I would like to see implemented the ability to delete multiple items at one time (rather than one at a time). Especially unused items.
Here’s a motivating scenario:
I have a database with two separate trees. I want to split my database into two separate .rmtree files. So, I copied the original database into two new databases, and began the process of deleting the unwanted data from each. Removing an entire tree wasn’t too difficult: I created a group which contained everyone in one of the two trees, and then deleted all the people in that group. But deleting unused places, sources, citations, media, etc. was a one-at-a-time effort. That’s too many mouse clicks for the size of my trees.
A more elegant solution would be to allow pruning of trees (or an entire tree) without having to create a group to do so. Then also give the user the option of deleting other items (places, sources, citations, media, etc.) which would become unused as a result of the pruning.
With RM10’s new search functionality, I have to believe that the underlying code to implement what I’ve described here is largely already in place. Just reuse!
Look at the Enhanced Properties List under Tools or on the Home page. The Unused Lists have a Delete option. You can select all or individually. If you are using drag n drop anything not being used by those individuals won’t be included.
Thanks, I’ll play with that. Seems to me that a multi-select capability should reside on the “regular” list. Seems like a lot of steps to get to this functionality, and not at all intuitively obvious. I googled “rootsmagic delete unused places” and didn’t find anything close to resembling the instructions you gave.
I guess if you know, you know. But the UI still has a ways to go to make normal Windows functionality part of the code base. For example, in Windows File Explorer, I can multi-select files and delete them all at once. No special menu buried 4 layers deep.
it sounds like You are an above average user, not all users may be as familiar with methods you describe. For mass deletes – you would not want it easy to do mass deletes – they might get very frustrated
On the unused citations and such, would it have made a difference if you had made your group and then moved that group to a new database–then made a 2nd group with the other people and moved them to a new database?
Rather than copying the original db, have you tried RM10’s new drag n’ drop capabilities? Drag n’ drop should deliver what you want as long as you choose “Everyone in the same tree” as you drag the person to the new db. There shouldn’t be any data loss or need to delete unused sources, places, etc with v10 drag n’ drop.
[edit: If you experience any data loss or “unused” data being carried over, please let us know.]
[edit2: To comment more generally, from what I can see, combining the new search capabilities with the new drag n’ drop enhancement (no longer a gedcom export) provides the kind of pruning capabilities that you are looking for. (One of the “Mark” capabilities with drag n’ drop is ‘By Saved Search’. ) That said, it is still a multi-step process and results in a new db, which is not as straight forward as what you are requesting. ]
I may be missing something from this discussion but I see great value in keeping everything I personally research in one large database. Unused places, sources, etc. cause no problems and there is not much reason to prune them out. Most people have plenty of hard drive capacity, so freeing up space is likely not a big issue for most. When one creates reports, the report is not influenced by anything unused in the database. The program simply uses what is relevant to create documents.
I long ago gave up trying to send portions of a tree or trees to other users. My solution to sharing is to put my database on a large shared database platform such as Geneanet with notes and sources. I then direct others to my database and let them peruse what I have that might be of use to them.
Also, I do not import large amounts of information from the shared databases on Ancestry, FamilySearch, etc. to my working database on RM. I use these, but any information I acquire from these databases, I enter person by person into my database. That way I can access whether it is consistent with what I have, and can choose to cite this information on an individual basis. Perhaps the unused items people want to delete are created from importing gedcom filess of others who have these unwanted items.
That being said I do not attach media items to names in my database. For sharing I assume people can look at my sources of information and go directly to a site such as Ancestry themselves. I do keep a small database on Ancestry attached to my DNA results, and I do attach some media there.
Researching is an art and I try to use the computer as a tool to keep track of where I find things without getting too involved in technical computer issues. New and complicated ways of manipulating data can simply be ignored until we have good reason to delve into them.
That’s unfortunate. Thanks for posting though. I’ve been meaning to test the details of what get’s lost with v10 drag n drop. Your comment provided the needed push. I started a new thread here.
Instead of “pruning” my tree via gedcom or D&D, I copy my database and give it another name. Still have MY original file and now a 2nd one that has NO data loss. This is the database I “prune” by removing people they don’t need. That’s the one they get.
I get that it is a hassle to deal with people who do something stupid and then complain.
I do not get thinking that is a reason to make life difficult for others.
Using the merge function - maybe a compromise is if the one of the possible merges can be “sent” to the existing “not a match” list AND easily deleted from there.
Instead it seems and if I am wrong PLEASE DO CORRECT ME NOW because the perceived ability to easily find and remove duplicates was a serious buy decision factor..
Either I merge and then have MANY duplicate facts OR send it to the not a match list and then try to find a way to delete from there by printing out the list and searching.
NOT my idea of making life easier
P.S. under the heading of would be extremely nice would be a way to generate a list of ALL potential merges – so one has some blessed idea what was removed - but I can live without that in favor of an easier way to delete that which obviously should be done after perhaps dragging and dropping or a bit of editing to the better entry.
One way to reduce the need to merge is to NEVER import gedcom files from others, especially those of multiple generations. People seem to ignore the basic principle of starting with yourself and going back in time one person and ONE GENERATION AT A TIME.
One should, as best as possible, prove each generational link with vital records, baptismal records, census schedules, etc. Even then there is room for mistakes because (particularly in early New England) siblings tended to use the same names for children or parents reused the names of children who died young, so there can be lots of cousins/and or sublings with very similar birth dates. Also humans make mistakes given the best of efforts. Sometimes it is very difficult to look at as list of possible duplicates and figure out if they are true duplicates. It can be a real mess when one makes the wrong decision. Better to leave any possible unclear match alone. Some unlinked people in your database really do no harm and you may later find a place for them.
Another often forgotten rule, one should not simply use a source they see on Ancestry, FamilySearch or elsewhere. One needs to find the original or at least a clear transcription and evaluate whether that source actually belongs to the person you are attaching it to. If you take your source from another person, note that for your sources, not the source they used that you did not evaluate word for word.
I use Ancestry a lot and many of the documents provided as hints do not pertain to the family the hints are attached to. They might be of use in distinguishing people of the same name, but one should not assume the hints belong to the person you are adding to your database. FamilySearch sources tend to be even more confusing.
This process will never by easy. Software has basic limitations. It is always easier to attempt to not add duplicates in first place. If one values their own work, they will never want to import many generations of another database into their own. Keep the work of others separate from your primary database.
Dropping and dragging is like adding a gedcom. It should best be avoided when trying to add the research of others to your database. You might want to limit its use to your own work you know is likely correct.
Merging won’t give you duplicate facts, unless those facts are different. Not cleaning the place list before hand is probably the biggest cause of duplicate facts. If both individuals used different places on the place list even if those names are exactly the same it will be seen as different facts and save both.
And, “I tried that” I took your advice, it helped -I really like uniformity in things.
What I am seeing is one, usually on the primary/left side has more details, the on the right has fewer details but some - high lighted so I thought that means they “match” - when merged those same facts now appear twice in the listing.
The simple ( in my mind but not necessarily in your ) but be an option to delete -
Or perhaps an option when one goes to the “not a match” list to delete from there
Bottom line the existing means to deal with this is unnecessarily tedious.
Let’s call this “features for adult use only” I suspect if you put it to a vote many users would welcome the less tedious methods instead of work arounds.
right now I am under a deadline for another project- but will get back to you wiht screenshots before bringing this up again.