Jump to content


Photo

One Database, multiple trees?

groups colours record numbers

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 RetiredBri

RetiredBri

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 04:10 AM

I believe this may be variation of the “One Database” theme but I haven’t found any topics that cover my particular concept.

 

I have one database not only with my and my wife’s family but with the families of siblings, cousins etc.

When I started, I contacted lots of people and added their data to the tree (and shared how they fitted into the overall scheme of things). Now with 2900 names, I need to tidy things up and simplify the views and reports from RootsMagic.

 

Firstly, an Ancestor View clearly shows the picture of a person’s ancestors but a descendant view is obscured by all the siblings and their families of the one ancestor. I’m reluctant to discard all this extra data and wanted to avoid using groups or colours.

 

Here is an idea I wanted to bounce off the forum.

As an example, Samuel Smith who was married to Rebecca COMMINS. They had the following children:

 

1            Elizabeth (Betsey) SMITH, born 1818, Gt Oakley, Essex; married Charles JOSSELYN, 18 Sep 1842, Dovercourt, Essex; died 22 Oct 1849, Dovercourt, Essex.

2            Samuel SMITH, born 1819, Gt Oakley, Essex; married Maria HARMON, 13 Sep 1840, Dovercourt, Essex; married Eliza SIDER, 17 Aug 1856, Harwich, Essex.

3            William SMITH, born 19 Sep 1823, Dovercourt, Essex; married Sarah KEABEL , 20 Nov 1845, Dovercourt, Essex.

Of these children, Samuel SMITH b1819 is the blood line.  The other two children and their spouses/children cause the “descendant view to be obscured”

 

I did the following:

  1. Unlinked Charles JOSSELYN from Elizabeth (Betsey) SMITH.
  2. Checked that I now had 2 trees in the database; my Main Tree and a new “Josselyn b1842” tree.
  3. Added just the name and marriage data of Charles JOSSELYN back into Elizabeth Smith’s record in my MAIN tree.
  4. Added a note to the Marriage Fact for Elizabeth (Betsey) SMITH saying “For details of Charles JOSSELYN, refer to separate “Josselyn b1842” tree
  5. Added just the name and marriage data of Elizabeth Smith to Charles JOSSELYN in the new “Josselyn b1842” tree.
  6. Added a note to the Marriage Fact for Charles JOSSELYN saying “For details of Elizabeth (Betsey) SMITH b1818 refer to separate “MAIN” tree (really the main database).
  1. Repeated the exercise a) – f) for William SMITH b1823 and Sarah KEABEL b1845.

 

I now had 3 trees in the Database.  

I saw that in the “Sidebar” view of names in the database and with birth year and Record Number (RN) showing. I had two entries for Elizabeth (Betsey) SMITH b1881 RN603 and Elizabeth (Betsey) SMITH b1881 RN2915.

 

Clicking on RN2915 showed the tree with Elizabeth Smith married but without parents and on RN603 showed Elizabeth married without children.

 

Using this Sidebar/RN view, I could instantly know which “sub-set records of the overall database I was working on”.

I can see immediately that I had more names in the database but that is not a worry.

 

The outcome is that the descendant tree and reports, are now much cleaner, easier to read and, for novice family members to understand.

With just 2 names done, I can see an automated route for rest of just the “Smith” family by cutting and pasting from Narrative Text reports.

I will await Forum Members comments before moving further!

 

Regards Retiredbri

 



#2 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2935 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 01:34 PM

Which reports are you using?

 

Just for the ancestors, I think the narrative report with the "ancestors with children" will give you want you want because it will not list the children's spouses.

 

It sounds like you then want other trees in the report - namely, descendant trees. For example, it sounds like you want a descendant tree for Charles JOSSELYN and Elizabeth (Betsey) SMITH, another descendant tree for William SMITH and Sarah KEABEL, etc. Is that correct?

 

If so, a good approach would be as follows. First, keep everybody in the same tree and don't duplicate people. If you do, I think you will regret it. Second, to create a book that looks the way you want, use the Publisher feature to create a book. Chapter 1 could be an "ancestors with children" report. Then, chapters 2 and 3 and 4 etc. could narrative descendant reports for each collateral line. In fact, I've never done one quite that way myself, but it sounds like a good idea for some situations.

 

Jerry



#3 RetiredBri

RetiredBri

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 02:12 PM

Thanks Jerry for the reply.

 

Ancestor tree and reports are not a problem. Descendant trees/charts/narrative reports are.

 

Without me "removing" the Josselyn and Kebel families from the Smith main tree, a 2 generation report contains data and notes for 29 persons.

With the  Josselyn and Kebel families removed, there are only 17 persons.

With 3 generations, the figures are 67 with and 52 without.

 

If I continue to "remove the non-blood line" members, I believe I can get the chart/report down from 480 persons to a manageable 105 persons.

 

What prompted me to go this route was to make the descendant chart/report simple for family members who only want to know their blood line ancestors and not the many hundreds of Smiths descended from Samuel SMITH, born 1819.

 

If I ever want the Josselyn "sub tree", I select that small Tree and generate a report from it.

 

Sorry to be a bit vague

 

Retiredbri



#4 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2935 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 02:30 PM

Without me "removing" the Josselyn and Kebel families from the Smith main tree, a 2 generation report contains data and notes for 29 persons.

With the  Josselyn and Kebel families removed, there are only 17 persons.

With 3 generations, the figures are 67 with and 52 without.

 

I probably wasn't understanding your objective correctly. I wasn't going to produce any descendant report at all from the Smith main tree - just descendant reports from each person at one level below the Smith main tree.

 

If you did still wanted a simplified descendant report from the Smith main tree, you could have a chapter that was the Smith main tree for two generations, not including spouses. Then the spouses would appear only in the later chapters, not the first chapter. But as you can tell, I'm probably still not understanding the objective correctly. :mellow:

 

Jerry



#5 John_of_Ross_County

John_of_Ross_County

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 594 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 08:13 PM

Is this what you want?

 

1] Clear all colors.

2] Color code your ancestors "RED".

3] Now select your nth great grandfather as an example.

4] Now print a descendant report of your  nth great grandfather including only those colored "RED"

 

But I don't know how to do this.



#6 RetiredBri

RetiredBri

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 11:29 PM

Thanks to all

My wife hit the nail on the head and explained it as follows (using simple names)

 

Samuel & his wife have John and 2 other children. Ignore the 2 and continue with just John.           =3

 

John & his wife have Peter and 9 other children. Ignore the 9 and continue with just Peter.          =3

 

Peter & his wife have David and 6 other children. Ignore the 6 and continue with just David.         =3

 

David & his wife have James and no other children.  =3

 

James & his wife have Mark and 4 other children. Ignore the 4 and continue with just Mark.          =3

 

Now, we are getting close to my generation and I need to show second cousins/aunts/uncles/grandparents etc.

SO:

Mark and his wife have Peter, Sally and James.        =5

 

Peter and his wife have Alan, Brian and Margaret      =5

Sally and her husband have Robert and Rachel         =4

James and his wife have Rupert, Paul and Wendy     =5

 

Let’s stop there and count up the descendant tree:    =34

If I had not ignored anyone, the number would be  at least 55 but with all the children of the children of the ones ignored, the number could feasibly be 200 plus.

 

I can see a clear line from Samuel to my generation (and so can my children) with only 34 persons BUT, with possibly 200, the picture is confusing to say the least.

 

I have found that by splitting off the descendants (the “ignored children) I have not thrown away the data that took years to acquire but effectively put it into store in case it is needed.

 

Now, with RootsMagic, I have not found a way for my children, grandchildren cousins and relatives to have a clear view of their 34 ancestors rather then 200. It may seem drastic but I will not be around for ever and wanted to leave something meaningful, 

 

Does this make sense?

 

Regards

Retiredbri



#7 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5744 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 05:07 AM

Rather than distorting your working database to declutter reports, export the people you wish to include to a temporary new database used just for reports. When you have made further revisions to the main database and need to produce new reports, repeat.

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.


#8 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2935 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 02:59 PM

Rather than distorting your working database to declutter reports, export the people you wish to include to a temporary new database used just for reports. When you have made further revisions to the main database and need to produce new reports, repeat.

 

I totally agree with Tom about not distorting your working database. I think you will really like your procedure in the short run but you will really regret it in the long run.

 

It is possible to produce decluttered reports without distorting your working database. RM does not make this as easy as possible, but here is a way to do it.  I'll use your wife's example with "simple" names.

 

The key person in your list of "simple" names is Mark. You want all of Mark's descendants without any decluttering. You also want Mark's direct line back to Samuel, and you do want that part of the report to be decluttered. So let's assume that you have a fully cluttered database starting with Samuel and all his descendants. What we will do is make a temporary decluttered database with Samuel and only some of his descendants and run the report in the temporary database. After printing the report, we will delete the temporary database. This is what Tom already said, but this is how to create the temporary database.

  • Open your main database,
  • Clear all your colors.
  • Go to Samuel and color code all his descendants and their spouses as red.
  • Go to Mark. Color code some people as green as follows. Mark all of Mark's ancestors. Mark all of Mark's descendants. Unmark everybody who is not color coded red. The people you need for your report are now green.
  • Drag and drop all the green people do a new, temporary database.
  • Run your descendant report in the temporary database, starting with Samuel. It will be decluttered as you desire from Samuel down to Mark, and it will including everybody who is Mark's descendant.
  • Delete your temporary database.

Instead of using green color coding, you could make a group to be dragged and dropped to the new database. But you can't get rid of the red color coding and use a group instead for that part of the marking and unmarking. That's because you can unmark everybody who is not color coded red but you cannot unmark everybody who is not in a group.

 

Jerry



#9 RetiredBri

RetiredBri

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 12:28 AM

Thanks Jerry & TomH

I was hoping for some easier way than colour coding/groups because the “Smith” family is only on my wife’s side. I’m trying to “trim up” my side as well AND have an easy life now I’m 75!

 

Much of the data for the Smiths that I’m now putting “into store” was acquired in the 1980s and at that time, many Smith families were involved and pleased to see who, in the town, was related to whom.

Many of the older Smiths have died and hopefully, the younger Smiths have taken up the job of maintaining the branches that I’m putting into store.

 

I haven’t heard from these families for at least 10 years and could just delete these branches it BUT the “into store” approach is a way of easing my conscience, similar to all the thousands of photos in albums that no-one wants discard but, at the same time, we don’t look at!

 

I’m also at the stage of my life where I’m focussing the Family Tree on the new and younger generations.

 

Because the “in-store” branches are maintained by the RM excellent database management and because I still only have one database, I think I’ll try and put a few more old branches “into store” and see if causes problems.

 

I can, of course, revert back if required and will have not lost anything (except the time when I should have been helping with the household chores that have absolutely no appeal whatsoever!)

 

Regards

Retiredbri



#10 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2935 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 05:32 AM

I was hoping for some easier way than colour coding/groups 

 

Easy or hard can be in the eye of the beholder. I don't know what your overall experience with RM is, but do be aware that you don't have to color code or put people into groups one at a  time. You can do it for thousands of people at a time provided there is some rule that can be followed, such as "all descendants of Samuel".

 

Also, I do hope that RM itself makes this easier. In your case, three enhancements to RM would help tremendously. One enhancement would be for RM to remember the rules that were used to create a group and to be able to re-apply these rules automatically. For example, one of the rules in your case would be "all descendants of Mark" and you are probably adding new descendants of Mark because that's the area of the database where you are working. RM presently does not include the newly added descendants in the group and it's something you have to remember to do yourself. Another enhancement would be for RM to be able to limit narrative reports to a group. It doesn't presently have this ability which is why you have do the drag and drop to a new database to create the report you need. The drag and drop can be limited to a group but the narrative report cannot. A third enhancement would to be able to mark and unmark by group and not to have to involve colors in the process of making a group such as yours.

 

RM's groups are a great feature, but RM does not utilize the feature to its maximum benefit.

 

Good luck with your project!

 

Jerry



#11 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 7708 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 09:33 AM

Confirming these are on the enhancement request list.


Renee
RootsMagic

#12 RetiredBri

RetiredBri

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:53 PM

Thanks to all

 

I'm now trying to "break" the method (to see how robust it is) and to get some idea of how much work is involved. So far, it is not difficult as long as you are methodical (I use a tick-list for each person)

I'm pleased that see, that once done, I will be able to produce reports without ever having to "to remember the rules" as Jerry puts it ,

 

Regards

 

Retiredbri



#13 RetiredBri

RetiredBri

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 30 May 2018 - 06:36 AM

Here is a progress report.

 

Just dealing with the “Main Smith Tree, I have split off 19 sub trees (comprising 586 people not meaningful to my living Smith descendants) and effectively “put them into store”. I have created only 19 duplicated persons.

 

I now have 84 persons in "my Smiths Descendant chart" Edit: I think the number of persons in this tree would have been about 280 if I had not split out the "non meaningful" persons.

 

It took some effort but I feel it was worthwhile.

 

I do not think it could have been done with colours.

 

If required I could always print off this main Smith chart plus a separate chart  of a sub tree if any "distant Smith relative" were to contact me. It wouldn't need any rules. 

 

Comments please?

 

Regards Retiredbri