TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-09 > 0999399002


From: Richard Brogger <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Step children
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 21:50:02 -0500
References: <MPBBIHKABPIFJBGOECLHCEPNDEAA.guitarman@surfbest.net><4.2.0.58.20010901174915.0487be90@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><4.2.0.58.20010901202608.0487ad60@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com>


Bob Velke wrote:
>
> Richard said:
>
> >I don't think the flaw is allowing the user to have enough control.
> >The flaw is that it is too easy to put the right tag on a
> >relationship and have it treated as a biological relationship when
> >it is not biological. Primary or not, a stepfather is not an
> >ancestor. If someone wants to pretend otherwise, make them work to
> >do it.
>
> Dennis hasn't said how the parent came to be primary, whether he made it so
> deliberately (but didn't know how to comment it) or even whether he wants
> those people in the report.

Dennis wrote:
> Do I just need to manually exclude these step kids from printing if I want
> to have step-child tags under Doug?

I took that to mean he did not want them printing.

As to how the step parent became primary is irrelevant to me. The
fact is that Dennis printed a report and by accident listed Doug's
step children as though they were biological children. Luckily,
Dennis knew his data well enough to catch the error. Had it been in
a less familiar part of his family, would he have caught it?

> You seem to know the answers to those
> questions but I don't so that's not what I responded to. I responded to
> him about how to control it, whatever his objective might be. Then I
> responded to this which you said:
>
> >Since your report looks like any other Descendants Journal Narrative and
> >contains
> >non-biological relationships there is, IMO, a major flaw in TMG.
>
> If merely having this result (regardless of the process Dennis might have
> gone through) indicates to you that TMG has a major flaw, then it will
> always have it because the alternative is to prevent users from doing what
> many have said that they *want* to do.

I do not think that allowing users to do what they want to do is the
same as doing something by accident.

> If users couldn't record a
> step-father as a step-father but also make him primary then some would
> record that step-father as a Father-Nat in order to get the results that
> they want. As a researcher, I don't think that's better.

The report that Dennis printed made the children appear as Doug's
natural children regardless of the fact that Dennis had entered them
in TMG as Step Children. Had he listed Doug as Father-Nat the
report would have read the same. A report that is wrong is wrong
whether produced by accident or intent. Those who want a wrong
report can not be stopped and I don't think TMG should try. For
someone like Dennis who wants it right, TMG should not let him do it
by accident or due to lack of knowledge.

> Whether the process to record a step-father "properly" (however you define
> that) is too easy or too hard for individual researchers is not an issue
> which we will resolve here. I responded to what seems like an opinion that
> the the user's *ability* to generate a certain kind of report is a
> flaw. (That plus the fact that you misrepresented my opinion and gave
> Dennis inappropriate advice to solve his problem).
> -Bob

It is not the ability to generate a certain kind of report that
upsets me. It is generating the wrong kind of report due to lack of
knowledge. If something fails due to lack of knowledge, let it fail
to a factual report. If that forces those who want other
relationships reported as biological relationships to go through a
maze to get those results, good.

Dennis also asked, "Does TMG not distinguish between children and
step-children?"
I failed to respond but I would have said No. The difference
between a Child-Nat and a Child-Step is the tag in Person View.

He also asked, "Why are these step kids listed as descendants of our
ancestor when there is no blood relationship?

I did not fail to answer that one. I didn't know the answer and
still don't. You may consider not making the Father-Step primary is
the answer, I don't. I have no doubt that a better way can be
found. If Doug is the person who supports those children, it is
only natural to consider him as the primary father. When I select a
man as the primary father it is because I want him to appear at the
bottom of the Person View with the primary mother. If by doing so I
will have step children appearing in charts and reports as
biological children, I consider that a flaw. A man's role in a
family has nothing to do with genes or genealogy and users do not
always think in just genetic relationships. Sociological
relationships are still relationships and, IMO, should be included
when representing a family but never by accident without any clue
that it is happening.

Richard Brogger

This thread: