RM’s Advanced Search appears not to be able to find people with private facts. I had need of doing so recently, and I had to do it with SQLite. It would be a nice feature to have. RM 11.0.4.0 for Windows, 32 bit
1 Like
Confirming request has been reported to development.
The Fact List report will find people with private facts.
1 Like
This should be a simple fix – added a checkbox option to include Private Facts (like Match case for example). You might want to find ONLY private facts , or regardless
Ah, but only one fact type at a time and only if you know the fact type.
I stumbled across one by accident. I found two more with SQLite. This was out of about 110,000 facts in my database. None of them were set private intentionally.
They were for three different fact types. They likely were all caused by finger checks on my part in the distant past rather than by any problem in RM itself.
You must be talking about something other than:
Publish>Fact List>List Type>Private Facts>Include>Everyone>Print Private Facts>Generate
Aha! I was doing it from the Fact Type List rather than from Publish. But that doesn’t change anything. It works exactly the same either way. All I saw was a user interface where you had to select on a particular fact type. But what I hadn’t noticed was that for this particular report there are “people” List Types and there are “non-people” List Types.
The only List Types I had ever used were the “people” lists types, and all of those force you to pick one particular fact type. So that was my mental model of how it works. I didn’t realize that for any of the “non-people” List Types such as for private facts that it would list all fact types. It works great, and I didn’t need to use SQLite after all. I don’t know if the fault here is on me or if it’s on the user interface. Let’s just say for the sake of the argument that the fault is on me.
Even so, I think it would be a good idea to be able to search for private facts from Advanced Search.
I was just looking at the “people” options for List Type again. For “People with a fact type” or “People missing a fact type”, it really makes no sense to run such a report over all fact types. But for “People w/ more than one”, it might sometimes make sense to run the report across all fact types. Most of the time, you would want to run it across a particular fact type, but I could see wanting to run it across all fact types on rare occasion.
Much thanks. Mea culpa, and you learn something new every day.
1 Like
I agree completely. Additionally, it been shown in this forum many times that feedback about usage of the various program elements by users is very revealing about shortcomings and straight-up flaws. Your post had me using these report options for the very first time AND I even came away with a sideline observation that:
IMHO …RM’s lists and reports ~should~ ~default~ to Fit To Width. I base my reasoning on the fact that the little preview window is already defaulted to a fully zoomed-out sheet “view” and the document window at full-width is the better for viewing (more readable) than any reduced size that it currents defaults to.
I never actually use the preview window for viewing RM’s reports. I always save immediately to PDF and view from there. RM causes the PDF file to open in my default PDF viewer. I use the same unimaginative file name over and over again, namely, t.pdf. Works great for me. A PDF viewer is typically a much better viewer than is RM’s report viewer. I’m a sample size of one and your mileage may vary.
2 Likes
yes agreed!
I am sure many people have some accidental private set that they would like to be aware of or fix