I’m trying to correct the citations attached to each source to make them uniform. I cannot see which citations are attached to each source in RM7 but I can in RM9. Is there any way to see the citations attached to a source in RM7 in real time, i.e. without having to print out a list? I think my only option is to export an RM7 gedcom and import into RM9; correct the citations and then do an RM9 gedcom export back to RM7. Correct?
No. This lack of visibility into how and where sources are being cited prior to rm8, led some, myself included, into becoming extreme source splitters.
If you have RM9 and are still updating RM7, it might be simpler to just import the rm7 db into rm9, leverage RM9’s ability to the identify the deficient citations and then manually update your rm7 db. It seems like importing & exporting gedcoms would add extra work.
1 Like
I bought RM9 before I knew there was a free “trial” version. I had already tried RM7 Essentials and thought I could get a license from RM for it. The only version I could license was RM9, but I didn’t find the “trial” version. Once I got RM9 I quickly found out that I did not like it. There are one or two features that I like about RM9 and this ability to see the citations attached to each source is one of them. Once I get all the current source citations cleaned up, I won’t be using RM9 anymore. At the same time I bought RM9, I also bought Family Tree Maker 2019. Not a big fan but better than RM9. What is extreme source splitting?
From outside the RM UI, yes. See Source List in my ancient Windows app at
https://sqlitetoolsforrootsmagic.com/Bundled-Utilities-RMtrix/
More versatile would be to use sqlite directly.
Thanks for your response. I looked at that and for me its far too complicated to get into. I can do the export/import gedcom thing faster than I can go through and understand all that. Who knows - I may finally find a program that looks and functions like RM7 but has the ability to see citations under sources.
Import the RM7 database into v9. You can have both 7 & 9 open at the same time and look at citations in 9 and edit the ones in 7. Make a backup of 7 first. You can delete the 9 database after corrections and do another Import of 7.
1 Like
I very much endorse this approach.
When I was transitioning from RM7 to RM9, I really didn’t like the RM9 user interface (and I still don’t). But I found some new functionality in RM9 that I liked. So I deleted my RM9 database every morning and imported anew from RM7 into RM9. Then I kept them both of them open all day.
1 Like
Well that sounds simple enough. It is going to take a few sessions to get them all cleaned up.
1 Like
Do you add new information to both 7 and 9? I don’t understand using a function in 9 to do something to the DB in 9 that you cannot do in 7. Wouldn’t you have to export the 9 DB file and open it in 7 to use the updated RM9 DB file in RM7? I’m confused.
Make the changes in 7. Then delete the 9 database and Import 7. You are only looking at the results in 9. No need to duplicate the work in 9.
1 Like
Thank you! I do appreciate everyone’s help!
This article explains it well - https://news.legacyfamilytree.com/legacy_news/2014/12/lumpers-vs-splitters.html
By splitting the source so that it’s cited only once (or a very small number of times), you can name it in a way that helps identify where and how it is used. The need to use the source name to help identify use has been greatly reduced with the UI changes in RM8 related to sources and citations.
1 Like
I literally type the data in twice at the present time, crazy as that sound. I know I could just type it into RM7 and then delete RM9 and import again from RM7 to RM9. I did that for months before I “went production” on RM9 in June. Also, there exists an RM9 to RM7 reversion script that I have tested thoroughly and that works very well. So I could just type into RM9 and then every morning delete RM7 and revert my RM9 database back to RM7. Either way, I would always have both RM7 and RM9 available. But I really did want to type everything in twice for a while. I knew that as long as I was only typing in to RM7, I would never convert to RM9.
What I was trying to describe about using RM9 to help manage RM7 was that for one example I would use RM9’s search boxes to find things in RM9 to work on. Having found those things in RM9, I would work on them in RM7.
Another thing that was handy was the ability to have the “same” database open in two different windows at the same time. You could do that in RM7. Well, it was two different half screen windows. But you could have Family View in one Window and Descendant View in another window, both for the same database and at the same time. You could even be looking at two totally different families at the same time. RM users have wanted more of this kind of feature for years. Some users would sort of fake it by running the real RM at the same time they were running RM-To-Go. Well, you can’t really run two different windows for the same database in RM9 like you could in RM7. But because my RM7 and RM9 databases were the same during this time, I actually could have the “same” RM database open in two different windows at the same time. It was a very nice way to work.
The real driving force for the double data entry was that I found the RM9 user interface so hard to use that I found myself always making mistakes. So by doing double data enter into both RM7 and RM9, I was training myself to be a better RM9 user. Also, I wrote a rather massive SQLIte script that compares my RM9 database to my RM7 database and identifies any differences. It’s a radically different kind of compare than RM’s File => Tools => Compare function. It’s more like a line by line compare of two text files or two Microsoft Word files that identifies exactly what any differences are and where they are. I still run the script every day, and it still finds data entry mistakes every day. And that’s why I’m still doing double data entry.
As I explained in my much longer note. There was every reason to duplicate the work in RM9. If I had only done my data entry into RM7 and imported into RM9 every day, I never would have become fluent in RM9.
I now enter into RM9 first and duplicate the work in RM7. That has the advantage of keeping my RM7 data current in case I should ever need it for something that RM9 cannot do. But the real reason I keep doing it is that I run an SQLite script that identifies differences between my RM9 database and my RM7 database. Differences can occur because of data entry errors into either RM9 or into RM7. But I find that many more of my data entry errors are into RM9. So I am using RM7 to catch my data entry errors in RM9. I can’t do that if I run an SQLite script to revert my RM8 data to RM7 every day.
Here’s a dumb example of RM9 data entry errors. By the time I paste text into RM notes, I always make sure it’s already plain text. But if I paste into an RM9 note without specifying Paste As Plain Text, it adds a carriage return at the end of the pasted text. I have decades of experience of pasting text that’s already plain text with Ctrl+v without ever getting an extra carriage return at the end of the pasted text. So now in RM9 I’m having to learn always to paste with Ctrl+Shift+v or with Right Click => Paste As Plain Text. And I forget sometimes. Decades of muscle memory is very strong. And why do I care so much about the extra carriage return? Because it shows up in printed reports and looks awful.
1 Like
That extra carriage return drives me CRAZY. I put everything in Notepad to edit it. Then I cut and paste and I avoid that extra CR.
I used to write code for main frame computers; built web pages with html and wrote java script for dynamic web pages many light years ago; I really don’t care to write script or code now. If I pay someone for a program that’s supposed to do tasks A, B, C, and D., I should not have to write code to make that program work correctly.
That is why RM has lost a lot of users to other programs, while many others are sticking with it and finding workarounds (thanks to Jerry and Tom) to make the program do what they need it to do.
It all comes down to the question “Do I want to spend the time and energy learning a new program or do I want to continue futzing around with RM?”
I will stick with RM7 because I really, really like the way it looks and feels. RM7 is so close to the Family Origins program I used for 30 years, with some updates and upgrades, so it wasn’t hard for me to learn RM7. I don’t need to do any fancy stuff. I just want to document my family.
1 Like
Agree with duplicating as that’s how I learned 9 (import, learn, delete and repeat).
martisiq goal was to make citations uniform in 7 (and wasn’t interested in 9) so I said not to duplicate. I wouldn’t gedcom 7 to 9 and back again, just fix 7.
1 Like
Doesn’t this program support “plugins” so that users can enhance it themselves and ensure that it does tasks A, B, C, and D (and possibly E & F too)?
Yes, it does. I deleted the original reply because I thought it was a personal email and Rene doesn’t like the competition’s products being mentioned by name.