I have many people who have gotten separated from their main tree. See screen shot below for an example.
I want to make one group with all the persons from trees with two persons. Then I can easier analyze and reconnect the persons to a larger tree.
Is there a way to make a group based on how many people are in a tree?
I’m using RootsMagic 11.
I can’t think of a way to make a group by tree count. I looks like you are scrolled down quit a ways in the list, so I’m assuming you have a lot of larger trees with more then 2 people.
In that case what I personally would do is print the list and save it once generated. Then reference it as I create the group. If you are making a Simple group select the start person for the tree and click on Mark, Everyone in highlighted person’s tree. If doing a Rules group select the Tree rule type. Then for each tree select a different person on count trees.
If you don’t have as many larger trees I would do it in reverse, by selecting everyone and use the option to remove those smaller trees.
Only way I can think of is to go to RIN # 23042 and make a Group with them in it.
Go to the next RIN and add them to that Group. Repeat till done.
unless you do something fancy with Sqlite –
what @MadDog suggest is probably best way to achieve what is needed although somewhat tedious.
Advanced now allows you to easily combine groups *with group and “AND”
first create each group as Jerry suggested then combine each/every group into its own group such as “CountTreesAllGroups”
By the way, for about ten seconds I thought I had a solution. Namely, do an Advanced search for people with 1 spouse, 0 parents, and 0 children. At first blush, it sounds like that would work. The problem is that such a person’s spouse could have parents, children, or other spouses so the little tree containing the person in Count Trees would have more than the desired 2 people.
Even as powerful as Advanced Search has now become, it can’t quite handle this particular search. What’s needed would be he ability to test the attributes of a person’s immediate relatives (spouses, parents, and children) in addition to being able to test the person’s own attributes which is now well supported with RM11’ s enhancement to Advanced Search.
Truly, this is an easy query in SQLite. But in the mean time, I wonder if it might be worth the trouble of making a group using my criteria. Then maybe it would be possible to display the group in the Index in the sidebar with the Family View in the main view. Then, scroll through the Index looking for people who are a part of a twosome.
I played around with that idea. It sort of works, but it’s far from perfect. There are far too many false positives where the person in the group has just the 1 spouse and no parents or children, but where the spouse is connected to other people.
I have two trees in my database. One is the main tree and the other are all these unconnected trees. I add them as children to a fake person ZZ, Unconnected Tree. Then I color code everyone in that tree tan so I can tell them apart. When I do find were the little trees fits I put them in their proper place in the main tree and then remove the link to the fake person. It would be very easy to make a group of everyone in that fake tree if you wanted to work from a list on them.
Thank you all for the suggestions. I’m not sure which way I’ll attack my problem, but you each have given me food for thought.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. 
Amelia
Are you sure that they were disconnected or are they people who were never connected in the first place? I have some 700 unconnected trees, but most came from individual surname studies or transcriptions. I had transcribed people from published genealogies that were not connected at the time I entered the informationn from the books. I solved some of these with FamilySearch matches. You might find some of them are actually duplicates of people already connected. That is where I would start with any one person trees.
@mscheffler Some were never connected, but many were. And yes, some are duplicates of other people in the database.
It’s just a mess that will take me a while to sort out.
