Recent owner of RM8 getting to grips with all its goodies (only prev. database was free FTB so huge upgrade).
Only hurdle met so far is mastering treeshare. Have read previous posts but not so technical myself.
After many tests both ways mapping all the fields, if I am correct - hence this post asking - it seems that to preserve my template footnotes I’m best served having a separate RM8 file reserved for treeshare (keeping both files synced with File>Tools>Compare).
I can conserve all my hard-worked source-citation templates in my first file for reports by using a workaround in the treeshare file: i.e. create new templates, enter just a source title and repository, and paste across my complete footnote created in my other file into the source text field in the treeshare file. Then add a brief citation detail such as “Birth Registration for Arthur Higgins”. Ancestry produces the detail, record title, my complete footnote as a Note, and finally the repository. Looks neat to me.
I can’t see alternative so far as Ancestry does weird things with my normal (non Ancestry record) templates and wont let me edit what they create.
I understand this isn’t RM8’s problem and Ancestry is not in the business of providing multiple source-citation template versions. Just want the best compromise of effort/reward.
Seems to me RM8 does a politer job replicating Ancestry’s source-citations in downloads. Ancestry just concatenates with windswept disregard.
Not sure this post makes the sense I’d hoped when I set out.
Let me make sure I understand. I think you are proposing to keep two RM8 databases - one that you keep synced with Ancestry and one that you do not. So you will be doing double data entry in RM8. If you put a new person or a new fact or a new source into one of your RM databases then you will also be putting the new person or a new fact or a new source into your other RM8 database. One database will be using standard RM8 source templates and the other one will not. And the reason is that sources using RM’s standard source templates do not transfer well to Ancestry. Is that about it?
It sounds like a lot of work, and the extra work may be well be worth it to you. I wouldn’t criticize that approach at all if it meets your needs. However, I would be curious what the purpose of connecting an RM8 database with Ancestry would be? There can be good reasons. For example, getting Ancestry’s Webhints in RM can be such a reason. Another reason can be the ease which you can bring media files from Ancestry back into RM using TreeShare. And there are several other good reasons for connecting an RM8 database with Ancestry.
I’m a sample size of one, but after investigating TreeShare’s capability and limitations very carefully, I decided to use TreeShare in a very limited sense. Namely, I only use TreeShare for WebHints and not for any other purpose.
I do all my work in RM. I do not try to keep my RM data and my Ancestry data in sync because to do so at least doubles my time to do data entry. It takes me as much time to move my data from RM to Ancestry using TreeShare as it does to put it into RM in the first place. Periodically, I delete my Ancestry tree and reload it from RM to avoid all the manual syncing activity. I keep my Ancestry tree completely private because there is no way to limit which people are uploaded from RM to Ancestry and I don’t fully trust Ancestry’s privatization tools. So I don’t use Ancestry to share my data. If I were going to do so, I would make a second RM database from my first RM database and I would include only people in the second RM database that didn’t need privatization. That’s the RM database I would upload to Ancestry and make public. RM’s data model and Ancestry’s data model are very different. As a result, I find a lot of data that doesn’t survive very well going from RM to Ancestry or vice versa. So using TreeShare only for WebHints is what best meets my personal needs and goals.
But I would emphasize that there seem to be many RM users who do keep their RM databases and their Ancestry tree in tight sync and are very happy with the results. So I would repeat that you need to adopt the approach that best meets your personal needs and goals.
If the goal is to preserve your detailed template notes when you synch to ancestry via treeshare, you might try utilizing RM8s “Source Comments” field. That RM8 field does not synch to Ancestry – ie no ancestry data gets put there in a download to RM8 via treeshare. Conversely, none of your notes in the Source Comments field will get pushed up to your ancestry via treeshare.
Thanks. I admit I’ve so far only tested theories with a small tree of a few folk. It would require a lot of drudgery. In addition, I’m finding that relying on the Compare wizardry to keep two local files synced doesn’t always work, so that would add more stress and confusion.
I’m liking the simple genius of not treesharing files and just deleting the ancestry tree periodically to update with a fresh copy.
Thanks. Yes, I’ve tested mapping which fields download or upload. I wanted to get my citations up to ancestry intact. I’ll have another play with the source comment field. Here is my mapping if i can upload an image…
Sorry to reply to my own post, but if I relied on periodically uploading a new tree to replace ancestry one, I take it the gedcom from RM sends everything up? I couldn’t use treeshare as that would be back to where I started. As images seem to work, easier to show than tell…
This is what happens in treeshare to my source templates:-
This matches what I found, except that I believe you’ll find that the RM8 Citation Weblink pushes to the ancestry web address field. Of course there are a ton of caveats. Ancestry mangles data coming across the API. As you’ve noted, rich text is lost, if you try to use html markup inline Ancestry gags on the first “<” and stops displaying data. (You can see it when you go to edit mode on the ancestry field.) Also if you are pushing an Ancestry source/citation from the Ancestry Record template (with an associated entry in the Link Ancestry table), then ancestry disregards all of your customized field data.
There’s no right or wrong way. I’ve taken the approach to keep my notes in RM, use treeshare to imports data from ancestry and push periodic db copies back up to ancestry via treeshare. I always try to populate the citation weblink field if there is a URL and add notes in the fields as you have described. That provides a skeleton tree in Ancestry but, admittedly, it’s far from perfect. I think Jerry’s approach is to not use treeshare and use a freeform or custom template in RM. That may be simpler than keeping up 2 dbs but am not sure it will solve your desire to have detailed, readable notes in Ancestry. Happy testing and let us know what you end up with.
