If you edit the offline tree and then publish it to the site, you won't be able to edit it online. As far as I can tell, in order to be able to edit both of them at the same time, you need to edit the online version then export as GEDCOM, and then import the GEDCOM into FTB. Either that or manually edit both at the same time. In either case you would need to have FTB installed on whatever computer you are using.
I gues i am not the only person with multiple computers / locations. I also want my father an cousins to be able to edit the tree online. I find the program easier to work with so I prefer that for the day to day tasks
If I export a GEDCOM i lose all connection with my photos. Smaty matches also freak out and gives matches that oyher users have already confirmed or denied.
Other solutions adds the risk of entering data multiple times so I get duplicates.
This is by design. Making changes in your offline tree without publishing it will not affect your online tree. With the right settings, your family can update the online tree. I can't help you with the picture losses.
Try creating one web tree (even with just two or three persons) and subscribing to the monthly backup service. All pictures are considered linked to the web tree, and get backed up. This backup can be retrieved at any time.
I have a tree of nearly 13,000 entries, why is MyHeritage so egocentric that it insists that it MUST be the centre of your research as it cannot cope with importing GEDCOM files as updates without producing masses of duplicates. Or if you produce a new tree everyone that you have already contacted has to reconfirm all the "Smart" matches that they have already done the first time you contacted them AND you have to as well. All this because of the use dynamic IDs to create a new identity for each person, whereas most proprietary software use a fixed ID number. Also fixed IDs would allow duplicates to be merged automatically.
Also with fixed IDs I would not need to allocate each of my 250 photos back to each individually manually, taking on average 30 seconds per photo that’s over 2 Hours!! Let alone confirming the matches with over 1,300 other trees, another 6 hours !!!!!
When is MyHeriatge going to fix this big waste of researchers time?
I can see that you are now using a Family Tree Builder tree. Do you find this more convenient than uploading an updated GEDCOM each time? I agree that there are disadvantageswhen working with a GEDCOM that is edited in a n external program, and I hope that in the future we will be able to improve this issue.
FTB is as useless as it take about 7 (severn!) hours to upload a GEDCOM and also produces even more duplicates. I think it is the cause of all the problems so am waiting the release of version 8 before I even think about updating my tree.
BTW when is the expected date for the release of version 8 ?
I uploaded my GEDCOM file from ancestry.com which has over 1300 people in it to the basic Familt Tree builder which only includes 250 people. I get that but...... it didnt even include me or my immediate family just an obscure branch of my family tree!! LOL! what good is that?? Is this some type of gimmick to get me to purchase the Premium account?? If I did something wrong let me know & let me know how to remedy it- Thanks sara
no it's not a joke and MyHeritage is a very good software. Perhaps you should first understand the difference between the MyHeritage online tree (with the limitation of 250 people in the free version) and the Family Tree Builder software (no limitation). Read the 'Products' pages first, it can help.
This is the first time I have noticed this happening. Is this the default for automatic merging? Usually, I opt for Step by Step, but today I thought I'd try something different.
What you describe does not suppose to happen. Could you please send me more information about this issue? When (which tree) is this happening? Who is the person? This person was single before the merge of the Smart match?
With all this information I wil lbe able to investigate deeper and to get to you with a solution to this problem.
To protect the privacy of your information, please feel free to write to me a private message to: support@myheritage.com
I was initially excited that you had acquired this database. Not so much anymore. The link between the database and FTB is not specific enough, nor tunable. I am getting 100's of false positives - The link appears to be only focused on the person's name, not any contextual data. On top of that, to charge us an additional subscription to have to wade through 100's in some cases 1000's of records is a waste of time and money. I am a premium user and have been for several years, yet you still want me to give you more money. Not happening especially for the quality of the information. For primary research, I'll stick with the competitor at least their search function is much more controlable and generally brings me right to the right records if they exist.
Thank you for writing to us. We understand your point of view.
It is not possible for us to offer the historical data for free to existing MyHeritage subscribers, because a lot of the historical data comes from partners that require royalties on its use by customers. For example, views of UK census records require fixed royalties to the official UK archives. We cannot give all our subscribers this data for free, else the content partners will not get paid, which is not possible. We also cannot subsidize these content partners by paying them, so that our subscribers could get free data. This would lead us to incur additional, significant costs, on top of everything we have paid to do this acquisition.
We plan to stick around and be able to provide you a reliable platform for your family heritage, for many years to come, and be a destination that you can count on, while so many other companies are falling apart.
In the future once the historical records are rolled into MyHeritage, we’ll do our best to offer a bundled subscription that is as attractive and competitive in the marketplace as possible. We will also apply our Smart Matching technology to locate relevant records automatically for users who have their family trees with us, which adds value.
When a new service is added that incurs significant extra cost to us, we cannot give it free. When that is not the case, our policy has always been to give it to our subscribers for free. For example, every time a new version of Family Tree Builder is available, upgrading to it from former versions is free, and premium subscribers automatically enjoy all its new premium features. Unlike all other companies in the genealogy market, where upgrading to a new version of genealogy software costs money. We are aware that some of you will still not be satisfied with this answer, but we have tried to describe the constraints under which we are operating. Fortunately, large numbers of users have taken advantage of our 60% to 75% discounts for Premium and PremiumPlus users and will be enjoying the extra value of the historical records. For the rest, we’ll do our best to offer a good bundled subscription deal in the future once the historical records are integrated into MyHeritage.
I am not sure you fully answered Lee's inquiry. I too have signed up for the World Vital Records (WVR) service and really it has not been that helpful in locating records for me either. The only function that seems to be helpful is the census search. All other searches seem to prove to be a waste of time. For instance, I subscribe to services that provide me access to military records, but WVR does not seem to be able to find the same records. The same with simple BMD records. I too am getting way too many false leads to be wasting my time with. I do understand the reasoning behind the added cost, but the guys at WVR have to work on some way to narrowing the more likely positive hits down so we can be more productive. I have been thinking about cancelling my subscription but I'm willing to see if My Heritage and WVR is more responsive to this problem. Other geneaology sites seem to work better on these searches for me. I do think this sort of service can add value to My Heritage but not that much in its present form. -Rob
I'm sorry to hear that you did not find World Vital Records helpful so far. When beginning your research at World Vital Records there are a few things you can do to get back good results. Here are some useful tips to help you.
1. It is always best to start searching with a first and last name only. If your ancestor's surname is fairly common, make sure to insert the proper first name before beginning your search. If your ancestors surname is somewhat uncommon, you may want to start with the surname alone see what information is available. Once you have searched by surname, go back and add a first name by clicking the “Search” button located on the blue navigation bar at the top of the homepage.
If you get back too many results, try filling in one search box at a time (e.g. Place, Keyword, Year etc…).
2. The “Narrowing to” option allows you to fine tune your results by specific country or state. This is a very helpful tool if you know exactly where your ancestor was from.
3. You can search places by clicking on the “Places” button located on the blue navigation bar. Once you select the place you would like to search in, a search box to search all records within that particular place will appear.
4. Try using the “Matching Type” option to either refine or expand your search results. This option is found under the “Search” button. When you click on the Matching Type drop down box, you'll be able to search 3 different ways: Exact, Soundex and Double Metaphone.
"Exact" searches return results that match the exact spellings you entered into the Family Name box. If you enter the surname "Smith" results will not include spelling variations or mis-spellings.
"Soundex" searches will return search results that match the Soundex variations for the name you entered into the Family Name box. Soundex is a "phonetic algorithm" that identifies words that sound alike but are spelled differently such as "Smyth" and "Smith" or "Brown" and "Braun."
"Double Metaphone" searches will return search results that match the Double Metaphone spellings for the name that you entered into the Family Name box. "Double Metaphone" tends to return more accurate and slightly fewer name variation search results than Soundex.
If you are looking for specific records such as those you are subscribed to, you can sort your search results by record type and decade.
I hope that this information helps you, and that you try again and find good results. Good luck with your research!
Your Smart Matching feature is the most important aspect of the whole system - I commend you on the effort. However it is also one of the most frustrating. Suibtle changes to a person's record mean the difference from a recognized match to no match. May I suggest that once a confirmed match is made within someone else's tree that any ancestors (and probably descendents) from that tree that occupy similar "locations" should also be an automatic match. I am having to use your primary competitor's website plus the online version of known matched trees to overcome the lack of an acknowledged smart match. It's very time consuming to have to type information manually when it obviously exists in your system. Also as I put more effort into each record, the amount of info I have improves and that often results in a lack of a match on suceeding generations. I understand that this is probably one of the most complex algorythms in the whole system but it needs some more tweaking. for reference I have the option controlling smart matching dialed one level down towards more flexible from the default setting.
The Check for Duplicates function is helpful, but the number of false positives is annoying. Is there any way to tune the underlying settings to make them more restrictive. I'm thinking in terms of time scales and a contextual basis for the suggestion. When I get a hit on two people who are seperated in time by 200 years it's really annoying to have to sift through looking for the real ones of which I still have many.
We currently do not have this option, although thank you for the suggestion. I will be sure to forward it to the appropriate department for consideration.
Please let me know if you have any other ideas as we do value such input from our users.
My 2012 computer version is still unable to show me duplicates without overlapping names on the display to the point some are unreadable. Plus the data is unable to be used to fix the duplicates. You have to make a report, print it, and manually go through the list, plus no way to visually see the duplicates from the search, a pretty poor feature.
There is a bug with the duplicates checker in the program, it does not appear properly in a certain window size. Changing the window size fixes the problem.
Assuming the JS issues get resolved, (subject of other posts), how do we control the behavior of the checker? The options settins under tools for the whole program are not granular enough to effect each of the 33 checks that are being performed.
Several of the checks - same first name for multiple children (among others) really don't apply once you start working with historical families where the same name was used on succeeding children until one finally survived to adulthood.
