TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-03 > 0983482800


From: "Cheri Casper" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] FILTER problem
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 13:40:00 -0800
References: <46.11270696.27cc58f5@cs.com><3A9BE6A8.628A0A3D@bellatlantic.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010228120027.02fbb770@127.0.0.1> <001c01c0a278$db2b5800$25fc5ecf@casper> <000901c0a288$2c582500$a5555041@hppav900>


Perhaps but since Trent Eyler felt it imperative to be publically mean
spirited I will withdraw any further comments on this issue (even though it
IS an issue). I have only expressed my opinions as a *very* frustrated user
(to the point where I have even considered going to UFT even though it is no
longer in development) while it appears that there are many on this list who
have some sort of vested interests in TMG and/or WG and can't (or better,
won't) see any shortcomings unless, of course, it is something they are
personally interested in.



----- Original Message -----
From: William Roberts <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [TMG] FILTER problem


> Cheri
>
> You mention that sort dates are used to keep data in order in narrative
reports.
>
> Well I have noticed that the birth, marriage, residence tags etc. in
narrative
> reports are grouped together in the opening sentence and the children are
> grouped together in a later area of the output. This has nothing to do
with the
> dates, it is the output format that is selected by the program in order to
make
> an orderly output.
>
> I believe what you are referring to is the presentation on the individual
screen
> rather that the printed output unless you are using the individual detail
> report.
>
> Myrnice
>
> snip...
>
> > Now if I have Ben Franklin with a data of birth, a spouse but no
marriage
> > date, a date of death, and 6 kids who have no known birth dates, it
seems
> > most logical to me to have the data appear on Ben Franklin's person view
as
> > follows:
> >
> > Birth
> > Marriage (needs a sort date to correctly place)
> > Kid1
> > Kid2
> > Kid3 (needs sort dates place)
> > Kid4
> > Kid5
> > Kid 6
> > Death
> >
> > Elsewise I end up with all of these events out of sequence. I presently
> > have the option to select the undated events to appear en masse at the
top,
> > at the bottom, or not at all. Since you cannot create a sort date for a
> > relationship tag (unfortunate) you must have an empty birth tag for the
> > children holding only a sort date to place them correctly into the
history
> > of their family. While a scramble of occurrences may appeal to some, to
> > many it would seem as odd as studying about the Depression before
studying
> > about Hannibal. Without sort dates for events for which you have no
actual
> > dates (but perhaps a tidbit of information . . . a name, place, etc.),
how
> > can you get narrative reports to generate with the information in
sequential
> > order? Don't you find it easier to look at a person view, see all of
the
> > events in order, and doesn't it then become much more obvious what is
> > missing or askew and where you need to dig deeper than trying to make
sense
> > out of a hodge podge of information randomly placed on a page? Or
perhaps
> > some of you just don't care as long as you have the stuff down in the
> > computer. I find it curious that those who protest the loudest for
surety
> > values don't seem to mind that their information is out of sequential
order.
> >
> > It would seem to me that there are several resolutions to the issue.
The
> > only currently available (unless you wish random information) is to use
sort
> > dates which means -- in many instances -- creating empty tags with sort
> > dates. One potential solution would be to add sort dates to
relationship
> > tags that are independent of a birth tag for one of the principals,
e.g.,
> > being able to add a sort date to a Dau-XXX or Son-XXX tag that does not
> > require an empty birth tag for that Dau or Son holding a sort date only.
> > Other alternatives would be to use some sort of other method to position
> > information in sequential order, i.e., drag and drop, move up-move down.
> > Yet another solution would be to not have the children appear in the
events
> > list at all but in a separate location of their own (similar to FTM
where
> > all children appear at the bottom of the page in a separate section);
this
> > idea does not appeal to me.
> >
> > No one seems reluctant to use sort dates for other tags which have no
dates
> > (i.e., occupation, etc.) as long as they have data. Yet they are merely
> > using those dates to get a sequential appearance. Why, then, the
hesitation
> > to use birth tags (or death tags) that hold no information other than a
sort
> > date in order to accomplish the same sequential appearance? Using sort
> > dates to accomplish some sort of logical presentation of your events is
the
> > most bulky of the ways in which this can be accomplished and one which
> > affects not only the person view on which you are working but additional
> > generations as well. And, it appears, one that too many are far to
willing
> > to accept for fear of being critical of TMG or angering Bob Velke.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Allen Mellen <>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 9:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: [TMG] FILTER problem
> >
> >
> > > Cheri Casper wrote:
> > > >But don't you need empty birth tags and death tags to hold the "sort
> > date"
> > > >information in order to get properly sequenced events?
> > >
> > > Huh? Why do you need to sequence an empty event?
> > >
> > > >This is my entire point about the use of sort dates and the need for
an
> > > >easier way to order event tags.
> > >
> > > Aren't you confusing a "want" with a "need?"
> > >
> > > Allen
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

This thread: