Comments on: Family Tree Maker: Exploring the Index

By: Kathy Marie

Kathy Marie — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:46:10 +0000

33 Robert Klein

June 11, 2010 at 8:26 am

Why is it that I cannot show birth and death and marriage on the index at the same time?

Thanks
Bob Klein

Robert
You can see this if you use the F2 (Keyboard) short cut key -

By: Lynn

Lynn — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:38:08 +0000

#32 Deena

When I do not know a first or last name, I use “Unknown” (e.g., Unknown Smith, Anne Unknown). This approach might assist you to locate/order individuals in the FTM index.

For me, this approach helps to locate individuals in the index as well as assists me to quickly understand if I know the individuals’ first or last name. For example, if I solely listed “Lynn” I would have to review my FTM notes to understand if that was the individuals’ first or last name.

By: writer jobs

writer jobs — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:19:25 +0000

Great post! Thanks for sharing!

By: Robert Klein

Robert Klein — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:26:18 +0000

Why is it that I cannot show birth and death and marriage on the index at the same time?
Thanks
Bob Klein

By: Deena Coutant

Deena Coutant — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 23:10:52 +0000

Tana, I have another few questions related to how names display in the index: Because FTM does not have separate fields for entry of first name and last name, things can get a little weird with the sorting in the index when you only know the first name and are missing the last name of an individual. Instead of having a person with a blank surname rise to the top of the index, they are sorted alphabetically with the first name intermingled amongst other people’s surnames. For example, I may have a Jane in my tree whose maiden name I do not know. She would be alphabetized between James, Mary and Johnson, Walt. One option is for me to put Jane’s husband’s surname in parenthesis if it is known, i.e. Jane (Smith); however, this doesn’t work if there was no known husband or if his surname was also unknown, so in these cases I have put Jane . Similarly, if the last name is known but the first name isn’t, I have put where the first name should go. I really don’t like the way this looks on reports, but feel it is necessary to maintain consistency so that I will know which part of the name—first or last—is missing, especially in cases where the one known name could double for either a first or last name. What is your recommendation on best practice for displaying names in FTM 2010 when part of the name is unknown? Specifically related to both finding people easily in the index and having consistent, readable reports?

By: Deena Coutant

Deena Coutant — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:36:54 +0000

Tana, My question is related to Ron’s post #4 and your response #13. Like Ron, I wanted the index to show BOTH the maiden and married name for females. I tested your instructions to check the box to use the married name for females, and it does NOT produce the desired result. By checking the box, the index will ONLY display the married name, and not the maiden name, for all females, so this is not an acceptable option. The only other way I found to get both the maiden and married names to display, is to manually enter the married name in the AKA fact; however, with 1300+ people in my tree, that is not something I want to have to do manually. Are there any other ways to accomplish having both maiden & married names in the index – both in the tree view and also on printed custom reports for a name index? If this functionality is not currently available, then I would highly suggest it be included in future patches or updates!

By: Ann Victoria Paras

Ann Victoria Paras — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:43:02 +0000

I found this most helpful in that I am able to add marriage names to my females. Thank you for this tutoral.

By: Karis

Karis — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:35:17 +0000

Thank you both. I have seen the Paternity and Maternity on other trees and it meets a need for the level of documentation that would help in my particular situation. I could just keep it to myself, but I know others will need the same items for the same purpose. This is probably why some of the other trees have this also. Thanks again.

By: Lynn

Lynn — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:54:21 +0000

#23 Karis

A good source for standards is “Evidence Explained, Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace” by Elizabeth Shown Mills. Although the book does not directly address your above question (or at least I did not locate a specific reference), based upon your above question this may be a reference source you would value.

By: Karis

Karis — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:53:20 +0000

That was my thought also. Thanks Andy. If anyone else has something different, let me know. If I don’t hear different, I will forge ahead.