* Clean Up and Validation Guidance

[David Potter]

Hi Forum. I hope this post finds to all safe and well.
I would like some help/guidance please. I have a tree in FH which was derived from TMG V9 before its demise. The Project research has been ongoing for the best part of 25 years with breaks here and there. With me recently retiring I decided to pick up research once again and clean up, add consistency and generally revisit and validate/question all the info supporting the Project.
Easier said than done, even with the modest file stats shown below it is a huge task.
Record Counts...
Individual Records:1508
Family Records: 396
Note Records: 21
Source Records: 1284
Repository Records: 122
Submitter Records: 0
Submission Records: 0
Media Records: 1467
Place Records: 360

What I think is the best course of action is to separate out my Direct Paternal/Maternal Ancestral Line from this project and creat a new Project containing just that line. Then I can clean and re-verify the more manageable 250 Individuals without losing focus and gradually add back in the other ancestors progressively and in a controlled manner. Hopefully by then Version 7 will be released with additional tools to assist in this maybe. Or I use AS consistently with the correct templates. You'll read between the lines that using AS incorrectly hasn't helped my cause.

Question: What is the best way to do this?
1) Query selecting Direct Line and then Export to Gedcom file for use in creating the new project
2) Split Tree Helper
3) Copy Project and strip out the unwanted records
4) Other but excluding Start Over

Which method would leave me with a Direct Ancestral line but with as much supporting data intact such as Sources, Places, etc?

Thank You All. Stay Safe.

[jbtapscott]

I also moved over from TMG when its demise was announced and did consider the "split" projects approach but eventually decided against it, primarily because of the risk of loosing / duplicating source records etc etc. Ultimately, I used Named Lists and Flags to mark what I could call my "primary" records - in essence, stuff I should concentrate on!

It hasn't been an easy task and its not completed yet, but it has allowed me to combine two tasks - "tidy up" and "investigate new". Things like the 1911 Census and 1939 Register have also come along that have provided additional info, so helping the tidy up. I also spent quite a bit of time "playing" with AS options / templates until I got to the stage that I was happy the right info was going in to FH and that it was going in to the fields, etc. that made subsequent generation of my website easy. I probably spent 3-4 months working on this type of thing before getting any serious updates type work done.

[David Potter]

Thank you Brent. Yes that time frame feels about right if I carry on as is. But I'm convinced I have a lot of 'dross' in my tree from being over zealous when hits came up in Genes Reunited, etc.

I actually have a Source titled: Import Missing Individuals from TMG - 16 Mar 2017 tagged to 626 people to remind me to revisit what I found and validate. The whole tree has become a real minefield of questions and mistakes.

I do know that my Direct Ancestral Line is pretty accurate; as I have used Professional Researchers and reliable Cousins to build and verify it. Also I can then upload the cleaned direct line to say Family Search, Ancestry, etc to validate further. I'm convinced that this would be the best approach for me at least. I just need to find the best method to achieve it.

Many Thanks

[davidf]

I would be wary of splitting the project and then transferring stuff as you validate it. We don't have "cut and paste", so you have to constantly export and merge (individual, family, and media records and media) which is a bit of pain.

Instead I think I would create a flag "Revalidate" and flag everything. Then as you verify, you remove the flag. If a relationship looks doubtful, consider splitting it off within the project (it will then fall into a different pool)

If you find a source is dodgy (or reliable) you can easily check other records that rely on that source, without flipping between two projects.

[David Potter]

Hi David Thanks for the reply. I see the merit in using the Flags and Pool value to distance unreliable Individuals, but I'm still then left with the task of checking everybody in my tree and every piece of info supporting them being there. I would not use merge between the two Projects, rather re-enter from scratch with my better understanding of how AS operates.
It a mindset thing I guess, I just get overwhelmed and quite easily distracted when working with my tree. I think it is too much to pick away at and spend many hours proving and filtering out stuff that should never have been there.

Better to start with a 'Core' Direct Ancestral Tree that I have a lot of faith in it's accuracy. It's not like I intend to delete the older tree as it can be useful as a reference.

Many thanks
David

[tatewise]

Hi David,
I understand absolutely that you do not intend to split your Project into branches permanently.
You want to prune back to purely direct ancestral lines, review their accuracy, and then rebuild branches bit by bit.

I think the easiest way to do that is to first use Copy Project and then the Split Tree Helper.
You may have to experiment a little to decide how best to select the Individual records to delete/keep.
You must also decide which of the Other Records delete options suit you best.
Probably, Delete *** Records left with no links to them is the cleanest option.
However, the Split Tree Helper overlooks Place Records, so purge those with 0 Links manually afterwards, unless you have lots of manual lat/longitude and other information recorded in those records.
Also after deleting Media Records their Media files will need purging with the Check for Unlinked Media Plugin.

Experiment with that method versus the Flags & Named Lists method suggested by others before taking the plunge.

At the same time ensure your strategy and AS Templates, etc, are exactly what you want.
Since FH V7 appears to have significant improvements to sources, with templates and word-processing features, it may be worth waiting until it is available before getting too entrenched.

[Gowermick]

Despite all the good advice offered so far, the one simple thing missing that I haven’t seen mentioned is ‘Named Lists’.
I run a query that lists only my direct ancestors, then copy the results into a Named List called ‘Direct Ancestors’ . I can then include this list in any other query, to restrict the results to just Direct Ancestors, by including the first line of the query to be ‘Include all in Direct Ancestor List’, so excluding Uncles, Aunts & Cousins from the result set! Thus focusing the research as you requested.

Another tip is to assign an ‘End of Line’ image to all your ancestors with no known parents.
Every so often, I run a query to list all my ancestors who use this image , so I can work through the Resultset trying break down the brickwalls.

As you breakdown a brickwall, you need to re-run the query to keep the ‘Direct Ancestor’ list up to date.

[David Potter]

@Mike Tate. Thank you and precisely that. It will restore my wandering focus and allow me to clean up and revalidate a core group of Direct Ancestors. Then progressively build upon this by bringing the more distant individuals back into the tree in a more consistent and thought about manner. I'll check out the Split Tree Helper as you suggest and compare to other suggestions. And yes certainly no new input via AS or FH until I know what for sure V7 will bring along.

@Mike Gower. I had thought about Named Lists, and to be fair they have been suggested in other posts in this thread along with using Flags. But the approach still leaves a large portion of very sketchy research present. So I would rather bite the bullet now rather than later.

Thanks everyone - I have the basis now for a trial on how to handle this.

Kind regards

David potter