Thanks for all the good info. I'll have to explore further before getting too much further with migrating. Just to help me scope the effort, assuming that I currently have say 5000 people with 600-700 sources and 25+K citations, how many sources would you guess I would be mananging with extreme splitting? FYI, I'm not really sure how many 'real' citations I actually have. Genbox supports citations for many more elements, so I delete many when I migrate a person. Ex., to record a new person with a birth event in Genbox, I could record individual (usually duplicate) citations for: the person, person name, birth event, birth date, birth place, birth detail, mother, father, and family, and probably a couple more that I'm forgetting) ... so maybe 8-10K citiations remaining when I'm done.
- RootsMagic Forums
- → quarter's Content
There have been 13 items by quarter (Search limited from 13-December 18)
I generally do most of my editing from the Timeline. On seemingly random occasions, the person's timeline wil be duplicated on screen, one complete timeline placed below the other within the Timeline tab. This generally happens after I save an edited fact note, in which case I lose my note changes and have to re-enter them, but have also had it happen after applying a color code, and probably other activities as well. The duplicate timeline wil go away if I move to another person and then back again, or switching to a different tab and back again. The frequency is maybe once every hour or so of steady editing. I can provide a screen shot if needed.
I realized that option 2 above will not work because there are indeed pages in sources like books. No kidding.
So, resorting to option 1, I ran the following query to set all the free-form citations to 'Fix'. This will allow me to set up a Group of people that have citations that need to be fixed. I'll delete the 'Fix' as I update them. That's the opposite of Laura's approach, but I prefer it as it leaves the citation reference no. empty when I'm done.
SET RefNumber = "Fix"
WHERE SourceID IN (SELECT SourceID FROM SourceTable WHERE TemplateID = 0);
I'm thinking my best approach going fwd is a combination of your's and Laura's suggestions. FYI, I have about 700 sources and about 20K citations to wade thru. I like Laura's approach to manage future updates because I'm updating them to better conform to EE, so I have to manually touch many of them anyway. The problem is that I've been at it for several months, so I've already fixed a few thousand and don't want to start over. For her approach to be effective, I'd need to go find all the citations I've already fixed and update the reference number of each so that the Group filter works correctly. So I'm thinking I have two possible choices:
1) Write a query to update all the citation reference numbers to add a short text string to any citations that are linked to a free-form source type.
2) Write a query to update all the citations, as above, that have "<Name>Page</Name>" in the Fields BLOB. For this to work, I'm presuming that RM has added that code to every free-form citation, regardless if there is any page text. Based on what I have already read from this thread, I think that assumption is correct.
My preference is option 2, since I only need to be concerned with one table. I'm using SQLite Expert, have loaded the unifuzz DLL, and have my DB backed up. Do you concur, and are there any gotchas in working with this DB that I need to be concerned with?
Thanks Laura. I have never used the Source to create a group. There's a gold mine of good stuff buried in the long list of operators you can use for filters. Wish I'd seen this a few months ago :-).
I'd love it if they could either 1) separate the system items from the fact types in the 'Select Field' list, or 2) allow us to turn on/off adding fact types to the list. With them co-mingled alphabetically, the system items get lost in the shuffle, and those are the ones that I tend to use the most.
The Page field addition works great. The only problem is that it is difficult to tell if I have fixed the citation, i.e. moved the different elements in the Page field into the correct locations in the source, since the source line looks similar in the citation manager, same info, just in a different order. I was considering adding a citiation element called 'Fixed' and entering 'Yes' when I've repaired it. Then eventually delete the field from the template once all the citations are updated. Any better ideas?
OK, thanks for the info. Jerry, I'll give it a try. That said, I would still recommend that the developer look at the underlying issue I described above. I suspect that many users would not pursue it even to the level that I did. Migrating data between different systems is a major pain, and having these sort of issues just makes it more annoying.
A few more recommendations based on the prevuius comments:
1) If the user community considers it 'best practice' not to use the original templates, and the developers agree with this approach, then I recommend that RM be changed so that the supplied templates are presented as an uneditable reference library separate from the actual template set used to create sources. When the user creates a new source type, they could either copy one from the reference library, or create a new one from scratch. This preserves the reference templates, while allowing the user to keep a concise list of working templates limited to the ones they actually use.
2) Each original source template already references the style guide(s) that they model (i.e. EE, AQS, etc.), so take it one step further and tag each template with the source style guide(s) and allow the user to filter the reference list to only the template styles they prefer.
3) Allow the user to activate/deactivate their templates (could also be a first step towards implementing item #1).
4) Data migration is a huge pain (this is my fourth go at it since the late-80's ... I've done FTM -> TMG -> Genbox -> RM ... I guess once a decade or so is about all I can handle :-) ). It would be really helpful to have a knowledge base set up for new migrators that provides guidance for handling situations like above that are not obvious to the new user.
Yes, agree. However, I found that merging works OK for things that only have one field in the source detail (like books with page numbers), but not so well for more complicated citations like census sources. If the source detail has several fields, i.e. page, ED, subject, etc., all of the source detail included with the free-form source citation is lost during the merge. (In the free-form citiations, all the detail is combined in a single 'page number' field.)
Unfortunately, I can't see any good way of overcoming this, since there's no way that RM could tell how to parse the combined data into the various fields of the new source detail (at least as long as we continue to have to deal with GEDCOM). However, the merge dialog should probably warn you if it expects data will be lost during the merge.
I have been gradually re-doing all my sources, which were all originally imported using the 'Free-form' template as part of a GEDCOM import using a database that I exported from Genbox a while ago. I create the new source using the appropriate template, then add new citations as required and delete the old citiations tied to the old free-form source. Sometimes when deleting the old source, I have been erroneously getting a dialog saying that there are still people, families or facts using the source. I run a source report to see what citations are still attached, and in each case, the report shows a citation attached to the person name, but the citiation was deleted previously and does not show in the list of sources for the person's name (or any other events attached to that person). I've tried cleaning and re-indexing, etc., but has no effect. Note that this does not prevent me from deleting the source if I answer 'yes' at the confirmation dialog, but wastes time to run the report, etc., and not sure if it's leaving a bunch of orphaned citiations out there.
Twice I have cleared all my color coding by accident, I think because I've accidentally selected it when adding a color to a person. I'm using blue color coding for a number of people, and the 'Clear all colors' option is directly behind blue in the 'Set Color' drop down menu. Recommend adding a "Do you really want to Clear all colors" verification to prevent accidental clearing.
The source template "Pension Files, NARA Microfilm" is set up to us NARA as the default source, but allows for using non-NARA sources as well. However, the short footnote will print the 'NARA' film ID regardless so, as it is currently published, it only works for NARA publications.
[ItemOfInterest:Abbrev], NARA [FilmID]<, [RollNo]>.
Recommend either updating the template to remove the NARA text from the short footnote, or making the template specific to NARA and adding a new non-NARA template with all NARA defaults removed.
Also, the Publication Date in the full footnote and bibliography templates is a required field, recommend making it an optional field. Some of the sate sources don't provide a pub. date, and the comma shows if you don't enter a date. (text is not allowed, so 'n.d.' is not accepted)