I would like to have the option in Tree Share to send all changes made from RM to Ancestry.com, especially for multiple users.
For me, I only make changes in Roots Magic so that is my master tree. When doing a lot of work, for example, on census I end up with four or more changes per person. If I work on more than one person the changes start adding up very quickly.
The other time this would be helpful is when I update a source/citation or place. For reasons I understand, changing source information or places does not cause a person to show up in tree share. When I create a group with people affected by that change, I could have from 5 to 20 people. Using that group for Tree Share becomes very time consuming.
I understand the current model and would only recommend this option to send information from Roots Magic. It would be along the same lines as the option to perform mass updates; the user would need to understand the risks.
This has been requested SOOOOOO many times and for some reason has never been addressed by the developers. There has been much speculation as to why they have not added it. You most certainly are not going to get a solid answer here. I would suggest you write your idea up and make sure to explain why this is a very important feature request. The fact that you think it would be great is not going to float the boat. You need to expand the reasoning and explain why the vast majority of users just can’t live without it.
I suspect you might get a response that the suggestion was forwarded to development but that will be the last you hear.
Yes, this has been requested numerous times before. The best guess is that the reason it works the way it does is to minimize the risk of corrupting your data.
As far as I know, RM only has one competitor which has the ability to share data directly with Ancestry including sources and media, and that competitor does operate in an automatic sync mode. Users of that competitor occasionally report that their database has suffered significant corruption as a result of the automatic sync process. And indeed, there are users who have switched from that competitor to RM after suffering a corruption event.
Just from watching the RM forum here and on Facebook, it seems to me that RM users are in one of two camps with respect to how difficult TreeShare’s update process is. One camp seems to report that TreeShare’s update process is no big deal. They simply do a TreeShare update on a regular basis, such as daily, and all is well. The other camp seems to report that TreeShare’s update process is extremely onerous and wish for an easier way.
I’m in the latter camp. I find TreeShare’s update process to be so onerous that I never use it. Instead, I occasionally delete my tree from Ancestry and upload it again from RM. That’s very easy to do. The only disadvantage is that I lose the status of my Ancestry Web hints. Similar to the two camps about how onerous TreeShare’s update process really is, there seem to be two camps about how critical it is to maintain the status of your Ancestry Web hints.
There are a wide variety of ways that RM users use TreeShare. The main three categories are to work only in RM and to update Ancestry from RM, to work only in Ancestry and to update RM from Ancestry, and to work in both and to update in both directions. Opinions about how TreeShare might be improved in the future seem to vary depending on which way you use it.
I share the concern of @thejerrybryan relating to possible corruption of one or other databases if there is an automatic sync or update all button. I am in Jerry’s camp one and TreeShare at the end of every session (usually from Ancestry to RM). I find that looking at every person in detail gives me the assurance that my database remains accurate for those people.
It is not uncommon to find duplicate people or children who suddenly get a second mother or father as they appear in a census with a second (subsequent spouse). Second marriage facts from accepting Ancestry register hints too! That just means shutting down TreeShare, correcting the problem, then re-running TreeShare.
I appreciate that an update all button would be convenient but it may also lead to further more significant work down the line to correct any problems. Having said that I would have no objection to a button to ‘sync’ but believe that should trigger a warning box to users.
A 3rd camp that includes me (and perhaps nobody else): I find it onerous and certain aspects of it’s kludge behavior useful.
My primary tree is on Ancestry, my offlie backup on RM. I’ve found that, often when I’ve just looked at a person on Ancestry, RM thinks there’s a change and it will want to re-sync (and therefore duplicate) sources and media. A nightmare.
Discovering that behavior has led me to be far more cautious with my sync activity, effectively making a single change, issuing a sync and confirming. Or clearing the sync queue as needed. I’ve found that forced methodical approach to have some value in making me more diligent that everything is properly linked to the right event, cited, etc.
In my opinion, bulk ETL operation benefits don’t outweigh their risks in this situation.
That’s a common and very useful approach. But under those circumstances, why not just work in Ancestry and make a daily or weekly backup from Ancestry to a new RM database and not do any updating of the RM database at all. If it were daily, you could initiate the backup just before going to bed and it would be done by morning.
That being said, I do understand there could be good and valid reasons for continuing the update process you are doing now. For example, it provides an excellent workflow for double checking and validating new data entry into Ancestry.
Because of the customized sources, better citation formats and other things I’ve set up in RM.
The long-term objective is to use the more capable reporting tools in RM to output charts and reports that will be output for long-term reference (laser-engraved on brass).
Perpetually overwriting all the work in RM that I’ve done to prepare for that would be like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the mountain for all eternity.
Jerry, I always appreciate what you have to say. I did not realize this had been requested before, but there are several reasons I wanted to do this. I know the competitor you speak of, but what I am asking for is different than how they do it. Given your response with the two camps, I may not have been clear on what my idea is (my fault, as that has happened before). Let me go into a little more detail and see what you think.
In TreeShare, on the left side is RootsMagic and the right is Ancestry. Currently, with a change on RM there is a > showing events that are different. When you click on that you have three choices: Add, Update, or Delete. If you select Update, then you need to choose what you want to update. If I had just added four census events in RootsMagic, what I am asking is to have the option to add new events from RM to Ancestry without having to go into each person and repeat the process. Same idea if I were to update a source/citation or place, which is more tedious since you need to select what to update. The option would be a one-way process, from RootsMagic on the left side.
Keep in mind that under Tools you have the option to do mass updates in the database. If a user chooses to do a mass update, they have to assume the risk of corruption, just like what I am proposing. The option could be a one-time choice that you would need to select each time you had a need to update or add a lot of events.
I actually run treeshare after modifying one or two people. Please look at the response I had for Jerry regarding the concern of corruption. What I was proposing may not have been clear, as it would only be an option if someone choose to use it. Also, it would only send data in one direction of the user’s choosing. With the competitor Jerry spoke of, you had no choice on the data merges and would often come up with duplicate information. See if my comments make more sense.
Aha! My bad. I misunderstood. You are actually doing a great deal more with RM than backing up Ancestry. You are getting a great deal of additional value from RM. That makes good sense.
I appreciate all the responses and hope that my request is now clear. It would be an option with similar risks that of doing global updates of events in tools. The operation would amount to pushing modifications (adds or updates) in one direction only. My original thought was having Roots Magic as the master tree, but feedback suggest some have Ancestry.com.
Since this has been requested so many times in the past, I would like to understand why someone from Roots Magic hasn’t wade in. It would be nice to hear what they have to say.
I made a detailed proposal along these lines here in 2023. I have learnt a little since and would make a few tiny additions, but the basic proposal still stands. I remain absolutely convinced that it is practical, could be implemented in relatively easy stages and would not risk corrupting data.
There is a serious gap in user knowledge with regard to this proposal/suggestion which is unlikely to be filled for contractual reasons.
What RootsMagic Inc. can and cannot do will be dependent on the terms of its contractual agreement with Ancesry.com, which is entirely within the control of Ancestry who develop and provide the interface (API), includung its design features and limitations (whatever they may be). For business reasons both parties are almost certain to be bound by a ‘business in confidence’ agreement which will, almost certainly, preclude both parties from revealing any detail about the extent/limitations of the agreement. Hence the limitations on what feedback/answers ‘representatives’ of RootsMagic inc. may be able to provide in response to requests for enhancements.
Added to the above is whatever contractual agreement was put in place when Ancestry sold all rights to the ‘software no-one wants to name’ to MacKiev, the company which was already working under contract to Ancestry for the ongoing development and maintenance of the macOS compatible version. Again the terms of the sale/purchase and transfer of rights remains a commercial business secret, but it would be surprising (to me) if the purchase agreement did not contain restrictions which protect the exclusivity of the existing propriatory synchonisation feature, which will also be protected by ownership of the intelectual property rights.
This is, of course, entirely suppostion on my part as I have no direct knowledge, but is based on years of experience in contract management.
I can honestly say that I have no idea what the point of your post is. Since it would be an option to invoke, what would contractual reasons be not to have that? This feature would have nothing to do with the API calls. It would amount to a “select all” within the UI of the application, prior to sending the API request. The API request would be similar going into Family Search Center and searching all RM users linked to FS.
Besides, anything to do with contracts or licensing would be up to a rep. of RootsMagic to discuss, not a user.
One way this could be implemented is the way people are tagged add to group etc .
That said the screen would be easy to do. What I do not know if the mutiple “changes” or additions would cause issues with API. RM is designed to not be like FTM so that is my hesitation if it could be done without sync issues. Not sure if API 2.x is any better for that or not. So only RM can speak if that is something that API can handle with RM/ANC. If it can – it definitely would be a welcomed enchancement for many users. Exactly how to implement such a change in part of what needs to be discussed.
I thought this was the proper channel to submit feature requests. Does anyone know how to get a response from RootsMagic on this? The feedback on this seems positive to me and it seems like this request has been made before. It would be good to hear what support has to say about agreements with Ancestry and what is and is not possible.