I have finally decided that RM is better than Legacy except for pretty >screens.
I have an RM database. If I add a .ged of another family (probably
ancestors) will it be unlinked (just another tree) - but can be
linked?
I think I kew the answer until I was 91 years old.
Thank y'all.
Hugh
Hugh,
If you import the GED file, it will be merged into your active
database. If you already have some names in common with the GED, the
will appear twice, and you'll need to merge them all with the names >originally in your file. This can be quite intimidating, since if
there are miniscule differences, they won't merge automatically. For
this reason, I never import a GED file to my data.
With RM, It's possible to import the GED into a "new" database, thus
creating two separate RM databases. Then, if your screen is large
enough, or if you have a two screen setup, you can open both databases
at the same time, and then drag and drop any elements from the "new"
database into your original database.
Good luck, I hope everything goes well. Write back if ou have more
questions.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 13:47:28 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
<invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Then, if your screen is large
enough, or if you have a two screen setup, you can open both databases
at the same time, and then drag and drop any elements from the "new" >>database into your original database.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 13:47:28 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
<invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Hugh,
If you import the GED file, it will be merged into your active
database. If you already have some names in common with the GED, the
will appear twice, and you'll need to merge them all with the names >>originally in your file. This can be quite intimidating, since if
there are miniscule differences, they won't merge automatically. For
this reason, I never import a GED file to my data.
With RM, It's possible to import the GED into a "new" database, thus >>creating two separate RM databases. Then, if your screen is large
enough, or if you have a two screen setup, you can open both databases
at the same time, and then drag and drop any elements from the "new" >>database into your original database.
Good luck, I hope everything goes well. Write back if ou have more >>questions.
I knew I could depend on you.
I was not aware of the drag and drop. I have backed up the major
database and need to add less than 30 name - or less than 5 if D&D
does entire families.
Hugh
I think D&D will do families. I'm not sure how to go about that, I
usually only do person by person since I don't have many to add.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:24:32 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
<invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
I think D&D will do families. I'm not sure how to go about that, I
usually only do person by person since I don't have many to add.
Since I didn't know what I was doing I did move the family. :)
I had two families, either of which could have been my ancestors
before 1760. I needed to switch them. It was easy to unlink, load the
other tree, unlink, and D&D.
My line, unfortunately, can't be proven prior to 1789. But I have
built a scenario back to a 1690 immigrant that can't be disproven.
"That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!" I'll leave it to someone
else to do better.
By DNA I'm an Anglo-Saxon male from western Europe (Germany) and Irish
by the female name. But I'm missing a few families from the end of the
Ice Age to 1690. :)
I have a lot of respect for researchers who have 10,000 and more names
in their genealogy. But I'm beginning to wonder why I have more people
than my direct line and my wife's direct line. Having more people
means less consistency and more errors to me. Checking such gets to
the point of no return, doesn't it?
Hugh
Maybe they have 10,000 in their database, which can be a lot different
from 10,000 in their tree.
Maybe they have 10,000 in their database, which can be a lot different
from 10,000 in their tree.
For example, my database is just over 35000 "names". But I flollow my >Hoffpauir surname back as far as possible. then follow as many of the >"original" Hoffpauir's descendants as possible, to the present time.
Since he goes back to the mid 1700's, there are lots of descendants.
I'm now (thanks to DNA research) including "illegitimate" descendants,
those without any documentation to show a connection, but with DNA
"proof" they are related.
For example, my database is just over 35000 "names".
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:08:06 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
<invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
For example, my database is just over 35000 "names".
I just completed making sources and locations consistent. I'm now
reviewing the problem list. The first thing I did was mark "birth
before marriage" as "not a problem". I have 126 more problems.
It's tough enough when I only have 7600 names. Over the years you must
have reviewed the three instances, otherwise you would now have a very >fearsome task or "let it all hang out".
Hugh
I don't look at the "problem list", so I have no problems.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 52:05:10 |
| Calls: | 6,650 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,330,387 |