The “Find everywhere” search shows me that the term “midwife” has gotten mixed in with a Place name, so it’s categorized as “Place”.
BUT I can’t find any way within RM to trace this usage to a Person so I can fix it. The “Places” list provides no links.
Advanced Person Search is restricted to Fields, each of which has subfields like Date, Place etc, Attempting the most obvious of these such as “Occupation | Description | Contains | midwife” and “Occupation | Place | Contains | midwife” finds nothing. There are countless Field+Subfield combos I’d have to individually search which is out of the question.
AND there is no blanket “Find term in any Field”, which would probably be like “Find everywhere” but might tell me the Person involved.
A similar thread here asks about finding the Person who has Sweden in their record. From those responses it seems that RootsMagic simply can’t do it. The very clumsy workaround is to export my tree to a Gedcom file and search that in a text editor.
If you look in the Place list, does midwife show up? You said midwife has no links, which if it is in the place list, is very possible. It is just an unused place and can simply be deleted.
In Places, even though I looked around for further links, I didn’t notice “Used” in the related Edit Place panel. That brings it up.
In Search | Advanced Search | etc | Criteria I didn’t see “Any fact” because (this is an inherited database) there are so many fields that it’s lost in the list - even though, as noted, I was looking for something like it. It would be much better if “Any fact” was pinned to the top of the list as is standard practice. Maybe I’ll suggest that.
I think the problem goes even deeper than that. For example, suppose you know you are searching for birth. You can type B to get to the B’s but then if you type I go get to the BI’s it takes you to the I’s. After typing the first letter, the only thing you can do is scroll. The user interface for setting up a search needs a search box.
And in fairness, it’s a bit more complicated than just needing a list of fact types. For example, there are criteria such as Number of sets of Parents and Color, neither of which are fact types. In fact, there are quite a few of the criteria that are not fact types. So a search box would need to include everything that can be a criterion.
But I agree that it would be helpful to have Any Fact pinned to the top of the list.