Hi Simon V5 sounds great. I will certainly get it . As you may remember (most recently my email of 5 Feb 2011), I still tend to work in Pedigree (old habits die hard), convert to GEDCOM 5.5 via Peditree and import into FH4. Works very well with a little bit of re-configuring (eg NAME to TITLE). FH4 was a huge improvement over earlier versions for Pedigree users. Just thought I would ask if FH5 has any further improvements specific to Pedigree/Peditree. I won't be surprised if your answer is "no", but you have surprised me before with V4, so just thought I would ask! Regards Ralph Atherton

Since you are installing over an existing running installation you will not need your original disc. If you are installing a Full Licence Version then you will only ever the need the current FH V5 CD or Download. However, if you are installing a V4 to V5 Upgrade Licence Version you will need your FH V4 CD and its Licence Registration Key if you ever need to re-install on a new PC or after a PC breakdown. See http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:reinstall_family_historian for details. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Laraine Hake Sent: 26 March 2012 19:59 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Family Historian Version 5 Can I assume that I will not need my original disc...............since it seems to have gone walkabout............ Very frustrating! Laraine -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jane Taubman" <janetaubman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 7:24 PM To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Family Historian Version 5 > You can install over the top, and it will migrate your settings, if > you have any full FH version it can be installed over any earlier one > to retain as many settings as possible. > > On 26 March 2012 19:07, Margaret North <famwizard@googlemail.com> wrote: >> My >> question is when V5 arrives will I need to uninstall my present program >> before installing V5 or can I just install V5 over the top of my present >> version so to speak? > > > > -- > Jane. > > Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Well done Simon. I'm glad you held off releasing v5 until you had completed the testing; in spite of numerous emails urging otherwise. Regards, Martin -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Simon Orde Sent: 26 March 2012 18:00 To: FHU Mailing List Subject: [FHU] *** Version 5 has been released I'm very pleased to announce that version 5 of Family Historian has now been released. This is a major upgrade with a lot of new features and enhancements. See http://www.family-historian.co.uk/features/whats-new-in-v5 for full details and pictures. Users of version 3 or earlier versions, who wish to upgrade, should buy the full product - either boxed or as a download. "Version 3" means any version where the first digit is a '3'. Users of version 4 who wish to upgrade can buy an upgrade product - either as a download or on CD. Or if you prefer to buy a full version, you can of course do that too. See http://www.family-historian.co.uk/buy-now for purchase/upgrade options. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the beta testers who tested version 5 for us. They did a fantastic job and version 5 has benefitted greatly as a result. If you don't know what "beta testers" are, they are real users who do pre-release product testing. I would also like to thank Jane Taubman who, as well as sharing with me the role of being an administrator on this list and running the Family Historian User Group website, has provided a huge amount of help with version 5 - as she did with previous versions. Simon Orde List Administrator & Family Historian designer ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Can I assume that I will not need my original disc...............since it seems to have gone walkabout............ Very frustrating! Laraine -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jane Taubman" <janetaubman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 7:24 PM To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Family Historian Version 5 > You can install over the top, and it will migrate your settings, if > you have any full FH version it can be installed over any earlier one > to retain as many settings as possible. > > On 26 March 2012 19:07, Margaret North <famwizard@googlemail.com> wrote: >> My >> question is when V5 arrives will I need to uninstall my present program >> before installing V5 or can I just install V5 over the top of my present >> version so to speak? > > > > -- > Jane. > > Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You can install over the top, and it will migrate your settings, if you have any full FH version it can be installed over any earlier one to retain as many settings as possible. On 26 March 2012 19:07, Margaret North <famwizard@googlemail.com> wrote: > My > question is when V5 arrives will I need to uninstall my present program > before installing V5 or can I just install V5 over the top of my present > version so to speak? -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

If you're installing the full version, there's no need to uninstall the previous version. Just run the installation program for the full version. It will detect your existing installation and install itself 'over the top' of it as you say. Simon Orde List Administrator & Family Historian designer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret North" <famwizard@googlemail.com> To: <FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 7:07 PM Subject: [FHU] Family Historian Version 5 >I have at present FH V4.1.3 and because I have come to this version via > V2.07 with the V3 upgrade and the V4 upgrade CDs I decided to order the > full boxed V5 to make any subsequent re-install less complicated. My > question is when V5 arrives will I need to uninstall my present program > before installing V5 or can I just install V5 over the top of my present > version so to speak? If it is of any relevance I have Windows 7 64bit > operating system. > > Many thanks, > Margaret North. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have at present FH V4.1.3 and because I have come to this version via V2.07 with the V3 upgrade and the V4 upgrade CDs I decided to order the full boxed V5 to make any subsequent re-install less complicated. My question is when V5 arrives will I need to uninstall my present program before installing V5 or can I just install V5 over the top of my present version so to speak? If it is of any relevance I have Windows 7 64bit operating system. Many thanks, Margaret North.

I'm very pleased to announce that version 5 of Family Historian has now been released. This is a major upgrade with a lot of new features and enhancements. See http://www.family-historian.co.uk/features/whats-new-in-v5 for full details and pictures. Users of version 3 or earlier versions, who wish to upgrade, should buy the full product - either boxed or as a download. "Version 3" means any version where the first digit is a '3'. Users of version 4 who wish to upgrade can buy an upgrade product - either as a download or on CD. Or if you prefer to buy a full version, you can of course do that too. See http://www.family-historian.co.uk/buy-now for purchase/upgrade options. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the beta testers who tested version 5 for us. They did a fantastic job and version 5 has benefitted greatly as a result. If you don't know what "beta testers" are, they are real users who do pre-release product testing. I would also like to thank Jane Taubman who, as well as sharing with me the role of being an administrator on this list and running the Family Historian User Group website, has provided a huge amount of help with version 5 - as she did with previous versions. Simon Orde List Administrator & Family Historian designer

Now - who can face adding comments to Ancestry family trees to show up errors?? Oh. Suddenly I'm not so enthusiastic about my own advice! Adrian B I have done this. Adding comments which went to the owner of the family tree. These comments have nothing to do with Ancestry. Owners of these trees rarely get back to me. They probably think 'they' are right and 'I' am wrong. Some people never accept others comments. As I have mentioned elsewhere FTM haver a green leaf next to all the names on my tree. This leaves indicates there are other sources to the person. A couple of months ago I found such a leaf next to my father's name. That was a surprise to me. Anyway I checked it out and found someone else had my father's name on their tree. Furthermore they included 2 photos of my father. These photos came from me. Curious I contacted the owner of the tree and asked how they got the photos and what their relationship was. At least the owner did reply and said I was welcome to download a copy of the photo. Fancy he gave me permission to download a copy of a photo which I have (or rather my sister) in my possession. He also told me that he didn't have a direct connection and copied the details what FTM produce. He did say something about the link going back to his 2 x great grandmother. These details are never clear. I then told him that the chap we were talking about was my father and I asked him for the name of his 2 x great grandmother. He never got back to me. Looking at his tree he was one of those who hid living relatives. Since his 2 x great grandmother couldn't be alive so there was no reason for him not giving me her name. Not hearing from him I did a search using Ancestry and built up a tree based on his name. Once completed I told him the year he was born his wife's name, the year they got married, and the name of his children then the name of his 2 x great grandparents. I guess all that came as a shock for someone who hid the names of living people. The above is just an example why I subscribe to Ancestry and have FTM. I am not here to ague about the merits of Ancestry and FTM both have their good and bad features. Had that leaf not appeared alongside my father's name I would not have known about this persons tree. Whenever I see transcription errors I always report them. Ancestry always send me an email of thanks. Mind you it is not easy on FreeBMD and there are times I give up trying. Victor

My experience of FMP corrections is a bit different, I had a family of five where the surname was transcribed as Sayer instead of Sagar, it spanned two pages, three names on the bottom of one page and two names on the next page. I received an email confirmibg that the three names on page 1 would be corrected, but got an email to say they were satisfied with their transcription of the other two names and would disregard my correction. I was particularly surprised since the names on page 2 were 'do' so referred to the name on the previous page. I have tried Findmypast various times over the years and I find it far less flexible thab Ancestry, I suppose like everything else the customer chooses the product that suits them and since I have so many ancestors based in and around London, Ancestry wins every time. Irene Blackburn On 23 Mar 2012, at 20:43, Lorna Craig <l.m.craig@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > On 23/03/2012 17:35, Paul White wrote: >> You've prompted me to do a comparison of result counts for a selection of unusual names in the 1871 census. I can assure you that more often than not FindMypast finds more than Ancestry. And, while FMP is not by any means perfect, I reckon the results are more trustworthy. This accords with my recent experience of failing to find something in Ancestry, then using FMP (credits) and succeeding right away. >> >> Furthermore Ancestry has a superb facility for users to input transcription corrections plus their views on "incorrect in image", plus any other "variants" (that are often used in practice to enter women's maiden names). The effect of this, though, is to muddy the water so that where Ancestry *does* come up with more results than FMP there is strong reason to doubt it's more accurate in a strict sense. >> > In my experience, too, Findmypast transcriptions are generally more > accurate that Ancestry. > I'd like to add that Findmypast also has an excellent and efficient > system for reporting transcription errors (but not variants: they stick > strictly to what is in the image). If you report a transcription error > for a census or BMD record you get a prompt email acknowledgement with a > promise that it will be looked at within 28 days. In fact it usually > only takes a few days and on one occasion only a few HOURS before they > make the correction! So I would encourage everyone to report any > transcription errors they find on FMP, for the benefit of others. > > Lorna > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I've done a quick search for both of these types of software using both Cyndi's list and G****e. Frankly, most of it is utter garbage, or not specific to genealogy (so needing a lot of time to input data) and exceedingly expensive. I wonder if other users are having this trouble or have any good ideas. Yes, i've heard about FH5 plug-ins and will be delighted to try them, but what else is out there and ready? Only two products really got my attention: * Ancestral Atlas (AA). Web-based. Very easy to upload GEDCOM, reasonable subscription rate, great for sharing, but I want MORE: 1. You can see all public data or filter markers for your own data, but not for those of another *specified* user (therefore no good for sharing with your family/associates). 2. Markers are featureless. I'd love to encode "time depth" as e.g. a rainbow spectrum of colours to see the geographical shift or spread/collapse with time. 3. Replacing markers by pseudo-3D columns of varying height could encode event counts to distinguish places with high population from low. * Genelines Timeline (GT). PC-based. Quite expensive. Excellent timelines for individuals, ancestors or descendants, making good use of 3D, but: 1. Where is the timeline for a geographical location? Preferably selectable from parish level and by county (and perhaps country). 2. For each location the timelines should stack (configurable grouping by parent level or earliest date, at least). 3. Connecting lines could show people movements between places, especially useful to highlight founder movements and abandonment. No doubt there are many more possibilities, but those I mention here just don't seem to be possible yet off the shelf. Any ideas? Link to AA: http://www.ancestralatlas.com/ancestry-mapping.php Link to GT: http://progenygenealogy.com/products/timeline-charts.aspx Paul

<<snipped>> So I would encourage everyone to report any transcription errors they find on FMP, for the benefit of others. <<snipped>> Well said Lorna. Not just FMP, either, but Ancestry, FreeBMD, etc., etc. We should all learn to use the error reporting mechanisms of our web-sites - we can argue about whether Ancestry's alternates or FMP & FreeBMD's single correction are the most efficient route but for most of us, it's simple - find an error and report it. Now - who can face adding comments to Ancestry family trees to show up errors?? Oh. Suddenly I'm not so enthusiastic about my own advice! Adrian B

On 23/03/2012 17:35, Paul White wrote: > You've prompted me to do a comparison of result counts for a selection of unusual names in the 1871 census. I can assure you that more often than not FindMypast finds more than Ancestry. And, while FMP is not by any means perfect, I reckon the results are more trustworthy. This accords with my recent experience of failing to find something in Ancestry, then using FMP (credits) and succeeding right away. > > Furthermore Ancestry has a superb facility for users to input transcription corrections plus their views on "incorrect in image", plus any other "variants" (that are often used in practice to enter women's maiden names). The effect of this, though, is to muddy the water so that where Ancestry *does* come up with more results than FMP there is strong reason to doubt it's more accurate in a strict sense. > In my experience, too, Findmypast transcriptions are generally more accurate that Ancestry. I'd like to add that Findmypast also has an excellent and efficient system for reporting transcription errors (but not variants: they stick strictly to what is in the image). If you report a transcription error for a census or BMD record you get a prompt email acknowledgement with a promise that it will be looked at within 28 days. In fact it usually only takes a few days and on one occasion only a few HOURS before they make the correction! So I would encourage everyone to report any transcription errors they find on FMP, for the benefit of others. Lorna

Victor Markham said "As to GR census like I said I don't use this but I imagine you download the image and save it. From there you use Ancestral Sources to add it to your FH". I don't want this to get too partisan and certainly not acrimonious, but why would I use AS? That (and nothing else, either) will get near the quality of my translation and interpretation from an image into FH to comply with my own house style, needs and prejudices. What's more, Ancestry leaves a lot to be desired in its transcriptions hence search success. For years it's been my only census source but I've lost count of the number of times I've missed results owing to off-the-wall transcriptions (you couldn't get those spellings in any Earthly language, so what planet are they on?). You've prompted me to do a comparison of result counts for a selection of unusual names in the 1871 census. I can assure you that more often than not FindMypast finds more than Ancestry. And, while FMP is not by any means perfect, I reckon the results are more trustworthy. This accords with my recent experience of failing to find something in Ancestry, then using FMP (credits) and succeeding right away. Now i've taken out an FMP subscription but hope to continue with Ancestry because it has several superior features. Furthermore Ancestry has a superb facility for users to input transcription corrections plus their views on "incorrect in image", plus any other "variants" (that are often used in practice to enter women's maiden names). The effect of this, though, is to muddy the water so that where Ancestry *does* come up with more results than FMP there is strong reason to doubt it's more accurate in a strict sense. Victor Markham also said "...computer experts...", etc. Come on, Victor, don't be so trusting. As Adrian and I have tried to show, most of the software we pay hard-earned cash for is crap. How much bigger a mess are the vendors going to make of a really much better (and more complicated) GEDCOM? Paul

" It takes time to revise all this but when it is ready it would then be adopted by all the companies involved in making family tree software. " Your belief in the keenness of companies to rush to accept a new standard and rewrite all their software is heart-warming but, I fear, misplaced. Ian (Any errors in the above message are due entirely to the use of fat fingers on this Blackberry mini "keyboard") -----Original Message----- From: victor@markham.me.uk Sender: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:02:09 To: Paul White<pauldesmondwhite@yahoo.co.uk> Reply-To: victor@markham.me.uk, family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Cc: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com<family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] GEDCOM etc Paul When I talk about hot links on FTM all the names on my tree have a leaf symbol at the end. When this is shown you just put the cursor over it. This will indicate how many hot links there are. These hot links could be other peoples trees indicating they were searching the same name you have. This does not mean it is the same name and you need to check it. Other hot links are census details. If you did not have the census for that particular person then the hot link leads you to it. If is 'your' person then you have it there so no need to do a search thus saving time. Other hot links are to baptism, marriage and burial details. So long as Ancestry have added them and you subscribe to them then they are there for you to download. As to GR census like I said I don't use this but I imagine you download the image and save it. From there you use Ancestral Sources to add it to your FH Your comment about gedcom is why I don't read the details and just leave matters to the computer experts. It takes time to revise all this but when it is ready it would then be adopted by all the companies involved in making family tree software. The name of the magazine I gave was incorrect. It was the old name and is now called Family Tree. As I said I have not read the article yet and am in no hurry to do so Victor ------Original Message------ From: Paul White To: Victor Markham Cc: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com ReplyTo: Paul White Subject: GEDCOM etc Sent: 23 Mar 2012 15:29 Victor said "...the reason I use FTM is because it does provide lots of hot links..." To be honest I don't know what you mean here. But if you're referring to contacts (i.e. people getting in touch) then Genes Reunited is at least 10 times more productive in my case. Victor also said "GEDCOM is going through a revision." Hmmm, and don't we know it! Again. And by more than one group. One day it will be brilliant to have a more object-orientated storage, but how long do you think it will take for Gen software makers to support it - and with what degree of fidelity? (Simon excepted). You realise I'm not going to live long enough to reap the benefit :) Victor further said "Genes Reunited do do census..." Sorry, i wasn't being clear here. Yes, GR provides census data. I meant it doesn't accept census records in a GED upload. Paul Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Paul When I talk about hot links on FTM all the names on my tree have a leaf symbol at the end. When this is shown you just put the cursor over it. This will indicate how many hot links there are. These hot links could be other peoples trees indicating they were searching the same name you have. This does not mean it is the same name and you need to check it. Other hot links are census details. If you did not have the census for that particular person then the hot link leads you to it. If is 'your' person then you have it there so no need to do a search thus saving time. Other hot links are to baptism, marriage and burial details. So long as Ancestry have added them and you subscribe to them then they are there for you to download. As to GR census like I said I don't use this but I imagine you download the image and save it. From there you use Ancestral Sources to add it to your FH Your comment about gedcom is why I don't read the details and just leave matters to the computer experts. It takes time to revise all this but when it is ready it would then be adopted by all the companies involved in making family tree software. The name of the magazine I gave was incorrect. It was the old name and is now called Family Tree. As I said I have not read the article yet and am in no hurry to do so Victor ------Original Message------ From: Paul White To: Victor Markham Cc: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com ReplyTo: Paul White Subject: GEDCOM etc Sent: 23 Mar 2012 15:29 Victor said "...the reason I use FTM is because it does provide lots of hot links..." To be honest I don't know what you mean here. But if you're referring to contacts (i.e. people getting in touch) then Genes Reunited is at least 10 times more productive in my case. Victor also said "GEDCOM is going through a revision." Hmmm, and don't we know it! Again. And by more than one group. One day it will be brilliant to have a more object-orientated storage, but how long do you think it will take for Gen software makers to support it - and with what degree of fidelity? (Simon excepted). You realise I'm not going to live long enough to reap the benefit :) Victor further said "Genes Reunited do do census..." Sorry, i wasn't being clear here. Yes, GR provides census data. I meant it doesn't accept census records in a GED upload. Paul Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Victor said "...the reason I use FTM is because it does provide lots of hot links..." To be honest I don't know what you mean here. But if you're referring to contacts (i.e. people getting in touch) then Genes Reunited is at least 10 times more productive in my case. Victor also said "GEDCOM is going through a revision." Hmmm, and don't we know it! Again. And by more than one group. One day it will be brilliant to have a more object-orientated storage, but how long do you think it will take for Gen software makers to support it - and with what degree of fidelity? (Simon excepted). You realise I'm not going to live long enough to reap the benefit :) Victor further said "Genes Reunited do do census..." Sorry, i wasn't being clear here. Yes, GR provides census data. I meant it doesn't accept census records in a GED upload. Paul

Jane said "...you will be able to use plugins to "strip" down gedcom files to export from FH.   Plugins include a full blown scripting system and a object view of the gedcom data within Family Historian." Wow, didn't realise there'd be Calico-supplied plug-ins already! That one sounds just up my street! Paul

Paul I use FTM as well as FH. FH is the main one and the reason I use FTM is because it does provide lots of hot links to people I have on my tree. These hot links save me a considerable amount of time doing a search on Ancestry. Transferring from FH to FTM does not give me all the details. One, for example, is that in FH I set up Project files this is great but the whole of it wont be opened in FTM. That does not bother me as, after all, FH is my main one. I just up date the tree in FTM from time to time. GEDCOM is going through a revision. There is an article about this in the latest Ancestors magazine. I haven't got round to reading it but do know there has been a conference in Salt Lake City discussing changes. It was too long for me to read and digest it all and since I am not involved I will just wait for the final outcome. Genes Reunited do do census but I have not tried it. I think you have to pay for each one you look at. Since I am an Ancestry subscriber I don't need to fork out for this additional cost. Victor On 23/03/2012 1:59 PM, Paul White wrote: > Adrian > > As always your comments are informed and to the point. > > I've absolutely no doubt Simon Orde's GEDCOM compatibility is as good as claimed (my confidence rests in the extremely high quality of FH as a whole, plus my own observations picking apart the GEDCOMs themselves). > > Of course I'm devoted to standards compatibility, and richness within the standard: it was one of just four fundamental factors in my choice of FH (UI, diagramming and queries being the others, and see comment in the P.S.). > > What we need is evidence-based pressure on any product we *really* want to interface with (in my case Ancestry because, for all its popularity and success in finding contacts for me, Genes Reunited doesn't "do" census) in the hope of making life (a lot) easier. > > One route would be for FH to provide a few "dumb" export/convert filters (to FTM in particular) and I dare say Simon would be perfectly able to do this with his existing knowledge, even if there's no chance he'll find time for it - and fat chance anyone else cares. > > Another would be to do it myself! Well, I'm not *all* mouth and no trousers, and i've got as far as parsing a big FH GED into a VBA hierarchy of classes. The next steps would be to output a tree diagram showing the "occupancy" of each element, then compare with other software like FTM. That at least would start to provide the evidence i'm talking about. And be within spitting distance of a filter. But don't hold your breath. > > Paul > > P.S. Too many users are swayed by the fancy stuff, that most software does badly anyway. You can usually find third-party software or a web service that'll do clever stuff a hell of a lot better. > > If you strip out all the frills from genealogy software reviews then (in my opinion) FH comes out consistently on top by a very wide margin. Apart from cosmetics the only issue for many people is "approachability". > > I often wonder if an entry-level interface could be developed to capture a much larger slice of the market, To be honest i don't really rate Simon's so-called "focus window", though it's probably the right *direction* for users of FTM and the like. Needs a sexier look and at least a simplified Properties pane too. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Adrian As always your comments are informed and to the point. I've absolutely no doubt Simon Orde's GEDCOM compatibility is as good as claimed (my confidence rests in the extremely high quality of FH as a whole, plus my own observations picking apart the GEDCOMs themselves). Of course I'm devoted to standards compatibility, and richness within the standard: it was one of just four fundamental factors in my choice of FH (UI, diagramming and queries being the others, and see comment in the P.S.). What we need is evidence-based pressure on any product we *really* want to interface with (in my case Ancestry because, for all its popularity and success in finding contacts for me, Genes Reunited doesn't "do" census) in the hope of making life (a lot) easier. One route would be for FH to provide a few "dumb" export/convert filters (to FTM in particular) and I dare say Simon would be perfectly able to do this with his existing knowledge, even if there's no chance he'll find time for it - and fat chance anyone else cares. Another would be to do it myself! Well, I'm not *all* mouth and no trousers, and i've got as far as parsing a big FH GED into a VBA hierarchy of classes. The next steps would be to output a tree diagram showing the "occupancy" of each element, then compare with other software like FTM. That at least would start to provide the evidence i'm talking about. And be within spitting distance of a filter. But don't hold your breath. Paul P.S. Too many users are swayed by the fancy stuff, that most software does badly anyway. You can usually find third-party software or a web service that'll do clever stuff a hell of a lot better. If you strip out all the frills from genealogy software reviews then (in my opinion) FH comes out consistently on top by a very wide margin. Apart from cosmetics the only issue for many people is "approachability". I often wonder if an entry-level interface could be developed to capture a much larger slice of the market, To be honest i don't really rate Simon's so-called "focus window", though it's probably the right *direction* for users of FTM and the like. Needs a sexier look and at least a simplified Properties pane too.