TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2007-04 > 1175971335


From: "Teresa Elliott" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Narrative Reports and Second Site
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:49:05 -0500
References: <040720070211.22343.4616FDD500088AAC0000574722064244139D019B0E0207039D0A90A10A089B@comcast.net> <000101c778bc$3d405700$4800000a@jfc> <000001c778c0$777dde20$6901a8c0@Computer1> <4617A1A8.8030304@sprynet.com> <000001c7791e$8df211e0$a9d635a0$@net><20070407183439.NFTW2463.ibm66aec.bellsouth.net@Lee.acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070407183439.NFTW2463.ibm66aec.bellsouth.net@Lee.acm.org>


Lee,

I agree with you on this. I usually will create the site for one ancestor
and his descendants. Then I will start my editing in TMG. I will work on
several tags before I run another version of SS. Once you get a hang on how
sentence structure works, you don't have to run reports quite as often to
see the results, though at times I admit to being surprised by the results I
get.
But once I have the will tag set up the way I want, it reads fine for all my
ancestors. I guess it helps that I am a perfectionist, and am very
consistent in how data is entered to begin with.

Teresa Ghee Elliott
--http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~rutherfordcemetery/
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of Lee Hoffman
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] Narrative Reports and Second Site

Teresa Elliott wrote:
>But I will second and third the use of SS for narrative cleanup. And once
>you have a tag reading correctly for one person, it almost always looks
good
>for everyone else.

For many users of TMG and Second Site (SS), I have to disagree about
this with most everyone on this. At least I disagree based on my
perceived reading of the recommended process -- generate the site in
SS, edit in TMG, and then do it all over again. This certainly
works; but for many users (newly into Sentences), it is a very
inefficient process. You are forgetting that TMG needs to be closed
(or at least have a different project open) when SS is generating the
site. Most users that are not familiar with Sentences will tend to
work one Tag at a time and they will want to check their progress
often -- even if they have many Tags to edit. This means that they
have to re-generate the site and then re-open TMG --- and back and
forth for as many times as is needed to effect all the changes. This
is for one person. Multiply this by the number of persons in the
project/site and the user probably will give up if they have a large
site/project (e.g., more than a few dozen)

I suggest that the user would get better results by:
1 - Generating the site in SS to see what needs to be done.
2.- Edit the needed Tags in TMG.
3 - Generate an Individual Narrative (IN) report in TMG.
4 - Review the IN report to see your progress.
5 - Continue with step 2 either for the same Tag and person
or the next person.
6 - When all persons have been edited, got back to step 1 again.

This reduces the number of times that the user needs to switch
programs. Yes, keep the generated site open in your browser as a
check. But depend on the IN (and other) TMG reports to quickly check
editing progress for Tags and persons.

While there are some differences between the IN reports and SS, they
are mostly minimal.

For some users with large projects and sites, the SS generation of
the site will require a few minutes of thumb-twiddling. And this is
in addition to closing and re-opening TMG or the project. Do this
often, and you will have spent a lot of time unnecessarily.


Lee Hoffman/KY
TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)


-------------------------------
For searching the list archives and other list information, please go to
http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html.
To contact the TMG List Administrator, send a message to
.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message


This thread: