Jump to content


Photo

RootsMagic Notes, to FSFT Stories


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Don Strack

Don Strack

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:14 AM

Back in the mid 1990s, I built my genealogy database in PAF, using notes that are formatted using the guidance of the Silicon Valley PAF User Group.

In 2009, I changed to RootsMagic, but haven't done any new research in many, many years, choosing to wait until FamilySearch worked through its challenges with NFS and now FSFT. My database currently is about 1500 persons; basically, all my ancestors born since 1700, and I have *very few* persons for which I have used RM's source templates. And all of the information is still in the person's notes imported directly from PAF.

It now appears that FSFT is working pretty good, and I'm not really interested in publishing a family history, with all sorts of proper bibliographic formating, footnotes and source citations. This means that I simply want to use RM as a front-end for FSFT, using RM to maintain the names and add new names to FSFT, with whatever information RM will synchronize with FSFT.

I have used RM recently to add some of my people to FSFT, but I see that RM and FSFT still don't share all of the various labels and types of source data. With that in mind, it still appears that keeping everything in the person's notes is the best solution. But I would like to take advantage of the separate features as provided by FSFT:

Details
-- Vitals
-- Other Information
-- Family
-- Sources
-- Discussions
-- Ordinances
Photos
Stories

Apparently, RM does not directly input its information into these features. Therefore it seems that my solution is to keep it all in my PAF-formatted notes in RM, and use cut-and-paste to split the information between Stories, and Other Information-Custom Events/Custom Facts in FSFT.

Here is an example:

http://www.utahrails...-FT-Sources.jpg

Questions:
1) Is there a way for RM to directly share its notes with FSFT? Or do I need to cut-and-paste from RM Notes to FSFT Stories/Other Information?
2) What would be the way to create Custom Events/Custom Facts in RM, so that they would sync with FSFT?

I am certainly willing to follow someone's "Best Practice", but we still may be too close to the bleeding edge for a sensible RM <--> FSFT best practice to be formed.

Don Strack

#2 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8413 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:46 AM

The FT API will only allow moving Sources in 3rd Party Products (RootsMagic) to the Sources section of the Family Tree website. We cannot make your notes with sources move over to the sources section on FT because FamilySearch will be adding a separate Notes section in the API later. If you decide to move your notes with sources over to the notes section on FT when that's available in the API, you will need to keep in mind that people will not be looking to find sources in the notes area on FT.

So basically you need to:
1. Take the sources in your notes and manually copy them to the Sources in RM - use the free-form source template it will be easier.
2. In the RM FT Sync under the Sources tab move your source to FT.

Any sources that you copy from FT to RM will come in as a Free-Form source.

To create a custom fact in RM go to Lists>Fact Type List and click "Design new fact type". Any custom fact you create in RM will transfer to the Other Information area on Family Tree. Keep in mind right now FT has a very limited amount of Family facts that is will accept.
Renee
RootsMagic

#3 Don Strack

Don Strack

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:56 PM

To create a custom fact in RM go to Lists>Fact Type List and click "Design new fact type". Any custom fact you create in RM will transfer to the Other Information area on Family Tree. Keep in mind right now FT has a very limited amount of Family facts that is will accept.


By "Family facts", do you mean the total number of Custom Facts and Custom Events per person?

I just shared the sources between RM and FT, and each created custom facts for missing data. If you would like to take a look, it is for Joseph Munich -- KPWD-F7Z.

Until Notes become available in FT, and for want of a better place, I'll put the information in "Reason This Information Is Correct." It can always be edited later.

Don Strack

#4 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8413 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 09:08 AM

If you go inside RM to Lists>Fact Type List and highlight the fact - "Census (family)" you will see in the panel on the left under "Fact Type" it says Family. It is these types of Family Facts that may have an issue moving over to Family Tree.

When you use a Family Fact it is assigned to the husband and wife only, not the children. When you try to move them to the Family Tree they become couple events and you can only see them when you "Edit Couple". FamilySearch is limited in the fact names it will accept. It will take marriage, divorce, annulment or common law, but I don't think anything else. Of course, things can always change over there.
Renee
RootsMagic

#5 Kevin

Kevin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:07 PM

Maybe RM could copy the "Census (Family)" fact as 2 individual "Census" facts when uploading to FSFT. Just an idea.

#6 Don Strack

Don Strack

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:57 PM

Okay. Thanks. So, essentially the best solution is cut-and-paste from RM to FT, and/or re-type all the information from RM to FT, which I what I need to do with my Ancestry.com sources and Hints. Looks like I'll be removing my sources in RM and putting them back into Notes, and keeping them in a format that is easy to cut-and-paste from. I don't need sources to print any sort of family history book, but I do need them to be sharable with FT. I'll figure it out by trial and error.

Thanks for your help. Looks like RM is just barely functional as a front end for FT, which because it is free, and available to all, will become the standard by default. But RM beats all the others, by far, except maybe PAF.

Don Strack

#7 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 06:02 PM

It is not RM that is barely functional. It is FamilySearch Family Tree. RM has to conform with The Family Tree API in order to sync with Family Tree.

Any other genealogy program will have the same constraints.

And any user who wants to use Family Tree from within a genealogy program may also have to change how they have entered data into the program on the computer to also conform with Family Tree's structure.

And since Family Tree is making changes often, I don´t think I am going to decide to make many major changes in my database until Family Tree quits making so many changes.

#8 Don Strack

Don Strack

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 07:00 PM

And since Family Tree is making changes often, I don´t think I am going to decide to make many major changes in my database until Family Tree quits making so many changes.


I agree. The changes are coming regularly and often. Hopefully, they will slow down a bit. But like I mentioned, as good or as bad as it is, FT will become the standard by default, so all of the third party programs would do well to become as functional with FT as possible, right or wrong. I'm old enough to recall the uproar about Betamax being the best available video format, but VHS won out for a variety of reasons, good and bad, right and wrong. Each of the third party family history programs has its fans and proponents (I really like RM), but if the programs don't play well with FT, then the general population of family historians will simply stop using them. Yesterday and today, I realized that RM's "Share+" certification does not mean what I thought it meant, and I'll still have to do lots and lots of twiddling and tweaking to get proper sourcing into my people in FT. Oh well; no one said it would be easy. But it would be worth doing.

Don Strack