Search for content in message boards

SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Replies: 69

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 19 Feb 2013 10:31AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 19 Feb 2013 11:48AM GMT
"What gets published for the world to see adhering to GEDCOM standards is a completely different topic."

Yes and no. YES because the GEDCOM is for sharing between applications, but NO because if someone asks for a solution that does not translate to the GEDCOM then the solution is lost to transfer (into FTM or out of FTM).

So my example is that I do use the STATUS for a child connection to a family and the information is lost to FTM. If FTM understood and implemented the GEDCOM standard then they would have implemented the STATUS feature and people would not be needing work arounds to say "this is not a proven link to a family".

Just like "WebLink" it is great to have it as a field in the FTM-DB but I already have weblinks in my NOTEs, PAGE/Citation information and CALN/Repository Locations field. Why have another place that does not translate in/out of FTM via GEDCOM?

These "extra fields" causes user lockin to FTM forcing users to lose data when they attempt to move away from FTM or use other applications to do things that FTM does not do well.
SubjectAuthorDate Posted
silverfox3280 19 Feb 2013 3:10PM GMT 
Rich Canfield 20 Feb 2013 2:00AM GMT 
kj_norway 19 Feb 2013 5:31PM GMT 
silverfox3280 19 Feb 2013 5:53PM GMT 
kj_norway 19 Feb 2013 6:46PM GMT 
kj_norway 19 Feb 2013 7:23PM GMT 
KATHYMARIEANN 19 Feb 2013 8:26PM GMT 
kj_norway 19 Feb 2013 8:59PM GMT 
Rich Canfield 19 Feb 2013 11:29PM GMT 
kj_norway 18 Feb 2013 7:02PM GMT 
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | New Privacy | New Terms and Conditions