Jump to content


Member Since 16 Dec 2015
Offline Last Active Dec 19 2015 03:37 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: FTM Refugee Hints

19 December 2015 - 11:27 AM

RM7 will import the Description, but not the Date using this method. Thanks for the idea about exporting to the other FTM destinations. I updated my original post.


Hello a user at the Ancestry Forum did a test with FTM2012 and FTM 2014.


"I have have both FTM2012 & 2014. Neither exports media Date. Ditto, Category. Strangely, 2012 exports Description, but 2014 doesn't. (Apparently FTM-Mac3 does, too?)."


Reference Link: http://ancestryforums.custhelp.com/posts/b194b40a69?page=3 


Screen Shot of Family Tree Maker Media view (from my tree) for reference on what Date, Category and Description are.



In Topic: FTM Refugee Hints

18 December 2015 - 12:28 PM


I'm sort of beating a dead horse here. But it seems to me that the fact that GEDCOM does not support a master citation linked to multiple things is not really a barrier to genealogy software supporting a master citation linked to multiple things. Indeed, FTM is already an exemplar of how to do it - simply split the master citation into individual citations on GEDCOM export and merge the identical citations back together into a master citation on GEDCOM import. So RM doesn't have any trouble importing FTM's master citations from GEDCOM because the citations will already have been split in the GEDCOM and RM simply doesn't merge them back together. For direct import of FTM's master citations, I would assume that RM is doing the split as a part of the direct import process, and having split them it once again doesn't merge them back together. RM doesn't merge the identical citations back together because it can't - it doesn't support anything like a master citation.




Thank you for the clarification.  It is a bit frustrating that in 2015 old antiquated GEDCOM language is the limiting factor for transitioning data.


I can only hope Santa brings a buyer for family tree maker or some IT genius that can help all of us.....

In Topic: FTM Refugee Hints

18 December 2015 - 10:10 AM



The @ codes are GEDCOM links (the GEDCOM spec has another term for them, but that's what I call them). That way they can have 1 source (or picture) linked to multiple people. 


The only attributes of an image that appear to be exported into the gedcom is the caption, the path to the image and the Private setting. The Date, Description and Categories values appear to not be exported into the GEDCOM.


Only the FTM developers can fix this one.




This is a Family Tree Maker Screen Shot of media (from my tree) to clarify what the date, description and category fields look like. 




It is understandable other packages can't pick these items up if the GEDCOM doesn't export them. 

In Topic: FTM Refugee Hints

17 December 2015 - 03:54 PM




What you would do in RM would be to create the citation one time, then Memorize it and Paste it in the ten other places it needs to be.


This sort of gives you the feel that you have one citation with eleven links. But what it really does is create eleven separate but identical citations with one link each.


As I said, there is no direct equivalent to the Citation list that you guys posted for FTM so you can't see very directly what has happened from the Memorize and Paste process. The closest you can come to the Citation list is Lists->Sources, choose a Master Source, and click Print. This creates a report in memory that's all the citations associated with that Master Source. You can just look at the report on the screen, or you can print it on paper. Or you can save  the report as a text file, as a PDF file, or as an RTF file. If you just look at the report on the screen, you are locked into a modal Window and you can't access any other part of RM until you dismiss the Window. So most users tend to save the report to a file to work with.


In my experience, the report for a Master Source typically may have hundreds or even thousands of lines of data because it's a report of all the citations for the Master Source, not just a listing of the occurrences of the particular citation that you are interested in.




Thank you for the clarification. That helps to explain it better. I guess I need to determine if that is a deal breaker for me.  It seems like potentially a lot of work if you need to update a source. 

In Topic: FTM Refugee Hints

17 December 2015 - 03:29 PM

One thought I have after looking at the screen shots from FTM is that where source data from FTM should go in RM depends to a certain extent on whether the RM user is primarily a source splitter or a source lumper. Another thought I have after looking at the screen shots from FTM is that FTM appears to have a source and citation data model that RM is desperately lacking and that therefore it is hard to map the FTM source data to RM in a way that makes any sense. Let's see if I can describe these ideas a little more clearly.


FTM appears to have a named list of Source Groups. I think for most users, these Source Groups would come closest to corresponding to Master Sources in RM. You can get a list of RM Master Sources just like you can get a list of FTM Source Groups.


FTM appears to have a named list of Source Citations and a list of all of the facts to which each named "Source citation" is linked. It is of particular interest that each "Source Citation" in FTM appears to be able to be linked to multiple facts. RM does have source citations, but they are not named and you cannot easily get a list of them. And each one of them is linked to exactly one fact in RM.  Indeed, if you want the "same citation" in RM to link to multiple facts, what you really get is a separate and identical copy of the citation rather than the "same citation". This design feature of RM is the root cause of why it's so difficult to make changes to every occurrence of the same citation - because there is no such thing in RM as "every occurrence of the same citation". Each citation only occurs once, and to make changes you have to find every citation and change it individually, and there is no list of the citations that's really comparable to the list in FTM. I would be deeply indebted to the demise of FTM and to the influx of FTM refugees into RM if these events would induce RM to adopt the same citation model that FTM seems to have.


Having ranted thusly, and given RM's existing and inadequate data model for sources and citations, where do I think FTM's Citation Detail and Citation Text fields should go in RM? Well, if the RM user is a source splitter, then the FTM data should go into RM's Source Text and Source Comment fields in RM's Master Source. And if the RM user is a source lumper, then the FTM data should go into RM's Research Notes and Comments fields in RM's Source Detail. But I doubt that RM's import of FTM data provides FTM users with the option of making such a choice.


Advice for FTM users: don't worry too much about what RM's Source Text, Source Comments, Research Notes, and Comments fields are called. They are all really just notes. Think of them as Note1, Note2, Note3, and Note4. Note1 and Note2 are associated with RM's Master Source which appears to be like FTM's Source Groups. Note3 and Note4 are associated with RM's Detail Text which appears to be like FTM's Source Citations only without the ability to name them or to get a list of them very easily. But do consider very carefully Laura's advice about which of these notes can and cannot be printed in association with footnotes and endnotes. What I'm calling Note3 and Note4 can be printed along with footnotes and endnotes, and what I'm calling Note1 and Note2 cannot be. In the language of RM, Research Notes and Comments can be printed along with footnotes and endnotes, whereas Source Text and Source Comments cannot be printed along with footnotes and endnotes.







Can I just confirm that I understand your explanation correctly? 

In this example I have a death certificate that contains 11 links - it links to both people, events and facts.



Does your post intended to mean that if I wanted to do this in RootsMagic I would need 11 separate citations for the same source?