Family Historian User Group

As an aside to the Export Gedcom File - Ancestry (20488) thread; my 2pennyworth. Uploading to Ancestry trees is a pain, in many more ways than I will detail here. Although most detail is uploaded (with or without Mike's excellent Export Gedcom File), even if you know where the detail is, it takes many clicks to find it and when you do, text is often put into a long string so very difficult to follow.

I think one should appreciate what Ancestry trees are about. It is primarily for ease of use for Ancestry subscribers who develop their tree on Ancestry, easily attaching sources provided by Ancestry. This also keeps those users with Ancestry. I am not decrying this as for many people it is far easier, it is a just pity Ancestry did not make Gedcom import better, although one wonders if this is a business model design! Many of "us" use Ancestry trees as a "shop window" or DNA thrulines or hints, so we have to accept the limitations therein.

Before running Export Gedcom File, and when I have time, I have a rather laborious routine to upload to make the tree easier to view on Ancestry.

But, the main thing I like to do, on a copied FH project, is use the plugin CopyFactToManyIndividuals
(see https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic ... 233#p72233, I don't think it is verified for v7 but on a copied project nothing to lose)
for a fact that has a PLACe field of "see https://gw.geneanet.org/jimlad68 for more&better displayed info" (why PLACe; it displays better in Ancestry trees), I also add some note text.
This then directs viewers to Geneanet trees which in my mind display a Gedcom file so much better, is quick to upload and overwrites the existing Gedcom, rather than a forced new one as in Ancestry trees.

However, I am worried for the future as Ancestry have bought out Geneanet, and look what they did to the simple but excellent Rootsweb trees!!

P.S. I think mike's plugin Copy Fact to Chosen Records will also copy a fact, using a slightly different method
https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic ... 292#p72292

Jim, thank you for that insight. However, that other thread is investigating issues with the exported GEDCOM rather than the pros and cons of using Ancestry. So I've started a new thread to avoid diluting the investigation process.

jimlad68 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 12:24

Many of "us" use Ancestry trees as a "shop window" or DNA thrulines or hints

If that is all you want, remember that the process described in Synchronizing Your Tree With Ancestry to Exploit Hints provides a simple one-click option to do just that. It automatically sanitises the tree and produces an Ancestry-compatible GEDCOM file in one step, without having to remember loads of options across multiple menus. If you want the full hint synchronisation, you have to go via RM, but if are not bothered about retaining your hint history, just upload the GEDCOM directly. Simples.

By design, it omits media, sources, and notes, but do these actually add value on Ancestry if it is just for these purposes? If you need the full-fat version of your tree, you will have to go via the separate steps described, but it is a lot more complex.

no probs, nice to be insightful! just thought it might be a bit of an explainer as to why Ancestry trees is good, but is also such a pain. If anyone is interested I could detail by updates for Ancestry trees, but probably relates to my data structure and my utilities.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2022 13:07

By design, it omits media, sources, and notes, but do these actually add value on Ancestry if it is just for these purposes? If you need the full-fat version of your tree, you will have to go via the separate steps described, but it is a lot more complex.

Despite my reservations on Ancestry trees, it is a shop window for all my detail too, and sources are an important part of that. But all these different options are nice to know about.

No problem. I tend to take the other extreme, that a tree that quotes detailed dates and locations is probably well-researched even if the sources are not quoted, so anybody with a genuine family interest would get in touch. I'm not particularly keen on donating all the details of my research to Ancestry for free for them to use as they wish....

Ah, but my view is with research, data, old pictures etc, the more they are shared, the more for posterity! To me an accurate simple tree is good, but the sources, pics, historical context etc etc make it interesting.