Remains of old Gedcom left after tree split

craigmollekin · Post by **craigmollekin** » 24 Nov 2010 04:14

Hi,

I often split my Gedcoms for various reasons using the Tree Splitter Helper. However...I was a little shocked to discover that after splitting a branch off the main tree, the old names/data etc still remain in the Gedcom branch that has been split off. Okay, when the new branch has been split off the main Gedcom and when regular genealogical software such as Family Historian is used, the names/data can't be viewed, but if I dig deeper and view the new data (the split off branch) using software such as Gedpad, remnants of the old Gedcom are clearly visible. So it is not a true split in the sense that it has removed all data not relevant to the new branch. To summarise, the split off branch is the only data viewable in Family Historian, but the old data originally attached can be viewed when digging deeper using Gedcom analysers.

How can I make a complete split?

Best Wishes,

Craig Mollekin

ID:4874

YouTube · Post by **Jane** » 25 Nov 2010 08:33

It would help to know what data you have left, and that you can confirm you changed all the other record types to remove if no links, as this is the most common reason for data not being cleared.

craigmollekin · Post by **craigmollekin** » 25 Nov 2010 10:51

Hi,

Most things seem to be left (names and marriages etc - I haven't got enough time to analyse and describe every remnant). I must admit, when I removed a person from the tree, I would also expect data associated with that person to be removed and not also (including their name).

Why on earth would data be left behind for a person that has been deleted?

Please try it yourself - split a tree and then search for 'deleted' data in the split off branch using Gedpad, or simply just browse it. You will surprised at what has been left for 'deleted' persons.

Best Wishes,

CRaig

PeterR · Post by **PeterR** » 25 Nov 2010 12:50

I've just created a subset of a GEDCOM file using the Split Tree Helper and the following steps.
1. Make a copy of the original GEDCOM file.
2. Open the copy and set a Flag on the Individual record to be deleted from the copy.
3. Start the Split Tree Helper and select options as follows:

4. Press Delete and select the relevant Flag.
5. Save the copy (from which the flagged Individual had been deleted).

I then used PSPad to browse through the GEDCOM file saved at step 5 above. I could find absolutely no trace of the Individual record which had been deleted in step 4 above. I think Craig must be doing something different.

craigmollekin · Post by **craigmollekin** » 25 Nov 2010 13:14

Hi,

If for example a marriage is spilt as a result of a tree split and one of the partners is deleted (due to privacy reasons), the remnants of the marriage are still visible. This was highlighted to me when using Gedmill. Where ever a link previously existed (husband or parent) etc, Gedmill generated an unknown partner, or simply, 'ukn'. This concerned me and when I dug deeper into the Gedcom, the marriage links/parent link was still visible.

The Tree Splitter is very superficial and will fool most people into believing the data has been deleted (as the post above points out).

However, when deeper digging is done, the remnants of previous relationships are clearly visible. I got around this problem by manually deleting the appropriate FAM links for the affected individuals.

PeterR · Post by **PeterR** » 25 Nov 2010 13:32

I think the Split Tree Helper does exactly what it claims to do. The relevant Individual record is deleted and all links between that record and other records, including Family records, are also deleted. A previously linked Family record has to remain in the file along with other non-deleted Individuals also linked to that same Family record, e.g. siblings, parents, spouse. If the intention is to delete all the individuals linked to a Family record, then the Query used by the Split Tree Helper must select all such Individual records.

craigmollekin · Post by **craigmollekin** » 25 Nov 2010 13:44

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the reply, although I'm perhaps getting confused somewehere along the line...

You state, ' A previously linked Family record has to remain in the file ' - why is this? For example, if I split a man from his wife for privacy reasons, why are remnants of the relationship left behind? I don't want any indication that he/she were married. However what initially bothered me was that Gedmill was picking up on relationships despite the individuals being split/removed from the tree and resultantly generating an 'unkn' partner rather than simply no partner as desired. If I remove an individual from a tree, I was hoping that Tree Splitter would sever all links/indications of relationships to the deleted individuals as opposed to leaving partial relationship.

Best Wishes,

Craig

PeterR · Post by **PeterR** » 25 Nov 2010 14:26

Craig, as I said, the Family record from which the deleted Individual has been de-linked may also have linked to it one or more Individual records for children as well as for the remaining spouse. FH's Split Tree Helper cannot know whether or not to delete a Family record when there are remaining Individual records linked to it. In any case there is nothing left in the file to indicate the deleted Individual to whom a Family record was previously linked.

If for privacy or any other reason you wish to hide the fact that someone was married, you would also need to check through the text of Notes, etc., remaining in the file, linked to non-deleted individuals, which could for instance mention that someone was a witness at the wedding.

craigmollekin · Post by **craigmollekin** » 25 Nov 2010 15:15

It is a limitation I will have to accept I guess. I generally use PHP scripts with which I encounter no errors. However, Family Historian's persistance on leaving remnants means that trees produced with the html generator, Gedmill, appear untidy with lots of 'unkn's. Having 'ukn's tends to confuse viewers as they believe that it is I that does not the name, rather than having the knowledge of knowing that it is a flaw within FH. I will continue to remove broken links manually and use the Tree Splitter with caution.

YouTube · Post by **Jane** » 25 Nov 2010 20:08

In general I find deleting everyone not found by the query provides a cleaner file.

craigmollekin · Post by **craigmollekin** » 26 Nov 2010 13:06

Thanks, Jane.

P.S. - To anybody reading this thread, the problem is only a small one which is niggling me. I've used a number of genealogical programs over the years and Family Historian is still the best one out there by a lump.

Family Historian User Group