My assumption for some time has been (not generally specific to RootsMagic) is that the majority of people have databases of a maybe a few thousand or so people at most. Small databases with limited scope don’t experience the click-o-rama some of us see on various UI issues. That said, if the bulk of the RootsMagic customers don’t see the issues because they either don’t use those features or don’t have a large database it’s totally understandable that the RM team places high volume users issues toward the bottom of the priority pile.
I’m curious because I wonder if RM has these stats, and because I use a good dozen other genealogy programs for various things and maybe half are almost unusable with over 10K people in your database.
That said RM seems to be one of the best at managing a large database, but is at best in the middle of the pack from a UI standpoint at maintaining it. They are also the best at interfacing so a person like me who needs electronic searching they are the best at the moment.
In any case I’d like to see what RM sees at a high level what their base is. Obviously details would be proprietary, but knowing 10%, 5%, .1%, etc of their base is large volume serious genealogists would be helpful for those of us considering our primary tool.
I am not exactly sure what you are asking, but I will attempt to comment as I find it frustrating to follow a great deal of the discussion on this forum and would like to hear a discussion of what I think you are asking.
I have been at genealogy close to 30 years and have a large database of almost 302,000 individuals. A portion of my database is of my more direct line up to about 10 generations, researched in some depth. A large portion comes from direct transcription of early standard genealogy books from MA and CT and information from the Barbour collection of CT vital records.
When I began researching, little information could be found online, so my database was my effort to share on Rootsweb’s WorldConnect what I learned from early researchers. I imported very few gedcom files, about 3 or 4 from most recent relevant surnames and the better part of a Royalty database that initially was included with Family Origins. I continue to add new names from sources such as NEHGR to lines that need fleshing out. Most data is entered person by person so I can evaluate information from places such as Family Search and Ancestry as I add it. I add very little information on the descendants of my basic family. I do add descendant lines of my primary surnames found in my Ancestry DNA family matches. This has been my emphasis the last 3 or 4 years.
Now to the complexity of the newest RM versions. I have found them frustrating because RM7 does what I need. It is relatively easy to ignore program features I am not interested in. One can avoid details that do not transfer well in gedcom files. I use vital records as much as possible which can be cited easily in the database. Descriptive material I add in the general and fact notes I do not try to structure sentences for the output through the program and wonder why people struggle to do this when writing ones own narrative seems preferable.
Are people asking for such specificity in the program writing books? and if so, have they tried printing them out.? I printed out an Ancestor book about 2005; it took about a ream of paper and half of each page was footnotes. Which brings me to the point of making the source citations as simple as possible while still letting one go back and find the source.
I may be wrong, but I believe that RM has become so complex and confusing to use because it is now geared to wants of a certain small group of researchers, and it leaves new users in the dust. I see a need for two approaches – keeping a version available for purchase that is intuitive to use and allows for easy data entry and a version like RM10 that addresses issues that only a small number of users (many with advanced computer knowledge) want. I suspect the people who agree with me left this forum a long time ago. I struggle with the newer approach even though I could be considered an advanced researcher.
I couldn’t agree more. I started my tree on paper after visits to public offices to search the bound parchment indices of UK BMDs, eventually starting my first database on a free copy of Family Origins 4 which came bundled on the monthly CD that came with PC Magazine. To be honest I was more happy with that database than the RM ones but found RM7 to be good (although I only bought it as it would convert my FO database). To be honest I really struggle to do most things in RMs 8, 9 & 10 and don’t like the clunky display and multitude of screens.
Comparing the (intuitive) ease of use of Ancestry to the complexity of RM I too can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a middle course, say RM lite or, perhaps, resurrect the Family Origins name? Whilst Ancestry is easy to use there are significant gaps in its tools (address searching, inserting additional lines, etc) so I’m sure there is a market for one.
“I may be wrong, but I believe that RM has become so complex and confusing to use because it is now geared to wants of a certain small group of researchers, and it leaves new users in the dust.”
I totally agree with you. I now no longer include footnotes in printouts, who bothers to read them in their format?
As I wrote in another post, RM advertises that the RM 10 is user-friendly. Instead of the developers making new additions, let them rather concentrate on the usability, there is still a long way to go. Please get more user-friendly!
I do not see any correlation between “large volume” and “serious genealogists”. Indeed, if there is, the phrase may well lean towards being an oxymoron.
RM Inc has strived to serve over time multiple markets, including its LDS base, beginners, collectors of royalty or biblical lineage, one-name studies, professionals, certified genealogists, adherents of Elizabeth Shown Mills, Ancestry and other online database subscribers, DNA detectives and Apple users… It is that last one that has disrupted the incumbent user community with wrenching changes to the user interface, loss of functionality, performance degradation and many bugs. That’s an awful lot for just two developers who also have a business to run and keep afloat, produce documentation, videos, present at shows and carry out other marketing efforts. The result is sometimes half-baked new features in order to justify a version upgrade that generates income.
That said, this desire to fork RM into two products, one “basic”, the other “advanced” long predates RM10. I recollect it being sought or advocated much earlier than even RM7, stemming from frustrations even then with unfinished feature development, lack of response to requested enhancements, “gotchas” in the UI, … I daresay it would be a challenge to define what should go into each version. If one were to strip out all the UI that is locked in the Essentials version, would that result in a marketable “basic” that is any friendlier?
A kindred spirit in favoring simple source citations and ignoring the esoteric reporting formats so heavily promoted! However, RM10 does not seem more complex nor feature laden to me, just less than optimally coded. And Windows users should not blame this on the growing Apple user market that the developers would like to enter. Other genealogy programs like FTM and Heredis seem to easily cross the OS divide.
I have purchased almost all of the Family Origins and RootsMagic versions over the years and have used extensively all but versions 4 and 8. As I remember both versions 4 and 8 did not have all of the report functions of the previous versions, being major upgrades that did not include all the reports I used from their previous versions.
I have personally taught a number of people how to begin genealogy research using RM5, RM6 and RM7. People new to putting their information into a computer format found these versions relatively easy to learn. The clean, clear, pedigree view was easy for people to see, and to visualize how one begins with themself and goes back generation by generation. After they get the feel of how this works, they can soon add simple sources, and as they get comfortable branch out in complexity making family group sheets, pedigree charts, etc. they can share with their families.
I have not suggested that Bruce and staff develop a second program that has to be constantly updated. I have just suggest they keep RM7 available for purchased because it is a very stable program, and an easier version to learn and use. It could be sold with the caveat that there are new features in later versions and perhaps of be offered a discount to upgrade when they desire what has been added in later versions.
I no longer know what program to recommend to newbies, so I am no longer actively trying to involve others in genealogy. I guess the free Ancestry program can be used for this purpose, but when RM7 is such an excellent choice for newbies, I hate to recommend anything else. Add to that I have no desire to try out other programs, having liked and used extensively FO and RM over the years and wanting to spend time on my own project.
I did ask at one point if one can still download RM7 and use it as essentials for free, but still do not know if essentials 7 ended when v. 8 came out? I received no answer, but having RM7 essentials available for download would be helpful.
You could have answered that question yourself by simply visiting RootsMagic Downloads. I am sure that you are aware that until a key is entered, RM7 is in Essentials mode. So if you can download it, then the answer is yes, it is available.
as Kfunk said the download is the free version until you enter your key. Ancestry does not have a free program. Family Tree Maker was a paid program they dropped in 2015 and MacKiev picked it up and made it really work. It has a larger market share than RM which is apparently #2 and is easy to use with an included extensive online manual.
All downloads run in essential mode until they are unlocked by entering a key. We only generate keys for the current version. That means no new keys will be generated for RM7 nor sold.
Can the registration for a key be transferred to another party? I remember having had the bonus RM7 key that RM Inc incentivised customers when pre-release purchasing of RM8 licences to give to someone else.
I’m a newbie…I used RM to transfer my tree from Family Search to Ancestry. First glance at the transfer, I notice that the tree I created isn’t what shows up on Ancestry. I haven’t dug in to look at each and every person (that’s my plan to do so)…but for example: my mother appears as a tree an Ancestry user created…does this mean that during the transfer the software merges to Ancestry person? (Dead giveaway is different profile photos) I worked on FS mainly until recently. I know on FS there can be many person profiles for the same person, which is problematic. I get that, but it creates a whole new issue, now…are the people I see in the Ancestry tree really my people? I’m not sure Hope I posed this question in a clear enough manner. I thought using RM would be the simple way to link FS>Ancestry. Thanks so much.
Did you download your FS tree into a new file in RM & then upload that file to Ancestry? If so does your RM tree look like your FS tree or your Ancestry one. If your FS & RM trees are not the same maybe FS downloaded the wrong tree? If your RM tree is the same as your FS tree and Ancestry differs I don’t know how that upload could corrupt, I’m afraid. Maybe Renee or Ancestry could assist?
Lots to digest here…I did download FS into RM…I have to go through your suggestions to determine the rest…thank you so much…I need to block out some time to do the comparisons.
After using TreeShare to upload your database to Ancestry are you using TreeShare again to look at the people? If you are outside of TreeShare I wonder if you are just looking at the wrong Ancestry tree. The database can only be linked to one Ancestry tree. It can’t be linked to a different tree. People in one tree won’t merge with people it different trees on Ancestry.
Interesting discussion. I find RM very simple to use. That said, I have learned that while I can easily sync up Ancestry and FamilySearch, synching up the sourcing makes me nuts. Ancestry’s sourcing is pretty lousy (generally) and even if it is good, RM is not able to recognize a single source (i.e. 1860 U.S. Census as coming from Ancestry.com) with individualized citations across our database, so I’ve found it’s cleaner for me to manually enter sources in RM to capture the format and information of my choosing.
The only aspect I don’t care for in RM are the Reports and Charts under “publishing.” I have yet to find a report or chart that is user friendly and the customized reports never come out the way I want them – and I’m somebody who for the ten years prior to my retirement worked for a company with a custom lead management online software program for Fortune 100 companies, so I do know how to set up custom reports.
My biggest wish is that RM add the capability to PRINT within the TOOLS pull-down menu at the top of each screen that would enable us to quickly print something whenever or wherever we are in the system. I might just want to print out an individual’s profile, for example, or a search I’ve just done.