Sync not working

I published my tree. I made changes on ancestry but when I publish my tree it shows it downloaded all changes but when I check my tree the changes are not there. Can anyone tell me why?

you need to manually accept changes in the TreeShare window.
FTM has “sync” RM Does not --which most (including me) thing is a good thing.
You have to accept each change 1 x 1.


A new learning curve. I definitely feel like a novice. Other software I used just imported it.

I do have a persistent problem. I close out, back up my file. IF I reopen again the name of the file is there but when I click on it nothing is in there. I continually have to go find the file. Is it something I’m doing wrong or is there something else wrong?


check your folder/file settings under the gear icon.
FTM syncs after showing you all the changes it found if you approve. I only sync up to ancestry and make all changes in my FTM file as the master. RM does not sync but uses a laborious one by one process.
Merging in FTM walks you through all changes for a person and lets you choose what to keep and toss before acting. There is also a change log allowing the last 1 to 1000 changes to be reversed. RM has no audit trail.

I’ve worked with more genealogy programs than you can possibly imagine. I have taken just about everyone I could find and tested them. I have eliminated them one by one for various reasons.
I settled on two. Roots Magic being one because of the seamless link to ancestry and how great it was at uploading my large gedcom file.

I respectively respect and state that accepting each one is NOT a good thing. It creates double the work on our part. If I make changes on ancestry, and that is the only way a change can be made, I find it daunting to think that every change I make I must remember or go through the list that is created. As an example, I just found a wife, plus other information on other individuals on ancestry, made the changes out there. I had to then go back, publish the tree, wait for the list to populate and remember which people I made the changes to. That is so incredibly counterproductive. It’s like you’re doing the same thing twice.

So in this case it seems as though ‘each and every time’ I make a change on ancestry I have to publish, then find that change and accept. I don’t see how it’s a good thing when I’ve already accepted the changes on ancestry personally or they wouldn’t be there.

I think RM needs to reconsider that each person is, in fact, making changes on ancestry and should be automatically accepted as such. This is one major flaw I find. If it wasn’t for this I would consider RM darn near perfect.

I doubt I am the only person that feels this way.

Sandra Abston

Your not! Over time there have been hundreds of posts, maybe even thousands, on this particular topic. Hasn’t made a difference in functionality at all.

But I’m sure that it has been reported to development :blush:.

It does affect functionality. Maybe not in the software but to put information in the database, publish it, then to go back and take each person you put in and add so it puts it to ancestry and vice versa.

I would think it would be. I, myself would rather spend time searching for more information as documentation rather than adding, publishing, going back and accepting. When you happen to hit upon one thing that leads you to total families, children, wives, their children, etc, you get lost in the find. To have to go back and publish and try to remember the many people you put in is very counterproductive to a genealogist. Now if they had it where you could click on the father and the entire family was accepted all at once that would be helpful. Still no very productive.

No genealogists wants to spend any time after entering information in and trying to remember who to go back and add. None that I know of, at least.

It’s like the old saying goes:

“Work smarter not harder” In this case the production team has it’s customers working harder. If in fact, what you say it is true, that you think, let’s use the term, ‘many’ have expressed this, then it’s time that the developers consider what the customer wants. I am always looking for more software in the hopes I can find that one that will give me everything I need. If it wasn’t for this very feature we are discussing I would quit looking. Sadly that can drive anyone away and I’m sure it has except the cost of Roots Magic is extremely reasonable.

Other software that I was using is terrible when it comes to syncing with ancestry. If the connection to ancestry is dropped it drops the entire upload and you start all over. The developers are aware of this and obviously are not listening to the voice of the customer.

I had a boss that was not only and IT Manager he taught computer program. We developed many software programs for our company. One important thing the owner demanded "Make this software easy for all employees. We had on our desks a little plaque that said “Work smarter not harder.”

Very distressing to know that you tell me there are ‘many’ people that have complained and yet they do nothing. I am guessing many have stopped using the software and moved on to try others. Make the customer happy, employees have job security.


@kfunk is correct that this issue has been discussed many, many times. What wasn’t stated is that there are just as many people who want treeshare to work just the way it does today… specifically, they want to review and approve every single change and they are passionate about it. So, it’s not so much a case of development not listening as it is that RM customers use the product differently.


My point was that it has not been changed contrary to how much complaining. So continuing to do so is not likely to change anything.

1 Like

I’m kind of confused about that. Only way information gets put into tree on ancestry is if the person researching it puts in, as well as entering it into RM. So, they put it in,so only thing I get out of that is…you would put it in if it wasn’t correct. Right? So they are basically saying…I put it in but I don’t trust it’s right…I need to approve what I put in.

WOW, that’s a whole new topic

I don’t think that they really have a vested interest in keeping the customers happy. So many of the older power users have already moved on to Family Historian 7 that their user base is hugely shrinking. Actually, the only thing keeping this forum alive are TomH and Jerry.

So sad to say that after a year of the product being released, the forum is still full of bugs, crashes, poorly designed UI complaints and interoperability issues with the products it is supposed to work seamlessly with.

The developer has his hands full just keeping RM barely alive. All of their other products haven’t been supported in years. I think they bit off a lot more than they could chew with this rewrite. A case in point is that they frequently blame problems on their waiting for an update for their programming tools. Maybe they picked the wrong development platform from the start.

With all the time and effort going into patching RM9, it’ll be quite a while before RM10 sees the light of day.


I totally agree. I’m still astonished that one puts in the information and then some feel the need to go through that daunting approval process. That just astounds me and more astounding that’s who they are listening to by keeping the software the same. You will never be able to explain any form of logic of accepting hints or putting them in manually and want the option to approve the entry. If that base is who their listening to it makes total sense why people are leaving RM.

It’s obvious that keeping their power users happy was, and still isn’t a priority.

Believe it or not, there are actually some people who don’t want every blinkin’ thing in their tree posted to Ancestry so it is very conceivable that those persons want a tighter control on what goes up.

You have precisely two options for getting your information from the software to the website. Both have problems according to you. Your only option at this point is to decide which is least problematic or write your own software. I am pretty certain that neither software package is likely to change much in the near future and as to the skills to do the latter, well that is something you have to figure out.

1 Like

Probably if you saw the Sales & Support end of people coming from FTM because it damaged their trees/databases while syncing, you would see why RM has not made it a priority to auto-sync with Ancestry.


Haven’t seen that but would love to.

That’ is why some who use Treeshare just download a whole new database…

Must have removed it or the link is broken. Takes me to an empty page

The last character of the link ending in TreeShar(e) was accidentally left off during paste.
Ancestry TreeShare - RootsMagic Wiki