At 12/16/2017 10:16, David Alan Stamm wrote >Are there programmatic ways to: > 1. determine whether an exhibit is internal, > 2. where all internal exhibits are, and > 3. change all internal exhibits to external? >¿If so, what are those ways? > >I have recently learned the recommendation to >have only external exhibits. Most of my >exhibits are internal. I believe that most, if >not all, of my exhibits are in C:\Users\David >Alan Stamm\Documents\The Master Genealogist v9\Exhibits. The short answer is not in TMG. A little longer answer is use John Cardinal's TMG Utility (TMGU) program to convert the Internal Exhibits to External Exhibits. The TMGU Help page for this function gives good detailed directions. In regard to the recommendation about using External Exhibits versus Internal Exhibits, don't take that as a hard and fast rule. There are rare occasions when and Internal Exhibit is desired. Using External Exhibit keeps the TMG Backup SQZ file a lot smaller. The downside of this is that if you send the project backup SQZ file to a collaborator, you also need to send the External Exhibits as well. This can be inconvenient. On the other hand, having Internal Exhibits may make the TMG Backup SQZ file too large to transmit via e-mail. Lee

Tom Coughlan wrote: > An excellent suggestion - thank you Michael. And Joyce Rivette responded: > It never occurred to me to use a special Duplicate or DupNil tag. > That is a great idea! You are both most welcome. I hope it will be as useful a method for you both as it has been for me. Michael

Michael, This is something I've always done using a Note tag. It never occurred to me to use a special Duplicate or DupNil tag. That is a great idea! I love that it stands out from other Note tags, could be set to print or not separately from my other Note tags (which never print), and could be made to stand out even more using a tag accent color. Thanks, Joyce Rivette -----Original Message----- From: TMG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Coughlan Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 2:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TMG] Duplicate Persons Listings An excellent suggestion - thank you Michael. Tom On 15/12/2017 18:54, Michael J Hannah wrote: > Tom Coughlan wondered: >> ... is it possible to only output those suspected matches that I have >> not already 'asserted' are not duplicates? > > As Lee mentioned this is unfortunately a manual operation. > > While you are going through this exercise you may wish to consider > defining a couple of custom TMG tag types to help record your > "assertions" for later review. As described in my book: > > http://www.mjh-nm.net/TAGCUSTM.HTML#DuplicateTag > > I define two tag types: Duplicate and DupNil. I use "Duplicate" to > set as Principals the two people I still "suspect" may be duplicates > along with my reasoning of why I am still unsure and choose to keep > separate. Then the "DupNil" sets as Principals two people who "look" > like they could be duplicates, along with my reasoning of why I assert > that they are not. > > Both tags alert me to be careful when I encounter and am about to > enter new data for any such Principals to double check "which" person > should get this new data or if it resolves whether they are > duplicates. Since they are separate tag types I also can selectively > choose whether to include these "duplicate" reasonings in reports. > > Hope this gives you ideas, > > Michael

On 12/16/17 8:06 AM, David Alan Stamm wrote: > 2017-12-16-06T13:05Z > > Windows 10 Home operating system > > Master Genealogist Gold 9.05.0000 (2014-02-03) > > "Project Summary" window indicates 2491 people > > Help, please. > > The program correctly shows my relationship with a third cousin in both the "Person" window and in the "Kinship" report, which is titled, "Relatives of . . .." > > With one of her daughters, I have confirmed our relationship, so the daughter is a third cousin once removed, but . . . > > When I display the "Person" windows for the daughter and her sister, the program indicates in the "Relation" row, "no blood relationship . . .." > > I produced the "Kinship" report, which correctly indicates my relationships to my third cousin _and_ both of her daughters. > > I have optimized, reindexed, and validated file integrity numerous times with "No problems found," and no change. > > Some time ago, the program had displayed the correct relationships, but I had not viewed these relatives for many months, and do not know when this problem developed. > > Thanks, > Dave Stamm > Fort Wayne, Indiana, US > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html When the relationships in the automatic relationship tag get out of sync, you need to run 'Refresh Relationships' in Preferences / Current Project Options / Other -- Richard Damon

An excellent suggestion - thank you Michael. Tom On 15/12/2017 18:54, Michael J Hannah wrote: > Tom Coughlan wondered: >> ... is it possible to only output those suspected matches >> that I have not already 'asserted' are not duplicates? > > As Lee mentioned this is unfortunately a manual operation. > > While you are going through this exercise you may wish to consider > defining a couple of custom TMG tag types to help record your > "assertions" for later review.  As described in my book: > > http://www.mjh-nm.net/TAGCUSTM.HTML#DuplicateTag > > I define two tag types: Duplicate and DupNil.  I use "Duplicate" to > set as Principals the two people I still "suspect" may be duplicates > along with my reasoning of why I am still unsure and choose to keep > separate.  Then the "DupNil" sets as Principals two people who "look" > like they could be duplicates, along with my reasoning of why I assert > that they are not. > > Both tags alert me to be careful when I encounter and am about to > enter new data for any such Principals to double check "which" person > should get this new data or if it resolves whether they are > duplicates.  Since they are separate tag types I also can selectively > choose whether to include these "duplicate" reasonings in reports. > > Hope this gives you ideas, > > Michael > The TMG archive is found here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thank you Lee - I thought as much! I reckon I will simply have to follow your lead, note the ID#s, work on them in normal fashion, and then revisit the CFDP - and do that several times over. Ah well... Tom On 15/12/2017 14:49, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote: > At 12/15/2017 07:52, Tom Coughlan wrote >> I suspect the answer is in the negative but am wondering if there is >> any way to send the output of the Duplicate Persons check to a report >> or file? And if so, is it possible to only output those suspected >> matches that I have not already 'asserted' are not duplicates? > > You are correct, there is not a way to send the Check for Duplicate > People (CFDP) to print or to file.  I have wished for the feature also. > > You can mark pairs as excluded which can help some, and then those > excluded pairs can be shown or not shown.  I have never found this to > be particularly useful unless the number of resulting pairs is on the > small side (a few dozen or less).  Even then, I will often record the > ID#s of the pairs and work with them outside the CFDP function.  This > loses some of the features of the CFDP, so I may do some checking > outside the CFDP and then re-run it to take advantage of those features. > > Lee > > The TMG archive is found here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I suspect the answer is in the negative but am wondering if there is any way to send the output of the Duplicate Persons check to a report or file? And if so, is it possible to only output those suspected matches that I have not already 'asserted' are not duplicates? Tom On 14/12/2017 03:45, Brian Gross wrote: > Here's a corner case where the Birth Order flags were quite helpful... > > My grandmother and one of my grand-aunts were twins (born on the same day). > The Birth Order flags allowed me to keep their sort date equal to their > birth date but keep their birth order correct. (I set the flags for their > siblings as well, just for consistency, even though their birth order is set > by their birth dates.) Obviously, I could have changed sort dates to keep > the birth order correct, but I didn't want to - just a personal preference, > nothing more. > > In this case, since I knew all the siblings and their birth dates, the Birth > Order flags were "set and forget". > > Brian > > -----Original Message----- > From: TMG [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of sally v Houston > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:52 PM > To: The Master Genealogist Rootsweb Email List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [TMG] Family Group Sheet Report Quations > > Sounds like a good reason not to use Birth Order flags, just use sort dates > to keep them in order, then if that is changed, it won't be necessary to > change the flags. > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> At 12/13/2017 15:02, Chuck Wolfram wrote >> >>> From what I understand of the history the Birth Order flag was >>> included as a feature before we had sort dates. When I began using >>> TMG they already had sort dates and I have never used that flag. Just >>> use sort dates and they accomplish the same thing and more---the >>> right place (according to you) on the parent's page. That flag can be >>> safely ignored. >>> >> One other point about the Birth Order Flag is that it will override >> any Sort Date sequencing. So if you have say three children as follows: >> Child A (b. 1846) Birth Order Flag 1 >> Child B (b. 1848) Birth Order Flag 2 >> Child C (no birth Tag) (Birth Order Flag 3) The children will sort >> according to the Birth Order Flag. >> >> You now learn the birth date for the third child and it happens to be >> that the child is actually the first born. You add a Birth Tag giving >> it a Sort Date of 1844 then the children will still sort by the Birth >> Order Flag because you forgot to change the Birth Order Flag numbering. >> >> Lee >> >> The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ances >> try.com/th/index/TMG/ Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: >> http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry .com/index/other/Software/TMG.html >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > The TMG archive is found here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Tom Coughlan wondered: > ... is it possible to only output those suspected matches > that I have not already 'asserted' are not duplicates? As Lee mentioned this is unfortunately a manual operation. While you are going through this exercise you may wish to consider defining a couple of custom TMG tag types to help record your "assertions" for later review. As described in my book: http://www.mjh-nm.net/TAGCUSTM.HTML#DuplicateTag I define two tag types: Duplicate and DupNil. I use "Duplicate" to set as Principals the two people I still "suspect" may be duplicates along with my reasoning of why I am still unsure and choose to keep separate. Then the "DupNil" sets as Principals two people who "look" like they could be duplicates, along with my reasoning of why I assert that they are not. Both tags alert me to be careful when I encounter and am about to enter new data for any such Principals to double check "which" person should get this new data or if it resolves whether they are duplicates. Since they are separate tag types I also can selectively choose whether to include these "duplicate" reasonings in reports. Hope this gives you ideas, Michael

At 12/15/2017 07:52, Tom Coughlan wrote >I suspect the answer is in the negative but am wondering if there is >any way to send the output of the Duplicate Persons check to a >report or file? And if so, is it possible to only output those >suspected matches that I have not already 'asserted' are not duplicates? You are correct, there is not a way to send the Check for Duplicate People (CFDP) to print or to file. I have wished for the feature also. You can mark pairs as excluded which can help some, and then those excluded pairs can be shown or not shown. I have never found this to be particularly useful unless the number of resulting pairs is on the small side (a few dozen or less). Even then, I will often record the ID#s of the pairs and work with them outside the CFDP function. This loses some of the features of the CFDP, so I may do some checking outside the CFDP and then re-run it to take advantage of those features. Lee

Greg Don't forget that John's TMG Utility will attack your data and set all the Birth Order flags for you, using birth dates (and/or Sort Dates?). Of course, if you have no birth date entry it can't sort, but if you add a temporary sort date for those missng ones it will work. Much faster than doing a manual hunt through your data! Bruce Fairhall On 14/12/2017 4:37 AM, Greg Vaut wrote: After years of stuffing data into TMG, I'm finally starting to try to extract some of it back out in reports and now realizing that formatting Reports, Sources, etc. is something I need to spend a lot of time on. I have a lot to learn! On my FGS reports, in the heading for each child, why does a "?" (question mark) appear before the "M" or "F" in front of each child's name? (Each is preceded with a "?/M" or "?/F", depending on the sex of the child.) I can't see anything the the designation of the parents that might them appear to be conditional/questionable. Thanks in advance. Greg The TMG archive is found here: [1]http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/inde x/TMG/ Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: [2]http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ index/other/Software/TMG.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [3][email protected] om with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body o f the message References 1. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ 2. http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html 3. mailto:[email protected]

Thanks to all of you for further elucidating the use (and not) of Birth Flags. Greg On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Brian Gross <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's a corner case where the Birth Order flags were quite helpful... > > My grandmother and one of my grand-aunts were twins (born on the same day). > The Birth Order flags allowed me to keep their sort date equal to their > birth date but keep their birth order correct. (I set the flags for their > siblings as well, just for consistency, even though their birth order is > set > by their birth dates.) Obviously, I could have changed sort dates to keep > the birth order correct, but I didn't want to - just a personal preference, > nothing more. > > In this case, since I knew all the siblings and their birth dates, the > Birth > Order flags were "set and forget". > > Brian > > -----Original Message----- > From: TMG [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of sally v Houston > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:52 PM > To: The Master Genealogist Rootsweb Email List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [TMG] Family Group Sheet Report Quations > > Sounds like a good reason not to use Birth Order flags, just use sort dates > to keep them in order, then if that is changed, it won't be necessary to > change the flags. > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > At 12/13/2017 15:02, Chuck Wolfram wrote > > > >> From what I understand of the history the Birth Order flag was > >> included as a feature before we had sort dates. When I began using > >> TMG they already had sort dates and I have never used that flag. Just > >> use sort dates and they accomplish the same thing and more---the > >> right place (according to you) on the parent's page. That flag can be > >> safely ignored. > >> > > > > One other point about the Birth Order Flag is that it will override > > any Sort Date sequencing. So if you have say three children as follows: > > Child A (b. 1846) Birth Order Flag 1 > > Child B (b. 1848) Birth Order Flag 2 > > Child C (no birth Tag) (Birth Order Flag 3) The children will sort > > according to the Birth Order Flag. > > > > You now learn the birth date for the third child and it happens to be > > that the child is actually the first born. You add a Birth Tag giving > > it a Sort Date of 1844 then the children will still sort by the Birth > > Order Flag because you forgot to change the Birth Order Flag numbering. > > > > Lee > > > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ances > > try.com/th/index/TMG/ Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry .com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > The TMG archive is found here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb. > ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb. > ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Here's a corner case where the Birth Order flags were quite helpful... My grandmother and one of my grand-aunts were twins (born on the same day). The Birth Order flags allowed me to keep their sort date equal to their birth date but keep their birth order correct. (I set the flags for their siblings as well, just for consistency, even though their birth order is set by their birth dates.) Obviously, I could have changed sort dates to keep the birth order correct, but I didn't want to - just a personal preference, nothing more. In this case, since I knew all the siblings and their birth dates, the Birth Order flags were "set and forget". Brian -----Original Message----- From: TMG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of sally v Houston Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:52 PM To: The Master Genealogist Rootsweb Email List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [TMG] Family Group Sheet Report Quations Sounds like a good reason not to use Birth Order flags, just use sort dates to keep them in order, then if that is changed, it won't be necessary to change the flags. On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY <[email protected]> wrote: > At 12/13/2017 15:02, Chuck Wolfram wrote > >> From what I understand of the history the Birth Order flag was >> included as a feature before we had sort dates. When I began using >> TMG they already had sort dates and I have never used that flag. Just >> use sort dates and they accomplish the same thing and more---the >> right place (according to you) on the parent's page. That flag can be >> safely ignored. >> > > One other point about the Birth Order Flag is that it will override > any Sort Date sequencing. So if you have say three children as follows: > Child A (b. 1846) Birth Order Flag 1 > Child B (b. 1848) Birth Order Flag 2 > Child C (no birth Tag) (Birth Order Flag 3) The children will sort > according to the Birth Order Flag. > > You now learn the birth date for the third child and it happens to be > that the child is actually the first born. You add a Birth Tag giving > it a Sort Date of 1844 then the children will still sort by the Birth > Order Flag because you forgot to change the Birth Order Flag numbering. > > Lee > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ances > try.com/th/index/TMG/ Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry .com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

At 12/13/2017 15:02, Chuck Wolfram wrote > From what I understand of the history the Birth Order flag was included as >a feature before we had sort dates. When I began using TMG they already had >sort dates and I have never used that flag. Just use sort dates and they >accomplish the same thing and more---the right place (according to you) on >the parent's page. That flag can be safely ignored. One other point about the Birth Order Flag is that it will override any Sort Date sequencing. So if you have say three children as follows: Child A (b. 1846) Birth Order Flag 1 Child B (b. 1848) Birth Order Flag 2 Child C (no birth Tag) (Birth Order Flag 3) The children will sort according to the Birth Order Flag. You now learn the birth date for the third child and it happens to be that the child is actually the first born. You add a Birth Tag giving it a Sort Date of 1844 then the children will still sort by the Birth Order Flag because you forgot to change the Birth Order Flag numbering. Lee

>From what I understand of the history the Birth Order flag was included as a feature before we had sort dates. When I began using TMG they already had sort dates and I have never used that flag. Just use sort dates and they accomplish the same thing and more---the right place (according to you) on the parent's page. That flag can be safely ignored. Chuck On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Greg Vaut <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Lee. > I didn't think of birth order. I'll play with that. > Greg > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > At 12/13/2017 13:39, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote > > > >> At 12/13/2017 12:37, Greg Vaut wrote > >> > >>> On my FGS reports, in the heading for each child, why does a "?" > >>> (question > >>> mark) appear before the "M" or "F" in front of each child's name? (Each > >>> is > >>> preceded with a "?/M" or "?/F", depending on the sex of the child.) > >>> > >> > >> The "?" takes the place of the "child number" when the Birth Order is > not > >> known. The Birth Order Flag is used to set this value. I rarely use > the > >> Birth Order Flag and then only when I _know_ the birth order but not the > >> birth date for one or more children. > >> > > > > By the way, setting the Birth Order Flag is easier than it might appear. > > When you select to update the Birth Order Flag for one child, it displays > > all of the full siblings and you can set the correct order for all at the > > same time. Note that Birth Order is for one father and one mother. If > one > > parent has children by two or more spouse then the Birth Order starts > over > > for each spouse. The following shows an example: > > > > Father A & Mother A > > 1. Son > > 2. Dau > > 3. Son > > Father A & Mother B > > 1. Dau > > 2. Dau > > > > Mother A & Father B > > 1. Dau > > 2. Son > > > > Mother B & Father C > > 1. Son > > 2. Dau > > > > > > Lee > > > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ances > > try.com/th/index/TMG/ > > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry > > .com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb. > ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb. > ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Sounds like a good reason not to use Birth Order flags, just use sort dates to keep them in order, then if that is changed, it won't be necessary to change the flags. On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY <[email protected]> wrote: > At 12/13/2017 15:02, Chuck Wolfram wrote > >> From what I understand of the history the Birth Order flag was included as >> a feature before we had sort dates. When I began using TMG they already >> had >> sort dates and I have never used that flag. Just use sort dates and they >> accomplish the same thing and more---the right place (according to you) on >> the parent's page. That flag can be safely ignored. >> > > One other point about the Birth Order Flag is that it will override any > Sort Date sequencing. So if you have say three children as follows: > Child A (b. 1846) Birth Order Flag 1 > Child B (b. 1848) Birth Order Flag 2 > Child C (no birth Tag) (Birth Order Flag 3) > The children will sort according to the Birth Order Flag. > > You now learn the birth date for the third child and it happens to be that > the child is actually the first born. You add a Birth Tag giving it a Sort > Date of 1844 then the children will still sort by the Birth Order Flag > because you forgot to change the Birth Order Flag numbering. > > Lee > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ances > try.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry > .com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks, Lee. I didn't think of birth order. I'll play with that. Greg On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Lee Hoffman/KY <[email protected]> wrote: > At 12/13/2017 13:39, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote > >> At 12/13/2017 12:37, Greg Vaut wrote >> >>> On my FGS reports, in the heading for each child, why does a "?" >>> (question >>> mark) appear before the "M" or "F" in front of each child's name? (Each >>> is >>> preceded with a "?/M" or "?/F", depending on the sex of the child.) >>> >> >> The "?" takes the place of the "child number" when the Birth Order is not >> known. The Birth Order Flag is used to set this value. I rarely use the >> Birth Order Flag and then only when I _know_ the birth order but not the >> birth date for one or more children. >> > > By the way, setting the Birth Order Flag is easier than it might appear. > When you select to update the Birth Order Flag for one child, it displays > all of the full siblings and you can set the correct order for all at the > same time. Note that Birth Order is for one father and one mother. If one > parent has children by two or more spouse then the Birth Order starts over > for each spouse. The following shows an example: > > Father A & Mother A > 1. Son > 2. Dau > 3. Son > Father A & Mother B > 1. Dau > 2. Dau > > Mother A & Father B > 1. Dau > 2. Son > > Mother B & Father C > 1. Son > 2. Dau > > > Lee > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ances > try.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry > .com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

At 12/13/2017 13:39, Lee Hoffman/KY wrote >At 12/13/2017 12:37, Greg Vaut wrote >>On my FGS reports, in the heading for each child, why does a "?" (question >>mark) appear before the "M" or "F" in front of each child's name? (Each is >>preceded with a "?/M" or "?/F", depending on the sex of the child.) > >The "?" takes the place of the "child number" when the Birth Order >is not known. The Birth Order Flag is used to set this value. I >rarely use the Birth Order Flag and then only when I _know_ the >birth order but not the birth date for one or more children. By the way, setting the Birth Order Flag is easier than it might appear. When you select to update the Birth Order Flag for one child, it displays all of the full siblings and you can set the correct order for all at the same time. Note that Birth Order is for one father and one mother. If one parent has children by two or more spouse then the Birth Order starts over for each spouse. The following shows an example: Father A & Mother A 1. Son 2. Dau 3. Son Father A & Mother B 1. Dau 2. Dau Mother A & Father B 1. Dau 2. Son Mother B & Father C 1. Son 2. Dau Lee

At 12/13/2017 12:37, Greg Vaut wrote >After years of stuffing data into TMG, I'm finally starting to try to >extract some of it back out in reports and now realizing that formatting >Reports, Sources, etc. is something I need to spend a lot of time on. I >have a lot to learn! > >On my FGS reports, in the heading for each child, why does a "?" (question >mark) appear before the "M" or "F" in front of each child's name? (Each is >preceded with a "?/M" or "?/F", depending on the sex of the child.) > >I can't see anything the the designation of the parents that might them >appear to be conditional/questionable. The "?" takes the place of the "child number" when the Birth Order is not known. The Birth Order Flag is used to set this value. I rarely use the Birth Order Flag and then only when I _know_ the birth order but not the birth date for one or more children. Lee

After years of stuffing data into TMG, I'm finally starting to try to extract some of it back out in reports and now realizing that formatting Reports, Sources, etc. is something I need to spend a lot of time on. I have a lot to learn! On my FGS reports, in the heading for each child, why does a "?" (question mark) appear before the "M" or "F" in front of each child's name? (Each is preceded with a "?/M" or "?/F", depending on the sex of the child.) I can't see anything the the designation of the parents that might them appear to be conditional/questionable. Thanks in advance. Greg

On 12/12/2017 12:02 PM, Courtney Roth wrote: > > Can a project be separated into data sets? My genetic councelor wants > a GEDcom of just my mothers family, but TMG only makes a GEDcom of the > project.  Perhaps I am missing something about using a filter. > > Court > Yes you can, but that's certainly the hard way. To do so you have to create a Filter or Focus Group and when you've done that you can use them directly to control the Export. On Step 4 of the Export wizard you can choose "All people," "Selected people in the Project Explorer," or "People in the Focus Group." For what you want I think the Focus Group would be the easiest. Put your mother in the Focus Group and add all her ancestors. Then add yourself if that's the plan. You could use a Filter by filtering the Project Explorer and then selecting everyone in the PE, but I think that more trouble. Terry Reigel