Legacy GED OUT fubar

[singhals]

When I GED out the "EVERYONE not living" from a Legacy
Database (free vers), I find it's omitting people.

The database shows a man, the woman he says is his wife, and
6 children. The GED shows the children as siblings, without
any parents.

I've painfully made certain the dead are showing as NOT
LIVING, and still ... some of them are missing from the GED.

What's up with that?

Thanks,

Cheryl

[Gene Y.]

Cheryl,
You may find a lot more help with that at
LegacyU...@LegacyUsers.com.
There are many experienced users there who can help and Legacy Support
checks in every day.

--

Gene Young
Researching Young, Harer, Cox & Sallada
With Legacy Family Tree
http://myyoungs.atspace.com/index.htm

[singhals]

Gene Y. wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 11:55 AM, singhals wrote:
>> When I GED out the "EVERYONE not living" from a Legacy Database (free
>> vers), I find it's omitting people.
>>
>> The database shows a man, the woman he says is his wife, and 6 children.
>> The GED shows the children as siblings, without any parents.
>>
>> I've painfully made certain the dead are showing as NOT LIVING, and
>> still ... some of them are missing from the GED.
>>
>> What's up with that?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Cheryl
> Cheryl,
> You may find a lot more help with that at
> LegacyU...@LegacyUsers.com.
> There are many experienced users there who can help and Legacy Support
> checks in every day.
>

Thanks, I'll try there too.

There are a fair number of Legacy users here too, and I was
hoping for something obvious ...

Cheryl

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:55:32 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
wrote:

I'm pretty obvious. But I don't distinguish between living and
non-living in reports so I have never tried what you did.

Hugh

[singhals]

Gene Y. wrote:
> On 11/18/2011 11:55 AM, singhals wrote:
>> When I GED out the "EVERYONE not living" from a Legacy Database (free
>> vers), I find it's omitting people.
>>
>> The database shows a man, the woman he says is his wife, and 6 children.
>> The GED shows the children as siblings, without any parents.
>>
>> I've painfully made certain the dead are showing as NOT LIVING, and
>> still ... some of them are missing from the GED.
>>
>> What's up with that?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Cheryl
> Cheryl,
> You may find a lot more help with that at
> LegacyU...@LegacyUsers.com.
> There are many experienced users there who can help and Legacy Support
> checks in every day.
>

Hmmm. Guess not. It bounced saying I didn't have
permission to post.

Cheryl

[Bob Melson]

On Saturday 19 November 2011 18:26, singhals (sing...@erols.com) opined:

Er, ah, ummm. Try: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/legacylists.asp

That seems to take you to where you can sign up for access to the various
Legacy groups. (I don't use legacy or I might've gone further)
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated
in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine

[ne...@jecarter.us]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:26:41 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
wrote:

It's an opt-in/opt-out list. You must sign up to receive the list
mailings before you can post.

It's a busy list and you may find the signal-to-noise ratio isn't
great except afer a software update. The day-to-day messages are
often from uber newbies who've obviously used neither the manual nor
the 'Help' function.

I usually opt-in when there's a software update, then opt-out when the
signal-to-noise ratio becomes intolerable again.

John

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Back when I had questions about Legacy I found the tech people willing
and able to respond, even on a personal basis. I hasten to say the
same for RootsMagic and TMG.

But I have purchased all three programs and Legacy and TMG used to be
on this newsgroup.

Hugh

[Jack]

"singhals" <sing...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2.132163...@rootsweb.com...

Hi!

There seems to be some "development/work-in-progress" , load newest versio
and try these settings:)

"Invisble people"
Click File > Export To > GEDCOM file.
Click the Privacy tab and set:
. Check mark Suppress Living & check mark change name to Living
. Check mark Suppress deceased Spouses of Living & check mark change name
to deceased
. Check mark Suppress deceased Children of Living & check mark change
name to deceased

DeLuxe version orders:
http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=1&Click=1192


-Jack-
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/InternationalLegacyVersions.asp
member of Legacy translation team, voluntary/hobby.
ICT specialist

[singhals]

Jack wrote:
>
> "singhals"<sing...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.2.132163...@rootsweb.com...
>> When I GED out the "EVERYONE not living" from a Legacy Database (free
>> vers), I find it's omitting people.
>>
>> The database shows a man, the woman he says is his wife, and 6 children.
>> The GED shows the children as siblings, without any parents.
>>
>> I've painfully made certain the dead are showing as NOT LIVING, and still
>> ... some of them are missing from the GED.
>>
>> What's up with that?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Cheryl
>
> Hi!
>
> There seems to be some "development/work-in-progress" , load newest versio
> and try these settings:)
>
> "Invisble people"
> Click File> Export To> GEDCOM file.
> Click the Privacy tab and set:

> . Check mark Suppress Living& check mark change name to Living
> . Check mark Suppress deceased Spouses of Living& check mark change name
> to deceased
> . Check mark Suppress deceased Children of Living& check mark change
> name to deceased

Mornin' Jack.

Thanks for the suggestion, but ...

The problem, from my angle, is that dead folks are being
excluded, not that live ones are being included.

My working hypothesis is -- A person whose youngest child
was born in 1822 is NOT LIVING. A person who married in
1793 is NOT LIVING.

Automated hypothesis is -- A person with no death-date is
LIVING.

I like my definition better?

And, anyway, I checked all those --every time I ran the
experiment.

Cheryl

[Mike Fry]

In article <a7pyq.8145$Ff3....@uutiset.elisa.fi>, no...@INVALIDmail.com
says...

> There seems to be some "development/work-in-progress" , load newest

> version and try these settings:)

>
> "Invisble people"
> Click File > Export To > GEDCOM file.
> Click the Privacy tab and set:
> . Check mark Suppress Living & check mark change name to Living
> . Check mark Suppress deceased Spouses of Living & check mark change name
> to deceased
> . Check mark Suppress deceased Children of Living & check mark change
> name to deceased

I see what you mean :-) Certainly the UI doesn't work as I would expect
it to. Two CheckBoxes behaving as though they were RadioButtons!

--
Regards,
Mike Fry
Johannesburg.

[Dennis]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:05:37 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com> wrote:

>My working hypothesis is -- A person whose youngest child
>was born in 1822 is NOT LIVING. A person who married in
>1793 is NOT LIVING.
>
>Automated hypothesis is -- A person with no death-date is
>LIVING.
>

What is the "Living?" field set to for the person who was born in 1822?
It sounds like it is set to "Yes" in your database.

I am pretty sure Legacy uses the "Living?" field to determine who is and
isn't living for the GEDCOM export. It doesn't use dates.

--

Dennis

[singhals]

It's set to NO.

[Dennis]

I'm out of guesses.

--

Dennis

[Gene Y.]

I don't recall if it is a Deluxe feature but you can try "Advanced set
living".

To use the Set Living feature:

1. From the Name List click the Options button and select Set Living
from the Options menu. The Advanced 'Set Living' window opens.

2. Select the group of individuals for whom the Living status will be
changed. These can be tagged individuals or individuals in a Search
List. (Tagged records might include, for example, an ancestral line
beginning with a deceased great grandmother who was born in 1876. It is
safe to assume that her ancestors are all deceased, regardless of any
missing information.)

4. Under Set Living to YES or NO, click either YES or NO. Set Living =
NO marks individuals as being dead. Set Living = YES marks individuals
as being alive.

5. Click the Apply button.

[Mike Fry]

In article <mailman.1.132188...@rootsweb.com>,
sing...@erols.com says...

> The problem, from my angle, is that dead folks are being
> excluded, not that live ones are being included.
>
> My working hypothesis is -- A person whose youngest child
> was born in 1822 is NOT LIVING. A person who married in
> 1793 is NOT LIVING.
>
> Automated hypothesis is -- A person with no death-date is
> LIVING.
>
> I like my definition better?

So do I!

Legacy has always had this (to me) weird default setting when adding a
new person to the database - that the person is living, regardless of
when they were born or married. It's weird, because in genealogy, we're
generally dealing in the main with ancestors, rather than the living.
Once I'd recognised that fact, I changed the setting so that all new
people were to be assumed dead, unless I said otherwise.

Recall, every individual has a Living flag. Legacy can calculate whether
the person is dead or not, from dates ascribed to an individual and from
settings. See the Presumed Dead section of the Data Entry panel, and the
Living Indicator Default setting on Data Defaults. This last is the one
that kills everyone as you enter them.

[Dennis]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:55:32 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com> wrote:

My last suggestion...

1) Export just this family to a new Legacy database.

2) Open that new database and try the GEDCOM export that failed earlier.

3) If the export still fails, change the names of all the people in this
small database (to satisfy your privacy concerns). Do not change any
dates as this might muck up the test.

4) Again try the export to see if it still fails.

5) Email me the small database (you should already have my address) and
I will look at it.

Also you might want to post your GEDCOM export settings here so we can
all see what boxes you have checked. If you already did this I must have
missed it.

--

Dennis

[singhals]

Dennis wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:17:16 -0500, singhals<sing...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:05:37 -0500, singhals<sing...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My working hypothesis is -- A person whose youngest child
>>>> was born in 1822 is NOT LIVING. A person who married in
>>>> 1793 is NOT LIVING.
>>>>
>>>> Automated hypothesis is -- A person with no death-date is
>>>> LIVING.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is the "Living?" field set to for the person who was born in 1822?
>>> It sounds like it is set to "Yes" in your database.
>>>
>>> I am pretty sure Legacy uses the "Living?" field to determine who is and
>>> isn't living for the GEDCOM export. It doesn't use dates.
>>>
>>
>> It's set to NO.
>
> I'm out of guesses.
>

I've found two things that /appear/ to work in the free version.

1) insert UNK in the cemetery name field. This apparently
deceases the person, regardless of his dates.

2) insert UNK in the date field of the marriage record.

By extrapolation (or is it interpolation?), it would make
sense for UNK in a death-date field would also decease that
person, but logic is little tweeting bird as someone famous
once pointed out. I haven't cared to test-drive that one.

What keeps nagging at me, though is -- since we can't
definitively figure out what the issue is here, how do I
know it hasn't happened before without my noticing? I
frequently use LEGACY as a data-entry platform for stuff
that I don't want in my real database(s), and export as a
GED to forward to people who DO want it. I wonder what
those people have actually gotten from those GEDs? And what
they think of my research !!

Frustrating.

Cheryl

[singhals]

Yeah, it's advanced. :( I've had the Deluxe vers on my
CHristmas list for 3 years now ...

[Bob LeChevalier]

singhals <sing...@erols.com> wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:17:16 -0500, singhals<sing...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dennis wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:05:37 -0500, singhals<sing...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My working hypothesis is -- A person whose youngest child
>>>>> was born in 1822 is NOT LIVING. A person who married in
>>>>> 1793 is NOT LIVING.
>>>>>
>>>>> Automated hypothesis is -- A person with no death-date is
>>>>> LIVING.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the "Living?" field set to for the person who was born in 1822?
>>>> It sounds like it is set to "Yes" in your database.
>>>>
>>>> I am pretty sure Legacy uses the "Living?" field to determine who is and
>>>> isn't living for the GEDCOM export. It doesn't use dates.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's set to NO.
>>
>> I'm out of guesses.
>>
>
>I've found two things that /appear/ to work in the free version.
>
>1) insert UNK in the cemetery name field. This apparently
>deceases the person, regardless of his dates.
>
>2) insert UNK in the date field of the marriage record.
>
>By extrapolation (or is it interpolation?), it would make
>sense for UNK in a death-date field would also decease that
>person, but logic is little tweeting bird as someone famous
>once pointed out. I haven't cared to test-drive that one.

Rather than inserting "UNK", which is meaningless to the program, why
not insert "before Dec 2011" in the death date, which is obviously
true for anyone who is dead, and is a valid date. If you have
previous selected (using the search function) all those born or
married before certain dates, and then both mark them globally as not
LIVING and having a death date before the present, that should work
without being a huge kloodge.

The advanced set living function, if you had it, can be used in a
different way than was described by others. On the Tools menu, there
is an Advanced Set Living command, which basically automatically sets
everyone dead over a certain age. The Options/Customize menu, on the
Data Entry tab, also allows you to set a maximum age, as well as a
date where it will ask you if the person is dead. On the Data
Defaults Tab, you can specify whether the default is living, dead, or
whatever the last person was. Whether you have any of these features
on the basic version, I cannot say.

>What keeps nagging at me, though is -- since we can't
>definitively figure out what the issue is here, how do I
>know it hasn't happened before without my noticing? I
>frequently use LEGACY as a data-entry platform for stuff
>that I don't want in my real database(s), and export as a
>GED to forward to people who DO want it. I wonder what
>those people have actually gotten from those GEDs?

I tend to save a copy of any GEDCOM I give a copy of to someone or put
on line, so that I can resolve later questions of this sort. If you
have an old GEDCOM you sent, you can just load it back up and look at
it.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

[Joe Makowiec]

On 21 Nov 2011 in soc.genealogy.computing, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Rather than inserting "UNK", which is meaningless to the program, why
> not insert "before Dec 2011" in the death date, which is obviously
> true for anyone who is dead, and is a valid date.

Because sooner or later that would get published, and somebody born in
c18 would be on the 'Net listed as dying in 2011. See another recent
thread titled 'Errors in Online Trees'.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

[Ian Goddard]

Joe Makowiec wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2011 in soc.genealogy.computing, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> Rather than inserting "UNK", which is meaningless to the program, why
>> not insert "before Dec 2011" in the death date, which is obviously
>> true for anyone who is dead, and is a valid date.
>
> Because sooner or later that would get published, and somebody born in
> c18 would be on the 'Net listed as dying in 2011. See another recent
> thread titled 'Errors in Online Trees'.
>

If someone insists on reading "before" as "in" there's not a lot that
can be done about that other than a brain transplant ;)

--
Ian

The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:07:43 -0500, singhals <sing...@erols.com>

For years I did a GED back and forth between Legacy and RM. I learned
the export/import was not precise.

Somehow as many as 6 AKAs were added to the Legacy file for several
thousand people - almost all were middle names that I had enclosed in
quotes. And sources for thousands of names were moved to "unassigned
source". It takes a long time to correct those problems. Hard lessons
learned are great teachers.


I wonder what else I haven't noticed!

Hugh

[Jack]

"singhals" <sing...@erols.com> wrote in message

news:mailman.8.132190...@rootsweb.com...

Yeah, talk to santa:)
It is only $29.95

DeLuxe version orders:
http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=1&Click=1192

Merry Chrismas and Happy new year

[Gene Y.]

On 11/21/2011 12:54 PM, Mike Fry wrote:
> In article<mailman.1.132188...@rootsweb.com>,
> sing...@erols.com says...
>
>> The problem, from my angle, is that dead folks are being
>> excluded, not that live ones are being included.
>>
>> My working hypothesis is -- A person whose youngest child
>> was born in 1822 is NOT LIVING. A person who married in
>> 1793 is NOT LIVING.
>>
>> Automated hypothesis is -- A person with no death-date is
>> LIVING.
>>
>> I like my definition better?
>
> So do I!
>
> Legacy has always had this (to me) weird default setting when adding a
> new person to the database - that the person is living, regardless of
> when they were born or married. It's weird, because in genealogy, we're
> generally dealing in the main with ancestors, rather than the living.
> Once I'd recognised that fact, I changed the setting so that all new
> people were to be assumed dead, unless I said otherwise.

You can set the ages to automatically mark persons as dead under;
Customize > Data Entry > Presumed Dead -
Ask if living if over (choose age)
Set as Dead if over (choose age).

I have mine set to 80 and 100 and it works OK for me.

[singhals]

Doesn't help. If there is no birthdate for the individual,
no presumed age can be calculated.

Cheryl

[Gene Y.]

I avoid that by putting in an estimate such as before 6/1/1850. There
is usually some relation you can use to indicate someone was born before
a date or between two dates. In those instances, that is what I enter
and work from there.

[DougVL]

This reminds me of a question I posted in a few places several months ago.

I was looking for a way to go thru my data, as a GED file, and mark people
over a certain age, like 100, as dead. Otherwise, without death dates, they
were being indicated as "Living" in online tree postings of my data. So
their names and other data were not shown.

Unfortunately I never found a way to do this. And it's actually a bit more
complicated because for some earlier ancestors I may have only a marriage
date and no birth or death dates. Since the person may be 11 or 12
generations before me, that's another way to determine that they're most
likely deceased.

I've seen utility programs that will 'privatize' data in GEDCOMs, and a
handy one for revising place names, but none for marking as dead.

Some family data I received as a GEDCOM from my brother in law had
explanatory text entries in some fields, like "date of death" in the field
where the death date should be. That confused my charting program and me,
because he and his children and grandchild were indicated as deceased! Took
me a while to figure out why. But that short of agrees with the suggested
solution of entering UNK in the death date field to mark a person as
deceased.

Does anyone know of a programmatic way to do that? I mean, to mark as dead
those who were born or married over a specifiable number of years ago, or
are of a generation more than a specifiable number of generations prior to a
specifiable subject person?

NOTE: I use PAF, although I do have the free version of Legacy, to generate
my GEDCOMs.

DougVL

"singhals" <sing...@erols.com> wrote in message

news:mailman.7.132190...@rootsweb.com...

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[Dennis]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:06:50 -0500, "DougVL" <swor...@netonecom.net>
wrote:

>I was looking for a way to go thru my data, as a GED file, and mark people
>over a certain age, like 100, as dead.

The deluxe version of Legacy has "Advanced Set Living", which will
attempt to do what you want.

--

Dennis

[singhals]

Before you can be "over 120" there has to be something to
subtract from, though.

Easiest in PAF is a focus list of everyone w/o a deathdate,
w/o deathplace, w/o burial info; display hits ONLY; edit
each inserting a period (dot . ) in the deathdate field,
save, next hit.

I used "bef 1999" on some dates, but the sort/display
reports frequently dropped the "bef" and I got things that
made me look seriously blonde -- born 1756 died 1999, so I
switched to .

Cheryl