That's what I thought too, Rick. I tried it but it doesn't seem to be working. But it's been a long day and I may have goofed somewhere along the line. It would also miss those cases where I actually want the L2 [Detail] field shown. (unless things are done differently just for the place index) John Cordes On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:47:53PM -0700, Rick Van Dusen via wrote: > John, if I'm understanding this correctly, John Cordes' problem can be > handled in SS by limiting the index to L3, L4, L5, and L6, say? He'd be > able to "hide" his Detail field entries so SS would see the place > without Detail as the same as the same place with a Detail? > > Rick Van Dusen > > On 9/7/2015 4:28 PM, John Cardinal via wrote: > : > : > : > > The "Full, then Short" option in SS applies to a single place record in the > > TMG database. If there are two place records with the same (or similar) > > data, but still recorded in two TMG place records, then the "Full, then > > Short" applies to each place record separately. If both places are used in > > tags for a single person, both full places will appear in the person entry. > > > > For the Master Place Index in SS, SS collapses all places that have the same > > values in the place levels that appear in the index. So, if the index is > > limited to L2, L3, L4, and L6, then _all_ TMG places records that have the > > same set of values in L2, L3, L4, and L6 will be collapsed into a single > > entry in the master place index. > > > > If I understand how you are using place records, then I think the SS master > > place index would not be adversely affected by the way you record places. > > > > John