I'm sure that with a small amount of effort a folder to folder equivalence could be defined?
I appreciate that media folder structures could cause a problem, but then I do tend to maintain a standard folder structure for each project.
Having found a person or people that I can then place into one of my main trees it would be nice to simply drag and drop, rather than manually copy every fact, source, etc., and avoids all the (relative) complexities of splitting and merging trees. This tends to be much smaller and allows placing all the people on a single diagram to try and piece together the various families and their potential relationships.
#Rootsmagic 2019 registration
For me it's really a question of being tidy: if people can't be linked directly to someone in my tree, what are they doing there in the first place? As a result, and particularly when researching pre-civil registration ancestors, I will create a separate project for either a one-name or one-place piece of research. I don't like orphans in my main research trees, either individuals or sub-trees with no links to my main research - they clutters up me tree and they often get forgotten about, irrespective of whether or not they appear in trees, diagrams or whatever, or can be differentiated by pool number. I had forgotten about this, so I apologise for the very late reply. My feeling is that in complex databases such as FH, a cut/copy & paste or drag & drop is much more complex and fraught with dangers that don't apply where single objects are involved. Managing the Media file & folder structure has its own complexities, especially if the two Projects involved don't share the same folder structure. That is where File > Merge/Compare Files comes into play. When it comes to pasting, in your scenario it seems that few if any Individual records would match up, but what about matching Note, Source, Repository, Place & Media records, as well as Media files? Whereas, the existing File > Import/Export > Export > GEDCOM file offers many ways of selecting Individual records and choosing which associated records are required. You want to include all such associated records, but others may not, so it is unclear how that would be catered for with cut/copy. That starts with the Individual records, but must also involve choices about all associated records such as Family, Note, Source, Place & Media records and linked Media files.
The trickiest part of any cut/copy process is selecting the records to be included. They do little harm there, are readily differentiated by Pool number, and won't appear in main tree Diagrams and Ancestor/Descendant Reports. The first question is why not keep all the unrelated ' orphan' trees in the one master Project? When moving an individual between trees in this manner, sources or media that are cited for people other than those being moved should be left intact.
Furthermore, the directory structure for any media so copied/moved should be retained in the project folder where the information is being copied to. What would be of enormous use would be the ability to select one or more related individuals and then use conventional cut/copy and paste to copy or move them to another, existing project, complete with all associated notes, sources, etc. I have used the tree splitter before now, but it's one of those things that gets used rarely, and therefore is a bit of a pain to get right each time it's needed. I also have some instances where I have had to make part of my main research into an orphan tree within the project, and it would be useful to be able to move these to the second project so that the principal project contains only details of people whose connections are considered to be reliable. I have projects that work in pairs, one is for the principal family research, and a second where I keep information about people with the same surnames that I'm researching but with whom there is as yet no family connection that I have discovered to the people in the principal tree.
0 kommentar(er)
