Export and Missing Marriage Sources

ricm · Post by **ricm** » 07 May 2009 09:22

When exporting a GED file there is the option to 'Exclude all records which are not linked to the selected individual records'. The default option is with this checked.

When the option is checked all Marriages sources are stripped out of the exported GED; if unchecked all marriage sources are left intact.

Now all the marriage sources ARE linked to individuals (every Marriage source shows at least 1 Citation). So can anyone explain what's happening?

Thanks,
Ric

ID:3675

Post by **hsw** » 07 May 2009 09:31

I'm not sure, but I suspect this may be because the marriage sources are linked to family records, not individual records...

ricm · Post by **ricm** » 07 May 2009 09:42

Hi, thanks for replying.

Interesting...

Here's another check:
Using the Split Tree Helper there is an option 'Delete Source Records left with no links to them'. This is not the default but an option in the drop-down box.

If selected the Marriage sources are NOT removed. Ergo they are linked.

The two options (one within export and the other within split) are not only worded differently but to me have a different meaning. Within Export the phrase '...which are not linked to the selected individual records' implies that sources are maintained only for those individuals you have selected for export. Only in the one situation where you select all individuals can I make no distinction between the function of these two options.

So... is the export option a bug or some feature I simply don't understand?

Regards,
Ric

JonAxtell · Post by **JonAxtell** » 07 May 2009 10:38

I've checked with a simple two person one source file and marriage sources are removed with the 'Exclude' option selected in the export function. I would consider this a bug with a relatively high priority since it causes unexpected data loss.

Technically it could be said that sources to a family record are not linked to 'selected individual records' however any normal understanding of the option means where there is no connection at all, and that includes checking for indirect links.

As to why the export and split tree are different, I blame it one on of FH's main failings - lack of orthogonality/consistency. If something can be done in two different places in a program they should work pretty much identically and should also use the same words. Basic program design 101.

Post by **hsw** » 07 May 2009 11:50

I've just tried it with a GEDcom of 64 people and 16 families and the marriage sources ARE exported. However, my marriage sources are quoted as the source of facts about the individual as well as facts about the marriage, which might be making a difference.

gerrynuk · Post by **gerrynuk** » 07 May 2009 12:20

JonAxtell said:

As to why the export and split tree are different, I blame it one on of FH's main failings - lack of orthogonality/consistency.

Jon,

If you think FH is so bad, why do you continue to use it?

Whilst you may have a point, I think your frequent 'FH-bashing' is extremely negative and ill-considered. There is certainly a place for constructive criticism but the emphasis, surely, should be on constructive.

I feel sorry for Simon Orde who has put so much effort into FH over the years and has produced a product that is far ahead of the field. To be faced with continual carping and negative criticism is disheartening, to say the least.

Gerry

JonAxtell · Post by **JonAxtell** » 07 May 2009 23:05

Gerry Newnham said:
If you think FH is so bad, why do you continue to use it?

Whilst you may have a point, I think your frequent 'FH-bashing' is extremely negative and ill-considered. There is certainly a place for constructive criticism but the emphasis, surely, should be on constructive.

I feel sorry for Simon Orde who has put so much effort into FH over the years and has produced a product that is far ahead of the field. To be faced with continual carping and negative criticism is disheartening, to say the least.

I continue to use it because despite all its failings its has features that are good for my genealogy project of a ONS. Other programs are aimed at immediate family trees and not easy to use with large numbers of individuals - currently over 70,000.

As for continual 'FH-bashing' this is because I don't see any acknowledgement from Simon so it doesn't seem like he listens. Also, the issues I point out are ones that I believe would make the program a really good one if they were addressed.

As to being far ahead of the field. Sorry I disagree. Yes FH has some unique features which differentiate it from the competition (and why I use it) but in terms of usability it continually makes me bang my fists on the desk in frustration due to issues that stop me from doing my hobby and make me think about how to use the program.

Family Historian User Group