Terry, In the "Check of All Online Source Web Addresses" thread, you described entering "generic" URLs for online records and I understand the rationale. I mostly do the same, with one (recent) exception. For Ancestry.com records, I now record the "APID" value and store it in the Citation Reference field. An APID includes a database number and a record number in the format "database::record", for example, "7602::2771226". Ancestry's web pages do not make those values obvious, but they are usually present in URLs for record pages using the "dbid=" and "h=" parameters. For example: https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?dbid=7602&indiv=1&h=2771226 My upcoming "TMG to GEDCOM" tool will detect Ancestry.com sources where the citation includes an APID. The result will be that GEDCOMs imported into Ancestry.com will have very useful links from citations to the Ancestry.com source records. I know some people do not include sources when publishing to Ancestry.com for various reasons, but for those that do, this feature will be useful. I will also be publishing a web page with some utilities for both extracting APIDs from Ancestry.com URLs and for creating links to records based on the APID. The former is for help when entering citations, and the latter is for verifying APIDs and/or getting to the record of interest quickly. I have been aware of APID values for a long time, but TMG-L member Dave Fuller brought it to my attention recently when we were discussing my TMG to GEDCOM tool. I hope other online collections will support similar record IDs but so far, I am not aware of any where the feature is available. Ancestry.com does not publicize the existence of APIDs, but I believe it is part of the API they support internally and publish to authorized third-parties. John

Thanks for the write up. Really important points. I would add that creating layer citations, that don't rely strictly on the reference to the online source but also includes a description of the source of the source helps when the URL or web site is no longer viable. On Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 01:40:42 PM EDT, Toby Turner <[email protected]> wrote: My analysis of web addresses for all my online sources is now complete. Many thought it was a waste of time; it wasn’t. Keep in mind my online sources dated from 1996. Here’s what I found: Rootsweb sources (60) and US GenWeb archives sources (175) had changed web addresses. Some sources could not be found, including some really good ones (I’m talking to you rootsweb.ancestry.com). Some FTM/genealogy.com sites were also deleted. When possible I found substitutes, often better, but not always. All Rootsweb WorldConnect databases had changed addresses (31), not counting the ones that had beendeleted. One well-documented database had changed all its ID#s, and because my template points directly to an individual, I had to redo about 600 people. :( Most of the above research had been done prior to 2005. An extremely fine German database of people also had renumbered its people and hundreds had to be re-done. :( I also checked other online record categories for about 504 sources. FamilySearch and Ancestry databases were mostly okay, but occasionally titles were dropped or names/addresses changed significantly. It was sometimes challenging to find what I needed to cite. Nearly all of my 1,502 Wikipedia sources had made minor web address changes, but usually redirected the searcher to the new correct page. However, about a dozen or so were for medieval women/men with only one name and, over time since I’d added them c2014, more people with similar names had been added. I was able to find all the appropriate web pages, but the casual viewer would’ve found it difficult. New information was found, especially in places on Wikipedia where I was able to push back 3-4 generations. All in all, it was a very worthwhile, if time-consuming process. Regards, Toby Turner _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

On 7/31/19 10:45 PM, Terry Reigel wrote: > On 7/31/2019 6:08 PM, John Cardinal wrote: >> Richard Damon wrote: >>> John, I would need to check, but since memos can have >>> things like [P1] in them, I suspect they support things >>> like <[P1]> in them, and thus may well also support >>> < one | two> in them. >> >> No, that's not correct. Memo text is not a sentence structure and >> conditional expressions are not supported. > > My own tests in the past verify that -- conditionals are not supported > in Memo text. > > Terry Reigel Well, this situation shows that at least in a particular condition they sort of are. Now, because of the strangeness of the conditions, it would lead one to believe it is a bug and not a feature. -- Richard Damon

Terry, I'm so glad to hear you say that! My rationalization has been that at least readers know I had a source even if it's no longer available. If they wish to confirm, that can do their own research. Judy Madnick Albany, NY On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:50 PM Terry Reigel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/31/2019 1:39 PM, Toby Turner wrote: > > My analysis of web addresses for all my online sources is now > > complete. Many thought it was a waste of time; it wasn’t. Keep in mind > > my online sources dated from 1996. Here’s what I found: > > Rootsweb sources (60) and US GenWeb archives sources (175) had changed > > web addresses.... > > Toby, > > My solution to that problem, which you have very clearly documented, is > to use only high level URLs for citations to web resources and not URLs > to specific database items. I figure it's the readers problem and not > mine to find a solution when URLs change. > > Terry Reigel > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

On 7/31/2019 1:39 PM, Toby Turner wrote: > My analysis of web addresses for all my online sources is now > complete. Many thought it was a waste of time; it wasn’t. Keep in mind > my online sources dated from 1996. Here’s what I found: > Rootsweb sources (60) and US GenWeb archives sources (175) had changed > web addresses.... Toby, My solution to that problem, which you have very clearly documented, is to use only high level URLs for citations to web resources and not URLs to specific database items. I figure it's the readers problem and not mine to find a solution when URLs change. Terry Reigel

On 7/31/2019 6:08 PM, John Cardinal wrote: > Richard Damon wrote: >> John, I would need to check, but since memos can have >> things like [P1] in them, I suspect they support things >> like <[P1]> in them, and thus may well also support >> < one | two> in them. > > No, that's not correct. Memo text is not a sentence structure and > conditional expressions are not supported. My own tests in the past verify that -- conditionals are not supported in Memo text. Terry Reigel

I do download exhibits and rtf pages for my files. I use archive.org as well. Still, I do like readers to be able to access my online sources. The other good thing was 49 new direct ancestors from Wikipedia reviews. Toby Sent from my iPad > On Jul 31, 2019, at 6:57 PM, Janis Rodriguez via TMG <[email protected]> wrote: > > Toby, > > Did you do a pdf of the webpage? That way you have a copy if it disappears. I need to go back and check websites for my older sources, too. In the last few years I have been trying to pdf everything for direct ancestors and siblings. I was lucky enuf to have done that some cemetery transcriptions on rootsweb that disappeared a few years ago. Archive.org often helps. > > Jan > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Jul 31, 2019, at 6:08 PM, John Cardinal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Richard Damon wrote: >>> John, I would need to check, but since memos can have >>> things like [P1] in them, I suspect they support things >>> like <[P1]> in them, and thus may well also support >>> < one | two> in them. >>> >>> My guess is that the Memo processor is seeing the >>> conditionals around the variable as also being around >>> the contents of the variable, and activating the | as a >>> selection operator >> >> Richard, >> >> No, that's not correct. Memo text is not a sentence structure and >> conditional expressions are not supported. You can do some tests to verify >> that, but I am pretty sure I am correct. I don't know if its in the help or >> not, but I spoke to Wholly Genes about this a long time ago and I was told >> that variable references are supported, but not conditional expressions. >> (TMG may not use that terminology, but that's effectively what the answer >> was.) >> >> I needed the information in order to implement the first version of Second >> Site. >> >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >> Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] >> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Toby, Did you do a pdf of the webpage? That way you have a copy if it disappears. I need to go back and check websites for my older sources, too. In the last few years I have been trying to pdf everything for direct ancestors and siblings. I was lucky enuf to have done that some cemetery transcriptions on rootsweb that disappeared a few years ago. Archive.org often helps. Jan Sent from my iPad > On Jul 31, 2019, at 6:08 PM, John Cardinal <[email protected]> wrote: > > Richard Damon wrote: >> John, I would need to check, but since memos can have >> things like [P1] in them, I suspect they support things >> like <[P1]> in them, and thus may well also support >> < one | two> in them. >> >> My guess is that the Memo processor is seeing the >> conditionals around the variable as also being around >> the contents of the variable, and activating the | as a >> selection operator > > Richard, > > No, that's not correct. Memo text is not a sentence structure and > conditional expressions are not supported. You can do some tests to verify > that, but I am pretty sure I am correct. I don't know if its in the help or > not, but I spoke to Wholly Genes about this a long time ago and I was told > that variable references are supported, but not conditional expressions. > (TMG may not use that terminology, but that's effectively what the answer > was.) > > I needed the information in order to implement the first version of Second > Site. > > John > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

Richard Damon wrote: > John, I would need to check, but since memos can have > things like [P1] in them, I suspect they support things > like <[P1]> in them, and thus may well also support > < one | two> in them. > > My guess is that the Memo processor is seeing the > conditionals around the variable as also being around > the contents of the variable, and activating the | as a > selection operator Richard, No, that's not correct. Memo text is not a sentence structure and conditional expressions are not supported. You can do some tests to verify that, but I am pretty sure I am correct. I don't know if its in the help or not, but I spoke to Wholly Genes about this a long time ago and I was told that variable references are supported, but not conditional expressions. (TMG may not use that terminology, but that's effectively what the answer was.) I needed the information in order to implement the first version of Second Site. John

> On Jul 31, 2019, at 12:24 PM, John Cardinal <[email protected]> wrote: > > Michael J. Hannah wrote, in part: >> Also since I am unsure whether this is a bug or a feature, >> I will also add a descriptiion of this behaviour in my list >> of outstanding bugs. > > Michael, > > In my opinion, it's a bug. When used as David described where he did not > have the "<" and ">" characters surrounding text separated by "|", "|" is > not documented to have special meaning except when "||" is used to separate > parts. Also, I believe "<" and ">' do not have special meaning in memos, so > I can't see how "|" could be used to separate the one-principal part from > the two-principal part when "|" is used in a memo. > > Despite my opinion that the "|" behavior is a bug, I agree that there is > ambiguity because the help doesn't always specify what is and isn't allowed. > > In Second Site and GedSite, the "< one-principal | two-principals >" > construct is only valid in sentence templates, and "|" by itself has no > special meaning in memo text. > > John > John, I would need to check, but since memos can have things like [P1] in them, I suspect they support things like <[P1]> in them, and thus may well also support < one | two> in them. My guess is that the Memo processor is seeing the conditionals around the variable as also being around the contents of the variable, and activating the | as a selection operator

My analysis of web addresses for all my online sources is now complete. Many thought it was a waste of time; it wasn’t. Keep in mind my online sources dated from 1996. Here’s what I found: Rootsweb sources (60) and US GenWeb archives sources (175) had changed web addresses. Some sources could not be found, including some really good ones (I’m talking to you rootsweb.ancestry.com). Some FTM/genealogy.com sites were also deleted. When possible I found substitutes, often better, but not always. All Rootsweb WorldConnect databases had changed addresses (31), not counting the ones that had beendeleted. One well-documented database had changed all its ID#s, and because my template points directly to an individual, I had to redo about 600 people. :( Most of the above research had been done prior to 2005. An extremely fine German database of people also had renumbered its people and hundreds had to be re-done. :( I also checked other online record categories for about 504 sources. FamilySearch and Ancestry databases were mostly okay, but occasionally titles were dropped or names/addresses changed significantly. It was sometimes challenging to find what I needed to cite. Nearly all of my 1,502 Wikipedia sources had made minor web address changes, but usually redirected the searcher to the new correct page. However, about a dozen or so were for medieval women/men with only one name and, over time since I’d added them c2014, more people with similar names had been added. I was able to find all the appropriate web pages, but the casual viewer would’ve found it difficult. New information was found, especially in places on Wikipedia where I was able to push back 3-4 generations. All in all, it was a very worthwhile, if time-consuming process. Regards, Toby Turner

Michael J. Hannah wrote, in part: > Also since I am unsure whether this is a bug or a feature, > I will also add a descriptiion of this behaviour in my list > of outstanding bugs. Michael, In my opinion, it's a bug. When used as David described where he did not have the "<" and ">" characters surrounding text separated by "|", "|" is not documented to have special meaning except when "||" is used to separate parts. Also, I believe "<" and ">' do not have special meaning in memos, so I can't see how "|" could be used to separate the one-principal part from the two-principal part when "|" is used in a memo. Despite my opinion that the "|" behavior is a bug, I agree that there is ambiguity because the help doesn't always specify what is and isn't allowed. In Second Site and GedSite, the "< one-principal | two-principals >" construct is only valid in sentence templates, and "|" by itself has no special meaning in memo text. John

Richard Damon wrote: > It appears to me that using <[M]> enables the interpretation > of | as a conditional in the memo. Yes, Richard, that is right. With further testing it appears that when the Memo variable is within conditional markers, TMG recognizes the special meaning of a single vertical bar as its defined "Two Principals Separator" character. For details see its description in my book: https://www.mjh-nm.net/TAGSENTS.HTML#TwoPrinSeparator I don't know if this is a "feature" or a "bug" in TMG for the special meaning of that character to be recognized within the actual text of the conditional memo, but clearly TMG does recognize it as that. Since a tag in the Burial group can have two Principals, this meaning of that special character is recognized in a tag in that group. Once I do further testing I will update the description of this separator in my book to mention this TMG behaviour. Also since I am unsure whether this is a bug or a feature, I will also add a descriptiion of this behaviour in my list of outstanding bugs. Michael

On 7/30/2019 10:50 PM, Donald Range wrote: > Jim, > > Not Terry, but could you and Terry be talking about different lists? > The Picklist does not allow multiple people to be selected. The > Edit/Delete Person(s) tool offers the ability to choose people from > the Project Explorer or the Current Focus Group. Both of those lists > do allow multiple people to be selected with the Ctrl or Shift keys. Thanks, Donald. It didn't occur to me that was the problem. I seldom use the PE either, Jim, but there are some tasks it's uniquely suited for, like this one. I know some users find it very useful, but I was very familiar with the Picklist when the PE was introduced and never made the transition. Terry

Don, you nailed the problem. Terry's instructions said to use the Project Explorer and I was trying to use the Pick list. I just tried it with PE and looks like that will work just great. I just did not pay close enough attention to the instructions. I use the Pick list for everything and forget about PE. Thanks for solving that problem. Jim On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:50 PM Donald Range <[email protected]> wrote: > Jim, > > Not Terry, but could you and Terry be talking about different lists? The > Picklist does not allow multiple people to be selected. The Edit/Delete > Person(s) tool offers the ability to choose people from the Project > Explorer or the Current Focus Group. Both of those lists do allow > multiple people to be selected with the Ctrl or Shift keys. > > On 7/30/2019 6:13 PM, Jim Slade wrote: > > Terry, that is exact procedure that I tried, selecting first person, > scroll > > to end, hold Shift and click last person. BUT - Only the one last person > > is selected. What is wrong? > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

Jim, Not Terry, but could you and Terry be talking about different lists? The Picklist does not allow multiple people to be selected. The Edit/Delete Person(s) tool offers the ability to choose people from the Project Explorer or the Current Focus Group. Both of those lists do allow multiple people to be selected with the Ctrl or Shift keys. On 7/30/2019 6:13 PM, Jim Slade wrote: > Terry, that is exact procedure that I tried, selecting first person, scroll > to end, hold Shift and click last person. BUT - Only the one last person > is selected. What is wrong?

Terry, that is exact procedure that I tried, selecting first person, scroll to end, hold Shift and click last person. BUT - Only the one last person is selected. What is wrong? On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:40 PM Terry Reigel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/30/2019 7:26 PM, Jim Slade wrote: > > Terry, > > I need your help again. > > I am trying to use your method of deleting a group of people from my main > > dataset. As you suggested, I used the Delete Flag to filter the 160 > people > > that I want to delete. I have not been able to find how to select > everyone > > in the filtered picklist so that I can delete them. It seems I can only > > select one person at a time. I tried using both Ctrl & Shft keys when > > selecting people, even tried Ctl+A, but it would not select anyone. > What > > am I doing incorrectly, or not doing? Jim > > Jim, > > The method I use is to select the first, or last, person on the list, > the scroll to the other end of the list and hold Shift while clicking > the person on the other end of the list. > > Ctrl-A should work according to Windows rules, but it's reserved for > opening Accents. > > Terry > > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >

On 7/30/2019 7:26 PM, Jim Slade wrote: > Terry, > I need your help again. > I am trying to use your method of deleting a group of people from my main > dataset. As you suggested, I used the Delete Flag to filter the 160 people > that I want to delete. I have not been able to find how to select everyone > in the filtered picklist so that I can delete them. It seems I can only > select one person at a time. I tried using both Ctrl & Shft keys when > selecting people, even tried Ctl+A, but it would not select anyone. What > am I doing incorrectly, or not doing? Jim Jim, The method I use is to select the first, or last, person on the list, the scroll to the other end of the list and hold Shift while clicking the person on the other end of the list. Ctrl-A should work according to Windows rules, but it's reserved for opening Accents. Terry

Terry, I need your help again. I am trying to use your method of deleting a group of people from my main dataset. As you suggested, I used the Delete Flag to filter the 160 people that I want to delete. I have not been able to find how to select everyone in the filtered picklist so that I can delete them. It seems I can only select one person at a time. I tried using both Ctrl & Shft keys when selecting people, even tried Ctl+A, but it would not select anyone. What am I doing incorrectly, or not doing? Jim On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:58 PM Jim Slade <[email protected]> wrote: > Terry, thanks for the suggestion. I had not thought of doing it that way, > and did not realize that creating a new dataset or project would renumber > everything. Sure prefer not to do that. > > Previously, when either copying or moving people from one dataset to > another, I have had difficulting with TMG hanging at about 72% and then > would have to abort and use Task Mgr to close TMG. Don't know what causes > it, but it happens about 50% of the times when I try to copy or move > people. Makes me hesitant, but I can try to copy them and then delete > from main Project if it copies them all OK. > > I'll give it a try once again. > > Jim > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:13 PM Terry Reigel <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 7/27/2019 12:39 PM, Jim Slade wrote: >> > I have a Project from which I would like to remove about 150 people. >> That >> > is too many to delete individually, but I know that it can be done by >> > setting a Delete Flag and then create a New Project including everyone >> > whose Delete Flag is not equal Y. >> > >> > My question is: >> > Would it be just as efficient to use the same method, but just create a >> New >> > DataSet rather than a New Project? >> > Is there any downside to deleting by creating the DataSet rather than a >> > Project? >> >> >> Jim, >> >> I'd use a new Data Set, but go about it a bit differently. >> >> - Create a new empty Data Set. >> >> - Use the Delete Flag with a filter in the Project Explorer and Select >> everyone. >> >> - Use the Move People command (Edit menu) to move the 150 people to the >> new Data Set. >> >> - Delete that Data Set. >> >> I don't know of a downside to doing it that way. >> >> I believe that creating either a new Project or a new Data Set for the >> "keepers" will renumber everything -- ID #s, Source #s, etc. which I'd >> not want to do. >> >> Terry Reigel >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref >> Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] >> Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: >> https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 >> Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog >> RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb >> community >> >

Hi listers, The Southern California TMG users group will meet Sat August 3, 2019 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. at the SCGS Library. 417 Irving Drive Burbank, CA Everyone is welcome -- Patt Ricketts www.jackandpatt.com