This is the first time I have heard that what I check in Options/Customise/Sources/Source Detail Defaults reflects what is exported to gedcom by default. It is good to know, but terribly obscure. I have been using Legacy for years and either I am rather slow to catch on, or this is so hidden no one would ever know. I would never have made the connection from Reports to Export. Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: legacy-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:legacy-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Support Sent: Friday, 9 February 2007 8:19 AM To: legacy@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEGACY] Thank you, thank you and additional input needed please That's not quite true. Legacy's gedcom export will default to the options you have selected when you create your source. If you have not selected to include information on reports, it won't be included in exports either, whether you're exporting to a new Family File or to a gedcom. That's the reason behind the option on the Export window to "Override Source options - include all source information" This is explained in the Help file (just click on the context-sensitive Help button in the Export window) "Override Source Detail options - include everything With this option selected, all the information from each source citation detail is exported to the GEDCOM file. If unselected, the information that is suppressed, according to the source detail options, is excluded from the GEDCOM export." Thanks for using Legacy. Sherry Customer Support Millennia Corporation Support@LegacyFamilyTree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com We are changing the world of genealogy! When replying to this message, please include all previous correspondence. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: legacy-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:legacy-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Pat Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:34 PM To: LEGACY@rootsweb.com Subject: [LEGACY] Thank you, thank you and additional input needed please Thank you to whoever it was who posted that Legacy's output to a Gedcom would default to NO sourcing. You have saved me many, many hours trying to fix a horrible accident. <snip> Note to Legacy -- hmmm the default to the industry standard for gedcoms would be to **eliminate/drop** ALL sources/sourcing?!?!?! My main reason for switching from Family Origins/RootsMagic in the first place was the ease in duplicating sourcing -- NOW you say the export would drop that information...25 yrs. of research would be GONE?!?! -------------------------------

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:43:06 +1100, "Jennifer Crockett" <jcrockett@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >It is good to know, but terribly obscure. I have been using Legacy for >years and either I am rather slow to catch on, or this is so hidden no >one would ever know. I would venture to say that if you weren't around for the discussion in the LUG several years ago, you probably wouldn't know of this "feature". >I would never have made the connection from Reports to Export. Which is one of the reasons I argued against it. -- Dennis Kowallek kowallek@iglou.com ******************

I am glad this whole issue has been brought up again - you are right, Dennis, I wasn't around for the initial discussion. I am very sorry you weren't listened to then. Perhaps this time you might be. In addition to what has been mentioned about exports, I would prefer the option of choosing what source detail components I want for each report I generate, instead of having to go back to the Options menu. It appears the Legacy default for source detail defaults in Options is not to include Text, Comments and Pictures as I don't remember having changed anything there, ever. Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: legacy-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:legacy-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Kowallek Sent: Friday, 9 February 2007 12:52 PM To: LEGACY@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LEGACY] Thank you, thank you and additional input needed please On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:43:06 +1100, "Jennifer Crockett" <jcrockett@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >It is good to know, but terribly obscure. I have been using Legacy for >years and either I am rather slow to catch on, or this is so hidden no >one would ever know. I would venture to say that if you weren't around for the discussion in the LUG several years ago, you probably wouldn't know of this "feature". >I would never have made the connection from Reports to Export. Which is one of the reasons I argued against it. -- Dennis Kowallek kowallek@iglou.com ******************