There appears to be an issue with the endnote processing in RM10. I am an extreme splitter. All the data for my sources in the source data, not in the citation data. When I run a narrative report in RM7, all the endnotes use the full footnote as expected. In RM10, many of the endnotes are using the short footnote or Ibid. These endnotes are for completely different sources, although they are similar in that they are references to the same book or different obituaries from the same newspaper.
RM10 can’t just be looking for the same source and/or citation. It either appears to be looking at certain fields in the source or using some other logic to determine what it thinks are additional references to the same source.
I know I could fix this by making my footnote and short footnote the same, but this shouldn’t be necessary.
These two images show the difference in the endnotes between RM7 and RM10.
Here is a sample source:
Have you enabled the Reuse endnote numbers option and disabled the Use “Ibid.” in duplicates option when you run your reports in RM10? I don’t think it’s actually necessary to disable Ibid. but it is certainly necessary to enable the reuse of endnote numbers.
Have you run the Sources > Merge all duplicate citations tool in RM10? The Reuse endnote numbers option will not work correctly in RM10 unless you first merge all duplicate citations.
RM7 identified duplicate citations when producing reports by comparing the text of the endnotes. RM10 identifies duplicate citations when producing reports by checking to see if citations have been reused. This is the logic that’s different in RM10 that’s very likely to be causing your problem. If you don’t reuse citations, you will get duplicate endnotes no matter what.
All that being said, I can’t quite explain all of your symptoms - like why you are getting the wrong short endnotes. It seems to me that if you are using endnotes correctly and using the reuse endnote numbers option, there will never be any short endnotes. So if there are never any short endnotes, then there can never be any wrong short endnotes.
I’m an extreme source splitter and I always use endnotes rather than footnotes. As a result, my short footnote definitions never come into play.
A cautionary note is that the Sources > Merge all duplicate citations tool does not take media links and Web links into account, and it merges citations that differ only in their media links or their Web links. In my opinion, this is either a programming bug or a design flaw. For the most part it shouldn’t matter because most citations that differ in their media links or their Web tags will also differ in their text. But for users who bring citations into RM via TreeShare, some Ancestry collections are indexed in such a way that the generated citations differ only in their media links or their Web tags. In this situation, running the Sources > Merge all duplicate citations tool has pretty disastrous results.
Yes, I merged all duplicate citations and selected reuse endnote numbers. I also tried disabling Ibid. I’m getting the same number of endnotes in RM10 and RM7, it’s just that for some reason RM10 is using the short footnote for some of these. If you look at the sample page, it seemed like the first short footnote occurred when another source from “Volume 12” was used (endnotes 3 and 4).
Jerry, I believe you’ve said previously that in your extremely split sources you set the short footnote sentence the same as the footnote sentence. I wonder if they weren’t the same, would you see some short footnotes in your endnotes in RM10?
I changed one of my source templates that I use heavily so that the short footnote sentence is different than my regular footnote sentence. It made no difference in my reports. The endnotes were all correct and the short footnote sentence was never used.
My suggestion is that you open a trouble ticket with the RM HelpDesk and submit your database for analysis.
1 Like
After some experimentation, I believe I see what is happening. It looks like the report generator is looking at the bibliography sentence to determine if citations are to the same “source”. When I added [ItemOfInterest] or [IssueDate] to the bibliography sentences for my book and newspaper source templates, full footnotes were generated in the report.
I guess this could be a good thing, but I’ll have to revisit my source templates to make sure my short footnotes and bibliography sentences include the desired data. It also appears that the bibliography only includes one entry for sources that have the same bibliography sentences, which means no more duplicated bibliography entries for us extreme splitters.
