Ole's answer "exemplifies" the members on this list...in that, all it takes is a little discussion of an issue, for all the alternatives to "surface". The membership fees here are a *REAL* bargain. -=Kevin=- In a message dated Wed, 6 Jun 2001 5:38:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Ole P. Bielefeldt" <ole.bielefeldt@vip.cybercity.dk> writes: << Or you can have your submitter to save the FTW file in an earlier format of FTW, making you able to read it. Ole P. Bielefeldt Ry, Denmark >>

Yepper, you can read minds, Wayne:o) And I could understand your take much better! Sue At 02:51 PM 6/5/2001 -0400, Wayne League wrote: >My take on what Sue said is that FTW ver 6 or earlier cannot open an >.ftw database made by FTW version 7 or 8. But then you would not >expect any program to be able to open a file from a newer version. > >I think her point was that the most viable solution when someone is >sending you an .ftw file is to help your friend with FTW learn how to >make a gedcom file with his/her program. > >Wayne League

Hi Paul, Guess I didn't make that statement very clear:o) What I was attempting to state, was that since I have version 6.0, I can't take an FTW file from version 7 or 8 and enter it into my FTM program. I had no trouble converting to gedcom in FTM...that's what I use it for...to convert FTW files I get (when they are 6.0 or earlier versions) so I can use them. Sorry for the confusing message...but I regularly confuse myself, so I thought I'd share:o) Sue At 11:16 AM 6/5/2001 -0700, Paul Burchfield wrote: >Sue, > >What is it you think doesn't convert? From what to what? > >Sincerely, >Paul Burchfield, Genealogy.com Technical Support >http://www.genealogy.com/support

Thanks Wayne, Alfred and Linda. Now I know what I'll be doing for the next week or so! David > >Is there any way in FOW 9.2 to delete some unwanted data from "NOTES" > >without editing each individual item one at a time?

You could import it into an temporary database and export a GEDCOM without the notes, unless there are some you want to keep. Still using the temporary database, use the Family Origins Explorer find function to fine any individual who’s general note, or fact note if it is that, is not blank, when it finds one, hit the edit button, the note button, erase it , hit the OK button and OK again then next to find the next individual with a note and do it again. Just who is individual 1837 and what relationship exists between 1837 and 1835? Maybe there is some connection that you might want to keep track of, or, it could be that the numbers aren’t the same after the transfer, and therefore are meaningless. Good Luck, Alfred ============== ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Dorsey" <ddorsey@mindspring.com> > Is there any way in FOW 9.2 to delete some unwanted data from "NOTES" > without editing each individual item one at a time? > > I have received a LARGE GEDCOM file that I am trying to clean up. There are > various alpha-numeric "Note" entries which are meaningless to me. For > example, the "I1837:" listed below. These are on almost every person, though ------SNIP------ > Thanks for any help. > > David >

"David W. Dorsey" <ddorsey@mindspring.com> wrote: >Is there any way in FOW 9.2 to delete some unwanted data from "NOTES" >without editing each individual item one at a time? > ============= You could if all the unwanted data is all the same word or phrase in every note. The global search and replace in FO works in the notes and you could get rid of the same phrase wherever it occurred in any/all notes. I suspect that is not the case with you, though. ============= >I have received a LARGE GEDCOM file that I am trying to clean up. There are >various alpha-numeric "Note" entries which are meaningless to me. For >example, the "I1837:" listed below. These are on almost every person, though >some of them also include "normal" text notes. ============== The "I1837" looks like a person's record number that someone has transferred into the notes. They're probably all different for each person and do not match the present record numbers because the gedcom has been imported by FO and all records have been renumbered. There is no way to globally separate these bogus numbers from the real data either from within FO or in the gedcom file before you import. You're going to have to look at each one individually. The best you can do is in find, set up a manual search for notes that are not blank, or maybe that contain "I1", and look at each one individually to see what needs to be deleted. Every gedcom file needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb anyway, to insure that the data you import is correct and matches the format of your own data. There are no shortcuts to keeping your data pristine. Wayne League

Would the global search & replace option work for you? By the way, mine is not working right now--does anyone have a clue on that? Linda "Friends are God's way of taking care of us."

Margie, I will try it Thursday when I go to work at the FHC. Sure hope it works. Linda "Friends are God's way of taking care of us."

Dear Listers, I was in Salt Lake visiting with a friend who trains the missionaries who work at the FHL. He has used FO in the past but is now having to use PAF as his job is to train the missionaries on PAF. He did admit, however, that FO is still the greatest thing going. having said that, however, this is what he told me to do in order to utilize the new TempleReady feature of updating temple work in your program. Please be aware, I have not tried this as yet since the TempleReady program has not yet been installed on our FHC computers. Here are the steps he told me to use: Export FO to PAF 5 Import into PAF 5 Export PAF 5 gedcom Use new TempleReady Reimport to PAF 5 Re-export using PAF 4 (yes, this says PAF 4) My notes are pretty cryptic so this may not be the exact procedure since some of you were saying we need to use a backup of PAF 5 not a gedcom. If someone would please try this and let me know, I will be glad to e-mail my friend with the results. If this doesn't work, I'll ask him to verify the steps I have outlined or get them corrected. Thanks, Margie in Washington State

Is there any way in FOW 9.2 to delete some unwanted data from "NOTES" without editing each individual item one at a time? I have received a LARGE GEDCOM file that I am trying to clean up. There are various alpha-numeric "Note" entries which are meaningless to me. For example, the "I1837:" listed below. These are on almost every person, though some of them also include "normal" text notes. 0 @I1835@ INDI 1 NAME Chris Payne /Richards/ 2 GIVN Chris Payne 2 SURN Richards 1 SEX M 1 NOTE 2 CONT 2 CONT I1837: 1 SOUR @S2@ 1 FAMC @F771@ Should I: 1. Search and delete the "NOTE" and corresponding "CONT" lines on those entries that contain only the unwanted item 2. Search and delete only the corresponding "CONT" line on those that have "normal" data that I want to save? Thanks for any help. David

It's also good to keep in mind that the newer versions can save a copy of a file in an older version's format. So, Family Tree Maker version 8.0 saves by default as a version 8.0 file. In addition to being able to export a file to GEDCOM, it also can save in these Family Tree Maker version formats: 7; 6; 5; 4; and 3. That has been the case since Family Tree Maker version 4 (they call save to versions down through version 3). >>> Wayne League <wleague@mindspring.com> 06/05/01 11:51AM >>> "Paul Burchfield" <Paul_Burchfield@genealogy.com> wrote: >Sue, > >What is it you think doesn't convert? From what to what? My take on what Sue said is that FTW ver 6 or earlier cannot open an .ftw database made by FTW version 7 or 8. But then you would not expect any program to be able to open a file from a newer version. I think her point was that the most viable solution when someone is sending you an .ftw file is to help your friend with FTW learn how to make a gedcom file with his/her program. Wayne League <snip>

"Paul Burchfield" <Paul_Burchfield@genealogy.com> wrote: >Sue, > >What is it you think doesn't convert? From what to what? My take on what Sue said is that FTW ver 6 or earlier cannot open an .ftw database made by FTW version 7 or 8. But then you would not expect any program to be able to open a file from a newer version. I think her point was that the most viable solution when someone is sending you an .ftw file is to help your friend with FTW learn how to make a gedcom file with his/her program. Wayne League

Sue, What is it you think doesn't convert? From what to what? Sincerely, Paul Burchfield, Genealogy.com Technical Support http://www.genealogy.com/support ------------------------Reply Separator------------------------ >>> "Gil & Sue" <genjunky@cancios.com> 06/04/01 10:46PM >>> Hi Norman, I did the same, but soon found that versions 7 and 8 don't convert, and I'm certainly not going to pay for their upgrade:o) I found I have the best results by explaining how to convert it in FTM and I haven't had anyone refuse to forward a gedcom:o) Most genealogists are super people anyway, I'm finding out! Sue At 10:02 PM 6/4/2001 -0500, Norman Holden wrote: >I wasted my money on FTM Ver 6.0. May as well get some use out of it, so >if anyone needs a conversion, I'll be glad to do it. (FREE) :) > >Norman

Hi Jim, Bruce, I hope you are listening too!! You are right about the length of names, but I do not think LDS is going to change that--they have used that for years. If any changes are made it will have to be from the others who write their software. To use the 'Update My Records' feature on the new Temple Ready for Windows you use a backup, not ged.com. Try it next time you're there. It could be such a help to us who don't have the time to input all those dates. I even tried dumping it into PAF and then into the program. No go. The temple names don't change and it won't talk to me--error message every time. Rats!! Linda "Friends are God's way of taking care of us."

In a message dated 6/5/2001 6:12:07 AM Mountain Daylight Time, jguest@republic.net writes: > From your message below, I see that you mean that the new Temple Ready > program works as it should in making a temple submission disk, but that the > information from that > disk won't copy itself into FO to update the submission records in FO. > > You also indicate that Temple Ready still uses the short names "Jrive" and > FO (version 9.x) uses long names, "Jordan River". Do you know if the new > "Temple Ready" > program is a 16 bit or a 32 bit program? I don't believe that the 16 bit > programs are capable of doing long filenames. > FO uses the abbreviations internally, but doesn't force you to use them when working with the program. You can look at a GEDCOM created by FO and see the abbreviations there (i.e. JRIVE). - Bruce http://formalsoft.com - Family Origins genealogy software http://family-reunion.com - Plan the perfect family reunion

Linda, From your message below, I see that you mean that the new Temple Ready program works as it should in making a temple submission disk, but that the information from that disk won't copy itself into FO to update the submission records in FO. You also indicate that Temple Ready still uses the short names "Jrive" and FO (version 9.x) uses long names, "Jordan River". Do you know if the new "Temple Ready" program is a 16 bit or a 32 bit program? I don't believe that the 16 bit programs are capable of doing long filenames. Perhaps the problem is that FO has moved on in it's progression ( to 32 bit) and the new Temple Ready program is being held back as a 16 bit program to be compatable with the Personal Ancestral File program. I'm not smart on this, but if that's is the case, it may be that a person might have to go back to an older (16 bit) version of FO, or the LDS software will need to be upgraded to 32 bit. But that's the nature of the whole computer industry. It's like a bunch of frogs crossing from one side of the road to the other. The don't all move together. Some takes long hops and some takes short hops, and all don't land in the same place at the same time They are just trying to get to the other side of the road without getting run over and squashed. As I said, I don't know what is what in this. I may be all wet. I'm just making some assumptions based on what you said below about the length of the names of the Temples. Jim ================= Linda Smith wrote: > Hi Jim, > I was just whining privately to Paul Smith about this. The greatest feature > on the new Windows program is 'Update Your Records". You take a backup copy > of about 100 people, not gedcom, and click on the 'update my records', and > it finds matches and copies the dates to your disk which you then take home > and reinstall. So you don't have to hunt and peck them individually. Nice, > but because of the temple codes in FO being different, Jordan River vs. > JRIVE, it does not go--sad, huh?

The problems noted on the selection criteria are left overs from FOW 8. FOW is failing to clear the display when "new" criteria is selected. This is a display problem only. Secondly, the selection criteria remain available for the duration of your session, or until modified. They are reset when FOW initializes after being exited. Now for your actually selection criteria. Start with those living in 1880. Use a selection of Birth Date is before 1880 AND Death Date is after 1880. This will select those born before 1880 and who died after 1880. Those born or died in 1880 will not be selected. If you can use a more precise date (Census date), the number of people excluded is reduced. Add the country selection criteria block with the AND. The individual countries are connected with a OR. Try to just select thos of a specific country first and refine your selection until it does what you want. Then reverse the selection type to exclude them. Remember, to exclude an individual, they first must be selected. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: <Beldin4@aol.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10:57 PM Subject: [FO] Defining Custom Search > Dear Listers, > I am one of the fortunate ones who has the 1880 US Census at our FHC (I was > at NGS and was able to buy one of the copies :-) > Now I would like to make a sort so that I can know all the people in my > database who were living in US in 1880. > I tried all kinds of sorts but none seemed to work. > Can I get some suggestions please on how to create a custom report for this > purpose? > > Here's what I tried: > > 1) created custom report with name, surname; birth place, birth date; named > it 1880 US Census--that worked fine > > 2) chose 'select people' instead of all of database > > 3) chose Find and tried to create criteria in search criteria screen; this > is where things did not work > > 4) chose birth place - does not contain - England (since none of my English > ancestors were here in 1880) this did not work. People with England in their > birthplace were marked > > 5) I tried the same with Scotland; same problem. Some of my Scottish > relatives were chosen, others not eventhough the word Scotland was in their > birth place > > 6) I tried clearing criteria, the criteria would disappear until I exited and > then it all came back; I tried clearing and choosing new criteria such as > birth date - is before - 1880. Even people born in 1927 were marked! And my > old criteria remained in the other criteria positions but without any > parameters; I could not totally clear my criteria > > 7) I tried eliminating the report by going to my reports file and deleting > 1880 US Census but when I created a new 1880 US Census custom report, the > criteria had reappeared > > 8) when I typed in birth place does not contain Scotland Or birthplace does > not contain England Or birthplace does not contain Sweden, the criteria 'does > not contain' would disappear from the 2nd and 3rd choices although the birth > place and words England and Sweden remained. > > 9) I finally gave up and decided to rejoin this list. > > I love the filtering system but have always been very frustrated by it! I > even looked in my book on FO, but the example is so ultra simple, it does not > address my problems. > > So, > 1) should I uninstall FO and reinstall? > 2 Are my problems similar to ones other's have been experiencing? > 3) How do I create a custom report that I can take to my FHC to search for my > ancestors in the 1880 census? > > Thanks, > Margie in Washington State > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > FAMILY ORIGINS - Ordering, UPDATES, books, FAQ, FREE DEMO, Newsletter, etc. http://formalsoft.com For the 8.03 and 9.02 PATCHES and what they fix, go to: http://formalsoft.com/files.htm > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history > learning and how-to articles on the Internet. > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library

Beldin4@aol.com wrote: >3)  chose Find and tried to create criteria in search criteria screen; this >is where things did not work > >4)  chose birth place - does not contain - England (since none of my English >ancestors were here in 1880) this did not work.  People with England in their >birthplace were marked =================== That is strange indeed, for the search in FO works quite well and normally doesn't act that way at all. Something is not working properly for you. I would back up the database and then try packing the database. If that doesn't help, try transferring the whole database to a new database by either drag & drop or via gedcom file export/import. If that doesn't help then I would reinstall FO from the original install CD right over the existing program. This will not bother your databases at all, but back all of them up first. Always be safe! ================== > >6) I tried clearing criteria, the criteria would disappear until I exited and >then it all came back;  ================== That is normal - - don't worry about that. Search criteria remains there until you change it to something else and actually use the new. That is so you can manually find the next instance of a search if you want to. ================== >8) when I typed in birth place does not contain Scotland  Or birthplace does >not contain England Or birthplace does not contain Sweden, the criteria 'does >not contain' would disappear from the 2nd and 3rd choices although the birth >place and words England and Sweden remained. ================== Again, this is not normal and your program needs to be repaired to fix whatever is wrong (see above). But you probably wouldn't want to use the above criteria anyway, for it will mark Scotland because it does not contain England and it will mark England because it does not contain Scotland, etc. (If it were working properly, that is) In short, it would mark everyone in the database. You would want to use AND's instead of OR's above. When you get your program working properly again, try using the individual list from the lists tab under reports. It will probably give you the list you want much easier than constructing a custom report. Wayne League

Dear Listers,   I am one of the fortunate ones who has the 1880 US Census at our FHC (I was at NGS and was able to buy one of the copies :-)   Now I would like to make a sort so that I can know all the people in my database who were living in US in 1880.   I tried all kinds of sorts but none seemed to work.   Can I get some suggestions please on how to create a custom report for this purpose? Here's what I tried: 1) created custom report with name, surname; birth place, birth date; named it 1880 US Census--that worked fine 2)  chose 'select people' instead of all of database 3)  chose Find and tried to create criteria in search criteria screen; this is where things did not work 4)  chose birth place - does not contain - England (since none of my English ancestors were here in 1880) this did not work.  People with England in their birthplace were marked 5) I tried the same with Scotland; same problem.  Some of my Scottish relatives were chosen, others not eventhough the word Scotland was in their birth place 6) I tried clearing criteria, the criteria would disappear until I exited and then it all came back;  I tried clearing and choosing new criteria such as birth date - is before - 1880.  Even people born in 1927 were marked! And my old criteria remained in the other criteria positions but without any parameters; I could not totally clear my criteria 7)  I tried eliminating the report by going to my reports file and deleting 1880 US Census but when I created a new 1880 US Census custom report, the criteria had reappeared 8) when I typed in birth place does not contain Scotland  Or birthplace does not contain England Or birthplace does not contain Sweden, the criteria 'does not contain' would disappear from the 2nd and 3rd choices although the birth place and words England and Sweden remained. 9) I finally gave up and decided to rejoin this list. I love the filtering system but have always been very frustrated by it!  I even looked in my book on FO, but the example is so ultra simple, it does not address my problems. So, 1) should I uninstall FO and reinstall? 2  Are my problems similar to ones other's have been experiencing? 3) How do I create a custom report that I can take to my FHC to search for my ancestors in the 1880 census? Thanks, Margie in Washington State

Hi Norman, I did the same, but soon found that versions 7 and 8 don't convert, and I'm certainly not going to pay for their upgrade:o) I found I have the best results by explaining how to convert it in FTM and I haven't had anyone refuse to forward a gedcom:o) Most genealogists are super people anyway, I'm finding out! Sue At 10:02 PM 6/4/2001 -0500, Norman Holden wrote: >I wasted my money on FTM Ver 6.0. May as well get some use out of it, so >if anyone needs a conversion, I'll be glad to do it. (FREE) :) > >Norman