Jump to content


Photo

TreeShare to connect existing trees


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 cajflem

cajflem

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 02:30 PM

I want to use TreeShare to connect my Ancestry tree with my RM file, but the only options I see int he program are "create new Ancestry tree by upload from RM" or "download Ancestry tree to new RM file". I have spent years on each of them when it was not possible to connect/sync them. I don't want to lose either tree/file, and I don't want to have to delete one in order to recreate it by upload/download of the other. I just want to connect them.

 

Thoughts? Ideas/tips?

 

 

Thanks,

cf


Charles Fleming
Fort Worth TX


#2 ftipple

ftipple

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 03:32 AM

*Very* interested in this. I'm in exactly the same boat with one of my trees

Fíona

#3 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6265 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 06:11 AM

The only way to connect is indirect. Download to a new database and merge the old into the new, keeping the downloaded people as primary. Lotta work.

Tom user of RM7550 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 bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#4 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3606 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 07:53 AM

What about the trick of connecting a new RM tree to the existing ancestry tree and then dragging and dropping one person from the new RM tree to the existing RM tree. As I understand it, the connection to ancestry will follow that one person, thereby connecting the existing RM tree to the existing ancestry tree. Would that work? I haven't tried it myself, and you would still have a great deal of manual syncing of people on a one person at a time basis to do, but it might at least get the existing trees connected to each other?

 

Jerry



#5 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6265 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 08:16 AM

I guess it would, in the sense of causing TreeShare to be enabled for the old database and having one person linked between the RM database and the Ancestry tree. Then it's  one-by-one matching of people and reconciliation of differences. The difference in effort involved between the two approaches might well be the delta between six for one and a half-dozen for the other. 


Tom user of RM7550 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 bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#6 RobJ

RobJ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 08:37 AM

My read of what Renee said was that the link was on a person to person basis, not a database connection, so that yes you would have that one person linked up but still no way to link the rest of the persons in the other existing database (but I could be wrong!).  I'd be VERY interested if someone would test Jerry's theory out, maybe look for additional tricks to make it work.  I thought it was a great idea when first mentioned, but couldn't think of a practical way to make it work on a larger scale.



#7 RobJ

RobJ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 08:55 AM

Merging 2 databases on different platforms has long been my interest too, but I have found the RootsMagic tools rather insufficient so far.  But while you can upload an RM database to Ancestry, trying to merge them there is unworkable, as you will have to pull one individual at a time, one fact at a time, one source at a time.  RM does have tools but several of them are not ready for use.  Duplicate checking and the Compare Files tool seem to have been done in a hurry, with only an exact string match to locate matches and very poor and incomplete merging functions.  However the Drag and Drop works well, for what it does.

 

My current thinking is to download the Ancestry tree to a new RM tree, and check each record for issues, then decide which database is more important, and shelve the other for serious work, for now.  Then when I have time (overloaded with little projects currently), use Drag and Drop on whole branches of the shelved tree to my new primary tree.  Afterward, possibly manually, compare and merge or copy over what's missing.

 

As to Compare Files and Duplicate Checking, there's 2 parts to merging records - first the identification of the records that match, then the merging of those 2 records.  The RM developer does good work normally, but clearly was in a hurry here, and only provided a quick and dirty rudimentary dup finding function, basically nothing more than a little normalization of the person's name then an exact string match, which can only work if the names were entered exactly the same way, and with the same tool.  As I'm sure you have found out, different tools handle things like nicknames, maiden names, prefixes and suffixes differently.  So even though you think you've entered the same persons the same way, they will often not match here.  I often enter nicknames when possible, and that's my main reason for so many identical persons not being identified as matches.  I think I only had about 20% to 30% of the identical persons match.  I suspect the RM developer only did a quicky to help merge records that came from the same database back together, which *is* an important function, then hoped to get back to this when he had more time.  Due to the current crunch, that's probably very low in priority just now.

 

A quick way that would help immensely would be to match on birth date, where month and day exist.  Just matching on that would have raised my match percentage to better than 80%, perhaps better than 90%.

 

But the right way to do it, when he has time, is to use true fuzzy matching algorithms, something I've spent quite a bit of time on, way back.  For each data type you develop normalization routines that ensure you are always comparing apples to apples, no matter how someone has entered it.  Then you develop strategies for identifying potential matches, then fuzzy comparison routines for each data type, that score the degree of matching, and add the scores together to determine a record matching score.  You set a low score, below which it's 'not a match', a high score above which is a 'clear match', and the rest are for the user to review and confirm or reject.  Development of this kind of strategy takes time, requires lots of testing, feedback, and tweaking of the scoring and algorithms.  But I was able to get records to match and merge that had absolutely no exact matching fields, in the tougher field of library cataloging, merging poor quality locally entered records into high quality OCLC, UTLAS, MARCive, LC, etc. records, with hundreds of field types and many ways to enter things and very different quality levels.



#8 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3606 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:04 AM

So I experimented a little bit.

  • Deleted all test RM databases related to TreeShare and deleted all test trees at ancestry.
  • Used drag and drop from my production RM database to create a new test RM database called jerry_treeshare1 with 18 people. Uploaded it to ancestry using TreeShare. The tree on ancestry is called jerry_treeshare1.
  • Used drag and drop from my production RM database to create a new test RM database called jerry_treeshare2 with 11 people. There are no people in common between the two RM databases called jerry_treeshare1 and jerry_treeshare2.
  • Dragged and dropped one person from RM database jerry_treeshare1 to jerry_treeshare2. This is the trick to persuade RM to connect the RM database called jerry_treeshare2 with the ancestry tree called jerry_treeshare1.
  • Lo and behold, RM database jerry_treeshare2 is now connected to the tree on ancestry called jerry_treeshare1. You can see that this is true simply by clicking the ancestry icon in the toolbar in the RM database jerry_treeshare2. But the results are shall we say "interesting".
  • As it is opening up, the TreeShare process in RM tries to match people between the jerry_treeshare2 database in RM and the jerry_treeshare1 tree at ancestry. Of course, there is only one match, namely the individual I dragged and dropped from the RM database called jerry_treeshare1 and the RM database called jerry_treeshare2.
  • After Treeshare's opening and matching process is complete, I can upload anybody in the RM database called jerry_treeshare2 up to the ancestry tree called jerry_treeshare1. But I have to upload them one person at a time. Indeed, the sync process is really no different than if I had actually typed all that data into the RM database called jerry_treeshare2 by hand instead of dragging and dropping it in from my production database. Also, the sync process is really no different than if I had dragged and dropped the 11 people from my production RM database to the RM database called jerry_treeshare2 after dragging and dropping the one person from the RM database called jerry_treeshare1 to the RM database called jerry_treeshare2.
  • There does not seem to be any way to download and of the people in the jerry_treeshare1 tree at ancestry to the RM database called jerry_treeshare2. I'm not quite sure why this trick thing works going from RM to ancestry but not from ancestry to RM.
  • I have not yet tried this trick in a situation where the same person is in both the existing RM database and the existing ancestry tree to see if the existing person can be matched and synced. I want to think first about why I can't download the existing ancestry people to RM using this trick.

Jerry

 

P. S. My original analysis about not being able to download from ancestry to RM is totally bogus. You can copy people in either direction, and I was just trying to copy somebody from ancestry to RM in an incorrect manner. But doing so is like going from RM to ancestry in that it's one person at a time. So now I need to set up the same scenario except with some people in common between the RM database jerry_treeshare2 and the ancestry tree jerry_treeshare1, and where the people in common do have data differences and where some of the people in common don't have data differences.