Let me explain my technique, which is just an extension of the binary chop.
Having tried excluding various unusual fields & records, a binary chop on the Source records revealed [S378] was the culprit.
So I started chopping fields from that Source and soon discovered the middle lines in the Note were the problem.
The /../../../ looked likely culprits, so replaced them, and the rest is history...
It may be something to do with /../ being filing system shorthand for moving to parent folder.
BTW: I noticed that your great-aunt is her own witness with Resident Role for her Residence facts.
So she is both principal and witness to the same facts, which is a little unusual.
That would appear to be in addition to her witness Resident Role in her husband's Residence facts.
* Another exporting to Ancestry problem
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 27078
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Another exporting to Ancestry problem
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Re: Another exporting to Ancestry problem
I think what happened there, was that when I originally entered the facts I unintentionally created some in her record, and others in her husbands, so I ended up with some shared facts to which she was the principal and her husband the witness, and vice versa. It probably makes no difference, but I thought it messy and decided to make one member the principal for all of them, and the other the witness. It appears I didn't succeed!tatewise wrote: ↑08 Nov 2020 15:14BTW: I noticed that your great-aunt is her own witness with Resident Role for her Residence facts.
So she is both principal and witness to the same facts, which is a little unusual.
That would appear to be in addition to her witness Resident Role in her husband's Residence facts.