Richard, I had trouble following your instruction. When I choose List of People, under Subjects of the report, what do I choose? And where do I go from there? Joan -----Original Message----- From: TMG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Damon Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TMG] Report help On 11/19/17 2:31 PM, Joan Lince wrote: > I would like help finding out who has an immigration tag in my TMG > records, and at almost 90 I'm having trouble making sense of the very > good assistance in TMG help or GTMOOTMG. Would someone be willing to > tell me exactly how to do it? > > Besides the standard Immigratn tag, over the years I've created two > more tags that are about immigration, and would like to cover all > three of them in one report. That is, I would like a report that lists > all the people who have data in any of my three Immigration tags. > > > > Your help will be appreciated. > > > > Joan Lince Sounds like you want to run a list of People report, with a condition of # of immigration tags > 0 or # of alttag1 > 0 or # of altag2 > 0 -- Richard Damonlt The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html ------------------------------- 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 11/19/2017 14:31, Joan Lince wrote >I would like help finding out who has an immigration tag in my TMG records, >and at almost 90 I'm having trouble making sense of the very good assistance >in TMG help or GTMOOTMG. Would someone be willing to tell me exactly how to >do it? > >Besides the standard Immigratn tag, over the years I've created two more >tags that are about immigration, and would like to cover all three of them >in one report. That is, I would like a report that lists all the people who >have data in any of my three Immigration tags. 1. Select List of... => Events from the Reports menu. 2. Select Filtered Group and click [Add] to display the Report Filter window. 3. Under field, click on the down arrow at the right of the field, scroll down (to the bottom) and select Tag Type... 4. Under Subfield, click on the down arrow at the right of the field and select Label. 5. Operator should be set to = Equals. 6. Under Value, enter "[?]" (without the quotes). 7. Click on the [OK] button to save the filter and return to the Report Definition Screen. 8. Choose the Report Destination you want. 9. Click on the [Options...] button to display the Report Options window. 10. Click on the Output Columns tab and check that the desired data columns are selected. You will likely want at least: Date Tag Type Label Prin1 Last, Given Prin1 ID 11. Make other selections as desired, and click [OK] to return to the Report Definition Screen. 12. Click on the [Create Report] button to run the report. 13 Enter the Tag Type Label that you want to review, and click on the [OK] button. If you want to find the information on a different Tag Type, run the report again, entering the desired Tag Type Label. Lee

Richard, thank you. I'll try it. Joan -----Original Message----- From: TMG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Damon Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TMG] Report help On 11/19/17 2:31 PM, Joan Lince wrote: > I would like help finding out who has an immigration tag in my TMG > records, and at almost 90 I'm having trouble making sense of the very > good assistance in TMG help or GTMOOTMG. Would someone be willing to > tell me exactly how to do it? > > Besides the standard Immigratn tag, over the years I've created two > more tags that are about immigration, and would like to cover all > three of them in one report. That is, I would like a report that lists > all the people who have data in any of my three Immigration tags. > > > > Your help will be appreciated. > > > > Joan Lince Sounds like you want to run a list of People report, with a condition of # of immigration tags > 0 or # of alttag1 > 0 or # of altag2 > 0 -- Richard Damonlt The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html ------------------------------- 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 11/19/17 2:31 PM, Joan Lince wrote: > I would like help finding out who has an immigration tag in my TMG records, > and at almost 90 I'm having trouble making sense of the very good assistance > in TMG help or GTMOOTMG. Would someone be willing to tell me exactly how to > do it? > > Besides the standard Immigratn tag, over the years I've created two more > tags that are about immigration, and would like to cover all three of them > in one report. That is, I would like a report that lists all the people who > have data in any of my three Immigration tags. > > > > Your help will be appreciated. > > > > Joan Lince Sounds like you want to run a list of People report, with a condition of # of immigration tags > 0 or # of alttag1 > 0 or # of altag2 > 0 -- Richard Damonlt

I would like help finding out who has an immigration tag in my TMG records, and at almost 90 I'm having trouble making sense of the very good assistance in TMG help or GTMOOTMG. Would someone be willing to tell me exactly how to do it? Besides the standard Immigratn tag, over the years I've created two more tags that are about immigration, and would like to cover all three of them in one report. That is, I would like a report that lists all the people who have data in any of my three Immigration tags. Your help will be appreciated. Joan Lince

At 11/19/2017 11:21, Karen Zander wrote >I try to make a GEDCOM of my entire TMG database regularly - "just in case" >- and it takes just under 2 hours, using a fairly new and fast computer. I hope you make TMG Backups regularly also. They are much quicker and in my opinion better for the "just in case" scenario. Plus, they include _everything_ that is in your project while GEDCOM may not. Most TMG users find that GEDCOM loses data for them. Now, it is often that "lost" data is less 'important' and the really important stuff is included in the GEDCOM. There is also the situation of having data included in a GEDCOM whichy does not import into some other program. While GEDCOM can be very reliable for basic genealogical information,* it is also very ambiguous. The GEDCOM specifications are NOT a standard, and there is no requirement that all parts of the specifications be implemented by any one program. So data exported by one program may not be imported by another -- especially anything more than basic information. * Names, Sex and, Birth, Marriage, Death, Burial dates and places. Lee

Lee, I make a TMG back-up either hourly, or each time I close the project. It is much quicker and I realize that it contains everything in my database, whereas a GEDCOM does not. The "just in case" is really 'just in case" a Windows update breaks TMG, or some corruption sneaks into the database and doesn't make itself apparent until I have invested too much time to have lost all the hours, weeks, months of work. Since I use TMG bilingually, I hope that day never comes! Karen On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Lee Hoffman/KY <[email protected]> wrote: > At 11/19/2017 11:21, Karen Zander wrote > >> I try to make a GEDCOM of my entire TMG database regularly - "just in >> case" >> - and it takes just under 2 hours, using a fairly new and fast computer. >> > > I hope you make TMG Backups regularly also. They are much quicker and in > my opinion better for the "just in case" scenario. Plus, they include > _everything_ that is in your project while GEDCOM may not. Most TMG users > find that GEDCOM loses data for them. Now, it is often that "lost" data is > less 'important' and the really important stuff is included in the GEDCOM. > There is also the situation of having data included in a GEDCOM whichy does > not import into some other program. > > While GEDCOM can be very reliable for basic genealogical information,* it > is also very ambiguous. The GEDCOM specifications are NOT a standard, and > there is no requirement that all parts of the specifications be implemented > by any one program. So data exported by one program may not be imported by > another -- especially anything more than basic information. > > * Names, Sex and, Birth, Marriage, Death, Burial dates and places. > > Lee > > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ances > try.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry > .com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > 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 11/19/2017 00:10, Mary Grindol wrote >However, I find something very odd. For my largest project, it says I have >only 7124 persons but that I have over 19000 witnesses. I really don't use >witnesses very often, partly because they do not show up in my GEDCOM >reports.Are there some other ways that TMG counts people as witnesses other >than my placing them in that witness box? The problem is that you are not understanding the difference between witnesses and Witnesses. In TMG, anyone attached to an event Tag as either a Principal or as a Witness is a witness. So, before TMG added the Witnesses feature, there were witnesses (Principals attached to event Tags). Likely your 19000 Witnesses goes generally something like this: 6000 Birth 4000 Marriages (2000 Tags each with two Principals) 5000 Deaths 4000 other event Tag witnesses Note that this is just a general idea. Most data sets don't have a Birth or Death Tag for each person and usually, we know more births than deaths. Also not everyone is married, so there would not be half as many marriages and there are persons. As for not using Witnesses, while GEDCOM does not normally use them, I find that a poor excuse to not using the feature as it gives me a lot of help. Now, TMG _can_ include most of that information using the Enhanced GEDCOM feature in v9.05. Of course, that information _may_not_ import into any genealogy program. But good programs will produce an "error" report on import which will show the information that did not meet the importing programs GEDCOM expectations. This can then be used to add the information to the imported data in whatever way that program can accept. Lee

Hi John and Chris, I agree that TMG is slow at many things. Backing up a TMG project is the equivalent of zipping up the equivalent 90 files. That is the time to compare for that case. When do some other work with WireShark to analyze efficiency of programs I was amazed at the overheads at the system level when opening and closing the various files. Collating data within TMG to go into a GEDCOM requires a lot of dancing from table to table (file to file), so it is quite likely that exporting a GEDCOM from Family Historian where all its data is said to be in memory and it is GEDCOM structured is likely to represent a minimum exporting time. TMG's architecture was probably reasonable in 1995, but it is not competitive with applications built 20 years later. There is no way to fix it within TMG. It is for this reason that HRE will probably do a behind the scenes 2 stage TMG to HRE migration process. We already have software that will clone the ~90 file TMG VFP  Project to a single file H2 TMG ghost Project. Once we are dealing entirely with the H2 database we can build an extended schema, ghost TMG and partly preloaded HRE schema table in the same database. Then migrate TMG data to its home in the HRE schema tables. At the end of the process we then delete the ghosted TMG tables and now have an HRE Project copy of that TMG project. Hopefully, this strategy will make the migration quite fast (but subject some checks and balances about where certain customized TMG data should live in HRE). Robin On 19-Nov-17 09:27 AM, John Cardinal wrote: > Mary Grindol wrote: >> I have a fairly large database and export to GEDCOM quite often - >> to share with Ancestry.com, RootsWeb.com, and MyHeritage.com. I >> have NEVER had an export take 45 minutes. I wonder if Chris, or >> whoever said this in the first place, was trying to export exhibits >> (which aren't recognized by GEDCOM anyway). No one else seemed be >> shocked at 45 minutes, but I am. I don't think my GEDCOM reports >> take much longer than saving to a backup (since I also don't backup >> the exhibits because they are external). > Mary, > > I am not an expert on exporting GEDCOMs from TMG, but my experience is that > they take a long time. To make sure I wasn't misremembering, I just did a > test and exported my 27,000 member project and it took 20 minutes. In my > opinion, that's slow. Backing up my project is much faster, no more than a > minute. > > I did include exhibits in the GEDCOM file. I don't think TMG will include > internal image exhibits (I don't have any), but it did include external > image exhibits (GEDCOM 5.5 supports that) and it also exported internal text > exhibits. The external image exhibits should not slow TMG down. It doesn't > copy the image files, it writes the path to the file in the GEDCOM file. > > I have a little experience with importing GEDCOM into TMG, and that is > really slow, though there are wide variations based on the characteristics > of the GEDCOM file. The other day I imported a 140,000 person GEDCOM file > and it took more than 24 hours. That file was exported from Reunion for the > Mac and there were various issues with it. I wrote a program to adjust the > Reunion GEDCOM file and make it more standard. When I imported the modified > GEDCOM into TMG, it took about 3 hours. > > John > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- Robin Lamacraft, Adelaide, Australia

I try to make a GEDCOM of my entire TMG database regularly - "just in case" - and it takes just under 2 hours, using a fairly new and fast computer. People: 44701 Events: 110614 Witnesses: 145746 Places: 6621 Relationships: 64349 Citations: 322191 Sources 2949 Repostitory Links: 3275 NO exhibits included in GEDCOM I also make GEDCOMS of 4 portions of my database that I would put online, selected by flag, and length of time depends on size of the portion. I have not found a way to select portions of my database to export in other genealogy programs, (other than ancestors or descendants of..) Sureties and flags in TMG allow me to exclude unverified information from export. I'm really hoping TMG will continue to work for a long time and my database won't become corrupt. I can live with a long export time for GEDCOMS. Karen On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:57 PM, John Cardinal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am not an expert on exporting GEDCOMs from TMG, but my experience is that > they take a long time. To make sure I wasn't misremembering, I just did a > test and exported my 27,000 member project and it took 20 minutes. In my > opinion, that's slow. Backing up my project is much faster, no more than a > minute. > > I did include exhibits in the GEDCOM file. I don't think TMG will include > internal image exhibits (I don't have any), but it did include external > image exhibits (GEDCOM 5.5 supports that) and it also exported internal > text > exhibits. The external image exhibits should not slow TMG down. It doesn't > copy the image files, it writes the path to the file in the GEDCOM file. > > I have a little experience with importing GEDCOM into TMG, and that is > really slow, though there are wide variations based on the characteristics > of the GEDCOM file. The other day I imported a 140,000 person GEDCOM file > and it took more than 24 hours. That file was exported from Reunion for the > Mac and there were various issues with it. I wrote a program to adjust the > Reunion GEDCOM file and make it more standard. When I imported the modified > GEDCOM into TMG, it took about 3 hours. > > John > > The TMG archive is found here: http://archiver.rootsweb. > ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: http://lists.rootsweb. > ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Virginia, Can you describe what you are doing in more detail, or give me a link to your site? I am not sure what you mean by "I've been using the place index to show cemeteries in the Detail place." Thanks. John

Thanks for the explanation, John. I've been using the place index to show cemeteries in the Detail place. I'll have to rethink this later on, if the index is not yet available in GedSite. Virginia > -----Original Message----- > From: TMG [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of John Cardinal > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 10:32 PM > To: TMG-L > Subject: Re: [TMG] GedSite > > vbc wrote: > > I noticed that none of the sample websites for GedSite have a place > > index. I looked through the instructions and I don't see the option. > > Am I missing something? > > Virginia, > > GedSite does not have a Place Index feature yet. It will someday. In the > meantime, though, GedSite has some place-related features that are not in > SS, such as the ability to link place information and place exhibits to every > appearance of the place. In SS, the place information and place exhibits are > only available through the Place Index. > > GedSite does not yet have all the features of SS, but GedSite v1.0 was > released one year ago whereas SS 1.0 was released 15 years ago. (I thought it > was 17 years, but I just checked, and the first version was released in June of > 2002.) > > John > > The TMG archive is found here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/TMG/ > Instructions on how to subscribe to TMG: > http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message

Hi Richard, You are right to point out that an HRE export to GEDCOM can only be expanded to data that GEDCOM has a concept for. Because of this there is an inherent limit on what could be exported to a GEDCOM file. That export has no benefit if there is no application that can import and use that data. Our prime requirement is to migrate TMG data into HRE without loss of meaning or functionality. This includes being able to export to GEDCOM from HRE all the data elements that TMG can currently export. As to the comparative speed of HRE and TMG, there are 2 technology advantages that HRE has over TMG. Because of the limitations of the Visual FoxPro database used within TMG, much of the TMG data has to be held in separate VFP memo files. There are a lot of opening and closing of files in TMG. Secondly when TMG was being built the amount of application memory was tiny so very little data could be saved in memory for reuse (cached). The H2 database engine internal to HRE has larger capacity string field types that are stored with the other data. HRE operates as a single project file removing the ongoing establishment of multiple file accesses. In today's computers there is more opportunity to save frequently used data to memory as do many modern genealogical applications. This is not a 1:1 comparison as HRE stores its data in a different structure so until tested the actual difference in speed can only be conjectured. Robin On 19-Nov-17 05:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/18/17 12:51 PM, Chris Sackett wrote: >> Robin, Michael, John, >> >> Many thanks for your reassuring remarks about switching in due course >> from TMG and SS to HRE and GedSite, in particular for explaining that >> HRE should be able to produce a GEDCOM in a couple of minutes rather >> than the 48 minutes taken by TMG in my test run. That really is a >> game changer. >> >> Regarding the comment that not all data is capable of export to >> GEDCOM, are there at this stage known TMG features that, although >> they will transfer directly to HRE, will still not be able to be >> exported to a GEDCOM file and thus will not be able to be published >> on a website? In other words, are there clean-up or other tasks I >> could be doing now in TMG to avoid website problems after switching >> from a direct TMG-SS system to an indirect HRE-GEDCOM-GedSite system? >> >> Chris Sackett >> > There are lots of features in TMG that can not be exported as a > 'Standard' GEDCOM. A number of extensions, many/most of which John has > put support for in GEDSITE are available in some programs to record in > the extended GEDCOM much of this information. I suspect that there are > still some features of TMG that haven't had an extension to support > them, largely because no other program supports all the features of > TMG, and thus no other program needed to implement an extension to > GEDCOM to express it, and for the most part, TMG didn't worry about > extending GEDCOM to maximize the information it exported, but instead > until near the end focused on producing a total standard GEDCOM > expressing the information that GEDCOM was designed for, and at the > end added the option to include a number of the common extensions that > other programs used to express their feature that standard GEDCOM > couldn't handle. > > This doesn't mean that HRE couldn't work on creating further > extensions to express more of these features, and John could support > them in GEDSITE. (I would hope that they could work together to > maximize the information transfer). > > That said, while creating a GEDCOM to express the basic, and even some > of the advanced, genealogical data/features is probably on the road > map for HRE, even more than TMG, they are not constraining the data > model to be easily expressible as a GEDCOM, even with significant > extensions. For example, I am not sure how badly you would need to > abuse the GEDCOM standard to handle the fact that HRE treats places > differently than the GEDCOM standard, allowing a lot of descriptive > information to be attached and interrelatons recorded (a place may > have multiple names, perhaps with time periods assigned; may be part > of larger entities, again possibly with time periods; be divided into > multiple sub-places, been derived from and later become other places > over time, etc). > -- Robin Lamacraft, Adelaide, Australia

Lee Hoffman wrote, in part: > Hmm! I vaguely remember discussions about including > multimedia files in a GEDCOM and later GEDCOM version > specs (not sure of the earlier versions) speak to having > the file in the GEDCOM in "encoded multimedia lines". Lee, GEDCOM v5.5 has a BLOB (binary large object) record that was intended to be used to include images and other document content inside a GEDCOM file. It was dropped in v5.5.1. Very few programs support BLOB, and at least two of the programs that support it (Family Historian 6 and Ancestral Quest 14) are incompatible: Ancestral Quest 14 cannot read BLOBs from FH 6. That's not surprising; there is at least one error and one ambiguity in the specification of the format. GEDCOM v5.5.1 is the de facto standard and (IMO) GEDCOM files should not include BLOBs. TMG says that it writes GEDCOM v5.5 and v4.0. As far as I can tell, TMG does not write BLOBs. Here's an article about v5.5.1 vs. v5.5 and earlier versions of GEDCOM: http://genealogytools.com/why-all-genealogy-apps-should-support-gedcom-5-5-1 / GEDCOM v5.5 and v5.5.1 support "links" to external files. For example, here's how TMG writes GEDCOM records for an exhibit: 2 OBJE 3 FORM PNG 3 TITL Graham, Isaac 1868 death 3 FILE c:\Exhibits\1868-07-22-Graham,Isaac-101-death.png The problem with this approach is mostly that moving the GEDCOM file to a new machine will usually invalidate the file path, and that means editing the GEDCOM file or using a facility in the importing program to designate where the exhibit files reside on the new machine. John

On 18 Nov 2017, at 22:57, John Cardinal <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... I just did a > test and exported my 27,000 member project and it took 20 minutes. That fits with my test. I was the one who reported 48 minutes for a GEDCOM export. My project has 37,000 people, 81,000 events, 108,000 witnesses. Chris Sackett

Lee wrote: <Select File=>Project Summary for this. Also, you can get this in a <report by selecting Project Information from the Report menu. Thank you. I have never used this feature, but will again. However, I find something very odd. For my largest project, it says I have only 7124 persons but that I have over 19000 witnesses. I really don't use witnesses very often, partly because they do not show up in my GEDCOM reports.Are there some other ways that TMG counts people as witnesses other than my placing them in that witness box? Mary Grindol

At 11/18/2017 22:08, Mary Grindol wrote >Chris Sackett <[email protected]> wrote: > > >That fits with my test. I was the one who reported 48 minutes for a GEDCOM >export. My project has 37,000 people, 81,000 events, 108,000 witnesses. > >How do you find out these numbers? I have no idea how many people, events, >and witnesses I have in my two family projects. Select File=>Project Summary for this. Also, you can get this in a report by selecting Project Information from the Report menu. >I have never attempted to export exhibits - had no idea GEDCOM could use >them. I thought a GEDCOM was basically a text file. RootsWeb WorldConnect >would not use the exhibits, but I guess Ancestry and MyHeritage would. Yes, GEDCOM can use them. The question is whether the importing program can process them, and if so, how well. I have never tried. It is easier to just send them with the GEDCOM and let the recipient handle them. Lee

At 11/18/2017 17:57, John Cardinal wrote >I am not an expert on exporting GEDCOMs from TMG, but my experience is that >they take a long time. To make sure I wasn't misremembering, I just did a >test and exported my 27,000 member project and it took 20 minutes. In my >opinion, that's slow. Backing up my project is much faster, no more than a >minute. I have never noted a GEDCOM export to take more than a few minutes. However, I have never exported a GEDCOM with more than a few thousand persons. I have noted that TMG takes longer to export a GEDCOM as the number of person increased. Also an export of a subset of a data set will also increase the length of time. A recent export of a 5000 person subset took quite a long time (15 - 20 minutes?). Having TMG create a new project of that same subset and then exporting a GEDCOM from the new project took a total of about 8 minutes. >I did include exhibits in the GEDCOM file. I don't think TMG will include >internal image exhibits (I don't have any), but it did include external >image exhibits (GEDCOM 5.5 supports that) and it also exported internal text >exhibits. The external image exhibits should not slow TMG down. It doesn't >copy the image files, it writes the path to the file in the GEDCOM file. Hmm! I vaguely remember discussions about including multimedia files in a GEDCOM and later GEDCOM version specs (not sure of the earlier versions) speak to having the file in the GEDCOM in "encoded multimedia lines". Thus the file would be encoded and fully included in the GEDCOM file. My vague recollection of that time is that such encoding had a lot of problems. Including File Paths would get around that problem assuming that the exported GEDCOM was to be imported on the same computer. Otherwise, I would think there would be a lot of work required to prepare the GEDCOM for import on another computer. Lee

vbc wrote: > I noticed that none of the sample websites for GedSite have a > place index. I looked through the instructions and I don't see the > option. Am I missing something? Virginia, GedSite does not have a Place Index feature yet. It will someday. In the meantime, though, GedSite has some place-related features that are not in SS, such as the ability to link place information and place exhibits to every appearance of the place. In SS, the place information and place exhibits are only available through the Place Index. GedSite does not yet have all the features of SS, but GedSite v1.0 was released one year ago whereas SS 1.0 was released 15 years ago. (I thought it was 17 years, but I just checked, and the first version was released in June of 2002.) John

Robin, It is certainly true that accessing all the data in a project is time-consuming, however, I don't think that excuses the relatively poor performance of the TMG export. As a comparison, I made a full site (everyone in the project) using Second Site (SS), and that took 3 minutes. To make a full site, SS must read most of the data in the TMG database, and a lot of it more than once. For example, if a Census event is shared by 5 people, Second Site reads that event 5 times. Each time, it evaluates which of the people can be shown, evaluates the sentence template for the subject, processes the citations, and inspects the exhibits. For my project, the full site includes 464MB of HTML and other files spread across 3,302 files. That is significantly more IO work than writing a single GEDCOM file. For my TMG project, the GEDCOM file is about 15MB, so SS is writing 35x more data. Some of the 3 minutes is used to copy the exhibit files. The project has 1,050 exhibits totaling 397MB. To be fair, it's easier to copy files at (relatively) high-speed than it is to create content and write it at high-speed. Even if we remove the 397MB from what SS wrote, it's still wrote 4x more than TMG's GEDCOM export. Meanwhile, not writing the exhibits shrinks the SS elapsed time by about 45 seconds. SS is 17 years old, and so it faces some of the same challenges as TMG in that regard. SS does more work to create a site than TMG has to do to create a GEDCOM file, and yet it finishes in 15% of the time while operating on the same database. I am a TMG fan, and parts of it were extremely well-designed and implemented. However, it is safe to say that the performance of TMG's GEDCOM import and export were not deemed important enough to warrant performance tuning. That's one reason why comparing the speed of the SS Make Site function to TMG's GEDCOM export is not fair; the performance of the Make Site command is much more important to SS than the GEDCOM export is to TMG. Lastly, there are users of SS who wait a lot longer than 3 minutes for SS to make a site, and so there is always room for improvement. John