Jump to content


Photo

GEDCOM, set to privatize, included individuals marked "Living"


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Dori Partsch

Dori Partsch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 02:39 PM

I created a GEDCOM of everyone in my database except living and recently deceased people, and some others with unknown dates, and I had checked them all as "Living."  For exporting from the database, I had checked "Privatize living people" and had left the defaults, "Full Name," and "Full date and place." Upon importing the GEDCOM, some of these individuals are included, still with the check mark for "Living."  What would account for this?

 

As an alternative, is there a way to remove quite a large group of people (living, recently deceased) all at once from the database rather than one at a time or one family at a time?

 

 



#2 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8413 posts

Posted 27 January 2017 - 04:40 PM

I'm not following how you checked people and then included the living by privatizing them. 

 

When you select "people to export" and use the "Select from a List" you can choose various options there. The Mark Group and UnMark group buttons will let you filter the list. If you are removing all living then I wouldn't also select the option to privatize living people. 

 

If you make a group before hand of just the people you want, you can use that group when exporting the GEDCOM. 


Renee
RootsMagic

#3 chignecto

chignecto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 05:41 PM

Ok.  My problem is kind of the reverse of the suggested technique above.  I have over 90,000 in my database.  I regularly export everyone in the database, not including data, and upload the gedcom to my web site.  The web software privatizes the living individuals.  I maintain my database on my own computer.  The web site, for sharing purposes, contains only the 'skeleton' of the database (no notes, images, etc.)  As a result, when updating the web site, I have to do a gedcom of the complete database each time, over-writing the earlier version.

From another researcher, I have recently received information on the ancestry for one line going back six generations (from the 1500s to the 1800s).  This amounts to 15 individuals.  I have added those 15 individuals to my database, but the original researcher has NOT given me permission to publish her shared information on my web site.

 

So........  I want to continue to update my web site, but I cannot figure out how I can export my gedcom, excluding these 15 individuals.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Don  



#4 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3449 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 11:08 PM

On the GEDCOM Export screen, under People to export, click square icon to right of Select from list.
Click Mark group, then Click Everyone in the database. Now scroll down thru the list alpabetically finding and unchecking those 15 individuals.
Click OK and go on to finish exporting.

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#5 chignecto

chignecto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 12:08 AM

Ok.  Thanks for this.  I am in the process of testing, to ensure that it works.  Pretty challenging with such a large database.  At this point, it is looking like I will need to do this selection process each time I decide to update my web site.  Pretty tedious.  I wish there was at least some way to save the selected list with the deletions, so that it could simply be amended the next time around.  But I presume that I then would need to find a way to 'select' my new additions since the previous gedcom creation.

Before changing to Roots Magic, I was using a piece of software which, directly in the database, simply allowed me to make individuals confidential.  This then was effective for all exported reports and gedcoms.  I am missing an option like that.

 

But I very much appreciate your help with my problem.  At least I now have a workaround.

 

Don 



#6 Trebor22

Trebor22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 03:23 AM


From another researcher, I have recently received information on the ancestry for one line going back six generations (from the 1500s to the 1800s).  This amounts to 15 individuals.  I have added those 15 individuals to my database, but the original researcher has NOT given me permission to publish her shared information on my web site.

 

A recent thread discussed the merits of having a single database with opinion strongly in favour of this approach but as I been considering this for my databases it became obvious that this is one of the problems. How would I separate or even identify  'other peoples research' when I exported a gedcom to pass on or  for my website? It might be practical with 15 individuals but not with hundreds or thousands, I wonder how others approach this and if there is an easy solution I am missing?



#7 zhangrau

zhangrau

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1505 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 09:45 AM

The facility of Groups is really quite powerful. Although Groups would, indeed, be even stronger if they were dynamic (or auto-updating) there are ways to use them for what the posters above wish to filter.

.

Consider creating a custom fact, prossibly set to NOT export via GEDCOM, that identifies whether an individual meets your criterion for inclusion in your web page. You'll only need to do this once for each individual (unless there's a reason for an individual's status to change). Whether the fact should have two or more possible values (includeA, includeB, DONTinclude, etc.) will be part of your early decision process in considering how you will use this custom fact. For instance, if there are a relatively small number of individuals to be excluded, it will only be necessary to create the custom fact and set the value of DONTinclude for those individuals. Then define a group for WebExport. First select all individuals, then unselect those containing the DONTinclude custom fact value. If you keep the constituents of the DONTinclude set up-to-date as you continue with research, then re-generating the WebExport group before making the GEDCOM should be easy.

 

As always with comprehensive research, careful planning will pay dividends in the future.



#8 chignecto

chignecto

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 10:12 AM

The facility of Groups is really quite powerful. Although Groups would, indeed, be even stronger if they were dynamic (or auto-updating) there are ways to use them for what the posters above wish to filter.

.

 

I love this notion of auto updating!



#9 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3528 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 01:37 PM

Consider creating a custom fact, prossibly set to NOT export via GEDCOM, that identifies whether an individual meets your criterion for inclusion in your web page. 

 

Custom facts are a very powerful tool in the management of RM data. They are useful in an incredible number of ways. Indeed, they are so useful that I use them in lieu of RM's to do list and research log.

 

Unfortunately, it is not easy within RM itself to add custom facts in bulk - for example, to add the same custom fact for everyone who is color coded purple or to everyone who is in a particular Named Group. It's one thing to add a custom fact to a few people, or even to a few dozen. But it's something else again to add a custom fact to a few hundred people, or even to a few thousand. Absent support in RM itself, the only reasonable approach is an SQLite script. And the problem is aggravated by the fact that both color coding and Named Groups are static and are not auto-updated. And it's not just bulk adding. You also need bulk changing and  bulk deleting of custom facts.

 

It will be interesting to see if these kinds of needs might be met in RM8.

 

Jerry



#10 Trebor22

Trebor22

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:50 AM

Zhangrau - thanks for the suggestion re custom facts / groups will look at that, given the number of individuals I think its going to be an SQL script approach and perhaps quite a lot of work just to get back to where I am with separate databases but worth considering!