Thanks Jerry.
My intention has been to get my Tree and records (all mainly electronic) as far as I can then dispense with Ancestry and consolidate Roots Magic and Family Historian and Reunion with the family records.
Gedcom’s downloaded whenever I have made significant changes, today in fact named as …… Surname_Jan2023.
i’m a belt, braces & piece of string guy.
Roots Magic is better imo than the others but I’ll take a look at FTM which I understand also has sync bugs.
Aha, then my recommendation is to get to RM! 
Actually, my recommendation is to get to whatever software best meets your needs. I’m primarily an RM user because it best meets my needs. It is an excellent piece of software despite certain issues that I point out from time to time. But there are other excellent pieces of software out there as well, each with their own sets of issues. Only you can know what best meets you own needs.
Database Tools have been run, Problem List, Duplicates, Tree Count each have been run.
6 changed people made on Ancestry, RM8 and Tree share started to sync.
One had 9 media items to add and RM then brought up the Error.
Prior
i had spent 1/2 hour chatting to a Tech about the same issue we are having with my Wife’s tree and the best he could come up with was to download the tree again to another project.
Database Tools all checked out OK, tested Tree Share again and it crashed
A backup file with media was created and sent to him as was an invitation to view our Ancestry tree so its on a support Ticket.
Have to wait and see.
Well there is a RM update so I ran it and updated my PC.
Tree Shared with Ancestry, the first enter had a Surname to add + the media, and also a marriage + its media.
Added the clicked to update and up came the Access Violation.
Database tools all run, zero problems.
Come on guys fix the problem.
Did the chat agent offer to create a ticket and get a copy of your database for testing?
Yes.
Nothing from Jackson since.
Sent an update this morning after the Tree Share crash after 8.5 was installed.
I’ve always thought that the idea that “ACCEPT ALL as having a potential for serious database corruption and that therefore that TreeShare users are better served by not having an ACCEPT ALL feature” was a steaming pile of bulls**t. Withholding functionality in order to protect users from themselves is stupid.
For sure the goal of genealogists should be accuracy, but that idea that making something more difficult increases accuracy is also stupid. I’ll wager the opposite is true. People know what they’ve changed, and they should have the option of either doing the changes individually, or en-masse, and be able to select which direction for en-masse just like then can individually.
There has been a loss of funcitonality in RM8 related to TreeShare. In RM7 when updating a fact you only had to click once to move all the changes for a fact, meaning if sources, notes, or multiples of things changed on any fact you only had one click.
In a major blow to productivity RM8 removes that checkbox, so now in addition to at least one click per fact per person there are multiple, literally increasing time to use TreeShare by orders of magnitude.
RM needs to fix that ASAP, and while they’re at it add two more checkbooks to allow all facts for a person to move in one click. This is means that someone (like me) who’s stuck with a thousand or so flagged changes is doing a thousand or so clicks instead of ten thousand or more clicks.
Along the same lines why not put the count of people in the list so people can assess how bad their hand is going to cramp up doing all that clicking?
One man’s “steaming pile of bulls**t” is another man’s pile of open tech support tickets. Now if you are volunteering to handle all of those tickets, maybe you can make a case for filling your modification request.
The first two screen shots are areas where its not intentional to remove the select all checkbox in RM8 but a limitation we have.
The third screenshot shown won’t happen in regards to selecting multiple facts to add or update with Ancestry. Simply because there are other options that need to be selected, like the first two screen shot show, especially when you have more than one fact of the same type and need to select which one to update on the other side.
The point is there shouldn’t be a requirement to manually select each individual fact if you already know what you’ve done, as any responsible genealogist would. If I’ve fixed a place name that’s on four separate census facts and I want to get that standardized name on my Ancestry tree there’s no good reason not to have a box to say check all the boxes, then I click accept, and we’re done with that person. If I click on the left side I want all the changes for that person to go to Ancestry, If I click on the right side I want all the changes on Ancestry for that person to go to Rootsmagic. Simple as that. Forcing someone to click dozens of times doesn’t make the process more accurate.
I’ve been in the software development business for over 40 years and I know exactly what a steaming pile of bulls**t is and that claiming it’ll be a support issue only makes that pile higher. Support tickets come from making things that don’t make sense, or are time intensive, or from thinking you know more than your customer about what needs to be done.
I’m curious as to what the limitation is?
Before everyone gets all bowed up about difficulty, accuracy, and all that nonsense I need to point out that TODAY I can upload all the facts for potentially dozens of people with one click per person. No going each person one by one and clicking on each fact component, one click, one accept for maybe 20 people. They just have to be new. There is NO excuse for not having the same capability for updates. TODAY I can take a person, add a spouse or two, add their parents, add all their children. Then I run TreeShare and go to the original person, click once for each new person, click whatever update I made to have the original person show up in the list. Click accept ONCE, and valla! updates for potentially dozens of people automatically updated to Ancestry. So the capability to ship many updates up at once already exists, there’s no huge pile of support tickets because it exists, and the only reason it’s not there for updates is some misguided notion that RM’s users are idiots.
I have about 25 years in the software biz. Back in the day I was even a tech support rep trying to work customers through all of the brilliance that resulted from programmers thinking they know more than their client. In my opinion, the whole of RM8 represents said thinking. However your opinion and mine are not going to cause much in the way of change, so we either adapt to it, move on to another program that meets out needs, or write out own software. I expect ‘Ken’s Brilliant Genes’ to reach alpha sometime about the summer of 2030. I will look you up if I need alpha testers.
It is probably their developer tools!
So I have managed to eventually get there with my two main trees that reside on Ancestry, remember I just use RM at present as a backup and because it has great error checking features.
As I was doing the amendment I started to count the mouse clicks needed.
After selecting Tree Share within one per person’s record there were two that required amending.
A wedding to Add needed a click, then a click for adding the media.
There was then the other where a surname was added, so another click, then there was the media to add and that was another two clicks.
Then the Accept needed another click.
So six clicks for this one entry, only another one hundred + to go.
Most clicks against a single person, 29, that certainly caused RM to crash.
I think that I may start a class action agains RM for the potential RSI that may occur due to the sheer number of mouse clicks required.
Its beyond a joke guys, fix the problem, set it up in preferences so those of us who know that the Ancestry tree is correct can get away with less damn mouse clicks.
…and the really ridiculous part of it is that you might even be able to find a third rate lawyer that would file such a frivolous suit and manage to get some excuse for a jury to return you a favorable verdict.
Quite frankly if it wasn’t for the hassle of dealing with the RMNOCASE in the database I would have done a lot of this myself already. In any case I’m using RootsMagic specifically for their Ancestry integration, which they sold to me when Ancestry divorced themselves from Family Tree Maker some years ago. RootsMagic said at the time I was going to get an equivalent integration, and I paid them money months before that integration was even delivered. There is close to a dozen genealogy programs with superior reporting to RootsMagic and a better UI but none of them have integrations with FamilySearch, Ancestry, MyHeritage and FindMyPast. That means the ONLY reason I’m still using RootsMagic is the web integrations and if they’re not going to make them work efficiently once I’m done with my online research RootsMagic serves no purpose.
Oh my goodness what a fascinating thread. I can read it at face value as a debate on RM features / usage. Or I can focus on the philosophical debate about offering users freedom to work how they want or protecting them from disaster by hobbling them.
The current approach feels paternalistic to me. Not too dissimilar to the way that ancestry.com hobble their product.
I have a strong bias towards exposing powerful operations that reduce wasted user time. Pragmatically this could be hidden behind a “super user” preference that was enabled by default. If I could get back all the time I have spent clicking “accept” to save ancestry changes I might still have hair. One part of building user focused software is not wasting user’s time. RM , the best of breed genealogical application doesn’t do a good job of this.
I hope some of this changes. It’s not a binary choice of safe and slow vs fast and risky.
not magic just RM8 timeout issue that FTM 2019 handles fine.
