Jump to content


Photo

Notes Tx to Ancestry have lost some formatting ie spaces between words

Formatting Text Ancestry Notes Rootsmagic

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Terry666

Terry666

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 08:12 AM

When I use Rootsmagic I have it selected that I "use plain text when pasting to notes" as an example this is one of my notes as pasted and seen in Rootsmagic looks like this.

 

UK, Railway Employment Records, 1833-1956
Name: Archie Willey
Age: 16
Birth Date: 3 May 1891
Residence Date: 14 Mar 1908
Station: Laira
Company: Great Western
Description: 181 No.8 1872-1910 Newton Abbot Division

 

The same notes when my tree is uploaded to Ancestry and then viewed show up as

 

UK, Railway Employment Records, 1833-1956Name:Archie WilleyAge:16Birth Date:3 May 1891Residence Date:14 Mar 1908Station:LairaCompany:Great WesternDescription:181 No.8 1872-1910 Newton Abbot Division

 

This is only a small note but as you can see it is difficult to differentiate where each statement begins and ends and the problem of understanding it is even worse on a larger note.

I can manually copy and paste my original note to Ancestry and it shows up correctly. I have many notes and to manually copy and paste at all times would be a task in itself. 

Hopefully at sometime this problem could be solved, I'm not expecting the formatting from Rootsmagic to be kept, but something so that the transferred text can be understood more easily.

Your comments are much appreciated, Terry 

I've been waiting for the Ancestry/Rootsmagic integration and can't show my appreciation enough for all the work people have put into this.

 



#2 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7584 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 09:55 AM

In testing this I observed the note formatting with carriage returns are lost on facts when uploaded from RM. The full upload, and updating facts. The general notes formatting, carriage returns are preserved.

 

Is that what you are seeing.  Is it only on facts and not general notes?


Renee
RootsMagic

#3 Terry666

Terry666

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 30 June 2017 - 10:26 AM

Renee thank you for your prompt response. I have just checked again and agree with you that it is as far as I can see occurring only on facts and not general notes.



#4 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2878 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 06:04 PM

In testing this I observed the note formatting with carriage returns are lost on facts when uploaded from RM. The full upload, and updating facts. The general notes formatting, carriage returns are preserved.

 

I'm finally putting 2 and 2 together. All my little boxes that shouldn't be there when comparing RM to ancestry are on fact notes. The fact notes haven't been changed, but all carriage return / line feed sequences are getting lost when moving to ancestry. So RM keeps offering to let me "fix" the problem of the notes not matching, and when I check the box the CR/LF sequences are still lost on the ancestry side of the house.

 

It's hard to know from where I sit whether the problem is a bug in RM or in the API. I do understand that ancestry doesn't have fact notes and that RM is putting them in a citation field in ancestry. But in any case, I managed to crash the interface a few minutes ago by adding a CR/LF sequence to the beginning of a fact note. But the crash was not repeatable.

 

Jerry



#5 genealogy4primm@earthlink.

genealogy4primm@earthlink.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 11:46 PM

 

I'm finally putting 2 and 2 together. All my little boxes that shouldn't be there when comparing RM to ancestry are on fact notes. The fact notes haven't been changed, but all carriage return / line feed sequences are getting lost when moving to ancestry. So RM keeps offering to let me "fix" the problem of the notes not matching, and when I check the box the CR/LF sequences are still lost on the ancestry side of the house.

 

It's hard to know from where I sit whether the problem is a bug in RM or in the API. I do understand that ancestry doesn't have fact notes and that RM is putting them in a citation field in ancestry. But in any case, I managed to crash the interface a few minutes ago by adding a CR/LF sequence to the beginning of a fact note. But the crash was not repeatable.

 

Jerry

Well that makes sens as to why every thing looks the same for the TreeShare for Ancestry dialogue window view, but the check box is persistent on either side.

I have seen similar behavior with Sources that come from Ancestry as no longer matching the Ancestry source side cause the check box to also persist. As well with Media images as those are apparently specifically named for each Fact they are attached to when arriving in RM.

This makes it near impossible to align the Ancestry and RM trees via TreeShare, at least without multiple duplication on both sides.



#6 genealogy4primm@earthlink.

genealogy4primm@earthlink.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 02 July 2017 - 01:25 PM

I have found and reported this same phenomenon happening in RM's TreeShare for Ancestry.

These happen for a variety of reasons based on what I have seen. Primarily that the "Ancestry Record" as a Source when it arrives in RM has the Note section of the Citation's "Source Information" filled out as it should (placed in Master text's "Source text"), but is missing any reference to the "Ancestry Record" tab as seen while viewing it on Ancestry. However, the Ancestry Record's Citation is missing this "Note", and has the "Ancestry Record" section which is not found in the RM citation.

The "Ancestry Record" tab is the main one when one selects to 'view' the Source and it's function is to display the Transcribed details and a link, "View Image", to launch the Media image or the "View Record" (where one can save (Tag) it to a Ancestry Person Record). It also has links to the Citation, Associated Facts, and Media.

Thus, once that Source arrives in RM different from the Ancestry Source details, it will no longer match to the "Ancestry Record" which has no Note in said field of the Ancestry side Citation's "Source Information". What this does when you try to equalize the two (RM & Ancestry) is this creates a new Citation in Ancestry as an "Other Source" and brings the Media back as a different 'static' Media (duplicated to some degree). In effect you can almost never 'equalize' Ancestry and RM such as to eliminate those Fact's Check box indicating a difference in TreeShare for Ancestry.

However, if one is happy with multiple duplication on both sides of Media and Source, then some crafty clean up and alignment of everything (tags) can be done, but it is not easy.



#7 Terry666

Terry666

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 08:25 AM

Is there any update on the correcting of this problem that I first brought up on 30 June this year. It's annoying because all my notes on the ancestry side are difficult to read. Also the total characters in the notes on the Ancestry side do not tally with the notes on the Rootsmagic side, so one has to go through an update for each rather than ignore and keep ones fingers crossed.



#8 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7584 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 10:52 AM

No changes. There is an issue with having to use the source field to store the fact notes and retain formatting. Ancestry doesn't have fact notes that we can use to store that information. No problem getting formatting to the general notes. 


Renee
RootsMagic

#9 Terry666

Terry666

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 10:55 AM

Thanks for the prompt update