In a message dated 7/27/2001 5:43:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jbarron@nc.rr.com writes: > Yes, "I can feel your pain". I suggested that the next upgrade gave the > operator to accept one typed in version of a source citation for another > one, in spite of the > fact that they were not identical. I entered many of my sources with " > opening and closing the citation. I can't simply combine the listings, I > must make all entries > identical before I can do this. At times only one space or letter if > different, and the sources cannot be combined. It seems to me that one > should be able to make the > program accept what the operator wants, and not vice-versa. So far, no > changes have been made and I have hundreds of sources listed, many many of > which are duplicated > many times over, except for " or spaces, or one - two word differences, on > layout differences. > > I understand about security of data, but shouldn't the operator have the > control? > > I have hundreds of sources like that too, where the only difference from another source is the number assigned in a genealogy book. Without that number, the source note is pretty useless! And then I have other source notes that are extensive paragraphs, which newer FO tries to "manage" by using the first line. Whine whine whine. Oh well, FO 3.0 isn't so bad, it's very flexible in managing GEDCOM files, which is the main thing I seem to do these days. By the way, my folks are: Raymond, Barnett, Howard, Williams, Elliott, Lutz, Bussert, Saunders. Raymond

One can empathize with those who do not want to go to the work of changing one's sources. I had that experience when going to version 5 I believe. My earliest way of entering sources into FO in version 2 or 3 was a disaster, and I did not come out with very professional looking entries. HOWEVER, the ease with which FO currently handles sources is one of the highlights of the program. It is always THE feature I mention most when trying to convince someone they should try FO. Since proper sourcing is so important and indicates to other serious researchers whether or not one's work is scholarly, it could well be an important and useful change, albeit work if you are using one of the earliest versions of FO. I can't begin to tell you the number of compliments I have received from others as to the way my reports are sourced using FO's later versions. As far as the intricacies of using specific numbers for people or page numbers, you put those in the source citation details. Use only the basic book information or basic information for an individual as a major source. I also use some generic sources such Birth certificate, Marriage certificate, Federal Census 1790, etc. and then put all the particulars including volume and page number in the details. Those of you who have not tried the later versions would likely be very impressed with the later versions and all the nice features. Version 10 should be out soon. Margaret Scheffler