> From: Adrian Bruce > Sent: 24 April 2012 12:01 > > Sue said "Identifying "incorrect" GEDCOM is difficult because the > specification is not entirely clear." I'd disagree. For the most > part, the GEDCOM standard is perfectly clear and it annoys me that > so many sling around the view that GEDCOM is flawed. <snip> > In the BetterGEDCOM Wiki, it proved hard for any of the IT literate > contributors to find an "error" in the specification Let me point out one ambiguity that caught me when I wrote a report to generate GEDCOM from my own relational database for importing into genealogy software - the genealogically fundamental point of how to indicate a surname. The specification for representing personal name is given here: http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pmcbride/gedcom/55gcch2.htm#NAME_PERSONAL The formal declaration in the square brackets, as explained by the text and the examples, shows that the surname is marked with slashes, and this is clear. The formal declaration for cases where the surname is preceded (or followed) by another part of the name, has a space before (or after) the slash, and so do the examples given just below, e.g., William Lee /Parry/. The descriptive text does not mention the space as a requirement. Elsewhere in the specification examples are given without the space, e.g., Fred/Jones/ is used at http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pmcbride/gedcom/55gcch2.htm#INDIVIDUAL_RECORD So the space is in the formal definition but not in the description and is in some of the examples but not others. In addition the formal definition shows a trailing space after the final element of the name in the first four forms of name (with one or two elements), but this is not clear in the last form with three elements. It looks as though the spaces here are for clarity and are not required, but I can't find a statement about whether spaces are meaningful in the definition of the lineage linked grammar (chapter 2 of the specification). To me it is ambiguous whether and where spaces are required in a personal name, and possibly elsewhere. My software required the spaces to identify a surname on import but my initial attempt at producing a GEDCOM did not use them. Ambiguity? Definitely! Andrew -- Andrew Millard - [email protected] Bodimeade genealogy:   http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/ My family history:     http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/ GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/

My apologies to those who are bored by GEDCOM but its existence is fundamental to our ability to transfer data other than in human-only readable form. It concerns me that genealogical and family history societies are letting software people make the running on whether or not GEDCOM is replaced / enhanced / left to die. For what it's worth as a former IT professional of 30y standing writing and supporting software: Caroline said "when software developers blame the exporting program they abdicate their own responsibility to their customers". I certainly applaud those who tweak their software and hope they'll gain the market share they deserve. But we need to distinguish between the general responsibility to their customers of providing the optimum software and the responsibility to produce GEDCOM that is compliant to a standard. This responsibility exists and lies with the person who writes the export code. There are 2 reasons for this - if they call it a GEDCOM export, it should be that, not a half-hearted attempt. Secondly, if there are (say) 20 popular programs out there, and you write a 21st, you seriously do not want to be writing 20 different import routines plus your own export - one export and one import ought to suffice. Sue said "Identifying "incorrect" GEDCOM is difficult because the specification is not entirely clear." I'd disagree. For the most part, the GEDCOM standard is perfectly clear and it annoys me that so many sling around the view that GEDCOM is flawed. (I suspect Sue, from her phrasing, doesn't belong to the extreme mud-slingers, though). Certainly, the casual reader will not find it at all clear - but that's not the target audience. In the BetterGEDCOM Wiki, it proved hard for any of the IT literate contributors to find an "error" in the specification - about the only one that sticks in my mind is that one could have an infinite loop of a Source referring to a standalone Note, which is justified by the first Source, which would refer to the same standalone Note, which is... This is NOT to say that GEDCOM is adequate for family history today. It isn't. The point is that all the new standards in the world won't help if the major problem is not with GEDCOM but with the fact that developers either can't be bothered to read the standard properly or can't be bothered to take all the steps necessary to reformat their own data to fit into the GEDCOM model. Neither of those problems will be fixed by a new or enhanced standard. In essence we need a 2-pronged approach - firstly we need to highlight the incompetencies of software suppliers who can't be bothered to understand the difference between CONT and CONC in a GEDCOM file. Secondly we need to agree on what family historians want from a revision / replacement of GEDCOM. (If we want anything). For instance, US genealogists tend to emphasise the data that goes into citations - are UK family historians satisfied with what they have in GEDCOM? Alternatively are we happy that FamilySearch will drive GEDCOMX (say) and only produce something to satisfy FS's needs? Adrian Bruce

Caroline, as a skilled and experienced genealogy software user, you get to your destination. To use a car analogy, you are a skilled driver. GEDCOM is part of what makes the software work, the things under the bonnet. Chris and others have taken a look under the bonnet and see that things could work better. Both viewpoints are valid, important and not mutually exclusive. "In FTM I ignore the source templates and create my citations using just the citation detail and citation text fields." So, you have chosen to ignore an essential feature that does not work properly? Why do you accept this? "Yes, every program creates its own weird and wonderful version of GEDCOM but the really important thing is how the importing software handles those quirks. I think when software developers blame the exporting program they abdicate their own responsibility to their customers. It is not difficult to examine a GEDCOM file produced by another program, identify the non-standard aspects and adapt the import for those files accordingly." I disagree. What about the self same developers responsibility to produce GEDCOM files that can be read easily? Identifying "incorrect" GEDCOM is difficult because the specification is not entirely clear. Catering for every permutation of GEDCOM that currently exists is extremely difficult as many have not been documented. As for keeping up with new versions, well, that is probably impossible. The "can do" responses from developers are only the fixes that are easy to identify and fix. More difficult fixes don't get done. "This may be because they have entered only a "standardised" place name in the place field and put the place details in the description field." The data model on which GEDCOM is based does not include a separate field for place names. This is an example of one of the more serious flaws in the underlying data model. "The Holy Grail of a perfect GEDCOM standard,perfectly implemented, is unattainable. Which is why those developers who make it easiest for potential customers to import their data from another program warts and all will continue to have a significant business advantage." I agree that perfection is unattainable. However, GEDCOM is very far from perfect. Developers who make real technical progress, rather than tinkering may win market share in the long run. Standards in computing are now widely recognised as fundamental, but that was not always the case. An example is the World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/) which is the organisation that specifies web programming languages (e.g. HTML, XML). That does not mean that all web pages comply and web browsers (e.g. Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari) all try to interpret the non-compliant code. Users don't care unless the page does not work properly. Developers loathe writing pages for the browsers that do not follow the standards, because each deviation requires extra work. The least compliant browser still has significant market share, but is loosing out to other more compliant browsers because users get a better experience with them. Standardisation in genealogy software was a major theme at the RootsTech conference in February. Take a look a Jay Verkler's keynote speech Inventing the Future, As a Community <http://rootstech.org/> Sue Adams On 22/04/2012 20:29, Caroline Gurney wrote: > On 22 April 2012 13:27, Christopher Gray > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Caroline - it depends on what you are including in the GEDCOM. For example, >> while I can export from TMG using GEDCOM I know that the citation and source >> details I have will not be effectively transferred. > Chris - I use both TMG 7 and FTM 2012. Problems arise exporting > sources and citations if you use either program's built in source > templates. That is because the template fields are exported as > separate GEDCOM elements and then cobbled back together incorrectly by > the importing program. > > In FTM I ignore the source templates and create my citations using > just the citation detail and citation text fields. These export as a > whole in a GEDCOM and therefore import correctly into the receiving > program. You could achieve the same in TMG by creating your own simple > templates with just one field. > >> I have received GEDCOMs >> from people using FTM and I have a number of problems with them - including >> how the place names are stored. > This may be because they have entered only a "standardised" place name > in the place field and put the place details in the description field. > Place names are stored as they are entered and, if entered in this > split fashion, will export accordingly. You might like to look at the > place list on my website: http://www.carosfamily.com/places.php to see > how places entered in full in FTM 2012 export correctly in a GEDCOM. > >> Different programs have different ways of >> handling relationships (e.g. step-children, same-sex marriages), places >> (e.g. including latitude and longitude) and such as DNA. So I certainly do >> not expect GEDCOM to be able to handle everything. > I entirely agree. You only have to read Tamura Jones' acerbic reviews > of genealogy software to realise there isn't any program which gets > GEDCOM "right". He lambasts them all. But I feel his approach misses > the point. Yes, every program creates its own weird and wonderful > version of GEDCOM but the really important thing is how the importing > software handles those quirks. I think when software developers blame > the exporting program they abdicate their own responsibility to their > customers. It is not difficult to examine a GEDCOM file produced by > another program, identify the non-standard aspects and adapt the > import for those files accordingly. A couple of years ago I > experienced an outstanding example of this "can do" approach from Mike > Voisin of GED-GEN. When I told him that a non-standard GEDCOM was not > importing correctly he issued an upgrade specifically designed to deal > with the problem. Darrin Lythgoes of The Next Generation has taken a > similar approach and his program correctly interprets GEDCOMs from a > wide range of different genealogy programs. He also provides the > facility to edit the handling of non standard GEDCOM tags post import. > >> Nor do I expect >> developers of any future version of GEDCOM to be able to handle all the data >> types / events / relationships that all programs use. It will be an >> improvement on the current version - but I certainly do not expect any way >> near perfection. > You are so right. The Holy Grail of a perfect GEDCOM standard, > perfectly implemented, is unattainable. Which is why those developers > who make it easiest for potential customers to import their data from > another program warts and all - using GEDCOM or a propietary utility > such as Wholly Genes' GenBridge - will continue to have a significant > business advantage. > > Caroline Gurney > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On 22 April 2012 13:27, Christopher Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > Caroline - it depends on what you are including in the GEDCOM.  For example, > while I can export from TMG using GEDCOM I know that the citation and source > details I have will not be effectively transferred. Chris - I use both TMG 7 and FTM 2012. Problems arise exporting sources and citations if you use either program's built in source templates. That is because the template fields are exported as separate GEDCOM elements and then cobbled back together incorrectly by the importing program. In FTM I ignore the source templates and create my citations using just the citation detail and citation text fields. These export as a whole in a GEDCOM and therefore import correctly into the receiving program. You could achieve the same in TMG by creating your own simple templates with just one field. > I have received GEDCOMs > from people using FTM and I have a number of problems with them - including > how the place names are stored. This may be because they have entered only a "standardised" place name in the place field and put the place details in the description field. Place names are stored as they are entered and, if entered in this split fashion, will export accordingly. You might like to look at the place list on my website: http://www.carosfamily.com/places.php to see how places entered in full in FTM 2012 export correctly in a GEDCOM. > Different programs have different ways of > handling relationships (e.g. step-children, same-sex marriages), places > (e.g. including latitude and longitude) and such as DNA.  So I certainly do > not expect GEDCOM to be able to handle everything. I entirely agree. You only have to read Tamura Jones' acerbic reviews of genealogy software to realise there isn't any program which gets GEDCOM "right". He lambasts them all. But I feel his approach misses the point. Yes, every program creates its own weird and wonderful version of GEDCOM but the really important thing is how the importing software handles those quirks. I think when software developers blame the exporting program they abdicate their own responsibility to their customers. It is not difficult to examine a GEDCOM file produced by another program, identify the non-standard aspects and adapt the import for those files accordingly. A couple of years ago I experienced an outstanding example of this "can do" approach from Mike Voisin of GED-GEN. When I told him that a non-standard GEDCOM was not importing correctly he issued an upgrade specifically designed to deal with the problem. Darrin Lythgoes of The Next Generation has taken a similar approach and his program correctly interprets GEDCOMs from a wide range of different genealogy programs. He also provides the facility to edit the handling of non standard GEDCOM tags post import. > Nor do I expect > developers of any future version of GEDCOM to be able to handle all the data > types / events / relationships that all programs use.  It will be an > improvement on the current version - but I certainly do not expect any way > near perfection. You are so right. The Holy Grail of a perfect GEDCOM standard, perfectly implemented, is unattainable. Which is why those developers who make it easiest for potential customers to import their data from another program warts and all - using GEDCOM or a propietary utility such as Wholly Genes' GenBridge - will continue to have a significant business advantage. Caroline Gurney

Caroline - it depends on what you are including in the GEDCOM. For example, while I can export from TMG using GEDCOM I know that the citation and source details I have will not be effectively transferred. I have received GEDCOMs from people using FTM and I have a number of problems with them - including how the place names are stored. Different programs have different ways of handling relationships (e.g. step-children, same-sex marriages), places (e.g. including latitude and longitude) and such as DNA. So I certainly do not expect GEDCOM to be able to handle everything. Nor do I expect developers of any future version of GEDCOM to be able to handle all the data types / events / relationships that all programs use. It will be an improvement on the current version - but I certainly do not expect any way near perfection. Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Caroline Gurney Sent: 19 April 2012 8:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? On Apr 19, 2012 6:55 AM, "John Hanson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Their > inability to export a GEDCOM that is compatible with other programs strikes > me as "once we've got them - make it impossible to leve" I'm sorry but this is nonsense. It is perfectly possible to export a GEDCOM from FTM which is compatible with other programs. My website - www.carosfamily.com - is created directly from a GEDCOM exported from FTM 2012 and imported into The Next Generation version 9.0.0. I've also recently imported GEDCOMs from FTM 2012 into Legacy and Roots Magic without any problems. Caroline Gurney ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

At the RootsTech confernence in February, FamilySearch announced that they will take the lead on developing a new GEDCOM, called GEDCOMX, and are asking for collaboration and feedback. The developments are international. Please make your views known and don't be subtle about it - that does not get the message across to programmers. It is time to demand better from the software vendors. Sue Adams On 19/04/2012 11:09, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > On 19 Apr at 6:54, "John Hanson"<[email protected]> wrote: > >> David I only have FTM2011 on my machines at the minute (no I don't use >> it - just that it is nice to keep up with what others are doing) but I >> could find an old one. >> >> But having looked at exporting a file from it an idea came to the fore >> that had been lurking for a while - its default is the export in FTM >> format GEDCOM - you need to change the option to GEDCOM 5.5 to get a >> version that is more compatible with other programs. I seem to >> remember that the old versions had the self-same problem. Maybe that >> will help. >> >> Many programs these days include an option to import directly from >> another programs database but the later versions of FTM are lacking >> from these. Interestingly I was talking to Simon Orde (author of FH) >> at Olympia this year and I gather that it is impossible to get access >> to the underlying FTM database and unlike most of the other companies >> who publish the details of the database structure FTM refuse to give >> out any information. Their inability to export a GEDCOM that is >> compatible with other programs strikes me as "once we've got them - >> make it impossible to leve" >> >> Hope this may help > It a way, this helps enormously. The ground rules have become a little > clearer and, from what you have found, it seems that little has changed > in the last six or seven years. > > About seven years ago I actively looked in to the problem that it was > impossible to use so-called GEDCOM files to transfer data between > genealogy programs. I came to the conclusion that the program designers > deliberately made it difficult in order to lock us into their program > for life. > > Perhaps it is time for the Society to conduct a discreet investigation > into the portability of data between programs. Then we could publish > the findings and appeal, at least in this country, to the manufacturers > to do better. I know that most genealogy programs are designed outside > these shores but if we get things rolling, perhaps there is an > opportunity for cooperation with Societies in other countries. > > The first consideration is what sort of data would we expect to be > transferred satisfactorily. Here's a start: > > 1. Normal families of parents and children. > 2. Families related only by marriage. > 3. Completely unrelated families. > 4. Separate data categories for the principal life events, birth, death > and marriage. > 5. Facilities to put dates in a variety of formats for each event. > 6. Facilities to have an address file to associate with these events. > 7. Facilities to link notes of data sources to each of those events, > dates and places. > 8. Facilities to store, hold and cross reference, to people and events, > significant documents. > 9. Facilities to store, hold and cross reference, to people and events, > pictures of people and groups. (And sound recordings?) > 10. Facilities to add non-standard types of factual data to people's > records, such as education, jobs, etc. > 11. Facilities to add significant mounts of text, perhaps in RTF format, > to each person's record. > > Obviously the more complex the data to be exchanged, the greater the > problems that will be found in making those exchanges. > > Or is this all a waste of time? >

On Apr 19, 2012 6:55 AM, "John Hanson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Their > inability to export a GEDCOM that is compatible with other programs strikes > me as "once we've got them - make it impossible to leve" I'm sorry but this is nonsense. It is perfectly possible to export a GEDCOM from FTM which is compatible with other programs. My website - www.carosfamily.com - is created directly from a GEDCOM exported from FTM 2012 and imported into The Next Generation version 9.0.0. I've also recently imported GEDCOMs from FTM 2012 into Legacy and Roots Magic without any problems. Caroline Gurney

On 19 Apr at 6:54, "John Hanson" <[email protected]> wrote: > David I only have FTM2011 on my machines at the minute (no I don't use > it - just that it is nice to keep up with what others are doing) but I > could find an old one. > > But having looked at exporting a file from it an idea came to the fore > that had been lurking for a while - its default is the export in FTM > format GEDCOM - you need to change the option to GEDCOM 5.5 to get a > version that is more compatible with other programs. I seem to > remember that the old versions had the self-same problem. Maybe that > will help. > > Many programs these days include an option to import directly from > another programs database but the later versions of FTM are lacking > from these. Interestingly I was talking to Simon Orde (author of FH) > at Olympia this year and I gather that it is impossible to get access > to the underlying FTM database and unlike most of the other companies > who publish the details of the database structure FTM refuse to give > out any information. Their inability to export a GEDCOM that is > compatible with other programs strikes me as "once we've got them - > make it impossible to leve" > > Hope this may help It a way, this helps enormously. The ground rules have become a little clearer and, from what you have found, it seems that little has changed in the last six or seven years. About seven years ago I actively looked in to the problem that it was impossible to use so-called GEDCOM files to transfer data between genealogy programs. I came to the conclusion that the program designers deliberately made it difficult in order to lock us into their program for life. Perhaps it is time for the Society to conduct a discreet investigation into the portability of data between programs. Then we could publish the findings and appeal, at least in this country, to the manufacturers to do better. I know that most genealogy programs are designed outside these shores but if we get things rolling, perhaps there is an opportunity for cooperation with Societies in other countries. The first consideration is what sort of data would we expect to be transferred satisfactorily. Here's a start: 1. Normal families of parents and children. 2. Families related only by marriage. 3. Completely unrelated families. 4. Separate data categories for the principal life events, birth, death and marriage. 5. Facilities to put dates in a variety of formats for each event. 6. Facilities to have an address file to associate with these events. 7. Facilities to link notes of data sources to each of those events, dates and places. 8. Facilities to store, hold and cross reference, to people and events, significant documents. 9. Facilities to store, hold and cross reference, to people and events, pictures of people and groups. (And sound recordings?) 10. Facilities to add non-standard types of factual data to people's records, such as education, jobs, etc. 11. Facilities to add significant mounts of text, perhaps in RTF format, to each person's record. Obviously the more complex the data to be exchanged, the greater the problems that will be found in making those exchanges. Or is this all a waste of time? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

John Interesting comments - thanks. Your last para does give further pause for thought. By tying the programme so closely with Ancestry, and as you say restricting choice, as time passes FTM will look more and more like a monopoly, especially to newbies. If we were talking about operating systems - and especially Microsoft - the European Court or other authorities would be fining the makers of FTM and ordering them to be more open. May be someone will try to challenge them. ... David M -----Original Message----- From: John Hanson Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 6:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? David I only have FTM2011 on my machines at the minute (no I don't use it - just that it is nice to keep up with what others are doing) but I could find an old one. But having looked at exporting a file from it an idea came to the fore that had been lurking for a while - its default is the export in FTM format GEDCOM - you need to change the option to GEDCOM 5.5 to get a version that is more compatible with other programs. I seem to remember that the old versions had the self-same problem. Maybe that will help. Many programs these days include an option to import directly from another programs database but the later versions of FTM are lacking from these. Interestingly I was talking to Simon Orde (author of FH) at Olympia this year and I gather that it is impossible to get access to the underlying FTM database and unlike most of the other companies who publish the details of the database structure FTM refuse to give out any information. Their inability to export a GEDCOM that is compatible with other programs strikes me as "once we've got them - make it impossible to leve" Hope this may help Regards John Hanson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Martin Sent: 19 April 2012 06:12 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? Prompted by comments from others on this list and elsewhere, I've gone back again to check my "A4 charting" issue with FTM2012. With additional massaging of the settings, I am able to make FTM2012 do charts on one A4 page on a par with FTM2006. I haven't yet made the big move from FTM2006 to FTM2012 but there's few reasons not to. One is that I can never go back, so I am testing it extensively first on 'dummy' files. Happily, it does not force me to use Ancestry (although I use it separately) or online trees. I have largely given up on the idea of transferring to Family Historian, for the simple reason given below. Happy to hear other views but, for me, it is now a question of 'when' rather than 'if'..... David M From: David Martin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 16 April 2012, 8:25 Subject: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? As is well known, the programme Family Tree Maker was changed significantly five years ago, and many found it poor and have held on to their old programme (FTM16/2006) ever since. As I will probably have to upgrade one day, I've been keeping an eye on FTM and one of its competitors. I have now tried FTM2012 and compared it to the latest edition of Family Historian (v5). I think these are now both pretty good programmes. Many of the problems with the new (post-2006) FTM have been ironed out. I judge that its development has been influenced a little too much by the ambition of linking it to Ancestry and syncing with online trees (although this will be in its favour for those who like that facility). To avoid that influence, I would tend to choose FH - all else being equal. However, I am finding it difficult to choose between them - each for a different reason. The single problem I have with opting for FH5 is that it would do a less good job of picking up my existing files and data. To transfer from FTM16/2006 to FH requires the use of GEDCOM export/import. As is well-documented, FTM's GEDCOM is imperfect for this purpose and some data will be mishandled by FH. It is quite marginal (most important data is fine) but it will be irritating and relatively onerous to correct. The single problem I have with opting for FTM2012 is its poor ability to produce and print an ancestor pedigree or descendant chart (with BMD labels) on a single page of A4 with as many generations as possible showing. The old FTM does this brilliantly. Family Historian does it just as well. But it is surprising to report that FTM2012 falls a long way short. Its horizontal Pedigree Ancestor chart has a limited capability, although the vertical one is an acceptable alternative. In the case of its Descendant tree, it falls between impossible or unusable! So I am not sure which programme to pick (even though I've paid for FTM2012, as there's no trial version). Maybe I'll stick with good old FTM2006 for a while longer....? David M ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]web.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

David I only have FTM2011 on my machines at the minute (no I don't use it - just that it is nice to keep up with what others are doing) but I could find an old one. But having looked at exporting a file from it an idea came to the fore that had been lurking for a while - its default is the export in FTM format GEDCOM - you need to change the option to GEDCOM 5.5 to get a version that is more compatible with other programs. I seem to remember that the old versions had the self-same problem. Maybe that will help. Many programs these days include an option to import directly from another programs database but the later versions of FTM are lacking from these. Interestingly I was talking to Simon Orde (author of FH) at Olympia this year and I gather that it is impossible to get access to the underlying FTM database and unlike most of the other companies who publish the details of the database structure FTM refuse to give out any information. Their inability to export a GEDCOM that is compatible with other programs strikes me as "once we've got them - make it impossible to leve" Hope this may help Regards John Hanson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Martin Sent: 19 April 2012 06:12 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? Prompted by comments from others on this list and elsewhere, I've gone back again to check my "A4 charting" issue with FTM2012. With additional massaging of the settings, I am able to make FTM2012 do charts on one A4 page on a par with FTM2006. I haven't yet made the big move from FTM2006 to FTM2012 but there's few reasons not to. One is that I can never go back, so I am testing it extensively first on 'dummy' files. Happily, it does not force me to use Ancestry (although I use it separately) or online trees. I have largely given up on the idea of transferring to Family Historian, for the simple reason given below. Happy to hear other views but, for me, it is now a question of 'when' rather than 'if'..... David M From: David Martin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 16 April 2012, 8:25 Subject: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? As is well known, the programme Family Tree Maker was changed significantly five years ago, and many found it poor and have held on to their old programme (FTM16/2006) ever since. As I will probably have to upgrade one day, I've been keeping an eye on FTM and one of its competitors. I have now tried FTM2012 and compared it to the latest edition of Family Historian (v5). I think these are now both pretty good programmes. Many of the problems with the new (post-2006) FTM have been ironed out. I judge that its development has been influenced a little too much by the ambition of linking it to Ancestry and syncing with online trees (although this will be in its favour for those who like that facility). To avoid that influence, I would tend to choose FH - all else being equal. However, I am finding it difficult to choose between them - each for a different reason. The single problem I have with opting for FH5 is that it would do a less good job of picking up my existing files and data. To transfer from FTM16/2006 to FH requires the use of GEDCOM export/import. As is well-documented, FTM's GEDCOM is imperfect for this purpose and some data will be mishandled by FH. It is quite marginal (most important data is fine) but it will be irritating and relatively onerous to correct. The single problem I have with opting for FTM2012 is its poor ability to produce and print an ancestor pedigree or descendant chart (with BMD labels) on a single page of A4 with as many generations as possible showing. The old FTM does this brilliantly. Family Historian does it just as well. But it is surprising to report that FTM2012 falls a long way short. Its horizontal Pedigree Ancestor chart has a limited capability, although the vertical one is an acceptable alternative. In the case of its Descendant tree, it falls between impossible or unusable! So I am not sure which programme to pick (even though I've paid for FTM2012, as there's no trial version). Maybe I'll stick with good old FTM2006 for a while longer....? David M ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Prompted by comments from others on this list and elsewhere, I've gone back again to check my "A4 charting" issue with FTM2012. With additional massaging of the settings, I am able to make FTM2012 do charts on one A4 page on a par with FTM2006. I haven't yet made the big move from FTM2006 to FTM2012 but there's few reasons not to. One is that I can never go back, so I am testing it extensively first on 'dummy' files. Happily, it does not force me to use Ancestry (although I use it separately) or online trees. I have largely given up on the idea of transferring to Family Historian, for the simple reason given below. Happy to hear other views but, for me, it is now a question of 'when' rather than 'if'..... David M From: David Martin <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 16 April 2012, 8:25 Subject: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? As is well known, the programme Family Tree Maker was changed significantly five years ago, and many found it poor and have held on to their old programme (FTM16/2006) ever since. As I will probably have to upgrade one day, I've been keeping an eye on FTM and one of its competitors. I have now tried FTM2012 and compared it to the latest edition of Family Historian (v5). I think these are now both pretty good programmes. Many of the problems with the new (post-2006) FTM have been ironed out. I judge that its development has been influenced a little too much by the ambition of linking it to Ancestry and syncing with online trees (although this will be in its favour for those who like that facility). To avoid that influence, I would tend to choose FH - all else being equal. However, I am finding it difficult to choose between them - each for a different reason. The single problem I have with opting for FH5 is that it would do a less good job of picking up my existing files and data. To transfer from FTM16/2006 to FH requires the use of GEDCOM export/import. As is well-documented, FTM's GEDCOM is imperfect for this purpose and some data will be mishandled by FH. It is quite marginal (most important data is fine) but it will be irritating and relatively onerous to correct. The single problem I have with opting for FTM2012 is its poor ability to produce and print an ancestor pedigree or descendant chart (with BMD labels) on a single page of A4 with as many generations as possible showing. The old FTM does this brilliantly. Family Historian does it just as well. But it is surprising to report that FTM2012 falls a long way short. Its horizontal Pedigree Ancestor chart has a limited capability, although the vertical one is an acceptable alternative. In the case of its Descendant tree, it falls between impossible or unusable! So I am not sure which programme to pick (even though I've paid for FTM2012, as there's no trial version). Maybe I'll stick with good old FTM2006 for a while longer....? David M ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] 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 [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I agree that genealogy software has not been discussed much on this forum and I think it is an important topic that should be included. I think I am not alone with my dis-satisfied with the genealogy software on offer. I also think we should be more demanding of the software programmers - much more demanding. We need software that is both functions properly _and _is easy to use. Having attended the RootsTech conference in February, I can say that there are a lot of developments happening in genealogy software. A couple of the comments on this topic touched on GEDCOM. The shortcomings of GEDCOM have been noted by the more technically minded members of the genealogical community for over a decade. In the last year, a group called 'BetterGedcom' have been discussing the technical issues, which has kick-started new developments. At RootsTech FamilySearch announced that they will take the lead on developing a new GEDCOM, called GEDCOMX, and are asking for collaboration and feedback. Other big players who showed an interest in colloborating included Google and Brightsolid (i.e. Findmypast & ScotlandsPeople). Ancestry were notable for thier lack of enthusiasm. For those who want to explore the software issues, I will suggest three bloggers who post on genealogy software: Randy Seaver's Genea-Musings http://www.geneamusings.com Louis Kessler's Behold http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/ Tamura Jones' Modern Software Experience http://www.tamurajones.net/index.xhtml Randy tries things out and often includes screen-shots of how to achieve tasks in various programs. Louis is a developer who is prepared to listen to feedback and give insights to what is going on when your program does the unexpected. If you want the real low-down technical critique, read Tamura. Sue Adams On 16/04/2012 12:47, David Wason wrote: > This is very useful - I for one would really appreciate reading more views > about genealogy software - it seems to me to be very rarely discussed here, > despite the wide-ranging experience members must have. > David W > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of David Martin > Sent: 16 April 2012 08:26 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? > > As is well known, the programme Family Tree Maker was changed significantly > five years ago... > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > . >

On 16 April 2012 12:47, David Wason <[email protected]> wrote: > This is very useful - I for one would really appreciate reading more views > about genealogy software - it seems to me to be very rarely discussed here, > despite the wide-ranging experience members must have. By coincidence I contributed to a discussion on another mailing list last week concerning Family Tree Maker, Ancestry Member Trees and The Next Generation (TNG) - an online genealogy database. I'm reproducing part of what I wrote below, in case it is helpful to David or anyone else on this list: BEGINS I use Family Tree Maker 2012 as my primary genealogy program. I sync the database regularly to my tree on Ancestry.com and also export it via GEDCOM to my website, built using TNG 9. I have been researching my own family's genealogy for 27 years, during which time I have used a variety of software programs, including Legacy and The Master Genealogist as well as Family Tree Maker. I regularly download trial versions of other leading genealogy software for comparison purposes and to keep abreast of new developments. More recently I have become a professional genealogist. I use separate databases in FTM 2012 for each of my client projects. Given this background, here are my thoughts on FTM, Ancestry Member Trees and TNG. FTM 2012 is an excellent program. Things I particularly like are: 1. Chronological view of events in a person's life, including family events and timeline events if the user wishes. As a researcher, both hobbyist and professional, my number one tool for research and analysis is a chronological, sourced, view of the evidence I have about a person. 2. Sources, media, notes and tasks immediately visible alongside events with one click or tooltip hover. 3. Ability to handcraft my source citations rather than use templates. 4. Ability to link one citation to multiple events using a quick copy and paste. 5. Ability to update a citation in one place and have it automatically update everywhere else it is linked. 6. Fastfields which list the closest matches as I type surnames, places, fact details and source titles. 7. Ability to create my own timelines. I use timelines of sources, such as census dates or periods when a particular tax was in existence, to overlay my data and suggest avenues for research. 8. Extremely stable and reliable program. 9. Clean, modern user interface. 10. Powerful, flexible but easy to use reporting and charting. 11. Automatic link to historical records on Ancestry.com, providing suggestions of possible sources such as BMD, census, probate and other records as soon as a person's name and dates are added to my database. 12. Ability to sync the tree to an Ancestry Member Tree and from there to the Ancestry app on my Android smartphone. Ancestry Member Trees When I sync data to Ancestry.com I make sure that my tree is private, so that it is only visible to those to whom I choose to give access. I also tick the box to prevent any link to my data being visible in Ancestry's indexes. In my view these two things are essential to prevent people copying my data willy-nilly into their own trees, whether they are in any way connected to my family or not. It also prevents Ancestry "selling" my data to anyone. I do not find Ancestry Member Trees at all easy to navigate and they do not present data well. I do not use them for this purpose. I use my Ancestry tree: 1. as a secure means of backup from FTM 2012, from which everything can be easily and automatically re-imported into FTM 2012. 2. as a way of sharing my data with family members who also use FTM and Ancestry - they have access rights which allow them to import any new materiual I add into their own trees and programs. They also keep their trees on Ancestry private and unindexed. 3. as a means to sync data - including media - automatically with the Ancestry app on my smartphone. TNG There is no contest when it comes to comparing TMG to an Ancestry tree as a way of sharing data. The layout of a TNG website is clear, comprehensive, customisable and easily navigable. I have recently been working on a project researching multiple unconnected people where the client needed direct access to my database at short notice. I was able to sync my FTM 2012 database to a private member tree on Ancestry within a few minutes but my client found the layout pretty incomprehensible. Ancestry is designed for a connected family tree with a "home person" and does not cope well with a group of unconnected families. My client was about to leave the office and I promised him a better solution by the time he came to work the following morning. That evening I created a private TNG database, uploaded a GEDCOM, uploaded and linked media and created a series of reports which enabled my client to access all the different people and details he was interested in. By the time he came to work the next morning he had his own purpose built, customised website, complete with media and tailor made reports. He is particularly happy that he can download the information he needs direct from the website and import it into his own Excel spreadsheet. The TNG website took a couple of hours to build, as opposed to a couple of minutes creating the Ancestry tree, but the benefits to my client more than outweighed that. ENDS Caroline Gurney

Thank you everyone for your help and encouragement. I will now continue with Legacy with more confidence. Chris Stupples

I transferred my data from Reunion/Generations to Legacy about six years ago and have not regretted the decision. I don't feel qualified to give you a detailed review but for what it is worth: - I would describe my IT skills as basic and have found it very easy to use - the transfer of data from Reunion went well apart from one aspect: I had details of people's addresses in a general category on Reunion which inexplicably went into "Medical" on Legacy. - In the notes section for each individual it has three categories: General, Research and Medical. These are imbedded and you cannot change Medical. I find this of limited use and would prefer if it could be user defined. - It has a lot of features which I have not got to grips with - for example, the referencing can be very detailed if you want it to be Preferred Reunion for its tree drawing capacity but the accompanying Legacy Chart software is reasonably good for printing out a variety of charts. I originally decided to go with Legacy following a seminar at SOG run by Alec Triton and in a webinar last year he explained some of its key features. Not sure whether he sees this list but in case not and you want to contact him direct, I am sure he would not mind my giving his email address: [email protected] Lin Howard -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 16 April 2012 13:56 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? I am just loading Legacy de luxe having found out that the old Cumberland family Tree is no longer backed and the old programs will not load onto Windows 7. Has any one else experience of this program (Legacy) because, as usual, the book that goes with it contains too much jargon that mere mortals quake to understand it! Chris Stupples. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have been using Legacy for some years now and am very happy with it. If you don't mind an American accent there are also some free training videos on the Legacy website. Jill Williams -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 1:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? I am just loading Legacy de luxe having found out that the old Cumberland family Tree is no longer backed and the old programs will not load onto Windows 7. Has any one else experience of this program (Legacy) because, as usual, the book that goes with it contains too much jargon that mere mortals quake to understand it! Chris Stupples. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have been using Legacy for a number of years having used other programs. The strength of Legacy is the sourcing although others have caught up. In common with most programs you will probably have to clean up the GEDCOM import. It is now at version 7.5 which has a link to Family Search. There is no need to upload you family. Although American by origin, there is a British version. Print outs include vertical family trees amongst others via an included add on program. You can download the Standard version for free and have a try. Upgrading gives a number of options. Program updates are free until there is a major revision which happens around once a year. I have had no stability problems on W7, XP. I did contribute to a day at SoG which covered a number of programs but this seems to have been discontinued. Legacy was well received on that occasion. Tony Albert -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 16 April 2012 13:56 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? I am just loading Legacy de luxe having found out that the old Cumberland family Tree is no longer backed and the old programs will not load onto Windows 7. Has any one else experience of this program (Legacy) because, as usual, the book that goes with it contains too much jargon that mere mortals quake to understand it! Chris Stupples. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Yes, I use Legacy, and find it to be excellent. I transferred a number of years ago from "Generations" and chose it for having the same three generation family view. It is very powerful and flexible, but I did find it a steep learning curve at first. There are some training videos on line at http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Videos.asp - I never purchased the CD training. Personally I would not use sourcewriter as I do not intend to publish my work, but I would recommend noting down a (your own) standard format for each type of source, right at the start of using it, for consistency. The de luxe version has many features worth paying for over the free basic version. Best wishes Brian -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 16 April 2012 13:56 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? I am just loading Legacy de luxe having found out that the old Cumberland family Tree is no longer backed and the old programs will not load onto Windows 7. Has any one else experience of this program (Legacy) because, as usual, the book that goes with it contains too much jargon that mere mortals quake to understand it! Chris Stupples. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I am just loading Legacy de luxe having found out that the old Cumberland family Tree is no longer backed and the old programs will not load onto Windows 7. Has any one else experience of this program (Legacy) because, as usual, the book that goes with it contains too much jargon that mere mortals quake to understand it! Chris Stupples.

This is very useful - I for one would really appreciate reading more views about genealogy software - it seems to me to be very rarely discussed here, despite the wide-ranging experience members must have. David W -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]rootsweb.com [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Martin Sent: 16 April 2012 08:26 To: [email protected] Subject: [SOG-UK] Upgrade from FTM2006? As is well known, the programme Family Tree Maker was changed significantly five years ago...