|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.5.4.1
Last Login: Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Posts: 27,
Visits: 303
|
For the last couple of weeks I have been evaluating the use of GenoPro for the records of several hundred relatives having decided that I need something more than the typical on-line genealogical repository and am pleasantly surprised by some of the facilities included.
However, one or two aspects appear to be less than ideal but that may be just the way that I have tried to use them.
For instance, Hyperlinks are a very desirable feature to keep tree charts fairly uncluttered and of reasonable size but reading through the support forum entries suggests that I may have tried to use it differently from the original developer's intentions.
I would welcome advice and suggestions from more experienced users to help me reduce my time spent on this evaluation and the determination of a good/best arrangement.
All ancestor lines are equally important so I have tried to treat each in a similar way.
I have created a separate .gno file for each family line (same surname) using external hyperlinks from each alternativly named spouse,
ie within Surname1.gno, any instance of Surname2 would hyperlink to the same individual in the Surname2.gno file.
I thought that this would be more manageable than having dozens/hundreds of internally hyperlinked genomaps and tabs within one file.
Where any family gets too big, either vertically or horizontaly, I have used internal hyperlinks to break up that file into more manageable sections.
This might be a clean concept but I am now beginning to realise that it does have some downsides.
1. There does not appear to be an 'automatic' way of creating new .gno files and creating the required links.
I have created each new file by:
a) adding the 'foreign' spouse to the current file, including the union relationship but no descendants,
b) inserting an external hyperlink from the 'foreign' spouse record to the required new file by editing the field in the Hyperlink tab (ie Surname2.gno).
c) saving the current Surname1.gno file,
d) copying the current Surname1.gno file (outside of GenoPro) and renaming the copy to Surname2.gno,
e) performing the hyperlink from Surname1 to Surname2 within GenoPro,
f) removing the hyperlink from the landing individual and creating a reverse hyperlink from its spouse back to the original Surname1 file,
g) selecting and deleting all other Surname1 individuals and their relationships from the Surname2 file.
Descendants of this union are only added to the male side of the Surname1/Surname2 files.
Some automation of this activity would save me considerable effort but may not be appropriate for other users.
2. Individuals appearing in more than one file will lead to duplicate records and the need to make additional updates.
Genopro does not ensure that an update applied to one file is also promulgated to any other relevant files (normally one in my situation).
This is akin to a lack of referential integrity within a database system but appears to be the cost of using separate external files.
Duplicated updates would only be needed where the original pair of individuals is concerned but there may be many such pairs within each file.
3. The Permanent IDs assigned to individuals can (will) be duplicated across .gno files and some values may not be assigned at all.
This does not lead to a problem of itself but does make checking for correctness and completeness more difficult.
Tags:
|
|
|
|
|
Important Contributors
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.5.4.0
Last Login: Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Posts: 193,
Visits: 4,268
|
Well, as far as I know, if you are using separate .gno for each families instead of using genomaps for them in the same .gno you are also loosing the easy report generation facility for the whole tree.
Feri
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.5.4.1
Last Login: Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Posts: 27,
Visits: 303
|
Thanks for suggestion about reports.
I must look into that a bit deeper as I had not yet found anything very useful in that area.
Perhaps I am missing something and don't yet realise what I am missing.
Can you briefly suggest what advantages I would get from having many genomaps in a single file and just what I should be investigating further?
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
Important Contributors
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: 37 minutes ago
Posts: 1,576,
Visits: 31,221
|
I think the question should be 'are there any advantages in having each family line in separate files?' It makes it possible to restrict access if you want to send the data to somebody else but you can do this with the normal structure. However internal hyperlinks provide the connections.
I have used external hyperlinks to connect files of similar data - where one set was based on results found on the IGI and the other from other sources. More useful to link to external sources eg a person whose aircraft was shot down in Holland and a local web site records this
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.5.4.1
Last Login: Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Posts: 27,
Visits: 303
|
At the risk of treading on other people's toes, perhaps I can explain my thinking behind my current use of separate .gno files.
Please don't take offence. I am not trying to ruffle anybody's feathers.
These are just views of a newcomer looking at the program as it is now, rather than having grown up with it as it has been developed/enhanced.
It appears that there are two different possible uses of the external hyperlink...
1. to link from an individual in one .gno file to an instance of the same individual in another .gno file.
2. to link outside of GenoPro to associated/supporting documentation.
I had not even considered the second use until I read your reply. It may well be a valid use of this facility in your suggested circumstances
but I consider it to be a misuse and feel that there should be an alternative facility provided elsewhere.
Since my original post, I have tried to combine some of the data from my existing separate .gno files and create a single file with internal hyperlinks between families. However, I am now finding the same difficulties as experienced and reported by other users, for which work-arounds are suggested by the more experienced users.
For instance, not being able to make a union between a man and wife where both have been internally hyperlinked from another genomap. Also, having to exclude the reporting of the 'duplicate' union when the work-around is applied.
I have forgotten where I saw the work-around so still cannot complete the union on my second genomap.
My use of separate files and external hyperlinks avoids such assymetries. Hence the answer to your question is that there are advantages to having separate files. I am still trying to find the advantages of combining several families into a single file.
My need for repeated updates to duplicated individuals in separate files is limited to just the linked individuals and could possibly be avoided
by a program enhancement.
Please tell me if I am over-looking something obvious. I am still learning (by trial and error).
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
Important Contributors
Translator
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: Friday, April 12, 2024
Posts: 214,
Visits: 3,581
|
Working with many separate files, linking individuals with external links, for me it would be suicide!
In any case GenoPro certainly will not recognize family ties based on external links.
The ties parent/child/partner must be set when you placing a individual in a Genomap and operate only on the same Genomap.
You can, however, connect and identify as a single individual, people inserted in different genomap: individuals remain physically 2,3, ..., though logically connected as a single individual, and every modification is true for all individuals connected even if in different genomaps.
I would ask developers to GenoPro, only to make easier the logical unification of individuals.
I have a file .GNO with 23,000 individuals and 270 genomaps and thousands of internal connections between genomapps and everything works fine!
But all depends on choices of convenience.
See also: http://www.genopro.com/help/hyperlinks/
Vittorino Lepore
"Se non porti almeno una soluzione, anche tu fai parte del problema" or "If you don't bring at least a solution, even you're a part of the problem"
Edited: Saturday, September 8, 2012 by
LeVit
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
Important Contributors
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: 37 minutes ago
Posts: 1,576,
Visits: 31,221
|
My toes are undamaged and feathers in place. Most good computer programs can be used in different ways and if you want to try something different, good luck. Let us know how you get on.
I have a family file but have also a geographical study, looking at all people in the area the family came from (parish BMD data mainly). External hyperlinks link individuals in both files, on my PC. Reports cause more problems - if you want to put your results online.
I also have been making a limited one name study at
http://familytrees.genopro.com/appleshaw/SussexSteers/
If you look for Thomas Steer of Egdean, he moved between Egdean & Petworth, as seen on the maps. In Egdean the family included 3 children; in Petworth there was an older boy who died young.
I still think it is better to put one set of data in one file - but if you find it easier to separate them then see how it turns out.
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
Important Contributors
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
Translator
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: Sunday, March 21, 2021
Posts: 716,
Visits: 12,927
|
I only can second what LeVit has said. I have now more than 60 000 entries spread over app. 500 Genomaps in one gno file. I have used external links to a few other families/data files, which could have been linked through hyperlinks, but these families are finished and will not be updated in the near future. To move them to their own gno files keeps my original gno file manageable and prevents it from beeing overloaded.
Hyperlink is the key here. And very often in the past the spouse moved to another household, so she became a hyperlinked person, unless there is space left on the genomap to continue with this family. In some cases there were no sons to take over farms/family business. In those cases a husband of a daughter, who inherited the farm, moved into this family and thus became hyperlinked from another genomap.
To prevent crossing lines I usually hyperlink ancestors of a spouse(male or female), either to a new genomap or on the same genomap, depending on the number of persons involved.
External links could be websites(private or business) from individual`s contact page, other external links can be set up under "sources". So use your imagination, but using different files is "suicide", again unless you want to set up a system, where you export Gedcom data from these files, import into another genealogy software and merge those doubled persons.
Good Luck!
Just forgot to mention: in the beginning there was only one genomap in one file and people tried to do what you are trying to to > updating from one file to another file automatically. Due to this hopeful thinking several Genomaps in one file were made possible and thus the hyperlink function was created.
Edited: Saturday, September 8, 2012 by
maru-san
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
Important Contributors
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: 37 minutes ago
Posts: 1,576,
Visits: 31,221
|
One of the factors mentioned in the original posting has not been discussed here: how to link a family on a separate Genomap. I can not find this in the Help files - although this could be me not looking in the correct place.
It is easy enough to Move one person to a new Map and the hyperlink will take you back to the original, where you can Move the spouse. If you try to link the pair on the new GenoMap you are returned to the original site. The 'trick' is to create a new Family line and then link the individuals as parents. You then need to open the Family line properties and open the Summary tab and tick the box labelled 'Make Label / Exclude From Report'. This is not an essential step unless you are going to use the Report Writer.
This is not an intuitive process - and as far as I know not well documented.
Another hard to find useful feature is to copy the family of a selected individual by pressing the key 'V'. There can be a slight problem here in some cases as it can remove the hyperlink, because the linked person is not in the middle of a tree (either top or bottom). Not sure about all of the variations here - but use Ctrl+Z to undo and sort out what you want to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.5.4.1
Last Login: Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Posts: 27,
Visits: 303
|
Thanks for the glimpse of what I might be working towards.
I was worried that my current hundreds of individuals and dozens of families might be unmanageable in a single file but it seems that such fears were quite unfounded. You have certainly made me reconsider although I am still too near sighted to appreciate any possibility for future suicide. I certainly don't want to head down one promising route only to be confronted by excessive difficulties/inconvenience once I have too much data involved to enable an easy change of direction. That could lead to suicide.
Originally, I thought that separate files and external hyperlinks was a sensible approach and in many respects I still do.
However, program developments seem to have been concentrated more on the use of a single file and internal hyperlinks so I now feel that I must try to discover the possible advantages of that alternative for me in the future.
Currently, one-way external hyperlinks would meet my needs for data separation into manageable chunks from one big mass
ie MaleA == FemaleB in file A
hyperlinks /\ \/
MaleA == FemaleB in file B, with all other individuals either unique to each file or shared onwards similarly with C, D, etc.
I find this organisation very simple to implement and navigate.
If I am going to change to the internal route, I need to establish an easy method of migrating the current data to use a single file.
The two-way internal links seem to be awkard and messy in comparison and involve complicated work-arounds (that I find difficult to understand) as outlined in other posts.
I have not yet considered my reporting requirements as initially I thought that I had no such needs, other than tree chart creation.
Thanks for opening my eyes to the possibilities shown with Sussex Steers. I hadn't previously thought of incorporating a timeline in the tree.
BTW, I was at school near Croydon with a Dick Steere(?), years apart, who I believe became a farm manager - but much later than your individuals.
|