On 6/18/2017 11:12 AM, Toby Turner wrote: > I’m not sure this is the appropriate forum, but because most TMG users are serious about their footnotes, here goes. By accident, I discovered a serious problem with the index-to-image links on the Family History Center’s "Texas Deaths, 1890-1976” online database. I was reviewing some 2010-2012 input to add additional information (originally it had been bare bones) and discovered that, so far, nearly half of my links to individual death certificates connected with the WRONG death certificate. Toby, As long as there have been websites hosting images of source documents they have been changing the URLs that lead to them. I don't see any reason to expect this to change going forward. Therefore linking to online images is risky at best, as you found, and is going to be a continual battle. In my view if you want your readers to be able to view images of your sources found online the only reliable way is download the images and attach them as exhibits. Terry Reigel

For years, I have used a variation of Cemetery Marker Source Types for creating my Sources based on Find A Grave postings.on line. I have never been completely satisfied with the stated models by Lackey, Elizabeth Shown Mills, or the TriValley TMG User Group's book. They just seemed to not quite fit the situation. During a recent view of the Find A Grave web site, I happened upon its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page -- specifically how to cite a Find A Grave entry. It suggested a citation somewhat based on the basic high school bibliographic citation model: Bio Author. "Web Page Title". Find A Grave. Date of (your) access. Note that the Author is the person creating the entry and not the founder of Find A Grave. I wasn't real happy with this either, but it gave me some ideas. What I came up with is two variations for Split Sources and for Grouped Sources: Grouped Sources --- Full Footnote: <[COMPILER], ><[ITAL:][SUBJECT][:ITAL], >Find A Grave< [CD1]>, Database and images ([URL]: [ACCESS DATE])<, [CD2]>. Short Footnote: <[COMPILER], ><[ITAL:][SUBJECT][:ITAL], >Find A Grave< [CD1]><, [CD2]>. Bibliography: <[COMPILER]. ><[ITAL:][SUBJECT][:ITAL]. >Database and images. [URL]: [ACCESS DATE]. Split Sources --- Full Footnote: <[COMPILER], >[ITAL:][SUBJECT][:ITAL], Find A Grave Memorial # [RECORD NUMBER], Database and images ([URL]: [ACCESS DATE])<, [CD]>. Short Footnote: <[COMPILER], >[ITAL:][SUBJECT][:ITAL], Find A Grave Memorial # [RECORD NUMBER]><, [CD]>. Bibliography: <[COMPILER]. >[ITAL:][SUBJECT][:ITAL] Memorial #[RECORD NUMBER]. Database and images. [URL]: [ACCESS DATE]. In the Grouped models, CD1 would have entries like: Memorial #12345678. In the Split models, the Memorial number would be entered just as the number since the "Memorial #" is already included in the Templates. CD2 in Grouped models and CD in the Split models would have added information the user desires. As noted, the Compiler would be the name of the person creating the Find A Grave page for the grave. The Subject would be the title of the page -- normally the person for whom the page describes as the grave. I considered the possibility of adding the name of the cemetery (probably as Repository (and its address)). But, I thought this was unnecessary as Find A Grave is the real repository. And advantage to searching within TMG based on Repository is offset by the inclusion of the cemetery name in the Burial Tag. I do include the name of the cemetery in the Citation Detail when the cemetery is known by multiple names and only the one is listed on the Find A Grave pages. Similarly, I note in the Citation Detail any conflicting information I have that is not already noted on the page. Lee

I do not cite the image number or URL. I just say viewed online at Family Search.. With the name, date, the number on the actual certificate, etc your reader should be able to find the original again. Teresa Elliott From: Terry Reigel Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 12:48 PM To: The Master Genealogist Rootsweb Email List Subject: Re: [TMG] Problem with FHC's Texas Deaths, 1890-1976 database On 6/18/2017 11:12 AM, Toby Turner wrote: > I’m not sure this is the appropriate forum, but because most TMG users are serious about their footnotes, here goes. By accident, I discovered a serious problem with the index-to-image links on the Family History Center’s "Texas Deaths, 1890-1976” online database. I was reviewing some 2010-2012 input to add additional information (originally it had been bare bones) and discovered that, so far, nearly half of my links to individual death certificates connected with the WRONG death certificate. Toby, As long as there have been websites hosting images of source documents they have been changing the URLs that lead to them. I don't see any reason to expect this to change going forward. Therefore linking to online images is risky at best, as you found, and is going to be a continual battle. In my view if you want your readers to be able to view images of your sources found online the only reliable way is download the images and attach them as exhibits. Terry Reigel 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 TMG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

At 6/18/2017 11:12, Toby Turner wrote >I believe I must review every citation referring to this database, >even for data entered within the last year or so. How did I find this? You need to run a List of Citations report. Select the "Citation for a specific source" filter, and enter the Source ID# when asked. Lee

Ron, When programs are corrupt, they usually don't fail with symptoms like you described. I think the TMG project indexes are corrupt, and it's trivial to test that theory, so I suggest you use the File > Maintenance > Optimize command in TMG and see if that solves the problem. John

At 6/18/2017 11:03, Ron Chenier wrote >I believe my TMG Program Ver. 9.5 is corrupted. ----clipped---- >I do have a copy of TMG 9.5 installation disk and would like to know what >the proper procedure would be to re-install it. > >Should I delete the TMG 9.5 presently on my main computer and re-install >from the disk? > >I think I should delete the present program to get rid of the corrupted >files, would that be correct? > >All my data have all been backed up safely. It sounds like you have the right steps in mind. The steps would include: 1. Having a good backup 2. Un-installing TMG. 3. It may also be worthwhile to delete all the folder in which there are TMG programs and data. These will be re-created during the re-install, but insures that any corrupt files that aren't removed by the un-install are completely removed. 4. Install TMG. 5. Restore from your latest backup. Note that this Step 4 gives you the opportunity to install TMG in the default manner or to do a custom installation. If you want to do a custom installation, you should be familiar with the "Data File Storage" topic and related topics in TMG Help. You may want to review these before un-installing. Lee

I believe my TMG Program Ver. 9.5 is corrupted. Some reports are not being produced correctly. For instance my Relationship Reports do not identify the individuals in the reports, all individuals are identified as “unknown”. Many of my reports to WORD are garbled as well as reports to WordPerfect initially freeze. Too many problem!! I tried a backup sqz file on my old computer with TMG 9.5 on it and the reports there are coming out ok as well as Word files and WordPerfect files. So I believe my TMG program on my main computer is corrupt. I have gone through the maintenance routine, closed and re-open TMG but it did not resolve the issues. I also re-booted the computer and still no fixes to the issues. I do have a copy of TMG 9.5 installation disk and would like to know what the proper procedure would be to re-install it. Should I delete the TMG 9.5 presently on my main computer and re-install from the disk? I think I should delete the present program to get rid of the corrupted files, would that be correct? All my data have all been backed up safely. Ron Chénier <http://chesnay.homestead.com/> http://chesnay.homestead.com/ <http://www.bertrandchesnayfrancais.homestead.com/> http://www.bertrandchesnayfrancais.homestead.com

I’m not sure this is the appropriate forum, but because most TMG users are serious about their footnotes, here goes. By accident, I discovered a serious problem with the index-to-image links on the Family History Center’s "Texas Deaths, 1890-1976” online database. I was reviewing some 2010-2012 input to add additional information (originally it had been bare bones) and discovered that, so far, nearly half of my links to individual death certificates connected with the WRONG death certificate. Sometimes, the difference was only one image farther on in the roll, but some have been 15 images further on the microfilm roll. As a result, I am having to review all my 2,242 citations referring to this particular database. I know the database’s links to the death certificates were correct when I input the original data in 2010-2012 because I used the original record extensively. I am beyond upset about this serious issue. There appears to be no way to notify the FHC so I am inputting the following information in the Citation Memo in the event they finally realize what has happened: "Index may link to the wrong death certificate, go to image xxxx of xxxx to see it.” I believe I must review every citation referring to this database, even for data entered within the last year or so. How did I find this? I’d discovered that the FHC had changed the basic address to many of their databases (surprise). Now, the old address would work, but it was not as fast and might be an issue on a dial-up connection. Changing the basic address was no problem on my source template, but as I delved into adding the additional information (which should have been available WHEN the database went online), I discovered the linkage issue. I am hoping this is the only database so affected, but plan to run checks on their other databases as well. Regards, Toby Turner

At 03:29 PM 6/17/2017, Brian Smith wrote: >I wanted to Thank You for your advice. The picture which I had downloaded >from the Web must have in a Progressive format. This format, apparently, >does not port well when creating a WORD file. As soon as I opened the >picture in question and then resaved it in a non-progressive format it >ported over to WORD with no problem. The only issue was that the picture was >much smaller and I then had to resize it in TMG. I suspect the original file was defined for screen display (~72-96 pixels per inch), and your resave defined print resolution (240-360 pixels per inch). It did not create new pixels, but only resulted in Word scaling differently. -- bieber.genealogy@earthlink.net Dennis Lee Bieber HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

I wanted to Thank You for your advice. The picture which I had downloaded from the Web must have in a Progressive format. This format, apparently, does not port well when creating a WORD file. As soon as I opened the picture in question and then resaved it in a non-progressive format it ported over to WORD with no problem. The only issue was that the picture was much smaller and I then had to resize it in TMG. Thanks again for your help, Brian -----Original Message----- From: TMG [mailto:tmg-bounces+bsmith1=ptd.net@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Donald Range Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 7:50 PM To: tmg@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TMG] Journal Report Problem images sometimes result from the history of how they were acquired and how they were edited before they were added to your TMG exhibit collection, at least with JPG formats, maybe other formats as well. When you save a JPG file there are sometimes (depending on the application doing the save) format options that affect compatibility of the JPG with programs that try to load it. For example, Photoshop Elements 14's Save As JPG command has the options of Baseline ("Standard"), Baseline Optimized, and Progressive. IrfanView's Save As JPG command has an option to "Save as progressive JPG." I have found that some JPG images that refuse to display in TMG reports can be fixed by opening them in an image editor (including either of the above two) and resaving them with a non-progressive format. On 6/16/2017 4:17 PM, Brian Smith wrote: > Hi: > > I am having difficulty getting images to appear when > creating a Journal report in WORD. I have selected "all images" under > the exhibits tab of the report option yet when I select to save the > report to Word under the Report Destination some of the images do not > appear in the report. If I select "Screen Preview" under report > destination or if I select a .PDF file everything is fine. This leads > me to believe it is a problem with WORD? I am using Word 2013 and Windows 10. Any help appreciated. > > 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 TMG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Advantages and disadvantages http://cloudinary.com/blog/progressive_jpegs_and_green_martians#advantages_and_disadvantages One obvious advantage of progressive JPEG encoding is that you get full-image previews while downloading the image on a slow connection. You can see what’s in the picture even when only a fraction of the file has been transferred, and decide whether you want to wait for it to fully load or not. On the other hand, some people consider progressive loading behavior to be something of a disadvantage, since it becomes hard to tell when an image has actually finished loading. You might even get a bad impression from a website because “the photos look blurry” (while in fact the site was still loading and you only saw a progressive preview of the photos). We will come back to this point later. A less obvious advantage of progressive JPEGs is that they tend to be smaller http://yuiblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/imageopt-4/ (in terms of filesize) than non-progressive JPEGs, even though the (final) image is exactly the same. Because similar DCT coefficients across multiple blocks end up being encoded together, they tend to compress somewhat better than non-progressive JPEGs, whose blocks are encoded one-at-a-time. The extra compression is not huge – a few percentage points, typically – but still, it saves some bandwidth and storage, without any effect on the image quality. Progressive JPEG encoding also has some downsides, though. First of all: they’re not always smaller. For very small images (thumbnails, say), progressive JPEGs are often a bit larger than non-progressive JPEGs. However, for such small image files, progressive rendering is not really useful anyway. Another disadvantage of progressive JPEGs is that it takes more CPU time and memory to encode and decode them. It takes more time because the algorithm has to go over the image data multiple times, instead of doing everything in one single scan. It takes more memory because all of the DCT coefficients have to be stored in memory during decoding; in non-progressive decoding, you only need to store one block of coefficients at a time. Decoding a typical progressive JPEG image takes about 2.5 times as much time as decoding a non-progressive JPEG. So while it does give you a preview faster, the overall CPU time is significantly longer. This does not really matter on desktop or laptop computers – JPEG decoding is pretty fast, progressive or not, and memory and processing power are usually abundant. But on low-power devices like smartphones, it does have a slight impact on battery life and image loading time. Encoding a progressive JPEG also takes more time. It’s about 6 to 8 times slower, and harder to do in hardware. For this reason, cameras (even high-end ones) typically produce non-progressive JPEGs. > > On June 17, 2017 at 12:19 PM Patrick Lofft <pmlofft@comcast.net> wrote: > > It seems to me that 'progressive jpgs' are much more important when creating web pages rather than a print doc as 'progressive jpgs' are reputed to load faster. > > > > > > On June 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM sally v Houston <svhous@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I plan to add the images to the Word doc after my TMG Journal report has > > its final proof/edit, and I think it is as good as it is going to get. I > > don't know anything about progressive JPGs, so I'll not go there. What is > > the advantage of that format? > > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Bruce Fairhall <bruce@fairhall.id.au> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > An interesting discussion. > > > Since the days of very slow internet, especially in rural Australia, I > > > have used "Progressive" JPGs from Photoshop Elements for all JPGs as > > > Exhibits to assist viewers of my web site. > > > Using that feature helps the image display correctly, over a few > > > seconds if it is large. > > > I've never noticed any trouble using these files in Second Site but I > > > must admit that I've actually never tried to use a Journal Report from > > > TMG with Images included. > > > > > > Bruce Fairhall > > > 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 > > > TMG-request@rootsweb.com 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 TMG-request@rootsweb.com 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 TMG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > >

It seems to me that 'progressive jpgs' are much more important when creating web pages rather than a print doc as 'progressive jpgs' are reputed to load faster. > On June 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM sally v Houston <svhous@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I plan to add the images to the Word doc after my TMG Journal report has > its final proof/edit, and I think it is as good as it is going to get. I > don't know anything about progressive JPGs, so I'll not go there. What is > the advantage of that format? > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Bruce Fairhall <bruce@fairhall.id.au> > wrote: > > > An interesting discussion. > > Since the days of very slow internet, especially in rural Australia, I > > have used "Progressive" JPGs from Photoshop Elements for all JPGs as > > Exhibits to assist viewers of my web site. > > Using that feature helps the image display correctly, over a few > > seconds if it is large. > > I've never noticed any trouble using these files in Second Site but I > > must admit that I've actually never tried to use a Journal Report from > > TMG with Images included. > > > > Bruce Fairhall > > 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 > > TMG-request@rootsweb.com 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 TMG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

An interesting discussion. Since the days of very slow internet, especially in rural Australia, I have used "Progressive" JPGs from Photoshop Elements for all JPGs as Exhibits to assist viewers of my web site. Using that feature helps the image display correctly, over a few seconds if it is large. I've never noticed any trouble using these files in Second Site but I must admit that I've actually never tried to use a Journal Report from TMG with Images included. Bruce Fairhall

I plan to add the images to the Word doc after my TMG Journal report has its final proof/edit, and I think it is as good as it is going to get. I don't know anything about progressive JPGs, so I'll not go there. What is the advantage of that format? On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Bruce Fairhall <bruce@fairhall.id.au> wrote: > An interesting discussion. > Since the days of very slow internet, especially in rural Australia, I > have used "Progressive" JPGs from Photoshop Elements for all JPGs as > Exhibits to assist viewers of my web site. > Using that feature helps the image display correctly, over a few > seconds if it is large. > I've never noticed any trouble using these files in Second Site but I > must admit that I've actually never tried to use a Journal Report from > TMG with Images included. > > Bruce Fairhall > 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 > TMG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

At 6/16/2017 13:15, Jim Slade wrote >I often print a Journal Report to mail to non-computer relatives as it >gives a pretty complete picture of the person's life and events. The >sources are included as End Notes which print in numerical order following >the Report. Susequently, there is a small raised italic number placed in >the text as reference to the source number. > >Recently, this source number is repeated for same tag, sometimes 2, 3 >times. As an example, Source of his full name & birth might appear in the >text thus: > >John Carlton McLynn,28,29 b. 1881 Fulton Co, Georgia28, 29, 28, 28 > >Source #28 is from WW1 Draft Registration Card and #29 is his newspaper >obituary. Similar errors randomly occur for other tags and other sources >for other people. Yes, including name and relationship sources is almost certainly the reason for the many endnotes. But, as Donald Range noted, you probably have also selected the option to have Unique endnotes. I rarely include the name and relationship sources as most of those are always duplicates of sources that are included otherwise. However, there are times when I want to ensure that all sources are included and select that option. As for Unique endnotes, I almost never use that feature. The great advantage to this feature is that there are fewer endnotes. For example, one report with 437 endnotes might have only 187 unique endnotes. The disadvantage to Unique endnotes is that when the feature is used, the endnotes are NOT true endnotes to your word processor. That is, your word processor does not recognize them as endnotes, but as regular text. So, if you delete endnote #5, endnote #6 remains as #6 and #5 is not there. For normal endnotes, if you delete endnote #5, the word processor renumbers all remaining endnotes to close up the deleted number. Including name and relationship sources and not using Unique endnotes will almost certainly create a loonngg list of endnotes. Interestingly, comparing two reports (Unique and not Unique) having the number of endnotes noted above, Unique endnotes only saved one page. So, Unique endnotes only required 12 pages while normal endnotes required 12 pages -- not enough difference to make me want to use the Unique feature and lose the "real" endnote word processor handling. This could change, however, if the report was much larger (much more than two generations). Lee

Hi: I am having difficulty getting images to appear when creating a Journal report in WORD. I have selected "all images" under the exhibits tab of the report option yet when I select to save the report to Word under the Report Destination some of the images do not appear in the report. If I select "Screen Preview" under report destination or if I select a .PDF file everything is fine. This leads me to believe it is a problem with WORD? I am using Word 2013 and Windows 10. Any help appreciated. Thanks, Brian

Sounds like my normal experience. A couple years ago I sent various files asked for by WhollyGenes and they played with it and could not find what causes this behavior. Apparently a small number of us have that problem. It is only for Journal reports to MS-Word (this has happened since TMG version 7.0 to and likely earlier and in MS-Word certainly from Windows 8 and 10 and probably earlier). I do all of the usual TMG optimize and Verify File Integrity steps regularly. I do have an anecdote tag for every photo, so when I run a Journal Report to MS-Word I do a "Find" for the word "photo" and that quickly tracks through the report and lets me insert the missing photos fairly quickly. Follow up on Donald's response......Interesting....."non-progressive" is a new term to get used to. I create and save all of my photos with Photoshop 5.0 (I know....ancient), but then add IPTC info with Irfanview and save. Will try to find "non-progressive" in both software. Even if I do find a solution, it will not be fun to fix, since I have over 2,600 photos spread over 119,000 people in my project. As a side note, this anomaly has no impact on my Second Site website. All the photos show as required. Dave Ball -----Original Message----- From: TMG [mailto:tmg-bounces+dgballtmg=shaw.ca@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian Smith Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 4:18 PM To: TMG@rootsweb.com Subject: [TMG] Journal Report Hi: I am having difficulty getting images to appear when creating a Journal report in WORD. I have selected "all images" under the exhibits tab of the report option yet when I select to save the report to Word under the Report Destination some of the images do not appear in the report. If I select "Screen Preview" under report destination or if I select a .PDF file everything is fine. This leads me to believe it is a problem with WORD? I am using Word 2013 and Windows 10. Any help appreciated. Thanks, Brian

Problem images sometimes result from the history of how they were acquired and how they were edited before they were added to your TMG exhibit collection, at least with JPG formats, maybe other formats as well. When you save a JPG file there are sometimes (depending on the application doing the save) format options that affect compatibility of the JPG with programs that try to load it. For example, Photoshop Elements 14's Save As JPG command has the options of Baseline ("Standard"), Baseline Optimized, and Progressive. IrfanView's Save As JPG command has an option to "Save as progressive JPG." I have found that some JPG images that refuse to display in TMG reports can be fixed by opening them in an image editor (including either of the above two) and resaving them with a non-progressive format. On 6/16/2017 4:17 PM, Brian Smith wrote: > Hi: > > I am having difficulty getting images to appear when creating a > Journal report in WORD. I have selected "all images" under the exhibits tab > of the report option yet when I select to save the report to Word under the > Report Destination some of the images do not appear in the report. If I > select "Screen Preview" under report destination or if I select a .PDF file > everything is fine. This leads me to believe it is a problem with WORD? I am > using Word 2013 and Windows 10. Any help appreciated. > >

Jim, If you delete duplicate source reference numbers in your word processor, keep in mind that you may be removing information that ties specific sources to specific sections of narrative in the Journal Report. When the narrative for a new subject person in the Journal Report first appears TMG generates the name followed by the source references for the name, for the subject's father, and for subject's mother in that order. Unfortunately these appear in one string with the numbers separated by commas, with no way to tell which of the citations are for name, for father, and for mother. Either the name citations or the father/mother citations can be omitted by a choice in the report options. To the extent that you have cited the same sources (and CDs/CMs where applicable) for name, father, and mother you will see duplication of numbers following the subject's name. By eliminating the duplication here you may have lost information about whether the remaining citations apply to name, father, or mother. Your original example was: John Carlton McLynn,28,29 b. 1881 Fulton Co, Georgia28, 29, 28, 28 In this example you appear to be using the Unique Endnotes report option, and citations 28 and 29 apply to the birth information as well as to some combination of name, father, and mother of John McLynn. You may wish to retain the citations for the birth since the fact the birth information came from sources 28 and 29 goes beyond the report's citation of those sources for his name/father/mother. If your word processor find & replace is removing these numbers you are losing this information from the report. As why the birth lists source 28 three times, this suggests that you have the same source cited multiple times in the birth tag for this person. If that's the case the fix would be to combine, delete, or exclude the multiple citations to the same source in the birth tag. At the other extreme, since your original post said your use of the report is to give relatives a picture of a person's life, you could also consider including just a Bibliography of sources used, without citing specific sources associated with specific sections of the report. Less scholarly, but might fit your intended use. On 6/16/2017 1:28 PM, Jim Slade wrote: > Sally & Chuck, yes, you are both correct. It is the Name & Relationship > Sources that cause the problem. When I uncheck both, the duplication goes > away. I did find a work around because I did want to include both Name & > Relationship sources. I left both checked, then when in word processor, > use Find & Replace to go through and eliminate the duplicates. It is a > pain, but does let you include Name & Relationship sources without > duplicating the numbers. > Thanks for your guidance to find what was causing it. > Jim >

Sally & Chuck, yes, you are both correct. It is the Name & Relationship Sources that cause the problem. When I uncheck both, the duplication goes away. I did find a work around because I did want to include both Name & Relationship sources. I left both checked, then when in word processor, use Find & Replace to go through and eliminate the duplicates. It is a pain, but does let you include Name & Relationship sources without duplicating the numbers. Thanks for your guidance to find what was causing it. Jim <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> <#m_-3545510756290495847_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Chuck Wolfram <charleswolfram@gmail.com> wrote: > It's probably not an error. I agree with Sally. Its probably name and > relationship sources that are printing. When you get to the report > definition, click Options, then Sources. Uncheck or deselect both "Include > Name Sources" and "Include Relationship Sources." That should do it. > > Chuck > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Jim Slade <slade33@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I often print a Journal Report to mail to non-computer relatives as it > > gives a pretty complete picture of the person's life and events. The > > sources are included as End Notes which print in numerical order > following > > the Report. Susequently, there is a small raised italic number placed in > > the text as reference to the source number. > > > > Recently, this source number is repeated for same tag, sometimes 2, 3 > > times. As an example, Source of his full name & birth might appear in > the > > text thus: > > > > John Carlton McLynn,28,29 b. 1881 Fulton Co, Georgia28, 29, 28, 28 > > > > Source #28 is from WW1 Draft Registration Card and #29 is his newspaper > > obituary. Similar errors randomly occur for other tags and other sources > > for other people. > > > > This same error also occurs when printing a Descendants Indented Chart. > > > > Thinking perhaps the problem occurred due to the word processor, I saved > > the report using both WordPerfect X7 & MS Word 2010, and finally RTF. > All > > three yielded the same repeated values, so I assume the problem > originated > > in TMG v9.05, not the word processor. My OS is Windows 10/64. > > > > Has anyone else seen this problem? or know the cause? I only noticed it > > showing up in the past few months, but it very frustrating. Cannot > imagine > > what is causing it. > > > > Thanks, Jim > > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_ > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> > > Virus-free. > > www.avast.com > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_ > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > 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 > > TMG-request@rootsweb.com 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 > TMG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >