Agree except that I doubt there would be concensus on a "top five" wants list. The TMG mail list posts are not representative of average TMG users. This TMG-Refugees list is much less so. I've been in a TMG users' group for around 11 years with quite a few people coming and going. Most don't use roles, don't split memos, don't split CDs... I suspect that's true of the majority of TMG users. Items such as alternate names, quality of narrative and other reports, place entry more like TMG's, and sort date might be more likely to make a "top five" list. Bob Velke, in his July announcement, stated there is an insufficient market for advanced features. Other programs may not be willing to take that risk. For the record, I do use roles including occasionally principal roles, do split memos, and do sometimes split citations. Barbara S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Nunnally via" <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> To: <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [TMG-REFUGEES] Reality check.. > Folks, I'm concerned that our expectations may be unrealistic. After > following this list and the regular TMG list for a while, I get the sense > that many people seem to assume that all other packages aspire to be TMG > and > they just haven't gotten there yet. So we will just sit back and wait for > the other packages to "mature" to the point we can utilize them. > > So far, I haven't seen that attitude on the part of any of the other > packages. In fact, there has already been some push back from the > RootsMagic community. A post by one person on the RootsMagic list said > [paraphrase], "I looked at TMG and did not like it. That is why I am a RM > user. I don't want RM to become TMG!" That post received quite a few > rather emphatic "me too's!" Another post I saw was frustrated with the > fact > that TMG import seemed to have captured all of the attention of the > RootsMagic developers to the exclusion of issues of importance to the > RootsMagic community. > > The list of features on our web site fundamentally says, "Nothing else is > adequate. I want my TMG!" That may be exactly the way we feel, but I > doubt > is a realistic expectation. There appears to be little hope if any that > someone is going to "clone" TMG. > > My impression is that these other packages are scrambling to make TMG > import > as friendly as possible, but primarily it is an effort to shoehorn as much > TMG data into their existing packages as possible. I have seen almost no > indication that they are interested in implementing TMG features. > Certainly > if new features come along, it does not appear they will happen any time > soon and they probably will not be driven by the desires of the TMG > community. > > They may implement a few features that 1) they consider a good fit with > their existing product, 2) that would be useful to their current user > community, and 3) would also assist with TMG migration. But the first two > criterion will be weighted much more heavily than the third. For example, > I > think it was already on the RootsMagic wish list to handle alternate names > a > little more like TMG. > > After a while, I anticipate these other packages will move on with little > or > no further concern for compatibility with the obsolete TMG package that > has > fewer and fewer users every month. > > For this TMG-REFUGEES effort to be the most effective, I think 1) we need > to > be producing a "top 5 list" of the features most important to TMG users, > 2) > We should consider how our TMG data could best be moved into the existing > structures of the other programs instead of expecting the other programs > to > adapt to our TMG data, and 3) those of us who have some programming > expertise may need to collaborate on how TMG data can be "massaged" en > masse > to better fit the format of other programs. > > > John N. > > > *** > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the message subject and body. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

>> Agree except that I doubt there would be concensus on a "top five" wants list. The "top 5 list" suggestion apparently did not express what I meant to convey. I agree completely that we would each have our own list. But perhaps we should "vote" for the TMG features that are most important to us so a "top 5" most important features emerges. This might be very helpful to developers of other packages. Likewise, if a feature I have exploited extensively gets only one vote (mine), then I probably just need to assume that I will be on my own as far as getting my data transferred elsewhere. Quite a few years back, I participated in a very large users' group that made suggestions to the developers of the software we used. Obviously, the number of suggestions for the same feature greatly increased the probability that it might be considered. The company took the most requested suggestions and ranked them on a scale of 1 to 3 as to how well it fit with their concept of the product, and then the technical difficulty of implementing the suggestion. So a popular suggestion ranked P3,T1 was very likely to actually become part of the product. But even if a P1,T3 suggestion was very popular, it probably would never show up. I imagine this is exactly the kind of analysis going on with all of these developers. If we can help the developers prioritize based on how likely a feature is to attract TMG users, we do them and ourselves a favor. John N.