Hello Jeremy, Thanks for your feedback on my proposal to split up the "Wiltshire and beyond" database and gedcom file. I can appreciate that there are advantages in having only one gedcom file to download, rather than several. However, the "Wiltshire and beyond" gedcom file doesn't include all the Lovelock family trees, and there are already a number of other gedcom files (which do include only one tree) for other counties, and also some trees for which there is currently no corresponding gedcom file, because they were not submitted in this form. Regards, James Jeremy Lovelock wrote the following on 02/10/2006 09:54: >Hello James >I do not understand many of the complications of the Computers and the >language. I download the Gedcom file for my own use for Wiltshire and for >Berkshire. If I get enquiries from people, then I can view the file at any >time. I have Family Tree maker software (Brondebund) and therefore an LDS >connection. Your Gedcom file is displayed like my own information and I can >search for names quickly. >If you split the Gedcom files into three for Wiltshire it would slow me down >in searches. >I only tell you this so you can see how a user takes up your information. >What file I am using and which viewer is beyond me!! >Thanks for doing all the work, though. It is fascinating to see how far back >the records go. The English Civil War (pre 1650) no doubt destroyed many >records as well as church interiors! >Best wishes >Jeremy > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "James Loveluck" <[email protected]> >To: "Lovelock mailing list" <[email protected]> >Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 5:22 PM >Subject: [LOVELOCK] Proposed split of the "Wilts and beyond" database > > > > >>Hello again! >> >>In a previous message I mentioned that I was planning to make some >>changes to my Lovelock database and the corresponding gedcom files. >> >>The "Wiltshire and beyond" database currently contains a number of >>Wiltshire trees (including the Lieflock Line, the Lyneham Line, the >>Wroughton/Tidcombe Tree, the Wootton Rivers Tree, the Shrewton Tree, and >>several more) together with one tree with its origins in Hampshire (the >>Tangley Tree) and a lot of odds and ends (small fragments and even >>isolated families). The disadvantage of this is that it makes Web site >>updates a bit complicated since the different trees all have to be >>updated at the same time. >> >>What I plan to do is to split up this database into separate ones for >>each of the trees concerned that are currently diplayed on the Web site. >>This would then mean that I could update the database for a particular >>tree and then update the corresponding tree and gedcom file on the Web >>site independently of any other trees. >> >>There is perhaps an issue concerning all the odds and ends (fragments, >>isolated families) currently in the "Wiltshire and beyond" database. >>Most of this material has not evolved for some time, and I would leave >>the current version of the "Wiltshire and beyond" database on the Web >>site in case anyone wants to consult this material, but no corrections >>or additions would be made to the gedcom file. If there were significant >>additions to any of the fragments concerned then I would probably >>produce a new database and corresponding tree and gedcom file. Obviously >>any of the bits that got connected to one of the existing trees would be >>incorporated into the appropriate database. >> >>One other issue I can see concerns the Ahn applet. Currently this allows >>one to browse the whole of the "Wiltshire and beyond" gedcom file, but >>if I carry out the split proposed above this wouldn't be possible, or >>only for the current version of the gedcom file, which would rapidly >>become out of date. I'm not sure what I'll do about this yet, but it >>would help me to know if people actually use the Ahn applet. It is now >>pretty well superseded by the PhpGedView software tool, which also >>allows one to browse the gedcom file and displays the information in a >>much more structured fashion which is also easier to navigate. I do >>intend to add the other gedcom files to the PhpGedView site, so you >>would be able to browse not only the Lieflock Line and the Wallingford >>(Berks) Line, as at present, but also the other trees for which gedcom >>files would be created (Lyneham Line, Wroughton/Tidcombe Tree, Wootton >>Rivers Tree, etc.). >> >>Please let me know if you see any significant problems in splitting up >>the database in this way. >> >>James >> >> >>