I can understand your concern. It is not quite as bad as you think. The Ancestry Member Tree (AMT) has a different data base than does FTM 2014. As I understand it, the AMT can use the same Source-citation for multiple facts for the same person. It cannot use the same Source-citations for multiple individuals and it splits these based upon the individual. That is not the same as the old FTM 16 model where every source was unique to each fact. Since you are looking at individuals in the AMT, I don't see how this phenomena matters all that much. The only time it has an adverse impact is when you download the AMT into an FTM data base. Then the user may have some cleaning up to do to aggregate sources-citations for multiple individuals into a single source. Of course there are some who prefer the source-citations not be aggregated but remain separate. BJ On 2/22/2015 4:25 PM, Debbie via wrote: > Another question I have..... the whole sync process and it's impact on sources. At times I'll work in FTM and add a single source to the facts for multiple people. One-to-Many relationship. I sync with Ancestry Trees and whala -- all of a sudden I have a separate source for each person, a one-to-one relationship. I don't want to have separate sources in these cases. Why does this happen?? > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

While I may sympathize with your sentiments, the reality is the Ancestry trees and FTM are two separate products and have two different development teams. While they may try to coordinate, I suspect it is physically impossible for the two data bases to be identical. It has only been recent that they added and stored certain information in FTM into the AMT even though the information is not displayed in the AMT. Downloading the AMT and using it as a backup is not recommended because of these differences. I had to do it once because I had gone several months without backing up my FTM file and I corrupted my main file to such an extent that nothing I did would recover it. I swore then that I would backup my data faithfully but I'm afraid that I've slipped back into my old habits. :-[ I approach the problem in a slightly different direction. I don't care whether the AMT and the FTM data bases are identical. What I want FTM to do is download the AMT or any other data base and as it is importing the data into the FTM Data base, examine the source-citations and at the user's option aggregate identical Source-citations into a single source-citations with the appropriate multiple links. I'm not sure whether you are aware of what it means for a source-citation to be identical. Source-citations are considered identical only when everything is identical that includes: 1. Source 2. Citation Detail 3. Citation Text 4. Reference note 5. Source Note 6. Web address 7. Media links If any character including non printable or non viewable characters is different, the source-citations are not identical and will cannot be aggregated. BJ On 2/22/2015 6:29 PM, Debbie via wrote: > Of course I want citations in AMT. But, there's value in having a one-to-many relationship in cases where the same citation can link to multiple people. When I sync things, I don't want the differences in the two systems to modify my work. If I add citatation #1 to Person A, B, and C.... sync the two systems..... why do I now have three copies of the identical citation? Furthermore, I was really angered when sync issues in the last version corrupted my file and I had to download the tree from AMT into FTM..... because I knew that the tree I'd be getting wasn't 100% mirror image of my FTM tree. They should invest in making the systems identical so that there are no difference between the two copies. > > From: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net> > To: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:49 PM > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate > > Debbie, > That is NOT in FTM2014 that is in the Ancestry Member Tree. It is being presented in the AMT on each Fact where that Citation is used. > If you really think about it, each Citation is on each person in FTM2014. So, I am sorry, but don't understand the issue. Don't you want Citations in the AMT? > Russ ___________________________ > > Mailto:rworthington@att.net > > > From: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com> > To: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:25 PM > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate > > Another question I have..... the whole sync process and it's impact on sources. At times I'll work in FTM and add a single source to the facts for multiple people. One-to-Many relationship. I sync with Ancestry Trees and whala -- all of a sudden I have a separate source for each person, a one-to-one relationship. I don't want to have separate sources in these cases. Why does this happen?? > > > > > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

BJ, The only exception to what you said is when you use a Source Template. It can NOT be changed in the AMT so it will be returned from the AMT when the sync is done. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: BJ via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:52 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] AMT vs FTM Data bases - was The Great Debate While I may sympathize with your sentiments, the reality is the Ancestry trees and FTM are two separate products and have two different development teams. While they may try to coordinate, I suspect it is physically impossible for the two data bases to be identical. It has only been recent that they added and stored certain information in FTM into the AMT even though the information is not displayed in the AMT. Downloading the AMT and using it as a backup is not recommended because of these differences. I had to do it once because I had gone several months without backing up my FTM file and I corrupted my main file to such an extent that nothing I did would recover it. I swore then that I would backup my data faithfully but I'm afraid that I've slipped back into my old habits. :-[ I approach the problem in a slightly different direction. I don't care whether the AMT and the FTM data bases are identical. What I want FTM to do is download the AMT or any other data base and as it is importing the data into the FTM Data base, examine the source-citations and at the user's option aggregate identical Source-citations into a single source-citations with the appropriate multiple links. I'm not sure whether you are aware of what it means for a source-citation to be identical. Source-citations are considered identical only when everything is identical that includes: 1. Source 2. Citation Detail 3. Citation Text 4. Reference note 5. Source Note 6. Web address 7. Media links If any character including non printable or non viewable characters is different, the source-citations are not identical and will cannot be aggregated.

Debbie, It really appears that you like ALL of the features in Legacy. WHY stick with a program that you don't like? I have Legacy on my PC but rarely use it because FTM2014 works better for me. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com> To: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net>; John Donaldson <johndd@iinet.net.au>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate 99% of the time I am not using reports. It would be wonderful to have the title appear with the name when viewing the content in FTM and AMT. As I mentioned in a previous email, I'm not someone who haphazardly assigns the "never married" and "never had children" switch (in Legacy). But, when I have documents that tell me for sure that the individual died unmarried and without children, I certainly want to be able to record that and do so in a way that's apparent... to me and others who might be accessing my information. These are but some of the reasons that I very reluctantly switched over from Legacy to FTM..... and still, oftentimes, want to switch back.

Debbie, The information IS the SAME in your AMT and in your FTM2014 file. What is not in your AMT that isn't in your FTM2014 file? Please be very careful how you answer that question. As, you may not be able to SEE everything in your AMT but there is a lot of information in the AMT structure that you can't see. I have backed up my file, from my AMT for a Test. Lots of information not seen in the AMT were returned to my restored file. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com> To: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate Of course I want citations in AMT. But, there's value in having a one-to-many relationship in cases where the same citation can link to multiple people. When I sync things, I don't want the differences in the two systems to modify my work. If I add citatation #1 to Person A, B, and C.... sync the two systems..... why do I now have three copies of the identical citation? Furthermore, I was really angered when sync issues in the last version corrupted my file and I had to download the tree from AMT into FTM..... because I knew that the tree I'd be getting wasn't 100% mirror image of my FTM tree. They should invest in making the systems identical so that there are no difference between the two copies. ________________________________ From: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net> To: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate Debbie, That is NOT in FTM2014 that is in the Ancestry Member Tree. It is being presented in the AMT on each Fact where that Citation is used. If you really think about it, each Citation is on each person in FTM2014. So, I am sorry, but don't understand the issue. Don't you want Citations in the AMT? Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com> To: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate Another question I have..... the whole sync process and it's impact on sources. At times I'll work in FTM and add a single source to the facts for multiple people. One-to-Many relationship. I sync with Ancestry Trees and whala -- all of a sudden I have a separate source for each person, a one-to-one relationship. I don't want to have separate sources in these cases. Why does this happen??

May I suggest you place the long bits of information in the Fact Note. You can then see the additional information wrapped and formatted as paragraphs, lists, underlined, etc. You can see the notes in either * Person work area by selecting the Fact and clicking the Note tab in the right panel. * Tree work area by clicking the Notes Icon. This displays all notes: Personal, Fact and Shared. BJ On 2/22/2015 6:19 PM, Debbie via wrote: > 99% of the time I am working on-screen, not with printable reports. I'd like to be able to read what's in the description. I use the description field to provide details that make the fact meaningful. > > For example, for a residence fact: "44 Meserole Avenue: The household included William Reichert (38), Elizabeth Reichert (36), Lillian Reichert (16), Edward Reichert (13), Mildred Reichert (10), Edna Reichert (6), William Reichert (5), Albert Reichert (3 9/12)." > > For a military fact: "Leander Morley volunteered for a second enlistment in the Army of the United States, Company K, 53rd Regiment, with Capt. Anderson. Isaac Morley also volunteered on the same day." > > More often than not, I'd like to add more content to the description field than space allows. > > > ________________________________ > From: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net> > To: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:43 PM > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate > > > > Debbie, > > WHAT do you put in the description field for a fact, where you want it to word wrap? It will word wrap when printed, just not on the screen. > > What do you use the description field for? > > Russ > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Debbie, Have you thought about putting the Residence Fact Description into the Residence fact NOTES. I do that all of the time. When looking at that fact, I just open the Fact Notes and see what you posted. NOT in the Description. As Judy pointed out, you can hover over the description to see that Military Fact. But again, would put that into the Fact Notes. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com> To: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate 99% of the time I am working on-screen, not with printable reports. I'd like to be able to read what's in the description. I use the description field to provide details that make the fact meaningful. For example, for a residence fact: "44 Meserole Avenue: The household included William Reichert (38), Elizabeth Reichert (36), Lillian Reichert (16), Edward Reichert (13), Mildred Reichert (10), Edna Reichert (6), William Reichert (5), Albert Reichert (3 9/12)." For a military fact: "Leander Morley volunteered for a second enlistment in the Army of the United States, Company K, 53rd Regiment, with Capt. Anderson. Isaac Morley also volunteered on the same day." More often than not, I'd like to add more content to the description field than space allows

I think part of the problem with titles, is how to use them and where are they placed. I think most Americans tend to think the title always proceeds the give name but I don't think that is necessarily accurate. For example we use "Queen Elizabeth" but it could also be "Elizabeth Queen of England". There is also the title of Esquire which I don't think ever proceeds the given name. Many people place military rank in the title field but they don't necessarily want to see that rank automatically associated with their given name and for that reason, I chose not to include the title in the name besides as I've pointed out, the title is only included with the Index. BJ On 2/22/2015 5:21 PM, Judy in Ocala via wrote: > The title fact can be displayed with the name, but the checkbox is in an unlikely place. Go to Tools > Options > Names/Dates/Places. Check the box "Use titles if available." > > Judy in Ocala > > On Feb 22, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Debbie via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > NEVER MARRIED/NO CHILDREN: I don't want to have to use custom facts -- I want it to appear in the spaces where the Spouse's name and list of children would otherwise appear. AND to show in reports where marriage facts/children would otherwise appear. I don't want to have to go searching for it. Some of my people's reports have pages upon pages of facts. > > TITLE: It's ridiculous to have a separate TITLE fact when it does not appear WITH the name, as it does with Legacy. Why bury this in with all the other facts?? Display it with the name. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: John Donaldson <johndd@iinet.net.au> > To: 'Debbie' <growingatree@hotmail.com>; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 5:33 PM > Subject: RE: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Debbie via > Sent: Monday, 23 February 2015 9:15 AM > To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate > > I have a few requests, mostly based upon my experience using Legacy > software: > > 1. In Family Tree Maker, have a check-box for: > A. Relationship: This couple did not marry. > B. Relationship: This couple did not have any children. > C. Individual: This individual never married and had no children. > > > FTM does this now via custom facts for the things that you want > > ---------------- > 3. Split the NAME field into FIRST, MIDDLE, LAST, PREFIX and SUFFIX. I like > to be able to see titles (Captain) and it helps with reports, especially > when some people do not have all parts of their names identified. > > FTM does this now. Click in the name field and a pencil icon is revealed. > Click on the pencil icon to show the detail name editing field. You can also > add diacritcal symbols and umlauts > > Titles are not entered her but in the Title Fact > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

In any version of FTM, the easiest way is to press the F2 key at the top of your keyboard. In the later versions of FTM, click on the people workspace. The index should appear in the left-hand column of your screen. If it's not there, hold your mouse pointer over the very small icons at the left edge of your screen near the top, below the two arrows. The pop up message will say "show/hide the index panel." Click that to make the panel appear. Judy in Ocala On Feb 22, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Sr.Marylu.Stueber@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: Please help me find way to get an index of names on my family tree maker mstueber@fsmonline.org<mailto:mstueber@fsmonline.org> ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks for the comments. I see some have replied to your message but to add my 2cents worth, please see my comments interspersed below. BJ On 2/22/2015 3:15 PM, Debbie via wrote: > I have a few requests, mostly based upon my experience using Legacy software: > > 1. In Family Tree Maker, have a check-box for: > A. Relationship: This couple did not marry. > B. Relationship: This couple did not have any children. > C. Individual: This individual never married and had no children. This has some merit and there have been a number of comments in the past for some method for doing this. As you have seen there are some suggested work arounds. If something were implemented where would the "annotation" be displayed? > > 2. Report: Person Reports >> Individual Report > I personally would like to see the person's name, DOB, DOD, parents and spouse(s) on the front page. Instead, it shows individual facts first and then shared facts ..... so spouse(s) often wind up on the last page. I don't want to flip through this report to find something as essential as spouse's name. I can understand your point. The spouses' names are printed above the shared facts and I don't think that should change. Are you asking for a check box option which would also list the names of the spouses toward the top of the first page - perhaps listed below the Parents and before the Individual Facts? > 3. Split the NAME field into FIRST, MIDDLE, LAST, PREFIX and SUFFIX. I like to be able to see titles (Captain) and it helps with reports, especially when some people do not have all parts of their names identified. As has been pointed out this feature was implemented beginning with FTM 2008 but not exactly as you describe. While the name is displayed as one continuous name, it actually consists of three fields; Given Names, Surname and Suffix. You may also enter a Title as a separate fact. This allows you to provide a date, place and description (where you actually enter the title). You have the option of including the title as part of the name if you want. This option is found in Tools/Options/Names. This may not be exactly what you want as it seems to only include the title as part of the Index name. Since it displays the title before the given name, this has the unintended consequence of being sorted as the beginning of the given name and distorts the alphabetic sort within the index and the Find feature. Personally, I would rather see it listed after the given names and probably the suffix also. I find it curious that the option does not also display the title before the name in the Tree or name field on the People work area. I also find it curious that the title is not displayed as a prefix to the name in any of the charts/reports. Rather the Title is displayed just like any other fact. > > > 4. In FTM, please allow us to see all of the text in the Description field! I find that I have to copy it into notepad to read all of the content. (This is when you click on a person and then click the PERSON tab to see all of the facts for that person.... both the left and right columns show the description field, and you cannot see the entire content in either view. The last time I checked the fact description field is almost unlimited in length. I stopped counting at 512 characters. So as a result, I think it would be impractical to display it wrapped to multiple lines. The intent of the field is to display a short description not a long narrative. For longer narratives, the user should use the Fact note which can contain as I recall up to 1 mb of data. > > 5. Additional content for a fact. In Legacy, each fact has date, place, description and NOTES where you are able to add more information about that fact. There is also a check box that allows you to specify whether or not you'd like to add the event notes to the sentence (the sentence created in reports from the data added to the fact). I find that with certain events I want to be able to add more content and cannot.... I sometimes add multiple facts to allow more room to add additional content. This is one of the puzzling aspects of the defaults for FTM. I've never understood the reasoning. To display the Note and Media tabs for each Fact, you must set the option. Go to Tools/Options. Toward the bottom of the left side, you will see check boxes to display each additional Tab on the People/Person work area. > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Carmeletta, The Tulsa Library has Ancestry Library Edition available at any library. Rosemary in Tulsa On 2/22/2015 3:46 PM, Carmeletta Eidson via wrote: > My feelings exactly. I will never change from FTM-16. I am disappointed > that Ancestry chose to stop giving their support for the FTM-16 that I love. > I am age 88 and still printing Genealogy Baooks from FTM-16. I always > upgrade each time a new version is introduced, and have tried 2014, but > always go back to good ole 16. Actually, I am considering the need to stop > waisting my money on Ancestry.com. > Carmeletta in Tulsa > > -----Original Message----- > From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Arnie-Krause via > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 12:57 PM > To: 'Tom Herson'; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM-TECH Digest, Vol 9, Issue 24 > > Don't ridicule people!! Just try to use FTM-2014 with over 220,000 > individuals and it is completely useless for 90% of what can be handled very > nicely by FTM-16 Only when FTM has the capability and speed of FTM-16 will I > change to the new version for my data entry. I use FTM-2014 only for > searching the databases to see what others have. > When FTM-2014 was in Beta test I was asked to join the testing process. The > speed of importing a file was terrible. Only after I had uploaded my > complete database to FTM was the Dev Group able to see the problem and get > the speed up to what FTM-2012 had. It takes 17-18 minutes to import my > database from FTM-16 into FTM-2014. FTM-2011 took over 4 hours to do the > same thing. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Arnold E. Krause > 1611 Arlington Ave., > Saskatoon, Sask., CANADA, S7H 2Y6 > Tel: 306 374-3348 > email address: arnie-krause@shaw.ca > Homepage: http://members.shaw.ca/arnie-krause/index.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Tom Herson via > Sent: 22 February, 2015 12:30 PM > To: BUDDY HARRELSON; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM-TECH Digest, Vol 9, Issue 24 > > C'mon, it's time you spent a little money and got in the modern age ;-) > > On 2/22/2015 11:55 AM, BUDDY HARRELSON via wrote: >> Why don't they leave FTM 16 as is; and maybe improve it some and let >> us > who want to keep it use it and let FTM/Ancestry stay. I am sure they sold > more FTM 16 than the new versions. >> Buddy Harrelson >> Mullins, SC >> harrelsonb@bellsouth.net >> >> >> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:01 AM, "ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com" > <ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> ********************************** >> List information page >> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html >> >> Version 2008-2014 >> http://ftm.custhelp.com/ >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (Chris Bauman) >> 2. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (BJ) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:55:36 +0000 (UTC) >> From: Chris Bauman <chris.bauman@comcast.net> >> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate >> To: "Mary W. Ellis" <mwellis@triad.rr.com>, ftm-tech@rootsweb.com >> Message-ID: >> <1898802906.10460489.1424577336235.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> In the 2014 software, (build 1345) I see 2nd spouses (multiple times) >> in > both the Outline Report, and the Outline Descendant Report. In the Outline > Report, the spouses are listed with full names, parents' names (if > available) marriage date, and birth and death dates (if available). In the > Outline Descendant Report, each spouse has a + sign preceding their name. In > playing around with it, I discovered that I didn't have some of mine set up > with the correct spouse order (it uses that in determining their order in > both the reports, regardless of which spouse is preferred). So I at least > straightened out the ones I was looking at! >> Christine >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Mary W. Ellis via" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> >> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate >> >> I forgot to mention, the Outline report no longer marks second or >> third spouses. You have to go through and look them up and mark them >> before you can sent the report to anyone. Even if they are familiar >> with your database it would be very hard for them to figure it out. >> It's hard for me to, I have to go back and look up what looks like a >> stray person to see who they belong to. It's really crazy to leave >> that very important part out of the report. >> >> Mary Ellis >> >> On 2/21/2015 3:18 AM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: >>> Judy, I'm using 2014, but the custom report in v16 had the one in >>> 2014 beat in all aspects, I can use the one we have now but it is >>> harder to get what you want out of it. >>> Mary Ellis >>> >>> >>> On 2/20/2015 11:47 PM, Judy in Ocala via wrote: >>>> We are coming up on 8 years since v. 16 was completely reprogrammed >>>> to a > new database structure. In the beginning, we all felt that v. 2008 was > lacking many of the features that we loved in 16. >>>> Over the years many improvements and enhancements have been made to > succeeding versions and upgrades. As a result, version 2014 is a much more > stable, robust, and versatile program than 2008 was. >>>> But in spite of the many improvements, there is an bedrock of loyal > users of v. 16. One of the reasons often given for sticking with 16 is the > reports, but there hasn't been much discussion about why the reports in 16 > are better. >>>> So I'm asking those who are still using v. 16 to share their opinions. > And not just about reports, but if you think there are other ways in which > v. 16 is superior. >>>> Please give examples, and keep your comments constructive. >>>> >>>> Judy in Ocala >>>> ********************************** >>>> List information page >>>> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>>> FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >>>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>>> > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Debbie, Can't help you with that one. In fact, I respectfully disagree with you. I already gave you an example of why. The Title is NOT part of the Name. BUT You have the OPTION to include the title in reports. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: John Donaldson <johndd@iinet.net.au>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate NEVER MARRIED/NO CHILDREN: I don't want to have to use custom facts -- I want it to appear in the spaces where the Spouse's name and list of children would otherwise appear. AND to show in reports where marriage facts/children would otherwise appear. I don't want to have to go searching for it. Some of my people's reports have pages upon pages of facts. TITLE: It's ridiculous to have a separate TITLE fact when it does not appear WITH the name, as it does with Legacy. Why bury this in with all the other facts?? Display it with the name.

Debbie, That is NOT in FTM2014 that is in the Ancestry Member Tree. It is being presented in the AMT on each Fact where that Citation is used. If you really think about it, each Citation is on each person in FTM2014. So, I am sorry, but don't understand the issue. Don't you want Citations in the AMT? Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com> To: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate Another question I have..... the whole sync process and it's impact on sources. At times I'll work in FTM and add a single source to the facts for multiple people. One-to-Many relationship. I sync with Ancestry Trees and whala -- all of a sudden I have a separate source for each person, a one-to-one relationship. I don't want to have separate sources in these cases. Why does this happen??

My feelings exactly. I will never change from FTM-16. I am disappointed that Ancestry chose to stop giving their support for the FTM-16 that I love. I am age 88 and still printing Genealogy Baooks from FTM-16. I always upgrade each time a new version is introduced, and have tried 2014, but always go back to good ole 16. Actually, I am considering the need to stop waisting my money on Ancestry.com. Carmeletta in Tulsa -----Original Message----- From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Arnie-Krause via Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 12:57 PM To: 'Tom Herson'; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM-TECH Digest, Vol 9, Issue 24 Don't ridicule people!! Just try to use FTM-2014 with over 220,000 individuals and it is completely useless for 90% of what can be handled very nicely by FTM-16 Only when FTM has the capability and speed of FTM-16 will I change to the new version for my data entry. I use FTM-2014 only for searching the databases to see what others have. When FTM-2014 was in Beta test I was asked to join the testing process. The speed of importing a file was terrible. Only after I had uploaded my complete database to FTM was the Dev Group able to see the problem and get the speed up to what FTM-2012 had. It takes 17-18 minutes to import my database from FTM-16 into FTM-2014. FTM-2011 took over 4 hours to do the same thing. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold E. Krause 1611 Arlington Ave., Saskatoon, Sask., CANADA, S7H 2Y6 Tel: 306 374-3348 email address: arnie-krause@shaw.ca Homepage: http://members.shaw.ca/arnie-krause/index.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tom Herson via Sent: 22 February, 2015 12:30 PM To: BUDDY HARRELSON; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM-TECH Digest, Vol 9, Issue 24 C'mon, it's time you spent a little money and got in the modern age ;-) On 2/22/2015 11:55 AM, BUDDY HARRELSON via wrote: > Why don't they leave FTM 16 as is; and maybe improve it some and let > us who want to keep it use it and let FTM/Ancestry stay. I am sure they sold more FTM 16 than the new versions. > Buddy Harrelson > Mullins, SC > harrelsonb@bellsouth.net > > > On Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:01 AM, "ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > > > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > Version 2008-2014 > http://ftm.custhelp.com/ > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (Chris Bauman) > 2. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (BJ) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:55:36 +0000 (UTC) > From: Chris Bauman <chris.bauman@comcast.net> > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate > To: "Mary W. Ellis" <mwellis@triad.rr.com>, ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: > <1898802906.10460489.1424577336235.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > In the 2014 software, (build 1345) I see 2nd spouses (multiple times) > in both the Outline Report, and the Outline Descendant Report. In the Outline Report, the spouses are listed with full names, parents' names (if available) marriage date, and birth and death dates (if available). In the Outline Descendant Report, each spouse has a + sign preceding their name. In playing around with it, I discovered that I didn't have some of mine set up with the correct spouse order (it uses that in determining their order in both the reports, regardless of which spouse is preferred). So I at least straightened out the ones I was looking at! > > Christine > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mary W. Ellis via" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29:46 PM > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate > > I forgot to mention, the Outline report no longer marks second or > third spouses. You have to go through and look them up and mark them > before you can sent the report to anyone. Even if they are familiar > with your database it would be very hard for them to figure it out. > It's hard for me to, I have to go back and look up what looks like a > stray person to see who they belong to. It's really crazy to leave > that very important part out of the report. > > Mary Ellis > > On 2/21/2015 3:18 AM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: >> Judy, I'm using 2014, but the custom report in v16 had the one in >> 2014 beat in all aspects, I can use the one we have now but it is >> harder to get what you want out of it. >> Mary Ellis >> >> >> On 2/20/2015 11:47 PM, Judy in Ocala via wrote: >>> We are coming up on 8 years since v. 16 was completely reprogrammed >>> to a new database structure. In the beginning, we all felt that v. 2008 was lacking many of the features that we loved in 16. >>> >>> Over the years many improvements and enhancements have been made to succeeding versions and upgrades. As a result, version 2014 is a much more stable, robust, and versatile program than 2008 was. >>> >>> But in spite of the many improvements, there is an bedrock of loyal users of v. 16. One of the reasons often given for sticking with 16 is the reports, but there hasn't been much discussion about why the reports in 16 are better. >>> >>> So I'm asking those who are still using v. 16 to share their opinions. And not just about reports, but if you think there are other ways in which v. 16 is superior. >>> >>> Please give examples, and keep your comments constructive. >>> >>> Judy in Ocala >>> ********************************** >>> List information page >>> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Debbie, WHAT do you put in the description field for a fact, where you want it to word wrap? It will word wrap when printed, just not on the screen. What do you use the description field for? Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com> To: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate I have adjusted the width, and it is never wide enough. The field needs to be multiple rows and needs to wrap. ________________________________ From: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net> To: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate Debbie, You said: "4. In FTM, please allow us to see all of the text in the Description field! I find that I have to copy it into notepad to read all of the content. (This is when you click on a person and then click the PERSON tab to see all of the facts for that person.... both the left and right columns show the description field, and you cannot see the entire content in either view." You can do that now by adjusting the width of the columns in the People Workspace, Person view. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate I have a few requests, mostly based upon my experience using Legacy software: 1. In Family Tree Maker, have a check-box for: A. Relationship: This couple did not marry. B. Relationship: This couple did not have any children. C. Individual: This individual never married and had no children. 2. Report: Person Reports >> Individual Report I personally would like to see the person's name, DOB, DOD, parents and spouse(s) on the front page. Instead, it shows individual facts first and then shared facts ..... so spouse(s) often wind up on the last page. I don't want to flip through this report to find something as essential as spouse's name. 3. Split the NAME field into FIRST, MIDDLE, LAST, PREFIX and SUFFIX. I like to be able to see titles (Captain) and it helps with reports, especially when some people do not have all parts of their names identified. 4. In FTM, please allow us to see all of the text in the Description field! I find that I have to copy it into notepad to read all of the content. (This is when you click on a person and then click the PERSON tab to see all of the facts for that person.... both the left and right columns show the description field, and you cannot see the entire content in either view. 5. Additional content for a fact. In Legacy, each fact has date, place, description and NOTES where you are able to add more information about that fact. There is also a check box that allows you to specify whether or not you'd like to add the event notes to the sentence (the sentence created in reports from the data added to the fact). I find that with certain events I want to be able to add more content and cannot.... I sometimes add multiple facts to allow more room to add additional content.

Debbie, You said: "4. In FTM, please allow us to see all of the text in the Description field! I find that I have to copy it into notepad to read all of the content. (This is when you click on a person and then click the PERSON tab to see all of the facts for that person.... both the left and right columns show the description field, and you cannot see the entire content in either view." You can do that now by adjusting the width of the columns in the People Workspace, Person view. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate I have a few requests, mostly based upon my experience using Legacy software: 1. In Family Tree Maker, have a check-box for: A. Relationship: This couple did not marry. B. Relationship: This couple did not have any children. C. Individual: This individual never married and had no children. 2. Report: Person Reports >> Individual Report I personally would like to see the person's name, DOB, DOD, parents and spouse(s) on the front page. Instead, it shows individual facts first and then shared facts ..... so spouse(s) often wind up on the last page. I don't want to flip through this report to find something as essential as spouse's name. 3. Split the NAME field into FIRST, MIDDLE, LAST, PREFIX and SUFFIX. I like to be able to see titles (Captain) and it helps with reports, especially when some people do not have all parts of their names identified. 4. In FTM, please allow us to see all of the text in the Description field! I find that I have to copy it into notepad to read all of the content. (This is when you click on a person and then click the PERSON tab to see all of the facts for that person.... both the left and right columns show the description field, and you cannot see the entire content in either view. 5. Additional content for a fact. In Legacy, each fact has date, place, description and NOTES where you are able to add more information about that fact. There is also a check box that allows you to specify whether or not you'd like to add the event notes to the sentence (the sentence created in reports from the data added to the fact). I find that with certain events I want to be able to add more content and cannot.... I sometimes add multiple facts to allow more room to add additional content.

Debbie, what do you mean by "front page" "I personally would like to see the person's name, DOB, DOD, parents and spouse(s) on the front page." Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate I have a few requests, mostly based upon my experience using Legacy software: 1. In Family Tree Maker, have a check-box for: A. Relationship: This couple did not marry. B. Relationship: This couple did not have any children. C. Individual: This individual never married and had no children. 2. Report: Person Reports >> Individual Report I personally would like to see the person's name, DOB, DOD, parents and spouse(s) on the front page. Instead, it shows individual facts first and then shared facts ..... so spouse(s) often wind up on the last page. I don't want to flip through this report to find something as essential as spouse's name. 3. Split the NAME field into FIRST, MIDDLE, LAST, PREFIX and SUFFIX. I like to be able to see titles (Captain) and it helps with reports, especially when some people do not have all parts of their names identified. 4. In FTM, please allow us to see all of the text in the Description field! I find that I have to copy it into notepad to read all of the content. (This is when you click on a person and then click the PERSON tab to see all of the facts for that person.... both the left and right columns show the description field, and you cannot see the entire content in either view. 5. Additional content for a fact. In Legacy, each fact has date, place, description and NOTES where you are able to add more information about that fact. There is also a check box that allows you to specify whether or not you'd like to add the event notes to the sentence (the sentence created in reports from the data added to the fact). I find that with certain events I want to be able to add more content and cannot.... I sometimes add multiple facts to allow more room to add additional content.

Debbie, You said; "1. In Family Tree Maker, have a check-box for: A. Relationship: This couple did not marry. B. Relationship: This couple did not have any children. C. Individual: This individual never married and had no children." You are absolutely right, BUT ... I blogged several times how to handle these specific situations. In fact, YOU CAN set the relationship in the "marriage" fact to show that relationship. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate I have a few requests, mostly based upon my experience using Legacy software: 1. In Family Tree Maker, have a check-box for: A. Relationship: This couple did not marry. B. Relationship: This couple did not have any children. C. Individual: This individual never married and had no children. 2. Report: Person Reports >> Individual Report I personally would like to see the person's name, DOB, DOD, parents and spouse(s) on the front page. Instead, it shows individual facts first and then shared facts ..... so spouse(s) often wind up on the last page. I don't want to flip through this report to find something as essential as spouse's name. 3. Split the NAME field into FIRST, MIDDLE, LAST, PREFIX and SUFFIX. I like to be able to see titles (Captain) and it helps with reports, especially when some people do not have all parts of their names identified. 4. In FTM, please allow us to see all of the text in the Description field! I find that I have to copy it into notepad to read all of the content. (This is when you click on a person and then click the PERSON tab to see all of the facts for that person.... both the left and right columns show the description field, and you cannot see the entire content in either view. 5. Additional content for a fact. In Legacy, each fact has date, place, description and NOTES where you are able to add more information about that fact. There is also a check box that allows you to specify whether or not you'd like to add the event notes to the sentence (the sentence created in reports from the data added to the fact). I find that with certain events I want to be able to add more content and cannot.... I sometimes add multiple facts to allow more room to add additional content.

Debbie, You said: "5. Additional content for a fact. In Legacy, each fact has date, place, description and NOTES where you are able to add more information about that fact. There is also a check box that allows you to specify whether or not you'd like to add the event notes to the sentence (the sentence created in reports from the data added to the fact). I find that with certain events I want to be able to add more content and cannot.... I sometimes add multiple facts to allow more room to add additional content." They are ALL available in FTM2014 now. You don't need a check box to add notes, that option is already available. You can customize the fact sentence. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Debbie via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate I have a few requests, mostly based upon my experience using Legacy software: 1. In Family Tree Maker, have a check-box for: A. Relationship: This couple did not marry. B. Relationship: This couple did not have any children. C. Individual: This individual never married and had no children. 2. Report: Person Reports >> Individual Report I personally would like to see the person's name, DOB, DOD, parents and spouse(s) on the front page. Instead, it shows individual facts first and then shared facts ..... so spouse(s) often wind up on the last page. I don't want to flip through this report to find something as essential as spouse's name. 3. Split the NAME field into FIRST, MIDDLE, LAST, PREFIX and SUFFIX. I like to be able to see titles (Captain) and it helps with reports, especially when some people do not have all parts of their names identified. 4. In FTM, please allow us to see all of the text in the Description field! I find that I have to copy it into notepad to read all of the content. (This is when you click on a person and then click the PERSON tab to see all of the facts for that person.... both the left and right columns show the description field, and you cannot see the entire content in either view. 5. Additional content for a fact. In Legacy, each fact has date, place, description and NOTES where you are able to add more information about that fact. There is also a check box that allows you to specify whether or not you'd like to add the event notes to the sentence (the sentence created in reports from the data added to the fact). I find that with certain events I want to be able to add more content and cannot.... I sometimes add multiple facts to allow more room to add additional content.

Sr Marylu, First, the is no FTM version 14. This IS, however, FTM2014. The Index of names is in the People Workspace, Tree View, on the left. IF you mean a print out of the index, please go to the Publish Workspace, Person Report and you will see several reports you can use. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: "Sr.Marylu.Stueber@lists2.rootsweb.com" <Sr.Marylu.Stueber@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: "FTM-Tech@rootsweb.com" <FTM-Tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:59 PM Subject: [FTM-TECH] FTM 14 Please help me find way to get an index of names on my family tree maker