TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2008-06 > 1214233655


From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Unknowns
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:07:35 -0400
References: <200806231427.m5NERL5h029216@mail.rootsweb.com><2008623104719.014861@Terry3>
In-Reply-To: <2008623104719.014861@Terry3>


Terry Reigel wrote:
>I agree, there is not necessarily a need to maintain customization
>across data sets, unless one intends to copy people from one to the
>other. But that was the premise of this whole discussion I thought -
>keeping unknown people in a separate data set until they are found
>to connect and then copying them to the main data set. If one does
>that, and doesn't keep the customizations updated in each data set
>the data copied is likely to not read as intended.

It depends on the degree of customization. When I find "unknowns"
and "unrelateds," they are usually persons or (small) groups with
very little information. An example would be a person or family in a
census and I can't connect them to any of my families at the
time. While _some_ users would have a great deal of customization
whereby the data to be entered in this case should be entered in a
data set that is maintained with all the customizations. For the
most part, from what I have seen here, that would not apply. For
myself, that would not apply.

On the other hand, I can see that I _could_ come up with
customization that might cause differences between data sets. But, I
doubt that I would have that many customizations that would make that
great a difference. Others may, but I don't know that many
would. Still, _any_ customizations should be considered depending on
how the user plans to use TMG.


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)


This thread: