The "nearly sequential" nature of your naming convention would seem to defeat much of the the economy of using Global Search and Replace. Fortunately, Keith has presented a viable solution to your problem, that seems to defeat that nightmare. However... I believe you should consider an alternate naming convention for several reasons: 1. Continuing your present system is TOTALLY dependent upon Bruce maintaining the SAME record number system and database format within RootsMate...for all SUBSEQUENT new additions. 2. Secondarily, as mentioned, it seems too constraining to depend upon NEVER deleting an individual, or merging two individuals, or packing the database, or experiencing corruption without an up-to-date backup. 3. Another consideration would be the lack of portability. Should you later desire to split your database or move/copy individuals to another database via Gedcom (or DragNDrop) or even restoring a full backup to a new database and then "pruning" will result in the dreaded record number changes that will no longer correllate to your photo-naming convention. Same goes for any intention of sharing a "portion" of your database/photos with others. -=Kevin=- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Thompson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [FO] Potential problem in switching from FO to Rootsmate At one time, Alfred (I think that it was him or Wayne) gave a method of creating a reference number from the record number. I do believe that it would require a gedcom export, but then you can fix the record number. I realize in your case, that this would be a humongous job to correct the photos, but keep this in mind, if you ever have to pack the database, then the record numbers will change as well. If you have never packed and have removed individuals, you are somewhat playing with fire in that you have holes throughout your database. These can become corrupt in rare cases. (having done a small amount of database work, it can happen). Keith Thompson ps. I just found my copy of Waynes email of some time ago..... Quote: Would you like to assign everyone in your database a unique reference number which is equal to their present record number? Here is how you can do that using MSWord97. Export a gedcom file of your entire database and check all boxes for items to go into the gedcom file. Be sure all fact types are marked to go into a gedcom file. Open the gedcom file in MSWord97 and use the following global search and replace criteria (using wildcards) and run it through the entire gedcom file. (Put spaces where they occur in the criteria below). Find what: 0 \@(I*)\@ INDI Replace with: 0 @\[email protected] INDI^p1 REFN \1 Now resave the gedcom file and import it into a new database in FO and check it out. Everyone in the database will now have a reference number fact which will be equal to their record number in the original database with the letter "I" in front. (Note that the reference numbers may or may not be the same as the record numbers in the new database. Record numbers can change and that's why it is not good to use them in your permanent records. These new reference numbers, however, will never change unless YOU change them.) Wayne League ================end message from archive=================== Unquote K Jim Wise wrote: > > I have a potential problem arising if I attempt to switch to Rootsmate from > FO. I have been using FO for five years (and six versions) and have linked > over a thousand pictures to my database. In order to circumvent the > daunting task of creating descriptive filenames for all these pictures, > such that I could identify one James Miller from another for instance, I > thought it best to use a systematic naming system, one that would > positively identify an individual in the picture. > > Since I had no intention of ever leaving FO for any other genealogy program > I named my files using FO's record number of the (an) individual in the > picture. This system has worked great for me (and for at least one other > person who came up with it). However I understand that the only way to > transport our databases to Rootsmate is by Gedcom effectively rendering my > filenames meaningless for the most part since a lot of record numbers will > change. If I had never deleted an individual or performed a merge of two > individuals the record numbers would possibly make it through intact but as > you might imagine that is not the case. > > I imagine global search/replace would reduce my workload by at least half > if I decide to rename them but then I would probably have to revert to > creating descriptive names for the files or use the new record numbers to > set myself up for a similar situation on a future move. I know I could > assign reference numbers to each individual to whom I have attached a > picture but the reference number would not be readily visible until you go > to a person's Edit screen. I guess what I am saying is, "It sure would be > nice to hang on to those record numbers." > > Can anyone think of a workaround for this problem short of renaming a > thousand+ graphics files or keeping the existing, soon-to-be meaningless, > filenames? Will there possibly be any other way to transport our databases > to Rootsmate other than a Gedcom? > > I really like FO 10. I guess I could just stay with it until it no longer > works with a future incarnation of Windows. :-( > > Jim Wise