From: Ron J. <ron...@co...> - 2012-09-18 12:40:53
|
On 09/18/2012 02:15 AM, Benny Malengier wrote: > 2012/9/17 Craig J. Anderson <and...@ho...> > >> I too am in the same boat. I currently have five trees that I >> manage/use. >> . My father made two, one for each grandmother so those can be merged >> . I made one for my wife's family >> . I have copies of two others research that can not be merged as >> they contain the original >> . There is another genealogy database I am trying to get my hands on too >> that can not be merged. >> >> So I have trees that can not be merged, but I would LOVE to have a new >> feature: The pointer person. >> >> Basically it is a holding spot for a person in another database. The two >> databases can be seen like they are one and if you move from my family to >> my wife's family (though our marriage), you would also move into the >> another database. >> >> Just a thought. >> > > I don't fully see the point of this. If it works as if it is one tree, then > why not one tree with the option of hiding a part? > > Would the option of importing with a tag set on all imported things not > help? And then allow default filter on tag? > If all objects are tagged, you could see only the part of one tree, or the > other tree. I think some people are using tags for this already. > The ability to quickly set a tab (hot key) needs to exist (or be more obvious), as does the ability to tag multiple people at the same time. Filtering system (plus my understanding of it) needs... work. Some points: (1) Creating a new filter by pressing an Edit button is counterintuitive in the least. (2) Deleting a filter doesn't seem possible. (3) Big problem is the meaning of "Related To". See the recent "Inconsistent relationship computation?" thread. How do I filter "everyone on my father's side, including spouses and spouses' relatives plus step-families, half-families (plus their whole trees) even when the half- relationships happened in the past"? IOW, everyone remotely related to A, but not A's spouse. (4) Related to the previous point is that there needs to be a "plus spouses and their families" qualifier. (5) A "NOT" qualifier for each rule. Maybe all these points are me just not understanding it well enough. -- If adults of legally sound mind must be told what foods they are not allowed to buy, then those people are not competent to choose (i.e. vote for) their own leaders. |