silverfox,
I think her gripe is that the new "web links" feature added to FTM was a job half done. (I think they only put it in there for sync compatibility with Ancestry.com that's had a field for URLs as long as I can remember.) In FTM they added the capability to citations *and* people (it's only available for citations on AMT), but they didn't make the *corresponding* additions to filters or reports. This is a legitimate concern for users because FTM (unlike say TMG) only presents many aggregated data through reports. If you can't aggregate it, how effectively can you manage it?
I don't plan to use the feature myself, nor do I see myself using the enhancements she's described in her opening post. I see some intrinsic value, nevertheless, in the web links feature (source citation sync compatibility being foremost for me) and don't think it should be removed in favor of using custom facts for which filters and reports have already been configured. The latter ought simply to be set up for this new feature. And this shouldn't have to be the sort of thing we request either. That ought to be the standard implementation--especially in a program that only exposes some forms of aggregated data through reports.
And there you have my cinquantamila lire. :)
I think her gripe is that the new "web links" feature added to FTM was a job half done. (I think they only put it in there for sync compatibility with Ancestry.com that's had a field for URLs as long as I can remember.) In FTM they added the capability to citations *and* people (it's only available for citations on AMT), but they didn't make the *corresponding* additions to filters or reports. This is a legitimate concern for users because FTM (unlike say TMG) only presents many aggregated data through reports. If you can't aggregate it, how effectively can you manage it?
I don't plan to use the feature myself, nor do I see myself using the enhancements she's described in her opening post. I see some intrinsic value, nevertheless, in the web links feature (source citation sync compatibility being foremost for me) and don't think it should be removed in favor of using custom facts for which filters and reports have already been configured. The latter ought simply to be set up for this new feature. And this shouldn't have to be the sort of thing we request either. That ought to be the standard implementation--especially in a program that only exposes some forms of aggregated data through reports.
And there you have my cinquantamila lire. :)