At 07:10 PM 6/13/01, you wrote: >Derick I would go to tripod.com and upload the webpage files to it as I have >done. Web pages are free and you can include photos with 50MB? Webspace. >Much better way To go with all the changes a genealogical webpage has. Up >to 8 files at a time can be uploaded also. Some FTP sites only allow 1 file >at a time this could take all night to do. You can also edit the >Index.html file that FOW generates with Frontpage express, this way you can >get more customization. Check out my site below. >http://james.mahan.tipod.com >this site is very close to the original FOW generation. >Jim Mahan Jim, Your valued opinion must be considered. Myself, I have a benevolent sponsor, RootsWeb [http://www.rootsweb.com/] , who hasn't yet imposed limits on my creativity. I have Burke & Catawba Co., NCGenWeb, Hartshorn surname, and the City of Conover, NC. Every person must be foresighted enough to ponder what will happen to their pursuit when they are no longer able participate in its maintenance. --Derick

At 07:01 PM 6/13/01, Jesse Davis wrote: >But how do I delete the web sites from family origins ? > >J Davis The first step is to delete it from the web server with your favorite brand of software (WS_FTP: http://www.ipswitch.com/Products/WS_FTP/ ) ?? Next, delete (or save to a safe place if you decide you don't REALLY want to delete it) and re-create the same line. And then, just re-upload. Easy, huh? --Derick

At 03:42 PM 6/13/01, Jesse Davis wrote: >I use FO version 9.02. >I have 3 genealogy web sites I created with it. How do I update them? >Too dumb, I guess. No, not dumb. It's easier to delete the entire site and re-create it. --Derick

I use FO version 9.02. I have 3 genealogy web sites I created with it. How do I update them? Too dumb, I guess. Thanks J Davis http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Cottage/8460/ JOHN 3:16 EPHESIANS 2:8,9 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.256 / Virus Database: 129 - Release Date: 5/31/01

>>These are IDENTICAL ENTRIES. I don't how to make it any clearer. >Two people named John Smith, born in 1850 in New York City are also >identical, but that doesn't mean Family Origins should merge them >automatically. This is why there is a duplicate search and merge so FO can >display the two records to you and let you decide if they >should be merged. I sometimes wish that SmargeMerge and the duplicate person finder (more or less the same thing, I guess) were a little more context sensitive. There is essentially no context. Expanding on Bruce's example, the program basically just compares John Smith born in 1850 in New York, with John H. Smith born 12 Aug 1850 in New York, New York. I deliberately introduced some minor differences, and this still might well be the same person although there are some small differences in the data. Conversely, even apparently identical people (e.g., Bruce's example of two John Smiths, both born in 1850 in New York City) might not be the same people. They might not be the same people even with more specificity, e.g., two John H. Smith born 12 Aug 1850 in New York City still might not be the same people. But by context, I mean parents, children, and spouses. For example, suppose one John H. Smith (not two with the same name) has two spouses Jane Jones born 1852. The probability is very high that these are the same Jane Jones. This is a very different situation than two John H. Smiths, each of which married a Jane Jones. Conversely, if you have John H. Smith born 1850 in New York City son of James Smith and Mary Doe, and also John H. Smith born 1850 in New York City son of William Smith and Elizabeth Jones, then the probability is very low that these are the same John H. Smiths. In fact, I wish this type of context checking were an option that could be turned on or off in the standard duplicate checking. If it were, I think it would greatly reduce the number of false positives. Finally (and back in the affirmative direction), if you have John Smith born about 1851 son of William Smith and Elizabeth Jones and a second son for the same couple John H. Smith born 12 Nov 1850 in New York City, then John Smith is very likely the same person as John H. Smith. And again, by the same couple, I mean the same records in the data base, not duplicate records with the same name. Notice that with this approach, merging only a member or two of a family would enable the rest of the family to be identified as duplicate. By the way, I agree with the advice to be extremely cautious in using Merge. I virtually never use Smartmerge. The rare times I do, it is in a temporary data base, and it is with data I have downloaded from Ancestral Files on the LDS Web site. Unless I am doing something wrong, you really can't download ancestors and descendants of a person at the same time from the LDS Web site. But if you make separate downloads, you can put the pieces back together without ambiguity by Smartmerging by Ancestral File Number. And I seldom use (unSmart)merge either. Again, when I do it is primarily in a temporary data base, where there are few false positives in the duplicate search and I personally verify every duplicate one way or the other. I will sometimes merge such a temporary data base into my main data base. But when I do, I try to get it down to the point where there is only one person common between the two data bases. I then will merge this one person as a way of linking the two data bases together. Jerry Bryan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

I recently did somewhat the same thing with three of my databases. One set on the laptop and one on the desktop. I had added or changed some information on the laptop version while doing some research. At the same time, I had found some entries for the desktop versions. When it finally came time to combine, I renamed and saved a backup of each file. Copied these to a new folder and restored them. ONe carried the prefix "D" for desktop and the other "L" for laptop. After restoring, I created a new file with the prefix "A" for All. Using the drag and drop (the equivalent of creating gedcoms and importing) I proceeded to combine each set of pairs into the new base. (This kept the orgionals intact with no changes). Next, and this is VERY important, I combined all of the duplicate sources. It doesn't seem that places will cause a duplication problem. Using three merges, I was able to get down to just a couple of dozen manual merges. The first was to combine the records with matching AFN numbers, second the matching RESN and finally, the Smart Merge. After this the Find Duplicates gave me the couple of dozen checks (out of over 8000 individuals) which I felt was a pretty good return. The counts of individuals between the two databases indicate that I may still have 3 or 4 records that are duplicated (probably "Unknowns") which will surface while working on the data. Keith Thompson FormalSoft@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/12/2001 10:49:41 PM Mountain Daylight Time, > Clare@Sierratel.com writes: > > > These are IDENTICAL ENTRIES. I don't how to make it any clearer. > > > Two people named John Smith, born in 1850 in New York City are also > identical, but that doesn't mean Family Origins should merge them > automatically. This is why there is a duplicate search and merge so FO can > display the two records to you and let you decide if they should be merged. > > - Bruce > http://formalsoft.com - Family Origins genealogy software > http://family-reunion.com - Plan the perfect family reunion > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > PLEASE send personal replies and "THANK YOU" message privately. All messages on this list are archived and archiving takes up valuable space. > > ============================== > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 -- Keith Thompson, Worthington, OH Home Web Page: http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~kthompson/ Genealogy Web Page: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~kthompson Efax # (419) 818-1912 JFax & Voicemail (530) 484-3831

In a message dated 6/12/2001 10:49:41 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Clare@Sierratel.com writes: > These are IDENTICAL ENTRIES. I don't how to make it any clearer. > Two people named John Smith, born in 1850 in New York City are also identical, but that doesn't mean Family Origins should merge them automatically. This is why there is a duplicate search and merge so FO can display the two records to you and let you decide if they should be merged. - Bruce http://formalsoft.com - Family Origins genealogy software http://family-reunion.com - Plan the perfect family reunion

>Wouldn't it be nice if genealogy programs did that? But none of >them do. They will not automatically merge two people unless >those two people have a minimum of data like parents, children, >dates and places, etc. Each program has a different set of things >that it looks for before it will merge two people. > In other words, just because two people are identical, doesn't mean they > will merge. They must also have a minimum amount of data entered. Precisely! Do you know how many Paul Smiths or Bob Browns or Joe Greens there are in this world? If the genealogy program merged people with the same name without SIGNIFICANT verification of data, your database would be a disaster. Merging databases or gedcoms is NOT something to be taken lightly. Be very careful of what we wish for gang - we might just get it <G>. -- Happy Hunting!! -- Paul Houston, TX, USA ICQ #73314929 Researching: VA - WHITE,LIPSCOMB,HILL,JOHNSON,SAUNDERS, TALBOT,TATE,EVANS NC - SMITH, BOSWELL, RHODES, CAPEHART,MORRIS, MARSHE, BRITT,SHAW View my American Ancestry at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~paulrsmith **************** FREE Credit Card Referral Program. Quick money AND residual, lifetime income! CHECK IT OUT !! http://smithecomservices.tripod.com ***************************************

Kbens0n@aol.com wrote: > What confuses me about this..is that my assumption has always been >that exporting a gedcom *from* FO and importing it back *to* another >copy of FO would leave all original people's records un-changed and >thusly Smart Merge would have no problems merging all *but* the new >additions. Smart Merge will not merge any duplicate pairs where there is any remote possibility at all that these two may not actually be the same person. If they have no birth date entered, for example, it will not merge them because it doesn't know for sure that they both have the same birth date. If any ambiguity exists, smart merge will not merge them. So, if you copy your database on top of itself (with a gedcom file import or with drag & drop), everyone in the database will be duplicated and lots of them will not be merged by smart merge. In short, you will have a mess. For this reason, smart merge has only limited usefulness. The proper way to work your database between two computers using gedcom files is to make a gedcom file from the last used, up-to-date computer and then import that to a brand new database on the out-of-date computer. That new database then will be your new master database. Then you can relegate the old database to a backup (in case you need to go back to it later) and delete it from your active database folder. Using FO backups is better for doing this because the "book phrasing" of your user defined events will be retained in a backup where they will not survive through a gedcom transfer. It is also faster because you can restore right on top of the old database (after backing it up, of course), without the need to make new databases or to carry around the large gedcom files. (FO backups are compressed and are much smaller than gedcom files of the same database). Wayne League

Actually, in windows explorer, you can highlight ALL the files in a folder at once, (CTRL A will do that), right click anywhere on the highlight and choose properties and uncheck the read only box. It will unmark the read only attribute for all the files highlighted. Wayne League "Alfred Eller" <adeller@santel.net> wrote: >You can do that one file at a time with Windows Explorer, just right click >on a file and select properties, then click on the line that says "Read >Only" to remove the checkmark but with a hundred or so files in a folder >this gets tiresome.

Well, I don't know how to be any clearer, either. "Identical" isn't all that counts. Norma

> They must also have a minimum amount of data entered. These are IDENTICAL ENTRIES. I don't how to make it any clearer. Clare

Or you can use this handy dandy little freeware application that will change the attributes of files several levels down at one swoop. It called Attribute Changer (surprise) and is available at http://webplaza.pt.lu/public/rpetges/index.html Keith Thompson Alfred Eller wrote: > > Did you backup or copy your files to a CD ? If so, the Read Only attribute > is set, and is still set when you copy them back to the hard drive. You need > to reset the read only archive bit. (Or remove the write protection) > > There is a little (VERY LITTLE) in the Windows Explorer help about this, > should find it by searching for "Read-Only" > > You can do that one file at a time with Windows Explorer, just right click > on a file and select properties, then click on the line that says "Read > Only" to remove the checkmark but with a hundred or so files in a folder > this gets tiresome. > > You can set or reset all the attributes in all the files in a folder by > using the DOS attrib command from the MS-DOS prompt. (You can maybe look it > up, I would have to and then try to explain what I found) > > Good Luck, > Alfred > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mbraden" <maybe@pdq.net> > > > I had to reformat my hard-drive, and then I restored my data bases.. > > Now when I try write to one of them I get a message that I cannot write > > to a read-only file. Any suggestions? > > Mary > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > PLEASE remove as much of the Original Message as possible when replying to a List Posting. Include only that part of the original message important to your reply. > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com -- Keith Thompson, Worthington, OH Home Web Page: http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~kthompson/ Genealogy Web Page: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~kthompson Efax # (419) 818-1912 JFax & Voicemail (530) 484-3831

If you have many files in a folder, with some (or all) of them set to read only, just highlight them all in windows explorer, click on properties, and uncheck the box labeled read only, then click apply. This makes them *all* writable. Alfred Eller wrote: > > Did you backup or copy your files to a CD ? If so, the Read Only attribute > is set, and is still set when you copy them back to the hard drive. You need > to reset the read only archive bit. (Or remove the write protection) > > There is a little (VERY LITTLE) in the Windows Explorer help about this, > should find it by searching for "Read-Only" > > You can do that one file at a time with Windows Explorer, just right click > on a file and select properties, then click on the line that says "Read > Only" to remove the checkmark but with a hundred or so files in a folder > this gets tiresome. > > You can set or reset all the attributes in all the files in a folder by > using the DOS attrib command from the MS-DOS prompt. (You can maybe look it > up, I would have to and then try to explain what I found) > > Good Luck, > Alfred -- Charlie Hoffpauir http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

In a message dated 6/12/2001 6:43:37 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Clare@Sierratel.com writes: > You all keep saying that I have different versions. I don't. They are > both the same :) I would have expected the imported GEDCOM to have done > what you said, but it didn't. No one was more surprised than I was when > I discovered that my spouses and children had doubled! I have > transferred like this many times and this is the first time this has > If you export to a GEDCOM file, and then import back into the same database, you will have two (2) copies of each person in your database. SmartMerge is a fully automatic merge (and doesn't ask for confirmation) so it will *only* merge the ones that FO can definately determine are duplicates. If you merge a person, but not the duplicate copies of the spouse, then the person will be linked to 2 copies of the same spouse. You have to merge each duplicated person in the database (this is why I advise people to *never* import a GEDCOM file into their database). To merge the remaining duplicates, do "Tools, Merge, Find duplicates" to have FO present possible duplicate records for you to choose whether to merge. - Bruce http://formalsoft.com - Family Origins genealogy software http://family-reunion.com - Plan the perfect family reunion

One should always use the backup and restore process when transferring files between two computers using the same version of FOWIN rather than combining an old version of a database with a newer one by using the gedcom process. I misunderstood the original question, and Clare did have the same version of FO on both computers. Had she or someone else had a different version of the program, one would then need to delete or rename the old database and import the gedcom with the additions into a blank database. Obviously before deleting or renaming anything, make BACKUPS. If I understand correctly, smart merge needs to have a number of criteria met. If the duplicates are not clearly defined with lots of matching facts, smart merge will not merge them. Otherwise, people with the same names but different generations/families could be merged. Then we would really have problems! Margaret Scheffler ----- Original Message ----- From: <Kbens0n@aol.com> > What confuses me about this..is that my assumption has always been that exporting a gedcom *from* FO and importing it back *to* another copy of FO would leave all original people's records un-changed and thusly Smart Merge would have no problems merging all *but* the new additions. Perhaps the import into an older version of FO strips some info from the original records? Or the export back out of the older version?? > -=Kevin=-

In a message dated Tue, 12 Jun 2001 7:48:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "MScheffler" <figaro@dreamscape.com> writes: << In making a gedcom from the laptop with the new information, and importing it back into her main database, she had created duplicates of almost everything except the new information. >> What confuses me about this..is that my assumption has always been that exporting a gedcom *from* FO and importing it back *to* another copy of FO would leave all original people's records un-changed and thusly Smart Merge would have no problems merging all *but* the new additions. Perhaps the import into an older version of FO strips some info from the original records? Or the export back out of the older version?? -=Kevin=-

Wouldn't it be nice if genealogy programs did that? But none of them do. They will not automatically merge two people unless those two people have a minimum of data like parents, children, dates and places, etc. Each program has a different set of things that it looks for before it will merge two people. In other words, just because two people are identical, doesn't mean they will merge. They must also have a minimum amount of data entered. Norma

Did you backup or copy your files to a CD ? If so, the Read Only attribute is set, and is still set when you copy them back to the hard drive. You need to reset the read only archive bit. (Or remove the write protection) There is a little (VERY LITTLE) in the Windows Explorer help about this, should find it by searching for "Read-Only" You can do that one file at a time with Windows Explorer, just right click on a file and select properties, then click on the line that says "Read Only" to remove the checkmark but with a hundred or so files in a folder this gets tiresome. You can set or reset all the attributes in all the files in a folder by using the DOS attrib command from the MS-DOS prompt. (You can maybe look it up, I would have to and then try to explain what I found) Good Luck, Alfred ----- Original Message ----- From: "mbraden" <maybe@pdq.net> > I had to reformat my hard-drive, and then I restored my data bases.. > Now when I try write to one of them I get a message that I cannot write > to a read-only file. Any suggestions? > Mary >

I had originally replied to Clare personally, but never received a response from her which indicated if my suggestion worked. My apologies if I missed the point. Perhaps I was unclear. If I have interpreted the problem correctly, Clare had two versions of FO on her two computers, so had transferred her primary database to her laptop via a gedcom, then made additions to the laptop database, and wanted to transfer information back to the first computer when she returned home. In making a gedcom from the laptop with the new information, and importing it back into her main database, she had created duplicates of almost everything except the new information. I suggested she make a new gedcom from the laptop, rename her first database, then make a new database and incorporate the information from the laptop gedcom to it. The simplest solution would be to make sure both computers have the same version of FO and simply backup from one computer and restore to the next. Margaret Scheffler