Jay, I appreciate the response. I'm sorry for not being clearer. What I want to do is find the people in my ftm database for whom the surname field is blank. Once I find them I'll use a system, such as yours or one of the others, to fill in the blank surnames. Jim From: Thompson Jay [mailto:jaydarlene@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:28 AM To: Jim Hoke; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] Searching for blank surnames Jim, Thinking of what that would involve, with only one person listed, the program would have to assume that there was a spouse that was blank, innumerable children that were not entered (whether they existed or not). The program just wouldn't know and would not be feasible. Many of us have found other ways to accomplish that. I use 10 underbars for the unknown name. That way, if I print a report and give it to someone and they know the name, there is room to write it in and I can enter it. If I know the first name only (James and Mary Jones), I enter Mary as Mary __________. If I know the last name only (Mary (Smith) Jones, I enter the husband as __________ Jones. Same if I know James and Mary had three children, but no names. If I only know that James was married, I enter __________ __________. Same for unknown other spouses In my scenario, The totally unknowns sort at the top of the index, the last name unknowns sort next, by first name, and the first name unknowns sort at the top of the rest of people with the same last name. Others use "UNK," "Last Name Unknown," or something else that works for them. Depending on the size of your file, it can seem like a daunting task to begin , but the results are well worth the effort. Jay Thompson just an old genealogy nut too tough to crack. On Monday, February 23, 2015 9:45 AM, Jim Hoke via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> wrote: BJ, Your comment in The Great Debate about FTM 2014's handling of people's names triggered me to wonder how one can search on surname. Specifically, my question is how does one find all the people in an ftm file for whom the surname is blank (that is, it has not been entered)? I've searched without luck the FTM-TECH archives for an answer. Thanks for the help, Jim Hoke ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:58:48 -0700 From: BJ <oldtrails@gmx.com> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] Fact Notes and Names - (was The Great Debate) To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <54EA6D38.7050907@gmx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed 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 . > 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. . ********************************** 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

Russ, Thanks for the fast response. Perhaps I'm missing something or doing something wrong, but the people at the top of the index when I sort on "Family, Given Name" all have surnames. When I sort on "Given Family Name" and scroll down from the top of the list I come to a place where there are nine different listing for the name Elizabeth, all of them different people and none of them having surnames, as they are unknown to me at this time. Jim From: H R Worthington [mailto:rworthington@att.net] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:04 AM To: Jim Hoke; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] Searching for blank surnames Jim, People Workspace, Tree View, in the Index. They should be at the top of the list with only Given Names showing. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net _____ From: Jim Hoke via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: FTM-TECH mailing list submission <FTM-TECH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:43 AM Subject: [FTM-TECH] Searching for blank surnames BJ, Your comment in The Great Debate about FTM 2014's handling of people's names triggered me to wonder how one can search on surname. Specifically, my question is how does one find all the people in an ftm file for whom the surname is blank (that is, it has not been entered)? I've searched without luck the FTM-TECH archives for an answer.

If you're using the street address as the description, a better way to approach it would be to include the street address in the location field. The resulting location can be resolved in the Place Name Authority, if you are using that. If you need instructions on how to do that, let us know. Judy in Ocala On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Desmond McDowell via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> wrote: Question to do with Individual facts E.g.: Individual Fact Date Place/ Description Census 31 March 1901 Dumfries, Dumfries-shire, Scotland; 62 High Street Would it not be better to have the Description come first or is there another reason why FTM would do it this way, please advise Thanks Desmond ********************************** 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

Arnold: I completely agree - and I suspect there are many more like me "lurking".I have had FTM 16 since the beginning and also have had 2014 since it came out.There is no comparison in ease of use and I keep 2014 only in the chance it may "improve".BJ and John D have valid points but for the average user FTM 16 wins hand down. Jack Hope Message: 4 Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 12:57:20 -0600 From: "Arnie-Krause" <arnie-krause@shaw.ca> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM-TECH Digest, Vol 9, Issue 24 To: "'Tom Herson'" <therson@twcny.rr.com>, <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <000301d04ed1$62d7ddf0$288799d0$@ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------

Question to do with Individual facts E.g.: Individual Fact Date Place/ Description Census 31 March 1901 Dumfries, Dumfries-shire, Scotland; 62 High Street Would it not be better to have the Description come first or is there another reason why FTM would do it this way, please advise Thanks Desmond

BJ, Your comment in The Great Debate about FTM 2014's handling of people's names triggered me to wonder how one can search on surname. Specifically, my question is how does one find all the people in an ftm file for whom the surname is blank (that is, it has not been entered)? I've searched without luck the FTM-TECH archives for an answer. Thanks for the help, Jim Hoke ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:58:48 -0700 From: BJ <oldtrails@gmx.com> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] Fact Notes and Names - (was The Great Debate) To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <54EA6D38.7050907@gmx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed 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 . > 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. .

I agree that 16 is so much easier to use than 2014. But the guys who give us most of the advice are experts in 2014 and don't seem to understand the ordinary users' difficulties. I once suggested that there be a beginners 2014 with options to move to intermediate and advanced. That did not go over well with the experts. One of the problems I have is to get the print size large enough to not need to hold a magnifying glass while using 2014. I've tried all the computer adjustments. Nancy On 2/23/2015 9:16 AM, John Hope via wrote: > Arnold: > I completely agree - and I suspect there are many more like me "lurking".I > have had FTM 16 since the beginning and also have had 2014 since it came > out.There is no comparison in ease of use and I keep 2014 only in the chance > it may "improve".BJ and John D have valid points but for the average user > FTM 16 wins hand down. > Jack Hope > > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 12:57:20 -0600 > From: "Arnie-Krause"<arnie-krause@shaw.ca> > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM-TECH Digest, Vol 9, Issue 24 > To: "'Tom Herson'"<therson@twcny.rr.com>,<ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID:<000301d04ed1$62d7ddf0$288799d0$@ca> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ********************************** > 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

-----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 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. 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 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. ********************************** 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

Yes I have downloaded my AMT and experienced that. I have advised others when using the AMT that they will experience the problem and unless I'm mistaken, this is what Debbie was commenting on when she said, "/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?/" BJ On 2/23/2015 7:13 AM, H R Worthington wrote: > BJ, > > i have one citation with links to every FACT that I am documenting > from that source of information. Not to an individual but FACT. (one > to many) > > Have you tried to download an AMT and experienced what you described? > That is multiple CITATIONS, each citation to a Fact ? (one to one) > > I haven't seen that. > > Russ > ___________________________ > > Mailto:rworthington@att.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* BJ via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > *To:* "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > *Sent:* Monday, February 23, 2015 2:18 AM > *Subject:* Re: [FTM-TECH] AMT vs FTM Data bases - was The Great Debate > > The issue has nothing to do with editing the source-citation. The issue > is with how many identical source-citations are stored in the two data > bases. You may not see the problem because I think you tend to use one > source-citation per individual. I on the other hand may use one > source-citation for multiple individuals. > > Let's say that I have a family Bible which records the births, marriages > and deaths of a Father, Mother and four children. All of this > information is recorded on three pages, numbered pages 135 through 137, > one page for each type of information i.e. Birth, Marriage and Death. I > may enter a single source, Taylor Family Bible. I then create one > source which cites pages 135 through 137. I enter Citation Text, > "Births, Marriages and Deaths of the James Taylor family". I then link > this one source-citation to the father's, James Taylor's birth, marriage > and death facts. I also link this same citation to the mother's birth, > marriage and death facts. I continue by linking this same > source-citation to the birth, marriage and death facts for each of the > four children. The end result is the source-citation is stored only > once in the FTM data base but it has 18 links, three links to each of > the 6 individuals. > > I synch this data base to the AMT. When I examine the individuals and > facts in the AMT, I find source-citation for each individual and fact. > Since we can only see the source-citations on an individual basis, I > have no idea how the source-citation is stored on the AMT data base. > But everything looks OK. > > Now assume that I want to download the AMT tree into another FTM file. > I may want to give a copy to someone or I may need to use it to recover > my damaged file. I download the AMT tree and import it into the FTM > file. I then go to the Sources work area where I find six identical > source-citations. One source-citation is linked to the three facts, > birth, marriage and death, for a single person. > > Originally, I had one source-citation linked to six people each with > three facts. If I found that I needed to make a change to the > source-citation, I only had to make the change one time. After the > sync, download and import, I now have six source-citations each linked > to one person and their three facts. If I need to make a change to the > source-citation, I must now make the same change to six > source-citations. So my data base organization has been changed from > the way I originally entered it. Let's expand it a little. Assume I > originally had 50 source-citations like this. After the sync, download > and import, I now have 300 source-citations i.e. 6 identical copies of > 50 source-citations. My only choices are to either accept the 300 > source-citations or manually merge the identical source-citations to get > back to my original 50 source-citations.

Tree View click on the index tag top left of the middle screen or drag the left hand index panel out John D -----Original Message----- From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sr.Marylu.Stueber@lists2.rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, 23 February 2015 9:00 AM To: FTM-Tech@rootsweb.com Subject: [FTM-TECH] FTM 14 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

"I am sure they sold more FTM 16 than the new versions" Do you have any evidence to support this contention, or are you simply asserting something without any evidence just to support your views about Version 16? John D -----Original Message----- From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of BUDDY HARRELSON via Sent: Monday, 23 February 2015 3:55 AM To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM-TECH Digest, Vol 9, Issue 24 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

sorry, Correct URL http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/search/label/HistoricalPlaces Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Judy in Ocala via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: Desmond McDowell <desmond.mcdowell@rogers.com>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] Place/Description FTM 2012 If you're using the street address as the description, a better way to approach it would be to include the street address in the location field. The resulting location can be resolved in the Place Name Authority, if you are using that. If you need instructions on how to do that, let us know. Judy in Ocala On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Desmond McDowell via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> wrote: Question to do with Individual facts E.g.: Individual Fact Date Place/ Description Census 31 March 1901 Dumfries, Dumfries-shire, Scotland; 62 High Street Would it not be better to have the Description come first or is there another reason why FTM would do it this way, please advise Thanks Desmond ********************************** 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

Judy, I have 3 blog posts on how I do this. http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/search/label/HistrocalPlaces Which illustrates what you posted. Thank you, Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Judy in Ocala via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: Desmond McDowell <desmond.mcdowell@rogers.com>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] Place/Description FTM 2012 If you're using the street address as the description, a better way to approach it would be to include the street address in the location field. The resulting location can be resolved in the Place Name Authority, if you are using that. If you need instructions on how to do that, let us know. Judy in Ocala On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Desmond McDowell via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> wrote: Question to do with Individual facts E.g.: Individual Fact Date Place/ Description Census 31 March 1901 Dumfries, Dumfries-shire, Scotland; 62 High Street Would it not be better to have the Description come first or is there another reason why FTM would do it this way, please advise Thanks Desmond ********************************** 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

Jim, Thinking of what that would involve, with only one person listed, the program would have to assume that there was a spouse that was blank, innumerable children that were not entered (whether they existed or not). The program just wouldn't know and would not be feasible. Many of us have found other ways to accomplish that. I use 10 underbars for the unknown name. That way, if I print a report and give it to someone and they know the name, there is room to write it in and I can enter it. If I know the first name only (James and Mary Jones), I enter Mary as Mary __________. If I know the last name only (Mary (Smith) Jones, I enter the husband as __________ Jones. Same if I know James and Mary had three children, but no names. If I only know that James was married, I enter __________ __________. Same for unknown other spouses In my scenario, The totally unknowns sort at the top of the index, the last name unknowns sort next, by first name, and the first name unknowns sort at the top of the rest of people with the same last name. Others use "UNK," "Last Name Unknown," or something else that works for them. Depending on the size of your file, it can seem like a daunting task to begin , but the results are well worth the effort. Jay Thompson just an old genealogy nut too tough to crack. On Monday, February 23, 2015 9:45 AM, Jim Hoke via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> wrote: BJ, Your comment in The Great Debate about FTM 2014's handling of people's names triggered me to wonder how one can search on surname. Specifically, my question is how does one find all the people in an ftm file for whom the surname is blank (that is, it has not been entered)? I've searched without luck the FTM-TECH archives for an answer. Thanks for the help, Jim Hoke ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:58:48 -0700 From: BJ <oldtrails@gmx.com> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] Fact Notes and Names - (was The Great Debate) To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <54EA6D38.7050907@gmx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed 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 . > 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. . ********************************** 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

Desmond, You can put the Address FIRST if you want. You do that in the Resolve Place name and put the address in the historical fields above the Dumfries.... information. You do not need to put the address into the Description field Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Desmond McDowell via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:00 AM Subject: [FTM-TECH] Place/Description FTM 2012 Question to do with Individual facts E.g.: Individual Fact Date Place/ Description Census 31 March 1901 Dumfries, Dumfries-shire, Scotland; 62 High Street Would it not be better to have the Description come first or is there another reason why FTM would do it this way, please advise

Jim, People Workspace, Tree View, in the Index. They should be at the top of the list with only Given Names showing. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Jim Hoke via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: FTM-TECH mailing list submission <FTM-TECH@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:43 AM Subject: [FTM-TECH] Searching for blank surnames BJ, Your comment in The Great Debate about FTM 2014's handling of people's names triggered me to wonder how one can search on surname. Specifically, my question is how does one find all the people in an ftm file for whom the surname is blank (that is, it has not been entered)? I've searched without luck the FTM-TECH archives for an answer.

BJ, i have one citation with links to every FACT that I am documenting from that source of information. Not to an individual but FACT. (one to many) Have you tried to download an AMT and experienced what you described? That is multiple CITATIONS, each citation to a Fact ? (one to one) I haven't seen that. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: BJ via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 2:18 AM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] AMT vs FTM Data bases - was The Great Debate The issue has nothing to do with editing the source-citation. The issue is with how many identical source-citations are stored in the two data bases. You may not see the problem because I think you tend to use one source-citation per individual. I on the other hand may use one source-citation for multiple individuals. Let's say that I have a family Bible which records the births, marriages and deaths of a Father, Mother and four children. All of this information is recorded on three pages, numbered pages 135 through 137, one page for each type of information i.e. Birth, Marriage and Death. I may enter a single source, Taylor Family Bible. I then create one source which cites pages 135 through 137. I enter Citation Text, "Births, Marriages and Deaths of the James Taylor family". I then link this one source-citation to the father's, James Taylor's birth, marriage and death facts. I also link this same citation to the mother's birth, marriage and death facts. I continue by linking this same source-citation to the birth, marriage and death facts for each of the four children. The end result is the source-citation is stored only once in the FTM data base but it has 18 links, three links to each of the 6 individuals. I synch this data base to the AMT. When I examine the individuals and facts in the AMT, I find source-citation for each individual and fact. Since we can only see the source-citations on an individual basis, I have no idea how the source-citation is stored on the AMT data base. But everything looks OK. Now assume that I want to download the AMT tree into another FTM file. I may want to give a copy to someone or I may need to use it to recover my damaged file. I download the AMT tree and import it into the FTM file. I then go to the Sources work area where I find six identical source-citations. One source-citation is linked to the three facts, birth, marriage and death, for a single person. Originally, I had one source-citation linked to six people each with three facts. If I found that I needed to make a change to the source-citation, I only had to make the change one time. After the sync, download and import, I now have six source-citations each linked to one person and their three facts. If I need to make a change to the source-citation, I must now make the same change to six source-citations. So my data base organization has been changed from the way I originally entered it. Let's expand it a little. Assume I originally had 50 source-citations like this. After the sync, download and import, I now have 300 source-citations i.e. 6 identical copies of 50 source-citations. My only choices are to either accept the 300 source-citations or manually merge the identical source-citations to get back to my original 50 source-citations.

Honestly, the only reason I moved to and use FTM is because it was easier to capture data from Ancestry.com and then sync it with my desktop copy..... Of course, I had to do without many features I liked.  FTM works well in many ways..... but, IMO it's missing some basic functionality that impacts usability, both from the perspective of the person using the tool and those I am sharing it with who are more often than not viewing the material online.....  From: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net> To: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com>; John Donaldson <johndd@iinet.net.au>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate 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.

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. From: H R Worthington <rworthington@att.net> To: Debbie <growingatree@hotmail.com>; John Donaldson <johndd@iinet.net.au>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate 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.

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??