in >1859) >> I can't work out why he isn't showing in the query results. These are >my >> parameters in the query" >> >> Birth Date: %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% >> Census Date: %INDI.CENS[1].DATE% >> >> Add if %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE:YEAR% was earlier than 1891 >> Exclude unless %INDI.CENS[1].DATE:YEAR% was on 1891 >> >> He doesn't show in any of my custom census queries, but I ran the >standard >> query "Census Record Checklist" and he showed up ok in that for >1861, >> 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901. >> >> Obviously I have overlooked something, can anyone help please? >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word >'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<I would say leave well alone, and if you don't like the way Family Historian reloads after using an external programme, don't use the external programme, otherwise live with it.> Nick - thank you for your reply. Sheila - When using an external program to edit FH, I would prefer it if FH re-loaded to show whatever window you were currently working on - whether that's the Focus Window or a Diagram - but I wouldn't expect that to happen the next time I opened FH! I would think most people would like to immediately check or add to the information which has been updated. Well I do! regards Julie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Everyone, I made custom queries for each census year to help clear old flags and set new ones. When I run each query the results look good. For example, running the 1891 query gives me a list of individuals with birth dates before 1891 and the census date column shows the 1891 date for all individuals. I used the "clear flag on result set" but noticed that the flags set on an individual were still showing in the property box against his name. When I checked the results list from the query, he is not on it (and there are a couple of others who aren't , but should be.) I checked to make sure they had the census details in the "fact" box and this is ok. They have birth dates in the right place (he was born in 1859) I can't work out why he isn't showing in the query results. These are my parameters in the query" Birth Date: %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% Census Date: %INDI.CENS[1].DATE% Add if %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE:YEAR% was earlier than 1891 Exclude unless %INDI.CENS[1].DATE:YEAR% was on 1891 He doesn't show in any of my custom census queries, but I ran the standard query "Census Record Checklist" and he showed up ok in that for 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901. Obviously I have overlooked something, can anyone help please? Best Regards, Jayne Vancouver Island, Canada GFHS Member 8271

Ian, There is nothing to stop you exporting only Source Records (or only other types of Record) using File > Import/Export > Export > GEDCOM File. (This is an FH V4 feature). Remember to untick Exclude all records which are not linked to the selected Individual records. Carefully select the other Exclude options, because you may want to keep Repository &/or Multimedia &/or Note records. There is warning that you have selected no Individuals, but you can continue anyway. It seems to work fine. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ian Constable Sent: 11 February 2012 21:01 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] transfer sources? Help needed, please! Is it possible to transfer sources only? I want to start a new project based strictly on the evidence lurking haphazardly in several others. I have made a query produce a named list of sources plus full text. I can't export this as a ged file since it isn't a list of individuals. I can export it as a csv file, but that won't import/merge into the new project. Am I missing something? Ian ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hang on. Is this the (only) way? For each originating project, make a copy. In each copy delete everything except the sources and (say) one root person. Merge all the copies to form the new project. ? In which case, it will need doing very carefully and with a lot of backups.... Ian On 11/02/2012 21:00, Ian Constable wrote: Help needed, please! Is it possible to transfer sources only? I want to start a new project based strictly on the evidence lurking haphazardly in several others. I have made a query produce a named list of sources plus full text. I can't export this as a ged file since it isn't a list of individuals. I can export it as a csv file, but that won't import/merge into the new project. Am I missing something? Ian ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [1]FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS -request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the sub ject and the body of the message References 1. mailto:FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com

Help needed, please! Is it possible to transfer sources only? I want to start a new project based strictly on the evidence lurking haphazardly in several others. I have made a query produce a named list of sources plus full text. I can't export this as a ged file since it isn't a list of individuals. I can export it as a csv file, but that won't import/merge into the new project. Am I missing something? Ian

I must thank Nick for this, however my response was to the following statement from Martin Budd, and I quote :- ""I don't think it requires anything quite that radical! I'm probably over simplifying this, but I wonder if before the reload, FH could remember which diagram you were using and which individual you were looking at and then following the reload, redisplay the diagram and refocus on that individual. Diagram are more complex but it would be good if at least the individual you were viewing in the Focus Window was retained following a reload. Let's see what version 5 brings..."" I'm pretty sure I got the meaning of this correctly. In any event, when FH reloads it should start as normal, otherwise we would all be faced with having the last person viewed popping up in the focus screen, and having diagrams, and perhaps reports opening. I would hate to be forced to have to close down things I don't want. I was never a programmer, but I could imagine that if someone built in rules for different file opening circumstances, things could quite easily become a disaster. I would say leave well alone, and if you don't like the way Family Historian reloads after using an external programme, don't use the external programme, otherwise live with it. Regards Shelagh -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nick Walker (Ancestral Sources) Sent: 11 February 2012 15:29 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Saving from Ancestral Sources Shelagh said: >When opening FH the person showing in the focus window is always the root person, > and is the most logical way of working it. Personally I can't think of a more sensible way. I think you've missed the point Shelagh and this isn't an Ancestral Sources question at all. The issue that Julie was pointing out is that if you're in Family Historian and the file is updated outside of Family Historian (which could be by an external program), then Family Historian notices this and reloads the file. Julie would like it to continue to show her the diagram she was working on following the reload rather than close the diagram. Of course Shelagh you are right that it makes sense for FH to open with the root person as the focus - no one in this discussion is suggesting otherwise - this discussion is related to re-loading. Best wishes Nick ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Shelagh said: >When opening FH the person showing in the focus window is always the root person, > and is the most logical way of working it. Personally I can't think of a more sensible way. I think you've missed the point Shelagh and this isn't an Ancestral Sources question at all. The issue that Julie was pointing out is that if you're in Family Historian and the file is updated outside of Family Historian (which could be by an external program), then Family Historian notices this and reloads the file. Julie would like it to continue to show her the diagram she was working on following the reload rather than close the diagram. Of course Shelagh you are right that it makes sense for FH to open with the root person as the focus - no one in this discussion is suggesting otherwise - this discussion is related to re-loading. Best wishes Nick

< As far as Ancestral Sources goes - surely this is a bolt on programme not written by Family Historian. I have tried it and found it not worth the effort as I still have to go back to FH to get all the information in that I want.> Hello all! Many thanks for your imput. Dennis - I will give that a try thank you. Shelagh - I don't use the Focus Window personally, but prefer to work on a diagram where I can select a custom text scheme which shows all bmd's and census records. When I'm working on a family, I can then easily see the whole family and also what details are missing. Ancestral Sources was written by Nick Walker as a help for Family Historian users. I have used it hundreds of times and find it exceptionally good as a means to quickly enter census data for a complete household. I don't think I could do without it now! Nick has already commented on this thread [thank you Nick] regards Julie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Shelagh, < As far as Ancestral Sources goes ... I have tried it and found it not worth the effort as I still have to go back to FH to get all the information in that I want.> Have you visited the FHUG site at http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi and posted details on the Ancestral Sources forum of the information that you cannot enter via AS? There are also some tutorials there on how AS data entry relates to FH data entry. May be you have misunderstood how AS assists with your FH data entry. Furthermore, the author Nick Walker is sometimes prepared to add features required by users. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Shelagh Sent: 11 February 2012 12:26 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Saving from Ancestral Sources <Diagram are more complex but it would be good if at least the individual you were viewing in the Focus Window was retained following a reload. Let's see what version 5 brings...> When opening FH the person showing in the focus window is always the root person, and is the most logical way of working it. Personally I can't think of a more sensible way. When I am working on a particular branch or family I just make the head the root person and never have to start searching. As far as Ancestral Sources goes - surely this is a bolt on programme not written by Family Historian. I have tried it and found it not worth the effort as I still have to go back to FH to get all the information in that I want. Shelagh

<Diagram are more complex but it would be good if at least the individual you were viewing in the Focus Window was retained following a reload. Let's see what version 5 brings...> When opening FH the person showing in the focus window is always the root person, and is the most logical way of working it. Personally I can't think of a more sensible way. When I am working on a particular branch or family I just make the head the root person and never have to start searching. As far as Ancestral Sources goes - surely this is a bolt on programme not written by Family Historian. I have tried it and found it not worth the effort as I still have to go back to FH to get all the information in that I want. Shelagh

<I don't think it requires anything quite that radical! I'm probably over simplifying this, but I wonder if before the reload, FH could remember which diagram you were using and which individual you were looking at and then following the reload, redisplay the diagram and refocus on that individual. Diagram are more complex but it would be good if at least the individual you were viewing in the Focus Window was retained following a reload. Let's see what version 5 brings... Nick> Thank you very much for your comments! Julie ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It takes me about 2 seconds to relocate the focus individual (using CTRL-D) and reload the diagram. Easy! After spending at least 10 minutes entering a typical census into AS, 2 seconds is nothing. Dennis Hawkins -----Original Message----- From: Nick Walker (Ancestral Sources) Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:01 PM To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Saving from Ancestral Sources Martin Budd said: > AS modifies the Gedcom so FH has to reload which will close the diagram > etc down. >There is no way around this and as far as I know there won't be unless FH >takes on > real time databases but then the compatibility with Gedcom would likely be > compromised. I don't think it requires anything quite that radical! I'm probably over simplifying this, but I wonder if before the reload, FH could remember which diagram you were using and which individual you were looking at and then following the reload, redisplay the diagram and refocus on that individual. Diagram are more complex but it would be good if at least the individual you were viewing in the Focus Window was retained following a reload. Let's see what version 5 brings... Nick ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Martin Budd said: > AS modifies the Gedcom so FH has to reload which will close the diagram etc down. >There is no way around this and as far as I know there won't be unless FH takes on > real time databases but then the compatibility with Gedcom would likely be compromised. I don't think it requires anything quite that radical! I'm probably over simplifying this, but I wonder if before the reload, FH could remember which diagram you were using and which individual you were looking at and then following the reload, redisplay the diagram and refocus on that individual. Diagram are more complex but it would be good if at least the individual you were viewing in the Focus Window was retained following a reload. Let's see what version 5 brings... Nick