When adding new individuals from Ancestry, the marriage record is not being added. Is this a setting I have missed or a bug in TreeShare?
Ancestry has only Individual Event/Fact types. RM has Personal/Individual & Family Event/Fact types.
It is a two step process by design.
In RM 7 a spouse in a couple transferred to RM from Ancestry will require the Marriage Event/Fact is transferred in a second step. If I recall correctly one can migrate in TreeShare to another person, then back to the same Person in that couple to then transfer the Marriage Event/Fact. At a minimum one would need to refresh the comparison of that RM Person Record to the Ancestry Person Card before adding the Marriage Event/Fact.
I suspect that is still how things work in RM 8.
Logically the couple has to be created in the database first, then one can add the Marriage.
I see the same issue in RM 8.0.4. I consider it a bug not a feature, since it should NOT be a two step process. The core issue is you have a person that’s “changed” in your Ancestry tree, and when you pull down the spouse your only is to accept. Once you do that it falls off your changed list and there’s no effective means to get it back.The only way to add the marriage event at that point is to update the person on Ancestry or RM, which would return it to the changed list so you can complete your work. When puling from Ancestry it should work the same as from FamilySearch. Add the person, add the marriage fact and say what person it does to. The form should not disappear. You should not have to update the person again.
I go to Settings / Webhint Settings / Ancestry / and then uncheck the box that says ‘remove from “changed” list after accepting changes’
I can then add the spouse and accept the change. As the person doesn’t disappear from the list, I can then add the marriage then accept the new change.
This means that I always have to manually hit the box with ‘x’ (just above the changes) when I’ve finished with amending people but I avoid forgetting to add the marriage.
There is a problem with that approach too as when I add the spouse - and their parents are added to RM at the same time - the parental marriage doesn’t automatically import so I have to find one of the parents and add their marriage.
Keith, you say it is a “bug” but I am not really sure that I understand what your suggested fix is. As Harold pointed out Ancestry does not have Family Events, only Individual Events. Surely the only fix would be for Ancestry to introduce Family Events. I am trying to look at this logically, but maybe I am not understanding the problem fully as I don’t have an Ancestry tree and don’t use TreeShare.
The issue is coming from Ancestry TO RootsMagic. Nothing needs to be changes on the Ancestry side. RootsMagic needs to understand that I have just added a Spouse, which it knows because I just told to do that. It even shows the spouse in the “pending” actions. It won’t recognize that pending spouse as a target for the marriage event unless you accept, but once you do that the person you’re working on disappears.
If you’re going the other way (RM → Ancestry) you can just merrily click your way through and it’ll add the marriage event and the spouse in pretty much any order.
Hi,
Sorry to pick this point up 18 months after you raised it. I have posted suggestions for improving Treeshare in anothe thread here and want to expand on the issues relating to marriages. I think that there are issues in both directions, RM to Ancestry and Ancestry to RM, but I only want to deal with RM to Ancestry here.
I don’t think that there is a bug in RM, just a design which is far from optimal. I am also sure that RM doesn’t need anything new from Ancestry to improve its design significantly.
Consider a situation like this where you are adding a new family, including a spouse and marriage, to a person already matched between Ancestry and RM
When you are part of the way through adding the new people, before accepting any changes, you get the following options when you click to add another child
RM asks you whether you want to add the new child (daughter2) as an existing child or link her to Son1 or Daughter1. Neither of these two already exist in the main RM database, but you still have the chance to link to them. In fact you are given the option to link to any child who either already belongs to this family in the database or whom you have selected to add, but not yet added.
But when you want to add the marriage, you get this message
Treeshare should treat the marriage event as it treats the new child, allowing you to choose any spouse who already exists in the database or whom you have already selected to add.
When you click to accept changes, RM should use a database procedure which adds the new spouse first, and the marriage afterwards.
I don’t see why this should be hard to do. To my mind, it would be a significant improvement.
Alan
I didn’t get the same message and then I realized you didn’t click Accept Changes to add the spouse first. It takes two steps if there is no existing spouse for the person. You will see the same thing happen with FamilySearch.
I know that it takes two steps; that’s the point.
The original poster suggests that this is a bug; the person responding to that post said that changing the design would require changes in Ancestry.
My point was that the two-step process for adding spouses and marriages is just a design choice; I can add two children from Ancestry and use them to create a single linked person in RM with a single ‘accept changes’. So why can’t I add a spouse and a marriage in a single ‘accept changes’. All you need to do is to allow the user to identify the spouse for the marriage as the person about to be added and then use a database procedure to add the spouse first and the marriage afterwards.
This would be a significant improvement in the process for those of us who do this a lot. It does not require any change from Ancestry and is not difficult to do.
…and as I asked you before, you know this how? Did you suddenly get access to the Ancestry API? I will answer this for you, No! You don’t know what it takes and you are drawing parallels between children and spouses which really aren’t correct due to differences between how children connect to parents and how two individuals connect to their parents, to each other and to their children.
You clearly like to over analyze problems however in the analysis, have you tried reverse engineering the process and watching what the software is doing? There are a few handy tools on the market that I am sure would help, such as Ghidra and IDAPro. Just be careful because I think the RM license frowns on doing such things! But I won’t tell on you!
Be careful, mentioning third party tools will get your posts censored.