Pardon the confusing message with two topics, it was really a test to see if posting to the FO list was working at all. Internet traffic somewhere along the way lost or delayed an earlier message about scrapbooks. Planning to try the indented descendant report with pictures and one scrapbook for each child in the household of the starting couple. Does anyone have any favorite ideas to share about making the best use of the Journal for a family book? It looks like the size of the indent is fixed and might work best for just a few generations. Is it okay for three or four early generations with long notes and pictures of living people in recent generations? So keen to start a new FO 10 file for experiments with the Journal that I didn't follow up on the GEDCOM import *.LST report. Knew of some issues with transfers of FO 10 GEDCOMs to other genealogy programs and should have known better than to edit a file for a book without checking. Tried GEDX before and found it more confusing than trying to edit a GEDCOM text file. It would be easier in the long run to move any data from non-transfer fields in the original program to individual notes. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfred Eller" > Are you talking about two different things? > I have created some Journals with different types of content. But, there > is no *LST report in any of them. > > The only place I know of where there is a *.LST is the error list when > importing a GEDCOM file. That can sometimes get rather long if the > generating and importing programs look at the GEDCOM standards from a > different viewpoint.

Some programs export several types of GEDCOM files. Some are more compatible than others. 59 pages of list file for an 800 individual GEDCOM seems rather excessive to me. You didn't mention which program the GEDCOM was coming from, or what the problems were that were listed in the *.LST file. Perhaps a different type of GEDCOM export would be more to FOW's liking. As far as the actual Journal, you can create one and review it on screen. If you would like things a bit different, change them and create try#2, . . . They don't even have to be deleted if you send them to the screen/printer for review. The template is retained for the next try, so it is easy to modify what you had previously. I would suggest a small test printing of a scrapbook page, with different page layouts to see which you like best. Preview them on screen, change the options, caption and description, page layouts etc. Remember, what you see on the screen are only enlargements of the thumbnail files, the pictures on the printed page will look much better. It is your journal, you can preview it on screen as many times as you want before committing it to paper. Alfred D. Eller http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adelr/ ========================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "E.Rodier" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [FO] FO 10 Journal with scrapbooks > Pardon the confusing message with two topics, it was really a test to see if > posting to the FO list was working at all. Internet traffic somewhere along > the way lost or delayed an earlier message about scrapbooks. Planning to try > the indented descendant report with pictures and one scrapbook for each > child in the household of the starting couple. > > Does anyone have any favorite ideas to share about making the best use of > the Journal for a family book? It looks like the size of the indent is fixed > and might work best for just a few generations. Is it okay for three or four > early generations with long notes and pictures of living people in recent > generations? > > So keen to start a new FO 10 file for experiments with the Journal that I > didn't follow up on the GEDCOM import *.LST report. Knew of some issues with > transfers of FO 10 GEDCOMs to other genealogy programs and should have known > better than to edit a file for a book without checking. > > Tried GEDX before and found it more confusing than trying to edit a GEDCOM > text file. It would be easier in the long run to move any data from > non-transfer fields in the original program to individual notes. > Elizabeth >