It would seem that Geneanet being owned by Ancestry doesn’t bode well long term for its “negotiated” current independence.
1 Like
I am not looking for my old tree from WorldConnect. What I had there has been improved and uploaded elsewhere. I was disappointed that tool went away because it worked really well with RM and it was a good resource for people who could not afford the costly databases many of us subscribe to.
What I am most worried about is that the work I have done over the past 30+ years may simply disappear because Ancestry eventually acquires most everything over time and repurposes it. Kbenson is right in reminding us that Geneanet can suffer the same fate and those free databases can go away too.
I am happy that RM as a program has been continued through the time I have been researching since I can continue to use my current favorite version without the difficulties arise as one has to switch to a completely new program.
1 Like
A death cert. isn’t a “fact.” It’s a source. I just add them as another internal source attached to the relevant fact (death, birth, whatever) – and I always include the document’s official number in the details. If it’s a particularly interesting one that I want to post, I just upload it as an image – but I also uncheck the “primary” box when I do that, because the now-tiny print on a certificate is totally unreadable in the upper-left corner of the main page anyway. (Actually, the only thing I ever put up in that corner is a portrait of the person.)
@mscheffler You could add your info to the main Familysearch database-- and some one mentioned that you can now have your own family tree at Family search..
Besides that , you need to see what kinds of historical societies etc are available in the area where your family was–for example my Dad lines were in one area of one state going to abt 1850-- my Mom’s lines were in one part of the next state going back to before 1850 ( and Dad’s side has been in this same state for over 130 years)-- on Dad , there is a public library in the area they were from that has a huge genealogical collection at a public library-- I haven’t looked any farther than that BUT suspect there are other things also in the state-- on Mom, there is a huge genealogical center on the West side of the state and a huge genealogical collection at a public library on the east side – in the center of the state is the State Historical Society and a university that has a huge genealogy manuscript dept ( there is also a local county historical society) — in the state capital is another huge genealogy database–so I am sure that one if not all of them would be interested in my databases…
I would also talk to your local branch of the LDS as they MIGHT also be interested or have other ideas
Keep It Short & Simple = KISS. Actually, it’s neither if you look closely.
I put any image I want, may want, or just don’t want to loose into a “Genealogy Notes” folder with sub-folders for surnames and states.
Those images I want in RM are copied into the “Laughlin-Masterson Media” folder where all the RM linked images are stored. Every image in there is linked in RM. It makes for duplicates on the computer, but only one folder has all RM images. Any image in “Laughlin-Masterson Media” folder can have multiple RM links to it. This simplifies back up, housekeeping, and sharing.
Organizing within the “Laughlin-Masterson Media” folder is dealer’s choice. All broken links can be repaired by scanning that one folder. If it ain’t there, it needs to be copied in.
Houskeeping is eliminating duplicates and repairing links. The “Enhanced Properties List” is key: Media links, and Unused media. (The “Enhanced Properties List” is accessible from the Home and Tools screens.)
Keeping It Short & Simple.
1 Like
I used Jerry’s #3 for a while and now I’m moving to #4, which as I have found most genealogy researchers have some form of OCD. My big problem now is dealing with how Ancestry handles sources when using tree share. I have found out (way to late) that those files get stored in a sub directory in your RM named: {your Ancestry tree name}_media. These files are named by a numbering system that I don’t understand. If you have your images stored in subdirectories like Surnames or by Type (i.e. births, deaths, marriages, etc) you then need to move that image into the correct folder, rename it so it makes some sense to you, and ensure the filename is updated in RM where it is used. I am currently trying to sort out many files this way as I save mine by surname which in itself has problems when you come to women’s surnames as they change when married… Good luck and like jerry said, you need to figure out your storage and naming strategy before you start, knowing you will probably change it as you get more records!
1 Like
This is the option #5 that I didn’t mention and should have. But charlie_allingham took care of mentioning option #5 for me.
As OCD as I am about wanting my own file names in my own sub-folder structure, this option #5 of just letting TreeShare manage your media files for you does make sense to me. It sure does make life a lot easier. You just have to trust RM to be what is often called a Content Management System for your media files. You don’t care what the files are called or where they are stored because RM itself knows all that stuff and takes care of it for you.
But it does appear to me that trying to combine option #5 with one of the other four options is a little problematic. I’m not sure what happens when files downloaded with TreeShare are renamed and/or moved. For example, do they end up being copied back up to your Ancestry tree with a different name? Does TreeShare flag media files that have been renamed and/or moved as mismatches between RM and Ancestry that need to be manually synced?
Other users do seem to make this work, so it must be possible. But I can’t picture how I would make it work. So I go with downloading all my media files from Ancestry manually. That means that I lose a lot of the utility of TreeShare, but that’s what works best for me. I’m a sample size of one, and your mileage may vary.
Jerry,
My take on it is much like yours (now) I will have to download all the files from ancestry and put them in RM, not use tree share. I fell pray to the “ain’t this tree share easy” thought process and unknowingly I was creating a major PITA to overcome (at least in my eyes). I am now going through each record in my database (~1600 at last count) and checking every source and citation (I like to have a copy of the actual census record, birth cert, death cert, news item) . The “good” that I see in accomplishing this is I will be able to make sure the census fact as well as the source citation media will be there, and match, remember when I said I might be OCD? That is the weight that loaded myself with and I will overcome (if I live long enough)!
I use Jerry’s #4 approach but only link the image to the fact if it explicitly for that fact for instance I would link a birth certificate to the birth fact but I would not link a census where the birth date is indicated. 2 reasons: 1) in almost all cases the other source is secondary information and 2) having the birth reg image linked to the birth fact I can quickly see which facts are missing their primary source.
1 Like
Actually, that is the way I implement option #4 as well. I link a census image to a Census fact. I also link the same census image to a citation for the same Census fact. That citation might sometimes be linked to facts other than the Census fact, such as the Birth fact if I have no other evidence for the birth. But in that case, I don’t link the census image to the Birth fact.
If the full truth is known, I get even deeper into the weeds in some cases. For example, I have fact types such as Birth Record and Marriage Record and Death Record, etc. It’s really those “Record” facts where I link the image to a fact. For example, the Birth fact and the Birth Record fact would both have the same citation and the citation would have the image. But only the Birth Record fact would have the image. Also, the Birth Record and only the Birth Record fact would have a full transcription of the birth record in the note for the Birth Record fact.
This obsessive overkill provides me with a very useful kind of flexibility. Namely, I can include or not include the “Record” fact types in reports. So I can provide either a briefer and more user friendly report or a longer and more academic type of report. And the same is true when I make Web pages from my RM data using GedSite. I can include or not include the “Record” facts, but the basic data and the citations are there either way.
Only in gedcom format for right now. As of Oct 2025, they indicate that third party software integration is coming soon, but it’s not here yet. I have noticed that a lot of the images aren’t there now. To maintain the equipment for all those separate family trees, will they start charging for space? Will they be just another pay to play site?