To Alfred,Brianne,Jim, Thanks for the help,a little light just went back on in my head Cheers ,Julie-Ann

KiaOra from New Zealand. F.O an excellant program.Have tried 3 but like this one. Problem i cant solve ,have read help etc etc. Uploading photos from floppy to database just wont take.The process works but afterwards no photos show just a cannot view message Cheers Julie-Ann

Wayne, I like your Aarnie. I'm always looking for ways to beat the system and you seem to have an answer for almost every situation that comes up. Charles Gohlke

Derick <derickh@charter.net> wrote: >I am disappointed to have only "in," "to" and "from." I wish there was a >way to free-flow the content. One little known aspect of the FO user defined facts is that if you do not enable the date and place fields nor the description field then the introductory "book phrasing" of the fact is omitted completely from reports and you are free to write your own fact introduction as part of the note and have it flow any way you like. Of course, then you must include the date and place in the note and you lose the ability to search in these fields or to globally synchronize the place. For every advantage you gain you must give up something in return ;-) One advantage of this is if you have a narrative note longer than 32k you can divide the note between two or more events and have the narrative continue with no hitches or interruptions. Wayne League

I have a very significant amount of data to key in--about 700 type-written pages. I am using shortcuts and a lot of cut-and-pasting. For that reason, I love FO's ability to interpret different date formats. Another method I use is creating fact types. I have "died in infancy," "died in teens" and "stillborn." This allows the reports to flow a little smoother. Each or the new facts can be noted and sourced, which makes it read even better. I am disappointed to have only "in," "to" and "from." I wish there was a way to free-flow the content. Also, if we have "he/she" and 'his/her" as well as "they" and "their" then you certainly need the option for "was/were." One other thing I would like to see is the window to default on ADD via LINKING to the surname of the person in the operand. Keep up the great work, Bruce! --Derick S. Hartshorn (the guy that got booted by Parsons from the 5.0 beta team for discussing on the news groups about what folks most wanted to see in a genealogical program, especially users of FO)

Hello Norma, Wayne, Alfred, Dick, et al: Well, I'm still trying to accept FO's definition of "related" as in "Everyone related to the above person" on the the drag and drop screen. As I said before, there's no way my gGF Gohlke could be considered related to my cousins four generations down on my mother's side but that's the way the program works. I'm not saying this drag and drop feature is bad but it ought to be re-labeled "Everyone in this tree" or something similar. It would also be nice if there were another choice called "All kin of this person". That way I could get the 142 kin if I chose my gGF or the 589 kin if I chose myself. Enough of that. Regarding the 20 "non-kin", I followed your suggestions and tried several methods. There is absolutely no easy way to do this and I would not recommend anyone trying it unless you have two computers and a lot of patience. Alfred wrote: > To find out who those 20 "non kin" were, export a GEDCOM, selecting > individuals, select yourself, your ancestors and entire ancestor line, > That should get the whole tree. You could then go to your earliest > ancestor in each line and deselect him/her and all his/her descendants > and their spouses", because FOW lists such people in the kinship > list, such as "The spouse of sixth cousin four times removed". About > the only ones you have left is the parents and siblings of those > spouses. That's easier said than done. First off, selecting Individuals, Yourself, Ancestors and Entire Ancestor Line will not get the whole tree. I get everyone except my wife, kids and grandkids. It's funny - I DO get my sister, her spouse, her kids and her grandkids. So be it. I just started with the entire database which, by now, consists of only one tree. For the gedcom export, it was easy enough to mark all individuals in the database. But then the fun - or should I say torture - began. If you're in the "Select People to Export" mode and trying to unmark your earliest ancestors in each line with all his/her descendants and their spouses, you can't toggle over to a tree view to see who you're earliest andestors are. After struggling with that for a couple of hours, I finally cranked up my other computer (about two feer away) and put the tree views up there. By working back and forth, I unmarked everyone I thought should be unmarked and then exported to NONKIN.GED. This has 27 individuals in it - not 20. Further checking revealed I had forgotten to unmark 6 so now I'm down to 21. That's close enough. I guess my closing advice to anyone doing genealogy is "Don't ask who the non-kin are in your database." <g>. For a related subject, see my post of Jan 16, 2001 under "Rearrange your search list" Charles

Having a problem switching over from tree view to marking screen while trying to mark descendants of all earliest ancestors? Let Aarnie help you do this. Aarnie is a bogus character who you temporarily enter into your database. Each time you find and highlight an early ancestor in your tree view, click on the +p button and link that early ancestor as a child of Aarnie. After you get them all linked as children of Aarnie, then go to the marking screen and mark all the descendants of Aarnie. Voila!! All the kin of the original focus person are suddenly marked! But before you click on OK to construct the gedcom file or report or whatever, first go and unmark Aarnie and then he along with the bogus child links disappear from the marked people. And after you finish the exercise you can delete Aarnie from your database and all is as it was before. (Or, if you're worried about polluting your good database you could restore a backup to a temporary folder, work with that copy of your database and delete the whole thing when you're through). Why is his name Aarnie with no surname nor other data except M for male? Because that puts him first in the select person list and he is already highlighted whenever you go to link children to him. Wayne League

Unlike some genealogy programs that store the photo's in the database, FO lets you store them where you want to. The catch is that FO needs to be able to access the photo's so that you can view them. If you have them on a floppy disk, you would need to keep the floppy in while FO is running, otherwise FO cannot access them. I would suggest that you create a directory on your hard drive and place copies of the photo's that you want FO to use in that directory. Regards, Brianne Kelly-Bly NJGenWeb - Morris County http://www.rootsweb.com/~njmorris Beware of the Genealogy Bug; It's bite can be addictive! -----Original Message----- From: D & J BROWN [mailto:dcjjs@xtra.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:07 PM To: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [FO] F.O 9.0 KiaOra from New Zealand. F.O an excellant program.Have tried 3 but like this one. Problem i cant solve ,have read help etc etc. Uploading photos from floppy to database just wont take.The process works but afterwards no photos show just a cannot view message Cheers Julie-Ann ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== The Genealogical Companion http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2399/tgc.htm Browsable Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/family-origins-users/ ============================== Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp

It will work if the floppy is re-inserted each time you try to access the photos on it. In other words, the only thing you do when you add a photo somewhere in a Family Origins database, is to tell Family Origins where it is so it can look it up each time it wants to display it. If you copy your photos to a folder on your hard drive, THEN link them to your family data, they will show up, unless you move or delete them from the original location. In the last couple of editions, there is a global search and replace utility in the "Tools" menu. If you copy all of your photos on the diskettes to one folder, you can then use this global find and replace to change the path to your photos, so that they will all show up again. You have to tell it the old path, something like "A:\" and tell it to replace with something like "C:\My Documents\My Pictures\Family Pictures", but it depends on WHERE you put the photos. Good Luck, Alfred ============ ----- Original Message ----- From: "D & J BROWN" <dcjjs@xtra.co.nz> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:06 PM Subject: [FO] F.O 9.0 > KiaOra from New Zealand. > F.O an excellant program.Have tried 3 but like this one. > Problem i cant solve ,have read help etc etc. > Uploading photos from floppy to database just wont take.The process works but afterwards > no photos show just a cannot view message > Cheers Julie-Ann > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > The Genealogical Companion http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2399/tgc.htm > Browsable Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/family-origins-users/ > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp >

D & J BROWN wrote: > KiaOra from New Zealand. > F.O an excellant program.Have tried 3 but like this one. > Problem i cant solve ,have read help etc etc. > Uploading photos from floppy to database just wont take.The process works but afterwards > no photos show just a cannot view message ================== D&J, Photos have to be placed in a folder by themselves and then you use the FO program to "link" them to the people in FO. They are not part of the FO "database" as such, and so do not backup when the FO database is backed up. Jim

"Getting the Most Out of Family Origins" 4th Edition Version 9 on page 229 gives a list of Program Limits. 2 billion individuals per database and 2 billion notes per person are two of the limits that are given. FL Rose ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betty Stokes" <jstokes@houston.rr.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:56 PM Subject: [FO] Size of Database > My database is getting rather large - Over 22,000 names and I tend to put a good many notes into my direct line. How large is "large" for a Family Origins database? I have a reasonably new computer with ample hard drive and memory. > > Should I split out and make a basic database for just direct line ancestors and children to make sure if something happens with the large database that I would have the basic one also.? > > Then there is the problem with doing an ancestor gedcom that doesn't pick up the children's spouse's names. > > Betty > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > Very basic Windows: http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/created4/COMPUTERBASICS.html > basic HTML: http://freepages.computers.rootsweb.com/~pasher/ > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > >

My database is getting rather large - Over 22,000 names and I tend to put a good many notes into my direct line. How large is "large" for a Family Origins database? I have a reasonably new computer with ample hard drive and memory. Should I split out and make a basic database for just direct line ancestors and children to make sure if something happens with the large database that I would have the basic one also.? Then there is the problem with doing an ancestor gedcom that doesn't pick up the children's spouse's names. Betty

Hi, Betty, It's up to you whether to split your database for other reasons, but I have had no trouble with substantially larger databases using FOW 4-9. My largest one is at 105,000 individuals, and a colleague working on the same Lutheran immigration project has his own database at 130,000. Also, the OMII Swiss immigration project in Ohio has used FO since v6 and runs at over 1,000,000 names. See http://www.omii.org/ Linda On Thu, 21 June 2001, "Betty Stokes" wrote: > > My database is getting rather large - Over 22,000 names and I tend to put a good many notes into my direct line. How large is "large" for a Family Origins database? I have a reasonably new computer with ample hard drive and memory. > > Should I split out and make a basic database for just direct line ancestors and children to make sure if something happens with the large database that I would have the basic one also.? > > Then there is the problem with doing an ancestor gedcom that doesn't pick up the children's spouse's names. > > Betty > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > Very basic Windows: http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/created4/COMPUTERBASICS.html > basic HTML: http://freepages.computers.rootsweb.com/~pasher/ > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp _________________________________________________________________ iVillage.com: Solutions for Your Life Check out the most exciting women's community on the Web http://www.ivillage.com

Norma: You are right! I made a new database and did a drag and drop of "everyone related to the individual". Got all 609. But I never would have expected that since the Kinship List on the same individual only yields 142. To my way of thinking, there is no way my gGF is "related" to those other 467. I guess I don't understand the meaning of "kin" and "related". Dick: I don't think FO 8.03 has "spouses kin" - at least it's not obvious to me. Elizabeth: >Most programs allow some sort of tagging of direct ancestors or all >descendants but parents of spouses are harder to include and often very >important to the wording of a book report. I've developed my own system of tagging, but that's another subject. Charles

Hello Listers, Last week, I was re-arranging my personal database - see "Want gGF as Rec#1". Wayne Leaque made a suggestion which worked like a charm. Now I have another question - or should I call it a brain teaser? This database has 613 individuals - four of them are unlinked. In exploring some of the list types under Reports, Lists, I came across Forest (count trees). I'd never looked at this one before but here is what it said: Count of Trees in Database - 20 Jun 2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tree #1 contains 609 people. (CARL AUGUST GOHLKE A4c m1c8-1) Tree #2 contains 1 person. (MARGARETHE BUEHL D1a m0c0-394) Tree #3 contains 1 person. (GEORG MICHAEL BUEHL D1c m0c0-395) Tree #4 contains 1 person. (JOHANN CHRISTOF BUEHL D1d m2c?-396) Tree #5 contains 1 person. (ROSINE BARBARA BUEHL D1e m1c?-397) 5 trees were found in the database. If I highlight (CARL AUGUST GOHLKE A4c m1c8-1) and do a Kinship List, I get 142 individuals. If I highlight myself (I am the great grandson of CARL AUGUST GOHLKE) and do a new Kinship List, I get 589 individuals. This is closer to Tree #1 but still 20 short. I can understand this though because, for example, parents of the spouse of a cousin are not kin but they are in the tree. But what if I wanted to find out who those 20 "non-kin" were? Also, suppose someone sent me a GEDCOM with a bunch of trees, each with a number of individuals. How do I extract Tree #? and put it in a separate database? None of this is a real problem but it arroused my curiosity. Has anyone ever thought about this before and, if so, what conclusions did you come to? I am using FO 8.03. Maybe this subject is addressed in FO 9. Anyhow, any comments would be appreciated. Charles

Charles Gohlke <c.gohlke@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote: >But what if I wanted to find out who those 20 "non-kin" were? Family Origins does not give us a "kinship" selection that we can use for exporting gedcom files or for doing reports. (The "everyone related" selection in the marking screen gives you everyone in the tree as Norma has just pointed out) If you want to export to a gedcom file, just those who are kin to a particular individual you will first have to use the tree view to locate and identify all of that person's earliest ancestor in each family line. Then go to the marking screen and mark all the descendants of each and every one of those earliest ancestors before you finally click OK to export the gedcom file. Finding out who the 20 "non-kin" are would be the invese of that. That is, first mark everyone in the database and then by the same means as above, unmark all the descendants of all the early ancestors. You could do the same using drag & drop to put them all directly into a new database. Wayne League

See the complete message at: http://genforum.genealogy.com/fo/messages/3399.html or wait until tomorrow, June 21 and go to: http://www.genealogy.com/help/ and see what it is. ========= the Family-Origins-Users-Mailing list administrator Alfred Eller

To extract a single tree from a multiple tree database: First, You import the new GEDCOM into a NEW, EMPTY, database. Then let Family Origins count your trees there for you. To extract only one of these trees: “file” menu “GEDCOM” - “Export GEDCOM’ Give it a name and location, “Selected individuals” --select any individual in the desired tree, then select either ancestors or descendants, then Select “Entire Ancestor/Descendant line” Hit OK a couple of times, then import that GEDCOM into another new, empty database to check it out and tweak it a bit. WHEN it is what you want and EXACTLY the way you want it, you can export yet another GEDCOM for importation into your main database. I think that it is easier to export and import 50 small groups of people and link or merge one or two individuals each time than it is to import the whole thing at once and have to link or merge 100 individuals at once. (I always get lost in there somewhere and miss someone) It sounds like a lot of work, but it is much less than it would be trying to clean up all that extraneous data after it is in your main database. When you get all done, and things are perfect, you can go back and delete those temporary databases. But be sure things ARE perfect first. ------ To find out who those 20 "non kin" were, export a GEDCOM, selecting individuals, select yourself, your ancestors and entire ancestor line, That should get the whole tree. You could then go to your earliest ancestor in each line and deselect him/her and all his/her descendants "and their spouses", because FOW lists such people in the kinship list, such as "The spouse of sixth cousin four times removed". About the only ones you have left is the parents and siblings of those spouses. Good Luck, Alfred ============ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Gohlke" <c.gohlke@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> > Hello Listers, ------SNIP------ > 5 trees were found in the database. > > If I highlight (CARL AUGUST GOHLKE A4c m1c8-1) and do a Kinship List, I > get 142 individuals. If I highlight myself (I am the great grandson of > CARL AUGUST GOHLKE) and do a new Kinship List, I get 589 individuals. > This is closer to Tree #1 but still 20 short. I can understand this > though because, for example, parents of the spouse of a cousin are not > kin but they are in the tree. > > But what if I wanted to find out who those 20 "non-kin" were? Also, > suppose someone sent me a GEDCOM with a bunch of trees, each with a number > of individuals. How do I extract Tree #? and put it in a separate > database? > > None of this is a real problem but it arroused my curiosity. Has anyone > ever thought about this before and, if so, what conclusions did you come > to? I am using FO 8.03. Maybe this subject is addressed in FO 9. Anyhow, > any comments would be appreciated. > > Charles

> Also, > suppose someone sent me a GEDCOM with a bunch of trees, each with a number > of individuals. How do I extract Tree #? and put it in a separate > database? Make a new database, drag and drop everyone related to the individual identified in the tree. Norma

Open your Family Origins file, Go to the “File” menu Select “GEDCOM” – “Export GEDCOM” Give the file a name and place to reside On the GEDCOM Export dialogue window, select “Select people to export”, “General” and whatever things you wish to include, then click on the OK button Find your Niece’s name and select it, then select the “Ancestors” button In the mark area (GREEN) Select “Direct ancestors and their children” OK and OK again. Import it into a new, empty database for inspection. You will have the ancestor line and the uncles and aunts, but not the cousins. If you want the cousins, you will probably have to unlink some people in your database to exclude them from the GEDCOM (It would be best to do this in a copy of your main database) Good Luck, Alfred ========= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Thoreson" <retbutch@kc.rr.com> > Hello: > I want to make a Gedcom for our niece which incudes all her ancesters and > their families. The one I made included my side of the family which she is > not related to other than by marriage. Is it possible to incude all of her > ancesters and their families without the others? Sally Thoreson >