This may be an odd request, but my family tree of about 1400 people is currently stored on the ancestry website. I want to pull my tree offline with all the source images and everything attached. I was able to do that with the tree import feature on RM11.
What I want to do now is “un-ancestrify” my tree by converting all sources to proper Evidence Explained citations that cite the original database source and not just Ancestry.
My issue is that my ADHD will not allow me to go through source-by-source to make these adjustments. I have tried using AI to lessen the manual work, but I keep finding issues in what it outputs which is unhelpful.
Is there a person/service that I can pay to help me get my offline tree sourced properly and ready for me to add to it in the future?
Alternatively, if anyone has AI prompt suggestions on how to give original Ancestry source list and get the sources returned with Evidence Explained formatting, that would be helpful.
I believe I understand what you need – but do not know that best way to suggest for you to approach this. 1400 people is relatively small tree but yet still a big task to do manually.
I have sqlite skills – so I might try that approach if it were me. The first thing would be to grab all the info and figure out what needs to be corrected and how before you do the game plan of how its going to get update to your liking .
I’ve been going through this effort for many months.
My perspective is that you should do the work yourself. It has distinct benefits.
First, it allows you to carefully review and validate your research.
Second, you’ll find yourself wanting to create custom templates, etc along the way. Having to explain what you want to someone else, or letting them decide for you, could result in unsatisfactory results. It’s your database, after all.
Third, while going through the effort I’ve incidently found additional facts, sources, etc for people I’m “cleaning up”. So the act of going through the tree can enhance and expand it.
Fourth, automated or bulk cleaning can sometimes wipe out data. By being focused and meticulous you’ll reduce the risk of wide-scale damage to your research
agreed – that is important to recognize and why it is significant not only in this example – similar why I resisted for a longtime to manually download and name media – when I started using RM8 — I rebuilt my media from scratch vs using the Ancestry named media
Is there maybe a nice-ish way to bulk remove the link between sources and people names if also linked to a fact on the same person? For example, Ancestry automatically linked a census record to the residence event but also the name. I want the source to only be linked to the event. I think the name should only be linked to the birth record source because that is the name proof. Unless my understanding of best practices for name proof is incorrect…
within RM – I do not think so for what you are trying to do – identify then in SQLITE could be done – but again that not recommended by RM – and yes you could also remove them – but if you get the logic wrong – you could break things.
If the census explicitly names the person, that is evidence of their name and the name linkage is therefore suitable.
If the name used on the census is a variation (ie Tom instead of Thomas) then you should add Tom as a name alternative and link the census to that name. This is what I do, particularly for women who’ve adopted their husband’s last name at some point.
yes good points – though sometimes Ancestry (or other site) may have gone a bit overboard and attached to nearly everything which can be distracting so I understand what Mysti is getting at. I guess AI will help with this in the future but it is not quite ready
That’s why it’s important, during the source attachment process on Ancestry to pay attention to what’s checkmarked for attachment. The unsuitably ones can be unchecked. I also then go to the person’s profile and manually validate that proper linkages are made.
Huh, I didn’t think about it like that. So any source you have that includes the name should be linked as “proof” and it allows me to keep record of alternative names? That makes sense.
Not “proof” in-and-of itself … but certainly evidence.
Proof, as definied by Merriam Webster is “the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact”. (cogency means the quality of being compelling, persuasive, and logically sound). A single piece of evidence is rarely definitive proof, especially if you’re trying to adhere to the Genealogical Proof Standard.
But yes, those pieces of evidence can be linked to alternative names.
Also, don’t use “Also Known As” for alternative names. Create a new “Name” fact. Please reference this video from GenealogyTV: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dEelw1l7g_M
Here’s an example of how alternative names can be linked to different sources, using my great-grandmother Eliza Jane. Those alternate names and linkages will also come through to RootsMagic if you do a TreeSync. (Althought I have found some cases of the linkage failing. So always doublecheck.)
I do the record checking now but I didn’t know that it needed to be done when I started 10 years ago. Now my tree has a bulk of the same names in droves of branches everywhere. It is going to be very difficult to understand and correct. I am ready to do this. Because I am more serious to do exactly that.
Think of it like those videos of overgrown properties and the restorations that reveal beautiful homes beneath. Lots of hard hard work but what a glorious result you’ll have.
