* Ancestry to Retire Family Tree Maker Software

[BillH]

This would also be a great opportunity to have Family Historian work with Ancestry.com the same way that Roots Magic is going to. This would also be a great opportunity for Family Historian to pick up more users.

Bill

[Peter Collier]

Nick-V wrote:

I suspect that searching Ancestry will still require that one is an Ancestry member and pays them a fee. You won't be able to do it solely because you use RM or FTM.

No, of course not, nor would I be expect to be able to. What would be nice though would be an indication in FH that there was a potential record match in Ancestry that I -- as a paid-up Ancestry subscriber -- could go and investigate if I wished. Much like MyHeritage data subscribers already can.

BillH wrote:

This would also be a great opportunity to have Family Historian work with Ancestry.com the same way that Roots Magic is going to. This would also be a great opportunity for Family Historian to pick up more users.

It would. However, Ancestry's data are a valuable asset for that very reason and they know it. Therefore, I cannot imagine that integration with their databases does not involve some kind of licencing arrangement that will earn them money. RM will be happy to pay a licencing fee because, as you say, the integration with Ancestry will win them new customers and (as the recent outrage from erstwhile FTM users goes to show) once someone is using a particular software package they tend to want to stick with it. However, RM lose the advantage if other software publishers have the same access. Therefore they should have negotiated some sort of agreement with Ancestry that gives them exclusive rights, at least for a few years. If they haven't, they need to sack their purchasing negotiators!

[Nick-V]

Ancestry's data is certainly valuable. Indeed, our own data is surely far more valuable than any particular software we use. Consequently, it has been suggested that our data be input in standard and simple ways to simplify any later change to other software (using the GEDCOM file format).

I already moved my data from FH to FTM, simply to take massive advantage of Ancestry's automatic record matching and update, and have updated thousands of records very easily indeed. My data has benefited enormously.

Sadly, we failed to convince FH to pursue integration with Ancestry for its own commercial advantage and it is now likely that RootsMagic will grow its market share considerably. Bearing in mind how much we pay to Ancestry each month, the one off outlay to buy FH (or whatever) is insignificant, indeed I have even suggested that we might pay a significant sum or regular fee for FH to provide synchronisation.

FH still has an opportunity to provide a sync mechanism by progressing an existing part-developed add-on. This mechanism relies on using FTM (or perhaps RootsMagic) to do the sync work with Ancestry, and would comprise a further mechanism to sync between FH and FTM (or RootsMagic). When originated, the idea was very relevant as FH is far more functional than FTM. Perhaps it is now less relevant as RootsMagic appears considerably more functional than FTM?

Whilst I am sad that FH chose not to pursue this opportunity (perhaps level of drive and/or resource ?), perhaps someone will review and revitalise the add-on idea at some point, possibly as a chargeable option? How else will FH users sync with Ancestry (or other leading data providers), surely not manually? FH needs a data provider to partner...

[Peter Collier]

Nick-V wrote:

Bearing in mind how much we pay to Ancestry each month, the one off outlay to buy FH (or whatever) is insignificant, indeed I have even suggested that we might pay a significant sum or regular fee for FH to provide synchronisation.

I am not as bothered with synchronisation (by which I mean working in FH and having a tree on Ancestry update automatically), but to be able to search and view Ancestry data from within FH, and potentially download images too, that would be a big plus for me, and I imagine for most other people with an Ancestry subscription as well. Personally, I would have no problem paying a nominal monthly subscription to FH for that sort of integration.

As an alternative, your suggestion of a higher purchase cost for the software with the integration (perhaps as a "premium version" alongside a cheaper, non-integrated version) would fit well with me. Perhaps even offer various additional-cost bolt-ons so you could integrate with whichever and as many data provider(s) as you wanted (Ancestry/Find My Past/My Heritage etc.)

[AdrianBruce]

... Whilst I am sad that FH chose not to pursue this opportunity ...

You are presuming that Calico Pie had the option. Ancestry might not have wanted to sell the facility to all-comers; RM might have agreed exclusive access; RM might have outbid the others; Ancestry might have wanted a prohibitive amount of cash. It might even happen in the future.

I think we are certainly missing another part of the story - in December, Ancestry were clear that they were not going to sell the FTM line to another supplier. Then, suddenly, they sell to Mackiev. Curious....

[Peter Collier]

It is intriguing. I can only assume the backlash hurt them more than they care to admit. Perhaps many people may have Ancestry subscriptions that renew around Christmas/New Year and these took a nose-dive?

[tatewise]

Always read publicity blurb carefully:

RootsMagic say: Sync – RootsMagic will be the first and currently only software besides FTM to let you share data between your RootsMagic files on your computer with your personal Ancestry online trees.

Well on first sight that sounds like an exclusive deal. But read it again. Who else but RoosMagic would be able to share data with your RootsMagic files? So it is not necessarily exclusive!

[Nick-V]

Mike...an amusing observation

[jimlad68]

Well that put the cat among the pigeons!

My guess is that the less IT literate will stay with the 'new for old FTM', those who are reasonably happy with PCs and still want to sync with Ancestry may move to Rootsmagic, the rest will choose either Rootsmagic or FH. There seems to be very little mention of Legacy.

At least the whole debacle and Ancestry's mismanagement has made FTM users look at what else is available and from my past encounters with FTM (v2012 I think), it was a 'bells and whistles' program with some major gaps and no way to manipulate data with plugins or even look at the raw database.

Nick-V, I can understand your desire to use Ancestry's automatic record matching etc, but if you are not using the equivalent of FTM to sync I would have thought it was more trouble than it was worth to update your records direct and migrate out of FTM, just upload your tree, do the record matching, then update FH direct! Anyway, see my concerns below re 2 way syncing.

There is a continuing link here for anyone interested to which I added my 2 pennyworth as below:
http://genealogytools.com/ancestry-com- ... mment-5708

Well, one thing is for sure, Ancestry might have a lot of info in their database, but they no longer have the level of empathy towards genealogists that they had; my suspicion is that the recent takeovers and venture capitalists want to make every last penny they can from it. How is this relevant, as someone else said '.... distrust for Ancestry...' To me they have become the equal of their 'money is the bottom line' competitor Findmypast (as shown by FMPs total disregard to customers with the UK 1911 census and recently the 1939 census substitute). OK, you say they are all businesses, fine, but in that case they should not expect any loyalty if they treat their customers in this way, and potential customers should be very wary of any of their enterprises, especially if by ditching one of them it leaves you stranded. i.e.you should at least have an 'escaape route'.

If they were loyal to their customers, (and I would imagine they make far more out of annual subscriptions than any software they might sell), they would open up their API and let other developers interface too, and in the long run that should surely create more 'regular' subscriptions and income.

But why use Ancestry or any online trees. I am a long time subscriber to Ancestry and had my tree there for many years and made many contacts and am grateful to others who also share their data. Online trees can be excellent as a 'shop window' but to me keeping your 'Master' online is asking for trouble. I can see the temptation, easy to drag or click items etc, but what if you have no internet and how do you: back it up, revert to an older version, share, migrate to another product. In particular Ancestry has never divulged its API and its own export (and import) Gedcom is not very good. I don't know how it syncs with FTM now, but in the past when I tried, it was a nightmare and they openly admitted that things like notes just did not sync or got truncated.

But one thing I have learnt over many years in IT and home computing is that 2 way syncing is the best way to either loose data or duplicate it, and sorting out the mess can waste a lot of time.

So for me, Ancestry is still a good database and 'shop window' for a copy of my tree (even then I prefer Rootsweb trees), but I would rather keep my master tree on my PC/Laptop where I have control over it, in a genealogy program that does a far far better job at reporting, printing trees, data manipulation etc etc. For me the answer is Family Historian, and Rootsmagic was a close second, but for those who go down the Rootsmagic path in order to sync with Ancestry trees, TAKE GREAT CARE, if possible I would suggest you treat Rootsmagic as your 'master' and only sync 1 way from it to Ancestry, and take a backup before any syncing. This could be a good opportunity for Rootsmagic, but it could also be a nightmare, I just hope they can do it better and in a much shorter time scale than FTM did!

And, as Keith and many other pundits have said, there is no rush, the dust is still settling, make this 'forced opportunity' an opportunity to reassess how to store/ share your data for the long term.

Best of luck.

[Peter Collier]

You're not wrong, Mike. That said, I spend an awful lot of time every week editing other people's poor copy. You would think consistency and logic were to be expected, but some professional 'writers' can't even get their heads around correct capitalisation and punctuation!

[Nick-V]

Jim

Having matched and added many thousands of hints (official records) and added hundreds of new people to my tree almost at the click of a mouse I cannot imagine going back to copying and pasting individual elements of data and moving images (photos and records) manually between Ancestry and PC software.

And if one choose to do that (as I once did) one needs to maintain both FH and Ancestry separately (rather than sync automatically which works just fine) so that, in Ancestry, hints are checked off and newly discovered data leads to further discoveries (i.e. official records and info in other people's trees).

There is a lot more to the existing automation than simply identifying more info. That said, I fully respect those who prefer to control and verify every detail individually, to use the more complex and non standard aspects of their chosen software a particular way etc.

I'm firmly in the keep it simple and get it done camp, perhaps much to their disgust!

[AdrianBruce]

... I fully respect those who prefer to control and verify every detail individually, to use the more complex and non standard aspects of their chosen software a particular way etc. ...

I used an online Ancestry tree a while ago to try and get some more detail around one of my family names from the Bristol / Somerset area and, because I was assembling details for people I'd never dealt with in FH, I maximised the use of online hinting and the sort of one-button updating that can be done in Ancestry.

While it was quick, I found it an uncomfortable experience - there seemed no way to bring up all my current information, all the previous census images (say) and compare them to the latest image to determine whether it was the same family or not. And, as I keep banging on about in relation to Method 1 sourcing, I like to record my logic used to deduce that this is the same family as that - nowhere to do that very easily.

For me, I didn't feel in control of the more complex situations - it's less the complexity of what I'm doing or that of the software, more the complexity of the data and the decision making.

[Nick-V]

Adrian

I would also feel uncomfortable using Ancestry only. I understand how one might want to research in one screen and check out existing info in at least one other screen. This is one of the main reasons I am very keen to continue using PC software alongside Ancestry's web pages. Without PC software I suppose one could open multiple browser pages, but still, the ability to get at data in Ancestry is considerably less flexible.

[jimlad68]

http://www.tamurajones.net/NewFamilyTre ... ture.xhtml

An interesting article here with this Q&A, only relevant in that some FH users might want to swap between FH and FTM and Ancestry Trees. Basically, don't hold your breath!

JM: Why make a new TreeSync? Well, that’s a good question to ask Ancestry. I really don’t know.
.....................
.............. JM: So our short term plan is just to get FTM back on the market again, without a lot of changes and still called FTM 2014 and FTM Mac 3. After that the next big milestone will be replacing TreeSync near the end of the year assuming the new API is ready.

This would suggest Ancestry are creating (not yet created) a new API for Ancestry trees. Possibly one reason they ditched FTM? So anyone hoping to link directly to Ancestry trees may have to wait, or do it twice!

Also, looks like FTM has an API that is selectively let out, but will be a long time before it is public, so no chance of plugins before then!

[Nick-V]

Interesting thanks. Taking a wild guess, I imagined that Ancestry wishes to focus on its core web and data product which it wishes to develop further without the burden of PC software and Treesync. It's original announcement to simply abandon these products may have been deliberate, simply to establish the level of customer interest and then help in deciding and indeed negotiating the next step.

So why develop a Treesync II? Again, I imagine Ancestry wants a more generic facility that does not require considerable reworking every time it enhances its data or web product. Indeed, such a facility might also be used by other vendors in the future, such as FH!

Assuming a more flexible data layout I suspect the new facility will necessitate more logic in the PC software than FTM contains at present. If Treesync II is developed during 2016, it makes me wonder what RootsMagic will do remembering that FTM will continue with the existing Treesync in the meantime. I suspect the three parties will collaborate in specifying Treesync II and then start working concurrently on their respective facilities. And maybe the end of 2016 is optimistic considering the complexities of replicating what we have at present and adding the flexibility required by Ancestry.

Of course this is all pure speculation...but overall, their plan sounds like good news !