Menu
- Home
- Search▼
- List▼
- Add▼
- My Relate▼
- Admin▼
ViewsWatchers |
[add comment] [edit] WelcomeWelcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:
If you need any help, we will be glad to answer your questions. Just go to the Support page, click on the Add Topic link, type your message, then click the Save Page button. Thanks for participating and see you around! --Support 19:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Next step: Review your GEDCOM [31 July 2020]You're not done yet! Now that you have uploaded Wikitree family tree.ged into our review program, it is time for you to match your data to ours. Your next step is to review and resolve any potential warnings that your file might be showing and to match place names, source names and families to pages that may already exist in our database. Notes:
Click here to enter the review program WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing here you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.
[add comment] [edit] Next step: Review your GEDCOM [31 July 2020]You're not done yet! Now that you have uploaded Wikitree family tree 2.ged into our review program, it is time for you to match your data to ours. Your next step is to review and resolve any potential warnings that your file might be showing and to match place names, source names and families to pages that may already exist in our database. Notes:
Click here to enter the review program WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing here you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.
[add comment] [edit] About your Gedcom [16 November 2020]Hello, Carl, I see you've done a good deal of work to get your uploaded gedcom data into shape to be imported. I've been reviewing the gedcom and am leaning towards approving it soon, but it's late for me and I want to sleep on it. Also, there are some things I'm wondering about, though, and maybe you can enlighten me about them. One thing I'm wondering is how you generated the gedcom file ("Wikitree family tree 2.ged"). I believe that an export from Wikitree was done, but maybe you imported that file into another program and then generated the uploaded file from there, or maybe it was direct from Wikitree. There are several funny things about the pages generated. One is that they have lines saying "birth parents: <father> and <mother>". Another thing is that most of the married women have a line saying "Type: married". I'm thinking that there was some quirk in how the gedcom file is structured that is causing the latter, and maybe the former. I can't see the contents of the gedcom file itself, only the pages and so forth that the WeRelate upload utility shows. That's why I'm interested in hearing about how the gedcom file was created. Another thing is that the file includes no sources. WeRelate puts an emphasis on sourcing because of it's importance to readers in evaluating what is being presented. (There are way too many collections of junk trees around; sourcing helps in recognizing the better data.) I do realize the links to the corresponding Wikitree person page will often lead to relevant sources there (although the sources over there are often in chaotic forms even when present). I'd like to hear what you have to say about the sources for the people in this upload. Thanks in advance for responding to these things (which you can do here, or on my talk page). I've got to get some sleep now. --robert.shaw 07:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Hi Robert, Originally, I did an export from WikiTree, but WeRelate found something like 2.8% warnings; not acceptable. So, I loaded it into Gramps (https://gramps-project.org/) and eliminated most of the issues, and tried again. I'd be happy to share the gedcom files if you want to take a closer look. That, to me, is a disappointment about WikiTree: no way to export the sources in a standard format. I have a slightly improved version of essentially the same tree on Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/tree/165766504/), and that has lots of sources, all in their indirect Ancestry style. I.e., the sources are real, but the links all go to Ancestry databases. Would a gedcom file from Ancestry be any better? Obviously, I am brand new to WeRelate. How does this usually work? Sources embedded in the gedcom by something like Legacy (https://legacyfamilytree.com/)? -Carl--Carlk3 00:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Hi again, Carl, I'd like to accept your offer to share the "Wikitree family tree 2.ged". One way of doing that would be to attach it to an email and send it to rshaw at genlit dot org , or you could share via dropbox, etc. Thanks. I think from that I might be able to suggest an improvement to WeRelate Gedcom parsing. It is unfortunate that WikiTree doesn't have very good structures supporting sources. Seems almost free-form over there. Generally, WeRelate tends to have users who enter data directly, although some use gedcom uploads (as I have). WeRelate has experienced negative results from gedcom uploads (mainly from early times when it was unreviewed, also some more recently), so the users are concerned with it. Some users spend a good deal of time cleaning up problems and clutter that exist here because of gedcom uploads. Lack of good source citations is a very definite concern here too. So, regarding Ancestry.com gedcoms: I personally have never used Ancestry (for what I see as good reasons), so don't have any experience with the Gedcoms it produces. I have looked around, and I believe the results of an Ancestry-gedcom upload look like, for example, Person:Jerold Ford (1) or Person:Alan Sexton (1) or Person:Robert Caldcleugh (4). The source citations which Ancestry generates are rather problematic as you mention, since they generally have very little detail, link to the database containing the fact rather than to the fact itself, and for non-subscribers don't even reach the database but always land on an insistent signup page. They certainly occur on WeRelate, although most experienced users try to add location and content details that the default Ancestry citation (presumably purposefully) omits. Still, the default Ancestry sourcing is useful, as it has footnote links from events to a source entry the usually indicates the nature of the source (e.g. census, obituary) if not enough to find it. (In contrast, the Wikitree upload pages would require back-and-forth viewing of the two differently structured pages on WeRelate and Wikitree in order to get that basic level of understanding.) By the way, I belive the "_APID" tags which Ancestry generates allows an Ancestry re-upload of such a Gedcom source reference to identify the specific record in the database; I don't theink the same record locating via the _APID number can be done by non-employee users. Since you do have a well-sourced tree on Ancestry, I think that a gedcom of it (or some subset of it) would be a better way to get that information into WeRelate. I think this mainly because of the improved sourcing and source visibility that can be expected from that approach. One possible drawback might be some loss of work you have done so far in adapting the Wikitree data. I'm not sure how many, if any, of the adaptations you needed to do for Wikitree data would also be needed for the Ancestry data. The 100 or so changes to existing pages on WeRelate that you did will remain, but changes you might have made to any of your "in escrow" Gedcom-derived pages (which can be done by the tiny "Edit" link under the 'to-be-page' name at the top, instead of the normal "Edit" link in the lefthand sidebar), those changes, if any, would disappear when you delete the Wikitree Gedcom in order to upload an Ancestry Gedcom instead. I don't think I would advise finishing the import of the WikiTree data and then importing the Ancestry data, because doing that would require many comparisions and merges in order to get Ancestry's sources into place. I'll hold off taking action on the "Wikitree family tree 2.ged" import for the time being. You can consider the options, and discuss them further with me if you want, and then let me know which way you'd prefer to go. --robert.shaw 21:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
|
