BJ, The only exception to what you said is when you use a Source Template. It can NOT be changed in the AMT so it will be returned from the AMT when the sync is done. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: BJ via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:52 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] AMT vs FTM Data bases - was The Great Debate While I may sympathize with your sentiments, the reality is the Ancestry trees and FTM are two separate products and have two different development teams. While they may try to coordinate, I suspect it is physically impossible for the two data bases to be identical. It has only been recent that they added and stored certain information in FTM into the AMT even though the information is not displayed in the AMT. Downloading the AMT and using it as a backup is not recommended because of these differences. I had to do it once because I had gone several months without backing up my FTM file and I corrupted my main file to such an extent that nothing I did would recover it. I swore then that I would backup my data faithfully but I'm afraid that I've slipped back into my old habits. :-[ I approach the problem in a slightly different direction. I don't care whether the AMT and the FTM data bases are identical. What I want FTM to do is download the AMT or any other data base and as it is importing the data into the FTM Data base, examine the source-citations and at the user's option aggregate identical Source-citations into a single source-citations with the appropriate multiple links. I'm not sure whether you are aware of what it means for a source-citation to be identical. Source-citations are considered identical only when everything is identical that includes: 1. Source 2. Citation Detail 3. Citation Text 4. Reference note 5. Source Note 6. Web address 7. Media links If any character including non printable or non viewable characters is different, the source-citations are not identical and will cannot be aggregated.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand. There were two different points in my comment and I'm not sure which one you are referencing with your statement about templates. The first point has to do with the links between the Source-citation and the individuals. Are you saying that because you use a Template for the Source-citation which is linked to multiple individuals in FTM that AMT does not split the single FTM Template source-citation into separate source-citations for each individual and that when you return that template source-citation to FTM, it will be entered as a single template source-citation linked to multiple individuals? While I haven't tested this, I don't think it works that way. I think you will find that when the template source-citation is reimported into into FTM, you will have duplicate template source-citations each linked to a single individual. As to the second point which simply lists the criteria for the data in all fields associated with the source-citation to be considered identical. Perhaps I should have included the template field in the list because I'm sure that to be considered duplicates, the templates (if used) must also be identical. BJ On 2/22/2015 7:39 PM, H R Worthington wrote: > BJ, > > The only exception to what you said is when you use a Source Template. > It can NOT be changed in the AMT so it will be returned from the AMT > when the sync is done. > > Russ > ___________________________ > > Mailto:rworthington@att.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* BJ via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > *To:* ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:52 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FTM-TECH] AMT vs FTM Data bases - was The Great Debate > > While I may sympathize with your sentiments, the reality is the Ancestry > trees and FTM are two separate products and have two different > development teams. While they may try to coordinate, I suspect it is > physically impossible for the two data bases to be identical. It has > only been recent that they added and stored certain information in FTM > into the AMT even though the information is not displayed in the AMT. > Downloading the AMT and using it as a backup is not recommended because > of these differences. I had to do it once because I had gone several > months without backing up my FTM file and I corrupted my main file to > such an extent that nothing I did would recover it. I swore then that I > would backup my data faithfully but I'm afraid that I've slipped back > into my old habits. :-[ > > I approach the problem in a slightly different direction. I don't care > whether the AMT and the FTM data bases are identical. What I want FTM > to do is download the AMT or any other data base and as it is importing > the data into the FTM Data base, examine the source-citations and at the > user's option aggregate identical Source-citations into a single > source-citations with the appropriate multiple links. I'm not sure > whether you are aware of what it means for a source-citation to be > identical. Source-citations are considered identical only when > everything is identical that includes: > > 1. Source > 2. Citation Detail > 3. Citation Text > 4. Reference note > 5. Source Note > 6. Web address > 7. Media links > > If any character including non printable or non viewable characters is > different, the source-citations are not identical and will cannot be > aggregated.

BJ, I don't see that the citation issue is. In FTM2014 each FACT has a citation IF the user links one to it. What we see in FTM2014, Sources Workspace, and a Specific Citation is ONE Source and the specific Citation Linked to the facts. In the AMT, you see a Citation with Each Fact, which is linked to a Source. IF you look at each Fact in FTM2014 and the AMT you will see the Source and the Citation. You see the SAME thing. What I was pointing out is that you can NOT EDIT an AMT Citation, IF the Source for that Citation is a Template. Remember that the Template is for the SOURCE information that helps develop the Citation. We Add to the Source information the Citation Detail, Citation Text, Web Address, if we wish. None of that can be edited in the AMT Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: BJ via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] AMT vs FTM Data bases - was The Great Debate I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand. There were two different points in my comment and I'm not sure which one you are referencing with your statement about templates. The first point has to do with the links between the Source-citation and the individuals. Are you saying that because you use a Template for the Source-citation which is linked to multiple individuals in FTM that AMT does not split the single FTM Template source-citation into separate source-citations for each individual and that when you return that template source-citation to FTM, it will be entered as a single template source-citation linked to multiple individuals? While I haven't tested this, I don't think it works that way. I think you will find that when the template source-citation is reimported into into FTM, you will have duplicate template source-citations each linked to a single individual. As to the second point which simply lists the criteria for the data in all fields associated with the source-citation to be considered identical. Perhaps I should have included the template field in the list because I'm sure that to be considered duplicates, the templates (if used) must also be identical. BJ On 2/22/2015 7:39 PM, H R Worthington wrote: > BJ, > > The only exception to what you said is when you use a Source Template. > It can NOT be changed in the AMT so it will be returned from the AMT > when the sync is done. > > Russ > ___________________________ > > Mailto:rworthington@att.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* BJ via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > *To:* ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:52 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FTM-TECH] AMT vs FTM Data bases - was The Great Debate > > While I may sympathize with your sentiments, the reality is the Ancestry > trees and FTM are two separate products and have two different > development teams. While they may try to coordinate, I suspect it is > physically impossible for the two data bases to be identical. It has > only been recent that they added and stored certain information in FTM > into the AMT even though the information is not displayed in the AMT. > Downloading the AMT and using it as a backup is not recommended because > of these differences. I had to do it once because I had gone several > months without backing up my FTM file and I corrupted my main file to > such an extent that nothing I did would recover it. I swore then that I > would backup my data faithfully but I'm afraid that I've slipped back > into my old habits. :-[ > > I approach the problem in a slightly different direction. I don't care > whether the AMT and the FTM data bases are identical. What I want FTM > to do is download the AMT or any other data base and as it is importing > the data into the FTM Data base, examine the source-citations and at the > user's option aggregate identical Source-citations into a single > source-citations with the appropriate multiple links. I'm not sure > whether you are aware of what it means for a source-citation to be > identical. Source-citations are considered identical only when > everything is identical that includes: > > 1. Source > 2. Citation Detail > 3. Citation Text > 4. Reference note > 5. Source Note > 6. Web address > 7. Media links > > If any character including non printable or non viewable characters is > different, the source-citations are not identical and will cannot be > aggregated. ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The issue has nothing to do with editing the source-citation. The issue is with how many identical source-citations are stored in the two data bases. You may not see the problem because I think you tend to use one source-citation per individual. I on the other hand may use one source-citation for multiple individuals. Let's say that I have a family Bible which records the births, marriages and deaths of a Father, Mother and four children. All of this information is recorded on three pages, numbered pages 135 through 137, one page for each type of information i.e. Birth, Marriage and Death. I may enter a single source, Taylor Family Bible. I then create one source which cites pages 135 through 137. I enter Citation Text, "Births, Marriages and Deaths of the James Taylor family". I then link this one source-citation to the father's, James Taylor's birth, marriage and death facts. I also link this same citation to the mother's birth, marriage and death facts. I continue by linking this same source-citation to the birth, marriage and death facts for each of the four children. The end result is the source-citation is stored only once in the FTM data base but it has 18 links, three links to each of the 6 individuals. I synch this data base to the AMT. When I examine the individuals and facts in the AMT, I find source-citation for each individual and fact. Since we can only see the source-citations on an individual basis, I have no idea how the source-citation is stored on the AMT data base. But everything looks OK. Now assume that I want to download the AMT tree into another FTM file. I may want to give a copy to someone or I may need to use it to recover my damaged file. I download the AMT tree and import it into the FTM file. I then go to the Sources work area where I find six identical source-citations. One source-citation is linked to the three facts, birth, marriage and death, for a single person. Originally, I had one source-citation linked to six people each with three facts. If I found that I needed to make a change to the source-citation, I only had to make the change one time. After the sync, download and import, I now have six source-citations each linked to one person and their three facts. If I need to make a change to the source-citation, I must now make the same change to six source-citations. So my data base organization has been changed from the way I originally entered it. Let's expand it a little. Assume I originally had 50 source-citations like this. After the sync, download and import, I now have 300 source-citations i.e. 6 identical copies of 50 source-citations. My only choices are to either accept the 300 source-citations or manually merge the identical source-citations to get back to my original 50 source-citations. Hope this makes it a bit clearer. BJ On 2/22/2015 10:16 PM, H R Worthington wrote: > BJ, > > I don't see that the citation issue is. In FTM2014 each FACT has a > citation IF the user links one to it. > > What we see in FTM2014, Sources Workspace, and a Specific Citation is > ONE Source and the specific Citation Linked to the facts. > > In the AMT, you see a Citation with Each Fact, which is linked to a > Source. > > IF you look at each Fact in FTM2014 and the AMT you will see the > Source and the Citation. You see the SAME thing. > > What I was pointing out is that you can NOT EDIT an AMT Citation, IF > the Source for that Citation is a Template. Remember that the Template > is for the SOURCE information that helps develop the Citation. We Add > to the Source information the Citation Detail, Citation Text, Web > Address, if we wish. None of that can be edited in the AMT