Checkbox can contain just YES - it's either YES or not
Summary Field of Checkbox can be a Count -CheckboxCount
Summary fields work with a found set, but only create the Count when Previewed.
A calculation field would work, but you would need to set up a separate relationship for each Product. If you need monthlys, then for each Product-Month combination.
A scripted series of finds might be your best bet. The actual script will vary depending on whether each record has a quantity sold or is always one; how you want the report to look; and how many products there are. But basically create a global, gReport and a Script that is a Loop, finding each relevant Product & Month combination and Set Field gReport as you go.
Thank you. I learned a few thinkgs fooling around with this idea.
Drawback seems that I would need a counter for each of the checkboxes, and therefore a report summary for each of the checkboxes.
The script sounds easier and more flexible to me...
But thanks for expanding my horizons!
If you create a table (which can be populated from your existing data with an import records operation), that has one record for each city, you can base a report layout on that table to get one row for each city and then filtered one row portals can show a total count of Jobseeker, Employer, and Donor contacts. This approach allows you to count the same contact twice if they are both Employer and Donor, for example. The portal filter can screen out the records that are not "yes" for that category and a "count of" summary field in contacts can be placed in the portal row to show the correct count.
In FileMaker 12, these same totals can also be produced via the Execute SQL function.
I was walking the dog today and came up with what is probably the best answer: an additional table containing the type of contact realted to the Contact table.
Then there are entries in the Type table for each type that a contact coule be.
The I think I can just use standard summary and sub-summary reports.
And of course it is (finally) proper relational structure. I am getting too old... :)