Jump to content


Photo

Tree Share-Global "accept changes"


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 searchingfamilyhistory

searchingfamilyhistory

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 08:07 AM

First, I really appreciate all the hard work that has gone in to Tree Share with Ancestry.  I have watched the video and played around with Tree Share a bit.

 

One feature that I don't know is present and if not, wouldn't mind it being an option.

 

  • I uploaded a RM database to new tree in Ancestry. 
  • Made changes to a dozen or so people in RM
  • Want the all the changes to take place in the Ancestry tree, without exception.
  • Is there a way to choose a "global accept changes" from RM to Ancestry?  (I would presume some people might be interested in this feature going from Ancestry to RM)

 

The object is that I know all the changes I have made and I know that I want them all to apply to Ancestry but would prefer not to have to go through every single person and changed item one and a time.

 

I like the ability to customize changes in either or both places but a global accept changes would be a nice option.  If it is there and I just can't find it, please explain it to me and I apologize for my ignorance.

 

Regards,

 

 



#2 rosellirj

rosellirj

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 09:19 AM

I would support this option. I made changes to about 50 people in RM last night and used TreeShare to change them on Ancestry. Five clicks per person. This option would have eliminated 249 of them.



#3 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2701 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 10:18 AM

As has already been discussed in other threads, I suspect that a more automatic sync is going to be a much wished for functionality. However, my understanding is that the philosophy of the RM developers is that the user should carefully consider each change on an individual basis and whether that change should really be applied from RM to ancestry or from ancestry to RM. Therefore, there may be a considerable resistance on the part of the developers to supporting this kind of functionality.

 

I think that part of the complication with this issue is that there are many different ways in which users might choose to use TreeShare. The following list is not exhaustive of the ways users might use TreeShare, but I think it exemplifies some of the issues.

  • The user might use TreeShare only to enable the use of WebHints with ancestry.com. 100% of all changes will be made in RM, and there would be complete safety in truly syncing from RM to ancestry.com. Such a sync would seem to be safe either in a fully automatic mode or in a manual but global mode as suggested in this thread.
  • The user might use TreeShare only for his or her private use, with RM only on one computer and with no collaboration with other users. But the user might make some changes on RM and some changes on ancestry.com. For example, this mode of operation could facilitate getting images from ancesty.com loaded into RM with the images being captured in the ancestry.com user interface. It seems to me that in this environment it would be pretty safe to sync in a fully automatic mode or in a manual, global mode.
  • The user might use TreeShare to collaborate with a cousin. Both researchers could be using RM (or maybe one could be using RM and one could be using FTM) with a shared tree on ancestry.com being used to facilitate the collaboration. In this mode of operation, a fully automatic sync or even a manual, global sync would probably not be advisable.

As for myself, I'm not sure just yet what I'm going to so. I created a small test RM database via drag and drop from my my main RM database and created an ancestry tree from the small database. I liked what I saw and how it worked, but I quickly realized that I would be doing double work if then I had to move data from the small, test database back into my main database. So for the moment, I now I have my full production database linked up with ancestry.com.  

 

Even as a private database, I'm not very happy with having my entire database all up there on ancestry.com. My full production database has too many living people in it and it has too much incomplete "work in progress" in it to fully trust on ancestry.com, even as a private database. But RM does not make it very practical to split databases apart and then join them back together. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to split my database and join up only a part of it to ancestry.com. The same issue would arise if I chose to collaborate with another user with TreeShare. I would only want to collaborate on a part of my database, but RM does not make it very practical to split databases apart and then later join them back together.

 

Jerry



#4 rosellirj

rosellirj

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 11:20 AM

After thinking about this, there are problems with the "accept all" approach. Most of my changes were to remove question marks at the end of surnames. With each transfer to Ancestry I had the option of updating the surname or adding it as a new name (one of the five clicks). I wouldn't want RM to make the decision for me to add it as a new name.



#5 pajurgens

pajurgens

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 11:20 AM

Actually there are six clicks per person since you have to manually update the "Mark as not changed" flag even though the two entries are now identical. 

 

My Ancestry.com tree has nearly 3000 people in it. As some 6000 records were originally added to Ancestry I made no attempt to enforce standards such as place naming. Since Ancestry has no tools for performing integrity and consistency checks I was eager to get my hands on the RM7.5. One of the first things I did after downloading my Ancestry tree was to run the Place Clean tool. It was no surprise to see 1800 place entries that needed tweaking. That was exactly what I was looking for. A fast, simple, effective way to clean up my data.

I excitement quickly faded when I went to sync the changes back to Ancestry. It takes six clicks for every change and each change must be individually synced (5s - 1m+). For my 1800 updates that translates to  over 10,000 clicks and several hours of syncing time.

Needless to say this is impractical. Add to that the 500 names that pop up in the Name Check and 150 or so people that show up when I run a problem search and it's just not going to happen. 

 

At this point, without a global update feature I might be better off uploading a new tree to Ancestry (don't see how to do this right off hand though).



#6 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2701 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 12:02 PM

 

At this point, without a global update feature I might be better off uploading a new tree to Ancestry (don't see how to do this right off hand though).

 

You just disconnect RM from your ancestry tree (Tools->File Options->Ancestry) and then make a new ancestry tree as if RM had never been connected to the previous ancestry tree. You can leave the old ancestry tree out there or delete the old ancestry tree as best meets your needs. Actually, I could picture repeating this cycle from time to time except for the fact that it will lose any decisions I might have made about accepting and rejecting ancestry WebHints. I would have to start marking ancestry WebHints all over again.

 

Jerry



#7 pajurgens

pajurgens

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 July 2017 - 05:25 PM

 

You just disconnect RM from your ancestry tree (Tools->File Options->Ancestry) and then make a new ancestry tree as if RM had never been connected to the previous ancestry tree. You can leave the old ancestry tree out there or delete the old ancestry tree as best meets your needs. Actually, I could picture repeating this cycle from time to time except for the fact that it will lose any decisions I might have made about accepting and rejecting ancestry WebHints. I would have to start marking ancestry WebHints all over again.

 

Jerry

 

Good point about the web hints. Suddenly having thousands of previously ignored web hints come back to life would make the entire web-hint system unworkable on a large tree. 

 



#8 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7306 posts

Posted 03 July 2017 - 09:17 AM

The ability to sync all is on the development list. I do think Bruce made a wise decision in releasing the collaborative manual version we have. We don't have the issue FTM is running into with massively deleting people with their sync. 


Renee
RootsMagic

#9 genealogy4primm@earthlink.

genealogy4primm@earthlink.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 03 July 2017 - 10:07 AM

The ability to sync all is on the development list. I do think Bruce made a wise decision in releasing the collaborative manual version we have. We don't have the issue FTM is running into with massively deleting people with their sync. 

I like the idea of being able to 'sync all', but hope it might come with the ability to select by Group.



#10 Mad dog

Mad dog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 12:14 AM

I can see why a "bulk" update would be useful (changing MI to Michigan) but that is just doing maintenance. When I find a BMD for a person, I add the information to them and any additional persons mentioned. Then Accept Changes. Yes it may take extra clicks but I know that the ONE document has been added. Then on to the next exciting find.



#11 mjrainwater

mjrainwater

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 08:51 AM

I am very excited with the work and the care that has been taken my RM to make the sync work, and to do this so carefully.  I do agree that a global sync option is very important.  One of the best features of RM is the ability to do maintenance and clean up data (like changing abbreviations to full state names).  There are many great tools in RM to clean your data, and the find holes in the data.  Once I have worked the data in RM, I really need to get this back into Ancestry...  and not just creating a new tree (see thread above on Web Hints).

 

I am relatively new to RM, but not new to research or various genealogy tools.  So, I'm still learning about this product.  I certainly consider RM to be my main db for research because I can add data that is not supported by Ancestry.

 

Thanks RM for such a great job on the Tree Share.  I look forward to seeing new capabilities (including a global sync) coming on the future.  Please don't be afraid to make global sync happen... even if you just get RM --> Ancestry as the only global sync option.  TY



#12 Canyon Wolf

Canyon Wolf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 08 July 2017 - 05:46 PM

I too was very excited to think I would finally be able to clean up a couple of my Ancestry trees using RM7 tools. I quickly learned TreeShare is not going to be the way to do it.

I agree, making large scale changes is completely impractical. We need some kind of global accept, but I realize it will be a very complicated thing to do since the two apps are not 100% compatible.

So the 800 person tree I cleaned yesterday is only getting back to Ancestry by unlinking from the Ancestry tree, deleting or renaming the ancestry tree, and uploading the cleaned RM version.

But now I have a huge list of sources for each person on Ancestry, many of them duplicates, and many of them not attached to anything because they are person sources and ancestry does not support person sources. Now my freshly cleaned tree has a whole new assortment of clutter and is anything but clean looking when viewed in Ancestry.

I see the value in TreeShare for simply genealogy, but I am a researcher and power-user. I know a number of users have chosen RM because it has the power tools a power-user needs. Perhaps TreeShare will eventually get there.

Please Bruce, once you get this working solidly (not there yet!), please consider the needs of your power users. I already have carpel-tunnel. Trying to use this version of treeshare is beyond my physical limits and would require far more time then I want to commit :-(

 

An old and still devoted Rm user

Canyon Wolf


Canyon Wolf


#13 palliken

palliken

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 02:38 PM

I am a new user of RM and this forum, but have been addicted to genealogy for over 3 decades. Prior to the FTM/Ancestry Synch discontinuation, I mainly used Ancestry for my research and FTM for its report/chart features. I was very happy when the synch feature was added and very disappointed when it ended.

 

I am very much in favour of a 'select all' option for synching the trees. Yes, I understand the risks of globally wiping trees clean. (It's happened to me in the past too.)  As a check, if there was a summary of the actions to be taken, i.e. number of people to be added, number to be deleted, etc., for both databases, this would help reduce the risk. The previous synching feature did something similar, but not to the degree that would help.

 

So far, I'm impressed with RM and the support forum. I expect to discover many features that will help my researching and sharing info with others. Probably will fall with the 80-20 group though.

 

Happy researching all!

 

Ken Pallister

London, Ontario, Canada



#14 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5556 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 09:44 AM

Disconnect but preserve Ancestry Sources links for next Upload

 

This is an intriguing discovery that means one could make many changes on the RM side of TreeShare, disconnect with this script instead of TreeShare's Disconnect, and then upload to a new tree. It has the labour saving effect that batch updating of changes would have, if it were available. TreeShare's Disconnect causes all linked sources seen on the AMT as "Ancestry Sources" to be converted to "Other Sources" in the next upload and hints are generated all over again for "Ancestry Sources". This script's partial disconnect precludes that from happening. So both one-by-one acceptance of changes and one by one clearing of redundant hints are avoided. The downside is that one should thus work on only one end at a time followed by the up or download. And media migration will be repeated over and over at the expense of network bandwidth quota, computer time and storage space.


Tom user of RM7230 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> Rmtrix_tiny.png app, a growing bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#15 Ron Cannarella

Ron Cannarella

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 11:01 AM

Help! I used Rootsmagic to perform some long overdue routine data cleanup on my family tree. Specifically, I replaced all instances of "United States" with "USA", added periods to a period to all middle initials and suffixes (i.e., Jr. and Sr.).

 

 

Now I have over 3,000 individual records to manually sync. A conservative estimate of the time necessary to manually sync these records (5 corrections per minute) is 50 hours! I started doing this, and I found that by using this approach I was far more likely to introduce errors into my tree.

 

So, I tried everything I could think of to capture all of the corrections I had made on the Rootsmagic side by a) unlinking my main tree and uploading the Rootsmagic corrected version, B) exporting the corrected tree from Rootsmagic as a GEDCOM and uploading that one back up to Ancestry.com

 

Nothing has worked  so far.

 

Any ideas?



#16 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2701 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 11:16 AM

This is one of those "it depends" situations. If you are only updating your data on RM and only mirroring it to ancestry.com, then delete the tree from ancestry and recreate it from RM. If you are updating both places, either spend your 50 hours or else wait and hope that RM releases support for global update.

 

If you delete your tree from ancestry and recreate it from RM, you will lose any history of accepted WebHints in RM and have to start over with that process. Because of the WebHints problem and a couple of other problems, I'm personally going to wait until TreeShare supports a global update capability before I fully embrace TreeShare. If TreeShare never supports a global update capability, then I guess I'm stuck.

 

Jerry



#17 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5556 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 04:02 PM

Worse, maybe ,than losing the WebHints status on uploading to a new Ancestry Tree is that all the "Ancestry Sources" that you downloaded are converted to "Other Sources" and you will get hints for the same "Ancestry Sources" all over again, duplicating what you already have. I claim that that does not happen if you use my custom Disconnect from Ancestry Tree  script.


Tom user of RM7230 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> Rmtrix_tiny.png app, a growing bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#18 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2701 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 06:45 PM

Worse, maybe ,than losing the WebHints status on uploading to a new Ancestry Tree is that all the "Ancestry Sources" that you downloaded are converted to "Other Sources" and you will get hints for the same "Ancestry Sources" all over again, duplicating what you already have. I claim that that does not happen if you use my custom Disconnect from Ancestry Tree  script.

 

I agree that the problem Tom is describing is probably worse than the one I'm describing. The difference is that if/when TreeShare achieves a level of functionality where it meets my needs and I'm willing to use it, I probably will only sync from RM to ancestry and never from ancestry to RM. By doing it that way, I think I will avoid the problem Tom is describing and several other problems that are bothersome to me. What I will therefore lose is some of the automation associated with images and sources that's available if you are willing to sync from ancestry to RM.

 

Given that I will probably tie my own hands in regard not syncing from ancesty to RM, why do I want to use TreeShare? Reason #1 is for the WebHints. Reason #2 is so that I can make media that I possess and that which is not on the ancestry site available to other users via the ancestry Web site.

 

Having said all that, I suspect that huge numbers of TreeShare users really do want the automation associated with bringing sources and media from ancestry into RM.

 

Jerry



#19 keithcstone

keithcstone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 25 August 2017 - 11:05 AM

I wouldn't necessarily like a "sync all" ala FTM or Family Tree Builder, certainly not as the default, but I think lack of "batch" options makes the TreeSync impractical for large trees.

 

I would suggest greater flexibility, with some options similar the "Duplicate Search Merge" on the Tools menu. In essence, instead of trying to come up with "intelligence" to sync like FTM or FTB do, allow some selectable options to allow certain activities to take place en-masse during that "session".

 

From an operations standpoint let's start with "new" people on either side. After the Treesync scan some counts and options could be presented, i.e. xx in RM not in ancestry, xx in Ancestry not in RM, xx in both and indexical, xx in both and updated.

 

At that point some check boxes could be available like:

 

() Upload xxx new people in RM to Ancestry

() Download xxx new people in Ancestry to RM

() Delete xxx people from Ancestry not in RM

() Delete xxx people from RM not in Ancestry

 

Obviously some of those options are mutually exclusive, and the TreeShare options form should allow someone to set their preferred defaults.

 

This feature alone would assist greatly in synchronizing trees without requiring a fancy UI or AI. Not selecting anything reverts to the existing method, which is preferable when the volume of change is low.

 

You can extend this concept to updates. Let's look at a common issue for someone new to Ancestry or RootsMagic, place or name cleanup. You use the nice name or place cleanup tools provided by RootsMagic, but now you're facing thousands of clicks for all the events or people that changed. So some options such as:

 

() Update xxx Ancestry place names with RootsMagic places

() Update xxx Ancestry person names with RootsMagic names

 

A similar concept could be used for events, sources, etc, i.e:

 

() Upload xxx events in RootsMagic not in Ancestry

() Download xxx events in Ancestry not in RootsMagic

() Delete xxx events in RootsMagic not in Ancestry

() Delete xxx events in Ancestry not in RootsMagic

 

Again, these selections are in effect for that "session" allowing you to do each of those operations individually or not at all. Displayed counts could alert you if you were about to do something especially stupid. A summary of what's going to happen with an "Are you sure?" would de desirable, for example:

 

You've elected to delete xxx people from your Ancestry tree not in your RootsMagic database, download xxx sources from Ancestry and upload xxx sources to Ancestry. ARE YOU SURE?