Jump to content


Photo

Merging


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
41 replies to this topic

#21 J.Wiley

J.Wiley

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 30 January 2011 - 10:16 PM

To expand on Bill47's very good idea:

(Assuming the merge is for people)

I would like to see two side-by-side panes initialy: one with the 'primary' and the second with the possible 'mergee'.
If the 'mergee' is NOT the correct one, then a back button to select a new 'mergee'.
If the 'mergee' IS the correct one, a pane with all facts (sorted by date/sort date within fact type) would be displayed preceeded by a check box.

After selecting which facts to merge, a new pane is displayed with the proposed merged record.
If the result is NOT satifactory then, a back button to the previous step.
If the result IS satisfactory then, a button to execute the merge. (With possibly a 'Are you really, REALLY sure about this?' warning.)

At which point the two records are merged and the 'mergee's' record and facts are deleted.

Master lists (Place, source, etc.) could be handled in a similar fashion.

#22 John James

John James

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 26 March 2011 - 06:13 AM

Foir me at the moment the RM merge is more trouble thaN beneficial so I don't trust it.

#23 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3593 posts

Posted 12 April 2011 - 02:49 PM

We are experimenting with individual topics and letting our users express their thoughts and suggestions for the subject. Let us know how you feel RootsMagic could be improved in the Merging area.


I wish for a new feature that would apply to ShareMerge and only to ShareMerge. Namely, I wish for a ShareMerge option that doesn't merge. Rather, it replaces, and it replaces the least recently edited copy of an individual with the most recently edited copy of the same individual. Two individuals should be identified as being the same individual according to standard ShareMerge conventions. After the replace, the most recently edited individual that remains should be connected to all the parents, children, and spouses that previously were connected to the least recently edited individual, and these parents, children, and spouses should be kept in the same order. All parent, child, and spouse connections originally associated with the most recently edited individual should be deleted.

Jerry

#24 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3459 posts

Posted 12 April 2011 - 03:16 PM

I wish for a new feature that would apply to ShareMerge and only to ShareMerge. Namely, I wish for a ShareMerge option that doesn't merge. Rather, it replaces, and it replaces ...*SNIP*

I can see great benefit in the ability to replace, rather than merge, individual(s) who have the same UID (i.e. existed in a database, were exported and modified, and are now being reimported) as an enhancement option. The individuals being replaced would then become discards just like unused Places, Sources, Media and such... still in the database, but left behind in GEDCOM exports and not referenced in reports/etc. since they are no longer primary (in use). Perhaps they could even just have their UID(s) altered (or be marked in some other way) that maintains a relationship to the individuals that have replaced them, for some added program capability, like historical reference (eg. what "changes" occurred), reverting (UNDO), ETC..

---
--- "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


#25 John James

John James

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 12 April 2011 - 03:19 PM

I wish for a new feature that would apply to ShareMerge and only to ShareMerge. Namely, I wish for a ShareMerge option that doesn't merge. Rather, it replaces, and it replaces the least recently edited copy of an individual with the most recently edited copy of the same individual. Two individuals should be identified as being the same individual according to standard ShareMerge conventions. After the replace, the most recently edited individual that remains should be connected to all the parents, children, and spouses that previously were connected to the least recently edited individual, and these parents, children, and spouses should be kept in the same order. All parent, child, and spouse connections originally associated with the most recently edited individual should be deleted.

Jerry

I'm not sure that would work, firstly if I understand correctly sharemerge only applies to individuals based on the UID number.

What might help is a presentation of duplicated facts within a user specified time period where the user could opt to keep one or other or both in each instance.

#26 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3593 posts

Posted 12 April 2011 - 08:31 PM

I'm not sure that would work, firstly if I understand correctly sharemerge only applies to individuals based on the UID number.

What might help is a presentation of duplicated facts within a user specified time period where the user could opt to keep one or other or both in each instance.


I think it really could work. It is correct that ShareMerge only applies to individuals based on the UID number, which is the whole point and which is why this ShareReplace idea would only work in association with ShareMerge.

As far as duplicated facts, the whole point is that there shouldn't be any. The facts associated with the incumbent individual would be deleted entirely, and would be replaced entirely with the facts from the imported individual. The imported individual would then be deleted.

Jerry

#27 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3593 posts

Posted 12 April 2011 - 08:47 PM

I think it really could work.


Upon further review, there is a problem with the procedure I described.

Some simple cases would work fine. For example, suppose you exported a man and wife and sent the two person GEDCOM to a colleague. The colleague might add some facts, change some facts, delete some facts, etc. The colleague could export two people back to you where you could import them and ShareReplace them. In fact, this would work for any number of people so long as your colleague sent back to you the exact same individuals you sent to your colleague in the first place, and provided you made no changes to any of the individuals while they were checked out to your colleague.

But a problem would occur, for example, if you sent a man and wife to your colleague, and if your colleague added some children and sent the man, wife, and children back to you. The procedure I described would lose the relationship between the man and wife on the one hand, and the children on the other hand.

Jerry

#28 John James

John James

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 03:35 PM

I think i would just like a listing after the merge of facts that are close and give the user the option to keep one or other or both, maybe by highlighting yellow like the duplicate search screen and if this information was stored in a file where the user could work through it from time to time it would be great for me.

#29 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3593 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 03:39 PM

Upon further review, there is a problem with the procedure I described.


Upon further, further review, I no longer think there would be a problem with maintaining family relationships properly with my proposed ShareReplace procedure. Which is to say, ShareMerge already maintains family relationships properly, even in cases where children or other additional people are added to the exported GEDCOM before it is imported back into the original database. So I think the only thing that would be required for ShareReplace to work would be for all the facts and sources to be deleted from the incumbent individual before the updated individual is merged into the incumbent individual. Well, strictly speaking, I guess the name itself is not a "fact", so the name from the updated individual would have to completely replace the name from the incumbent individual rather than becoming an alternate name.

Jerry

#30 Pat1939

Pat1939

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:10 PM

It seems as though we need a way to handle "duplicate" facts during or after a merge.

Perhaps a way on the EDIT PERSON window to select two facts that would display the detail simultaneously. At that point, the user could either choose which one they want to keep, or even edit between the two displays to combine info from duplicate A into duplicate B and then delete duplicate A.

Another option might be (while looking at both) a way to mark one as the "most likely" "proven" etc.

#31 leeirons

leeirons

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 11:33 PM

We are experimenting with individual topics and letting our users express their thoughts and suggestions for the subject. Let us know how you feel RootsMagic could be improved in the Merging area.


Upon importing a file from another software program, we need the ability to merge facts that are common to multiple persons into a single shared fact. This would be especially helpful for prior Legacy Family Tree Users who could not have truly shared facts (also known as events in Legacy), but instead had to copy and paste "shared" facts from one person to another person. When such a Legacy file gets imported into Roots Magic 5, each person has their own separate individual fact. A "merge facts" tool would merge all facts that are exactly the same into shared individual or family facts. Such a merging tool would save hundreds and even thousands of hours of time for people who are moving from other genealogy software (such as Legacy Family Tree) to Roots Magic. I am experiencing this pain right now with Roots Magic 5, which I just purchased because of the functionality Roots Magic provides to share facts and assign roles with role notes. I have found that I absolutely love Roots Magic and don't want to go back to Legacy. However, I have so much data in Legacy that the thought of having to go through and manually merge all of the shared facts is discouraging.

This is how the merge would work for shared individual facts. Facts associated with different persons that are exactly the same in terms of Fact Type, Date, Place, Place Details, Description, and Sources but have different information for each person in the Note field would be merged into a single shared individual fact. This new shared indivdual fact would have the same Fact Type, Date, Place, Place Details, Description, and Sources as before, and all of the persons would be listed in the People Who Share This Fact with each person's unique data from the Note field of their indivudal fact being moved to the Role Note for that person in the People who Share This Fact list of the new shared individual fact. The Note field for the new shared individual fact would be left blank.

This is how the merge would work for shared family facts. This function would merge macthing individual facts and a matching family fact into a new shared family fact. When there is (1) the same situation as identified above for individual facts and (2) the persons that have these matching individual facts are part of the same family and (3) there is a family fact with exactly the same Fact Name as the individual fact type and exactly the same Date, Place, Place Details, and Description as the matching indivdual facts of the persons in the same family, then all of these would be merged into a single shared family fact. The new shared family fact would (1) get the Family Fact Type, Date, Place, Place Details, Description, and Note of the original family fact, and (2) would get the source information of the matching individual facts, and (3) would have all of the individuals in the family who have a matching individual fact added to the People Who Share This Fact list of the new family fact, with each person's unique data from the Note field of their indivudal fact being moved to the Role Note for that person in the People who Share This Fact list of the new shared family fact.

Please Please PLEASE provide us with this merging tool, and please do it as a Roots Magic Version 5.1, and soon. I would even be willing to pay for this!

Thanks for listening!

Lee

#32 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8474 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:23 AM

Confirming enhancement request is in our tracking system. It sounds a little nightmarish to me! The RootsMagician can work wonders but some thing are better left to the human eye to judge.
Renee
RootsMagic

#33 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3425 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:13 PM

Please Please PLEASE provide us with this merging tool, and please do it as a Roots Magic Version 5.1, and soon. I would even be willing to pay for this!

Lee, I understand your desire for this but I very much doubt it will be forthcoming in the near future.

What should always be as up to date as possible is the import routine from other programs. I always believe this is best done through gedcom transfer (import Legacy gedcom) where the recipient program should first scan the file, present the exceptions (the bits it doesn't understand) and then ask the user how they want these exceptions dealt with.

We are all limited by our visions and abilities

Whilst we can borrow from the visions of others we cannot always deliver.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.2, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#34 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6256 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 09:26 PM

Upon importing a file from another software program, we need the ability to merge facts that are common to multiple persons into a single shared fact. This would be especially helpful for prior Legacy Family Tree Users who could not have truly shared facts (also known as events in Legacy), but instead had to copy and paste "shared" facts from one person to another person. When such a Legacy file gets imported into Roots Magic 5, each person has their own separate individual fact.


Renee is right that this is a little nightmarish. I know because I spent many an hour working up a batch solution in SQLite. FWIW, and to inspire Bruce et al, here it is, warts and all.A user-interactive solution providing greater control over the merge parameters, manual decision making, etc. would require higher-level programming. But for anyone curious to try it on a spare copy of their database, especially one imported from Legacy Family Tree and maybe Family Tree Maker, have a look, test it out and see if it does anything worthwhile for you. On Lee's sample database, some 3200 events were eliminated and replaced by sharing common events, with a corresponding reduction in citations.

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.


#35 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3425 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 04:14 PM

As someone who makes quite a lot use of Rootsmagic Duplicate Search Merge I know the short comings and frustrations so there are some easy ways it could be improved. Duplicate Search Merge searches the database for possible duplicates and presents you with a side by side comparison of possible duplicates. This enhancement mock up should go a long way to overcome the problems listed below.

The main problem for me is that the displayed list gives no indication of attached items like Notes, Sources and Media so they cannot be truly evaluated in this side by side view.

The second problem is that when the individuals are merged as duplicates this results in a compilation of both with only events which are exact in terms od date, Place, Place Details and Description being duplicated. This invariable leaves the user with a cleanup operation to delete unwanted facts on the main Edit Person screen so not helpful to productivity.

Both the above problems can be resolved before any merge by clicking on the Edit Person button in either the Primary or Duplicate person windows but then the side by side comparison is lost. In my opinion this could be easily resolved by some simple changes to the Duplicate Search Merge screen ;

Provide more information to the user regarding Notes, Source and Media attachments without the user having to forfeit the side by side comparison.

Present each duplicate comparison screen with fully populated checkboxes on both the Primary and Duplicate individuals allowing users to de-select unwanted and less accurate events before the merge operation, this would save the the cleanup after merge.

Provide functionality to display Note, Source or media by clicking in the indicator box without having to eter the Edit Person screen.

A revised Duplicate Merge Screen would go a long way toward aiding productivity along with helping clean the database of inaccurate and unwanted events. This single move would provide great help and time saving in establishing what every user should want to provide clean reports and individual fact bases for reports and books.

In todays internet generation the availability of information is greater than it ever has been making the need for more powerful and productive merge utilities more important than ever. I do hope that sometime in the not too distant future some genealogy software supplier produces some much needed utilities to help in this more and more time consuming task. I would prefer it to be Rootsmagic as they are half way there but utilities to manage larger and larger databases and Place Lists is now very much needed from software vendors.

http://www.vyger.co....reen-mockup.png

We are all limited by our visions and abilities

Whilst we can borrow from the visions of others we cannot always deliver.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.2, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#36 leeirons

leeirons

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 09:55 PM

Renee is right that this is a little nightmarish. I know because I spent many an hour working up a batch solution in SQLite. FWIW, and to inspire Bruce et al, here it is, warts and all.A user-interactive solution providing greater control over the merge parameters, manual decision making, etc. would require higher-level programming. But for anyone curious to try it on a spare copy of their database, especially one imported from Legacy Family Tree and maybe Family Tree Maker, have a look, test it out and see if it does anything worthwhile for you. On Lee's sample database, some 3200 events were eliminated and replaced by sharing common events, with a corresponding reduction in citations.


Thanks Tom! Fantastic job! Not sure whether a Family Tree Maker file converted into RM5 would produce a bunch of duplicated events that look like my Legacy Family Tree file looked. If so, though, your code should work.

#37 leeirons

leeirons

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 10:00 PM

In todays internet generation the availability of information is greater than it ever has been making the need for more powerful and productive merge utilities more important than ever. I do hope that sometime in the not too distant future some genealogy software supplier produces some much needed utilities to help in this more and more time consuming task. I would prefer it to be Rootsmagic as they are half way there but utilities to manage larger and larger databases and Place Lists is now very much needed from software vendors.

http://www.vyger.co....reen-mockup.png


Legacy Family Tree has a really powerful side-by-side merge utility. A person could use it to merge GEDCOMs, and then import the resulting GEDCOM into RM.

Basically, all three of the top software packages (RM, LFT, and FTM) have unique strengths and all have weaknesses. I basically use all three now for different things. Would love to just use one. :)

#38 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3425 posts

Posted 19 December 2011 - 12:54 PM

Legacy Family Tree has a really powerful side-by-side merge utility. A person could use it to merge GEDCOMs, and then import the resulting GEDCOM into RM.

Basically, all three of the top software packages (RM, LFT, and FTM) have unique strengths and all have weaknesses. I basically use all three now for different things. Would love to just use one. :)

Couldn't agree more and having looked at Legacy it certainly presents a lot more upfront information in Duplicate merge. I think Legacy is going to satisfy my needs for now as the bulk on my information is in RM3 format with only about 1K individuals in RM4.

Using the extra utilities of Legacy to work my RM3 data as well as outside programmes will be a great help although I wish RM5 had the all on one screen functionality for DSM and Places and more indication of what exists on Sources like the asterisks in Legacy on the tabs. It would just be nice to adopt one platform that had the capabilities I would like.

I think in the new year I will put more of a product comparison on my web site feature by feature, maybe by then I will have access to the full features of Legacy.

We are all limited by our visions and abilities

Whilst we can borrow from the visions of others we cannot always deliver.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.2, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#39 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3425 posts

Posted 12 December 2014 - 01:18 PM

We are experimenting with individual topics and letting our users express their thoughts and suggestions for the subject. Let us know how you feel RootsMagic could be improved in the Merging area.

 

I'm not trying to be a pain, just reviewing some old issues that appear to have been forgotten.

 

I was wondering if there was any progress on this Rootsmagic inspired experiment?, I know it was HOT back in 2011 but it seems the issues are the same today.


We are all limited by our visions and abilities

Whilst we can borrow from the visions of others we cannot always deliver.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.2, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#40 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3459 posts

Posted 12 December 2014 - 01:31 PM

I'm not trying to be a pain, just reviewing some old issues that appear to have been forgotten.
 
I was wondering if there was any progress on this Rootsmagic inspired experiment?, I know it was HOT back in 2011 but it seems the issues are the same today.


Just what exactly are you expecting in response? A simple YES in acknowledgement? It's been made abundantly clear that the RootsMagic folks will not "tip their hand" (as they characterize it) about coming features. Seems more like you're just rabble rousing because you've expressed disappointments in the perceived pace and/or how you think features ought to be.

---
--- "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