I am pretty sure that there are genealogicalrats out there who use Ancestry. I've just signed up and I am finding it quite useful. But I have run into a minor problem that I hope somebody can help with.
For reasons that I don't quite understand, my maternal grandfather (and his descendants) have become attached to my great grandfather by a different (unnamed) spouse from all my great aunts. Is there an easy way to "merge" this non-existent great grandmother into the real one, or to transfer my grandfather to the correct spouse of his father? both my grand father and my (real) great grandmother have quite a few relatives attached, so I really don't want to re-enter details.
-- Stephen
You shall this twelvemonth term from day to day Visit the speechless sick and still converse With groaning wretches, and your task shall be With all the fierce endeavour of thy wit To enforce the pained impotent to smile.
> For reasons that I don't quite understand, my maternal > grandfather (and his descendants) have become attached to my > great grandfather by a different (unnamed) spouse from all my > great aunts. Is there an easy way to "merge" this non-existent > great grandmother into the real one, or to transfer my > grandfather to the correct spouse of his father? both my grand > father and my (real) great grandmother have quite a few > relatives attached, so I really don't want to re-enter > details. > Stephen
Do you mean that the wrong information is on an online tree that someone else has put there, or in an online tree that you have put there, or in an offline genealogy program you obtained via Ancestry?
In message <7ll2cjF3eqt9...@mid.individual.net>, Stephen
<wenlock.ho...@googlemail.com> writes: >I am pretty sure that there are genealogicalrats out there who use
There are (-:
>Ancestry. I've just signed up and I am finding it quite useful. But I >have run into a minor problem that I hope somebody can help with.
>For reasons that I don't quite understand, my maternal grandfather (and >his descendants) have become attached to my great grandfather by a >different (unnamed) spouse from all my great aunts. Is there an easy >way to "merge" this non-existent great grandmother into the real one, >or to transfer my grandfather to the correct spouse of his father? both >my grand father and my (real) great grandmother have quite a few >relatives attached, so I really don't want to re-enter details.
Although I agree Ancestry's useful, I don't use their on-line software/storage/whatever - I use Brother's Keeper, on my own machine. (If prompted for a reason I'd say it's so I can carry it anywhere without needing to be online to access it, plus slight concern about the security of my data - I don't mean keeping it from others, I like most genealogists want to share, I mean losing it; but to be honest it's because I'd put so much into Brother's Keeper before online became available that it'd be a mammoth task to move it. Though the loss danger I do still wonder about.)
Having said that, a lot of these softwares work similarly - can you _break_ a link? If so, try adding somebody as an extra spouse to somebody else to get all the ties established, then break the link that isn't valid. ("Delete spouse" or similar.)
As for online ones, I've just been introduced to one called MyHeritage. I find it infuriating - it needs flash to see the eye-candy - but the main thing is that it does quite intelligent matching between users, and shows where it thinks you have ancestors in common, letting you view the relevant bits of both trees side-by-side. I uploaded a GedCom file to it (one from 2007 I'd had at rootsweb), and it found three or four matches: the first one (about 7 common ancestors) twice, and one that wasn't a match twice. The first one I'm pretty sure _are_ the same people, and it let me send a message to the other compiler, and we're now in contact outside of that site.
Incidentally, although it sounds like you're rather far down the road already, I do hope what you're using has the opportunity to let you at least extract a GedCom file: this is a sort of lowest common denominator format that virtually all genealogical software accepts and can generate, so at least the basic information - actually it's a fair bit more than that, but there will be _some_ stuff any prog. has as special - can be transferred easily. As I said I think virtually all the PC-based softwares use it, and most of the online ones will at least let you _up_load such a file; rootsweb will let you get it back (which was handy here - I was playing after hours at work), and I _think_ will actually generate a GedCom file for you from any part of your tree or anyone else's if they've allowed it. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Anne Burgess wrote: >> For reasons that I don't quite understand, my maternal >> grandfather (and his descendants) have become attached to my >> great grandfather by a different (unnamed) spouse from all my >> great aunts. Is there an easy way to "merge" this non-existent >> great grandmother into the real one, or to transfer my >> grandfather to the correct spouse of his father? both my grand >> father and my (real) great grandmother have quite a few >> relatives attached, so I really don't want to re-enter >> details. >> Stephen
> Do you mean that the wrong information is on an online tree that > someone else has put there, or in an online tree that you have > put there, or in an offline genealogy program you obtained via > Ancestry?
It's my online tree - either my mother or I wasn't paying attention at some point and associated my grandfather and great father but (explicitly?) didn't associate my grandfather and great grand mother. Can I just change my grandfather's mother on the tree and pull in my great grandmother?
And while I am greatful for JPG's comments, I am currently building the tree somewhere where other family members who have relevant information can see it and add to it - and yes, I can export the tree as GEDCOM.
-- Stephen
You shall this twelvemonth term from day to day Visit the speechless sick and still converse With groaning wretches, and your task shall be With all the fierce endeavour of thy wit To enforce the pained impotent to smile.
Stephen wrote: > Anne Burgess wrote: >>> For reasons that I don't quite understand, my maternal grandfather >>> (and his descendants) have become attached to my great grandfather by >>> a different (unnamed) spouse from all my great aunts. Is there an >>> easy way to "merge" this non-existent great grandmother into the real >>> one, or to transfer my grandfather to the correct spouse of his >>> father? both my grand father and my (real) great grandmother have >>> quite a few relatives attached, so I really don't want to re-enter >>> details. >>> Stephen
>> Do you mean that the wrong information is on an online tree that >> someone else has put there, or in an online tree that you have put >> there, or in an offline genealogy program you obtained via Ancestry?
> It's my online tree - either my mother or I wasn't paying attention at > some point and associated my grandfather and great father but > (explicitly?) didn't associate my grandfather and great grand mother. > Can I just change my grandfather's mother on the tree and pull in my > great grandmother?
> And while I am greatful for JPG's comments, I am currently building the > tree somewhere where other family members who have relevant information > can see it and add to it - and yes, I can export the tree as GEDCOM.
Ancestry seems to do this sort of thing - I am currently married to my great grandmother, or something. Myself, I would try to rectify it in a PC application and then upload the whole thing again.
>> Do you mean that the wrong information is on an online tree >> that someone else has put there, or in an online tree that >> you have put there, or in an offline genealogy program you >> obtained via Ancestry?
> It's my online tree - either my mother or I wasn't paying > attention at some point and associated my grandfather and > great father but (explicitly?) didn't associate my grandfather > and great grand mother. Can I just change my grandfather's > mother on the tree and pull in my great grandmother?
If necessary you should be able to delete the surplus great-grandma
> And while I am greatful for JPG's comments, I am currently > building the tree somewhere where other family members who > have relevant information can see it and add to it - and yes, > I can export the tree as GEDCOM.
I agree with JPG. I would never put my whole tree online.
(a) it makes it more difficult to correct errors (b) it might get pirated - this has indeed already happened to me, where one tree i put on has been hijacked four times by people who are passing my work off as theirs (c) it is much easier to share information directly by GEDCOM than by making people extract it from online trees, most of which are designed to make it difficult to extract information as a GEDCOM (d) a lot of the information on my tree has been given to me by relatives also researching the family, and I don't have their permission to publish what they have given me
I have restricted my online tree in GenesReunited, MyHeritage, Ancestral File, GenCircles and various other to my direct ancestors and their siblings and siblings' spouses. That is quite enough for anyone who is related to contact me, and I don't get swamped by droves of people who, for example, imagine that because I have a John Smith in Lanarkshire in the mid-18th century, it's worth e-mailing to ask me if I am related to their James Smith in Aberdeenshire in the late19th century, birth date and place and parents' names unknown, who fathered an illegitimate child on a Jeannie Smith who might or might not be related to him. .
>And while I am greatful for JPG's comments, I am currently building the >tree somewhere where other family members who have relevant information >can see it and add to it - and yes, I can export the tree as GEDCOM.
Ah yes, that's another advantage of online ones I hadn't thought of. Glad you can retrieve your work (probably worth doing from time to time).
>>> Do you mean that the wrong information is on an online tree >>> that someone else has put there, or in an online tree that >>> you have put there, or in an offline genealogy program you >>> obtained via Ancestry?
>> It's my online tree - either my mother or I wasn't paying >> attention at some point and associated my grandfather and >> great father but (explicitly?) didn't associate my grandfather >> and great grand mother. Can I just change my grandfather's >> mother on the tree and pull in my great grandmother?
> If necessary you should be able to delete the surplus > great-grandma
My concern was that if I did that I might lose all the attached people - I seem to have sorted the situation by editing my Grandfather's ntry to change his mother (if only real life was like that...)
>> And while I am greatful for JPG's comments, I am currently >> building the tree somewhere where other family members who >> have relevant information can see it and add to it - and yes, >> I can export the tree as GEDCOM.
> I agree with JPG. I would never put my whole tree online.
I had my laptop stolen a couple of months ago. I am beginning to see the benefit of non-sensitive data being held in the cloud.
> (a) it makes it more difficult to correct errors
I'm not sure I follow - being on-line or not doesn't affect that, it's the way that the data is handled wherever, surely?
> (b) it might get pirated - this has indeed already happened to > me, where one tree i put on has been hijacked four times by > people who are passing my work off as theirs
Doesn't bother me - given that most of the trees that Ancestry suggests might be connected are really shoddy pieces of work, I'd rather that mine was out there (an inverse Gresham's Law); I'm in it for curiosity not credit.
> (c) it is much easier to share information directly by GEDCOM > than by making people extract it from online trees, most of > which are designed to make it difficult to extract information > as a GEDCOM
I can export as GEDCOM with two clicks.
> (d) a lot of the information on my tree has been given to me by > relatives also researching the family, and I don't have their > permission to publish what they have given me
Mine's almost all my own work, and I have permission for the rest.
> I have restricted my online tree in GenesReunited, MyHeritage, > Ancestral File, GenCircles and various other to my direct > ancestors and their siblings and siblings' spouses. That is > quite enough for anyone who is related to contact me, and I > don't get swamped by droves of people who, for example, imagine > that because I have a John Smith in Lanarkshire in the mid-18th > century, it's worth e-mailing to ask me if I am related to their > James Smith in Aberdeenshire in the late19th century, birth date > and place and parents' names unknown, who fathered an > illegitimate child on a Jeannie Smith who might or might not be > related to him. .
I haven't been contacted by any strangers yet - and my response will always be: what is in the Ancestry tree is what I know.
None of which is intended to suggest that my way is right and yours is not. Our circumstances may simply be quite different.
-- Stephen
You shall this twelvemonth term from day to day Visit the speechless sick and still converse With groaning wretches, and your task shall be With all the fierce endeavour of thy wit To enforce the pained impotent to smile.
In message <7lmah3F3e8oi...@mid.individual.net>, Stephen
<wenlock.ho...@googlemail.com> writes: >Anne Burgess wrote: >> Stephen wrote: >>> Anne Burgess wrote: [] >> If necessary you should be able to delete the surplus great-grandma
>My concern was that if I did that I might lose all the attached people >- I seem to have sorted the situation by editing my Grandfather's ntry >to change his mother (if only real life was like that...)
Glad you got it sorted without losing anything. That's why I suggested adding somebody as an additional spouse/partner/parent/whatever _before_ deleting a link. Being able to _change_ a link has apparently had the same effect (of not losing data).
>>> And while I am greatful for JPG's comments, I am currently building >>>the tree somewhere where other family members who have relevant >>>information can see it and add to it - and yes, I can export the >>>tree as GEDCOM. >> I agree with JPG. I would never put my whole tree online.
In my case, it was only "never _only_ online".
>I had my laptop stolen a couple of months ago. I am beginning to see >the benefit of non-sensitive data being held in the cloud.
Ouch. Well, I have a mistrust of the cloud, but I see what you mean. Sod's law would have it happen just after you've done a lot of work since your last backup (or the backup be stolen/damaged too).
>> (a) it makes it more difficult to correct errors
>I'm not sure I follow - being on-line or not doesn't affect that, it's >the way that the data is handled wherever, surely?
I'd agree with you there, it's the software involved - hang on, I see what Anne may mean: you have to be online to do so. If just the software usability, I suspect the online versions _are_ a _bit_ harder to use, but I certainly haven't tried them all, and it may just be unfamiliarity.
>> (b) it might get pirated - this has indeed already happened to me, >>where one tree i put on has been hijacked four times by people who >>are passing my work off as theirs
>Doesn't bother me - given that most of the trees that Ancestry suggests >might be connected are really shoddy pieces of work, I'd rather that >mine was out there (an inverse Gresham's Law); I'm in it for curiosity >not credit.
I'm with you there in wanting mine to be out there - partly because I tend to agree that it's better quality data than average (this from observation, not pride), and partly in the hope that I _do_ get communication from others who overlap.
>> (c) it is much easier to share information directly by GEDCOM than >>by making people extract it from online trees, most of which are
Hmm, not sure about that. Depends on how well your software handles GeDCom files. I think this is a problem the genealogical software industry (online and off) is backing away from addressing - that of merging trees, ranging from ones that are very similar to ones that only have a branch in common. (Very similar would allow members of the same family to work independently on their whole tree and then combine their results.)
>>designed to make it difficult to extract information as a GEDCOM
That was my impression too, but we now know of at least two online resources that do allow it - rootsweb, which I think will actually generate a GeDCom file of the ancestors or descendants of any person, provided the originator has given permission, or will let you get back your own entire file, and Ancestry:
>I can export as GEDCOM with two clicks.
>> (d) a lot of the information on my tree has been given to me by >>relatives also researching the family, and I don't have their >>permission to publish what they have given me
>Mine's almost all my own work, and I have permission for the rest.
Mine's _mostly_ my (and my brother's) work, and I must admit I haven't explicitly asked the few others whose data it includes - I will now you've raised the point, but I suppose I was sort of working on the basis that they gave it freely to me so would to anyone else that asked.
>> I have restricted my online tree in GenesReunited, MyHeritage, >>Ancestral File, GenCircles and various other to my direct ancestors >>and their siblings and siblings' spouses. That is quite enough for >>anyone who is related to contact me, and I don't get swamped by >>droves of people who, for example, imagine that because I have a John >>Smith in Lanarkshire in the mid-18th century, it's worth e-mailing to >>ask me if I am related to their James Smith in Aberdeenshire in the >>late19th century, birth date and place and parents' names unknown, >>who fathered an illegitimate child on a Jeannie Smith who might or >>might not be related to him. .
I got a few - less than five, I think - of that sort of thing initially. I think the MyHeritage matching system - which lets you view the sections of your tree and the other persons that it thinks might match, alongside each other - means that I only contacted the two people where the match was pretty clearly the same, and I'd hope others similarly. (Try uploading a - limited if you want - GeDCom to it and give it a day or so to do its matching. It'll email you with details of the overlaps it thinks it's found.)
>I haven't been contacted by any strangers yet - and my response will >always be: what is in the Ancestry tree is what I know.
I can't remember which of us initiated the contact, but I am most grateful to the person with whom I am in contact who has researched the branch of my ancestors with the name Griffiths and in Wales: she's done it properly (including local research - she's sent me pictures of gravestones), which would be very difficult for me to do. (I'm just grateful it wasn't Jones; I recently did someone whose ancestors were Joneses in Wales. You get Joneses marrying Joneses - _very_ difficult to disentangle.)
>None of which is intended to suggest that my way is right and yours is >not. Our circumstances may simply be quite different.
Indeed. I think if I had started nowadays, I might well have used one of the online resources, though I think I'd have wanted one where _all_ information I entered could be backed up by me, and one which has a "notes" feature. Trouble is, which one? RootsWeb seems very thorough, though the interface is now showing its age (text-based HTML - which of course some might consider a good thing); Ancestry I haven't tried - I feel it's too commercial, but then that's mean of me; familysearch (the LDS) seems very patchy, but that's based on the quality of contributions (as of course they all are), and some - though not I - might have reservations about the organisation behind it; MyHeritage is very Flash and eye-candy (but that might suit the Windows 7 generation), but has a nice matching feature; and I'm sure there are others.
One aspect of Brother's Keeper I have found useful - though it's tedious to maintain properly, as is any aspect of this hobby! - is that it has a space to record the _source_ of every piece of data (and let you ascribe a quality to it, from 0 unreliable to 3 very reliable/original source). This is most useful when new data disagrees with something you entered ten years ago - you can see where you got the old data from, and how good you thought it was then. (Incidentally, I don't give a rating of 3 to anything I've had as a personal reminiscence, except sometimes for own birth/wedding details; for information about other people, it gets a 2 or a 1 - the more certain a person is of a fact about someone else, the more dubious it pays to be!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Archduke Ferdinand found alive - First World War a mistake!
> Indeed. I think if I had started nowadays, I might well have used one of > the online resources, though I think I'd have wanted one where _all_ > information I entered could be backed up by me, and one which has a > "notes" feature. Trouble is, which one? RootsWeb seems very thorough, > though the interface is now showing its age (text-based HTML - which of > course some might consider a good thing); Ancestry I haven't tried - I > feel it's too commercial, but then that's mean of me; familysearch (the > LDS) seems very patchy, but that's based on the quality of contributions > (as of course they all are), and some - though not I - might have > reservations about the organisation behind it; MyHeritage is very Flash > and eye-candy (but that might suit the Windows 7 generation), but has a > nice matching feature; and I'm sure there are others.
Ancestry is quite expensive, but the way it associates family members from Census records is pretty powerful. Navigating the tree could be slicker - it's not aways possible to get to an individual's profile from other pages that mention them.
I don't have any problem with that fact that Family Search is owned and run by the LDS. They have a huge financial stake in proving that it is totally available to non-members of LDS (tax breaks vs First Amendment). The problem is that the LDS doctrines on ancestors encourage an "if in doubt, include it" approach to genealogy, as opposed to "only include it when you are certain". That means that most trees on the site are utter crap. Using a local LDS Family History Center to obtain microfilms of parish records has much to recommend it.
I'm looking at MyHeritage at the moment. I'm approaching 300 individuals spread over 14 Generations and what I really need is something that will give me an overview. This will be particularly challenging once I have increased the coverage from the current 4 of my son's Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparents to all 2048...
-- Stephen
You shall this twelvemonth term from day to day Visit the speechless sick and still converse With groaning wretches, and your task shall be With all the fierce endeavour of thy wit To enforce the pained impotent to smile.
In message <7loko6F3er3b...@mid.individual.net>, Stephen
<wenlock.ho...@googlemail.com> writes: >J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] >Ancestry is quite expensive, but the way it associates family members >from Census records is pretty powerful. Navigating the tree could be
Ah, I didn't realise it took (unfair?) advantage of public records. Sounds most powerful. []
>I don't have any problem with that fact that Family Search is owned and >run by the LDS. They have a huge financial stake in proving that it is >totally available to non-members of LDS (tax breaks vs First >Amendment). The problem is that the LDS doctrines on ancestors >encourage an "if in doubt, include it" approach to genealogy, as
I had certainly noticed that effect; I hadn't realised the cause was due to their principle.
>opposed to "only include it when you are certain". That means that most >trees on the site are utter crap. Using a local LDS Family History >Center to obtain microfilms of parish records has much to recommend it.
Indeed. Ideally images, rather than transcripts (though indexing is welcome).
>I'm looking at MyHeritage at the moment. I'm approaching 300 >individuals spread over 14 Generations and what I really need is >something that will give me an overview. This will be particularly >challenging once I have increased the coverage from the current 4 of my >son's >Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparents to >all 2048...
Wow ... Following "only include when you are certain", I haven't got to 1000 people in the whole database yet (though close), and I think that's in over 10 years ... -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. **
|
