* Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
I was working with my FH test file after importing from TMG (cleaned up, via direct import) when I noticed last night that apparently not all of my source records were imported:
When sorting my new FH source list by Record ID, I found that individual record numbers were missing, i.e. the sources with these source numbers were apparently not present. I looked more closely and found that some of those seemingly missing sources were there but had been assigned new numbers, resulting in a source list that in FH contained a total of 2039 records vs. my actual (correct) total number of sources in TMG is 1916. I.e. the original TMG record numbers for some sources were skipped and then these sources were assigned new source numbers in FH. The really strange thing is that in some (but not all!) instances, these new numbers are numbers that were already used as source record numbers in TMG, with those records again reassigned new numbers, making this a complete mess. Example: The original TMG source no. 1528 was renumbered to 1634 in FH, and the source that in TMG had 1634 was assigned the number 1743 in FH, and so on.
I then tried to import my TMG file (also cleaned up before import) once again, this time via GEDCOM. Now the FH total number of sources corresponded with the original TMG total number of sources, both showing the correct total number of 1916. But: Some source numbers are still not there and unlike with the direct import, the sources themselves are now missing altogether (not reassigned new numbers).
To summarize:
- During direct import, some (not all) source record numbers are skipped and those "skipped" sources are then assigned new record numbers in FH, partly numbers that had been already assigned in TMG.
- During Gedcom import, the total number of sources is 1916, both in the original TMG file and the new FH file. But there are still skipped source numbers and this time, these sources are nowhere to be found in the FH file, they are simply missing.
Has anyone seen this? Once again, I tried to search the forum etc. for this problem but didn't find anything. I'd appreciate any insight and help you can give.
When sorting my new FH source list by Record ID, I found that individual record numbers were missing, i.e. the sources with these source numbers were apparently not present. I looked more closely and found that some of those seemingly missing sources were there but had been assigned new numbers, resulting in a source list that in FH contained a total of 2039 records vs. my actual (correct) total number of sources in TMG is 1916. I.e. the original TMG record numbers for some sources were skipped and then these sources were assigned new source numbers in FH. The really strange thing is that in some (but not all!) instances, these new numbers are numbers that were already used as source record numbers in TMG, with those records again reassigned new numbers, making this a complete mess. Example: The original TMG source no. 1528 was renumbered to 1634 in FH, and the source that in TMG had 1634 was assigned the number 1743 in FH, and so on.
I then tried to import my TMG file (also cleaned up before import) once again, this time via GEDCOM. Now the FH total number of sources corresponded with the original TMG total number of sources, both showing the correct total number of 1916. But: Some source numbers are still not there and unlike with the direct import, the sources themselves are now missing altogether (not reassigned new numbers).
To summarize:
- During direct import, some (not all) source record numbers are skipped and those "skipped" sources are then assigned new record numbers in FH, partly numbers that had been already assigned in TMG.
- During Gedcom import, the total number of sources is 1916, both in the original TMG file and the new FH file. But there are still skipped source numbers and this time, these sources are nowhere to be found in the FH file, they are simply missing.
Has anyone seen this? Once again, I tried to search the forum etc. for this problem but didn't find anything. I'd appreciate any insight and help you can give.
- Jane
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8514
- Joined: 01 Nov 2002 15:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Somerset, England
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
I have never used TMG, is it possible one or two of your sources have non numeric references, which is causing FH to renumber them?
With the gedcom movement, are the sources in the original file exported from TMG or has TMG missed them. You can open the gedcom file in a Text Editor and search for the source name?
With the gedcom movement, are the sources in the original file exported from TMG or has TMG missed them. You can open the gedcom file in a Text Editor and search for the source name?
Jane
My Family History : My Photography "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."
My Family History : My Photography "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."
-
- Megastar
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: 11 Oct 2014 07:59
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Schnarps and Jane I still have projects in both fh and in TMG.
I have never counted the sources in either.
I can check my trees if you give me some guidance.
My mothers tree has come into fh with (currently) 1809 sources (by source number)
How does one count how many sources there are in TMG?
If I open the same tree in TMG and look at the Master source list there are possibly 981.
This doesnt seem a very likely result. But in my case this could well be user ignorance.
I have never counted the sources in either.
I can check my trees if you give me some guidance.
My mothers tree has come into fh with (currently) 1809 sources (by source number)
How does one count how many sources there are in TMG?
If I open the same tree in TMG and look at the Master source list there are possibly 981.
This doesnt seem a very likely result. But in my case this could well be user ignorance.
Genealogy site at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.anc ... /~wilcock/
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Jane,
Thank you for the tip of checking the Gedcom in a text editor. I never knew one could do that.
It turns out the Gedcom file already contained the incorrectly assigned source numbers. This is just too strange. I might have to experiment with some Gedcom export settings to see if that makes a difference. TMG offers an option for "Enhanced GEDCOM tag export" - I think I checked that option before and though I am not sure this has anything to do with my problem, I will try to export without this checked...
I wonder how the direct import is handling that in order to arrive at skipping certain TMG numbers and then reassigning them other or new ones... These sources must have something in common and it is not yet apparent to me what that might be.
As to your other suggestion of non-numerical references: I looked at the affected sources but so far did not see any difference compared to the ones that converted to FH correctly.
Thank you for the tip of checking the Gedcom in a text editor. I never knew one could do that.
It turns out the Gedcom file already contained the incorrectly assigned source numbers. This is just too strange. I might have to experiment with some Gedcom export settings to see if that makes a difference. TMG offers an option for "Enhanced GEDCOM tag export" - I think I checked that option before and though I am not sure this has anything to do with my problem, I will try to export without this checked...
I wonder how the direct import is handling that in order to arrive at skipping certain TMG numbers and then reassigning them other or new ones... These sources must have something in common and it is not yet apparent to me what that might be.
As to your other suggestion of non-numerical references: I looked at the affected sources but so far did not see any difference compared to the ones that converted to FH correctly.
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
E. Wilcock, Thanks for responding.
The check is quite quick:
In TMG, go to your Master Source List (Tools > Master Source List). The list usually defaults to sorting alphabetically by 'Abbreviation' but that's not what you want in this case. Just click on the column heading 'Source#' and the list then sorts by source no. Then scroll to the very end to see what the last source number is. That's how many sources you have.
In FH, open the Records Window, then the Sources Tab. If you click on the column heading Record Id, it should sort by record number. Just like in TMG, scroll down to the very end and look at the last record Id number in the list.
Of course this would not work for comparison purposes if the TMG tree is older and you have worked with FH, adding sources there, but not in TMG. I hope this helps but please remember that I am a total newbie myself when it comes to FH
Also, as I said, it seems that at least my GEDCOM export file (generated in TMG) already messed up source numbers, so the total number of sources is seemingly correct in both programs after a GEDCOM export, but some sources were reassigned different/new numbers which one only finds out about by looking more closely.
PS: In TMG (don't know how this works in FH) you could - over time - have some unassigned source numbers (e.g. by deleting a source etc.). That could result in pseudo-skipped source numbers for which no source actually exists anymore. But this is not what I am talking about. I have no such unassigned source numbers in TMG.
The check is quite quick:
In TMG, go to your Master Source List (Tools > Master Source List). The list usually defaults to sorting alphabetically by 'Abbreviation' but that's not what you want in this case. Just click on the column heading 'Source#' and the list then sorts by source no. Then scroll to the very end to see what the last source number is. That's how many sources you have.
In FH, open the Records Window, then the Sources Tab. If you click on the column heading Record Id, it should sort by record number. Just like in TMG, scroll down to the very end and look at the last record Id number in the list.
Of course this would not work for comparison purposes if the TMG tree is older and you have worked with FH, adding sources there, but not in TMG. I hope this helps but please remember that I am a total newbie myself when it comes to FH
Also, as I said, it seems that at least my GEDCOM export file (generated in TMG) already messed up source numbers, so the total number of sources is seemingly correct in both programs after a GEDCOM export, but some sources were reassigned different/new numbers which one only finds out about by looking more closely.
PS: In TMG (don't know how this works in FH) you could - over time - have some unassigned source numbers (e.g. by deleting a source etc.). That could result in pseudo-skipped source numbers for which no source actually exists anymore. But this is not what I am talking about. I have no such unassigned source numbers in TMG.
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28409
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Those scenarios sound somewhat strange, so here are some tips to help with your analysis.
The GEDCOM Specification does NOT require products to preserve Record Id on import (but many do).
The only requirement is that for each type of record their Record Id must all be unique.
Do NOT rely on the largest Record Id to determine the number of records in FH (it is usually misleading).
Use the File > File Statistics command to show the Record Counts.
In TMG the command is File > Project Summary.
Use any plain text editor such as Windows Notepad to investigate GEDCOM files.
A Source record has the following general form:
0 @S2@ SOUR where the S2 within @ signs is the Record Id but FH uses only the numeric portion
1 AUTH Judith Anderson
1 TITL The Life of Scott Munro
1 PUBL Rydell House
1 TEXT See Handwritten Transcription
1 NOTE Interview conducted in June 2009
1 REFN LK12 is a Custom Id reference
1 REPO @R4@ is a Repository record attached with Record Id of R4
1 OBJE @O37@ is a Multimedia record attached with Record Id of O37
Apart from the leading letter, FH usually tries to utilise the Record Id number.
But if non-numeric or greater than 2,147,483,647 then it will renumber them starting from 1.
See glossary:record_types_and_record_id|> Record Types and Record Id.
The GEDCOM Specification does NOT require products to preserve Record Id on import (but many do).
The only requirement is that for each type of record their Record Id must all be unique.
Do NOT rely on the largest Record Id to determine the number of records in FH (it is usually misleading).
Use the File > File Statistics command to show the Record Counts.
In TMG the command is File > Project Summary.
Use any plain text editor such as Windows Notepad to investigate GEDCOM files.
A Source record has the following general form:
0 @S2@ SOUR where the S2 within @ signs is the Record Id but FH uses only the numeric portion
1 AUTH Judith Anderson
1 TITL The Life of Scott Munro
1 PUBL Rydell House
1 TEXT See Handwritten Transcription
1 NOTE Interview conducted in June 2009
1 REFN LK12 is a Custom Id reference
1 REPO @R4@ is a Repository record attached with Record Id of R4
1 OBJE @O37@ is a Multimedia record attached with Record Id of O37
Apart from the leading letter, FH usually tries to utilise the Record Id number.
But if non-numeric or greater than 2,147,483,647 then it will renumber them starting from 1.
See glossary:record_types_and_record_id|> Record Types and Record Id.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Thank you, Mike.
I did a project summary/file statistics comp and these differ quite a bit (This is for the GEDCOM import file, not the direct import). Number of people is identical, but number of source records is 1916 in TMG, and 1411 in FH. Which is not surprising because even though the highest number is 1916 in both TMG and FH, there are a number of sources (incl. their respective record numbers) missing in FH, as previously noted. So I assume now that I have exactly 505 missing source records that were not converted to GEDCOM and subsequently FH. The ones that were converted, however, seem to have identical record numbers in both programs (as far as I can tell through spot checks). Probably would need to fine-comb through them to say for sure.
Non-numeric isn't an issue, and neither is the max number you gave.
Number of repository records and place records also differ but I have not had time yet to look into those.
It is puzzling to me because I cannot tell what would be different about the ones that were converted to Gedcom, and the ones that weren't. Could it have something to do with 'Type of Source'? TMG might have had several source types that did not convert to Gedcom and consequently sources defined as such types were omitted? Just guessing here. I will have to play around with this, change source types etc. and see if that changes anything. Just hope my trial doesn't run out on me before I am done testing this.
Thank you much for your help - it did clarify some things for me, such as the Gedcom spec not requiring preservation of record ids...
I did a project summary/file statistics comp and these differ quite a bit (This is for the GEDCOM import file, not the direct import). Number of people is identical, but number of source records is 1916 in TMG, and 1411 in FH. Which is not surprising because even though the highest number is 1916 in both TMG and FH, there are a number of sources (incl. their respective record numbers) missing in FH, as previously noted. So I assume now that I have exactly 505 missing source records that were not converted to GEDCOM and subsequently FH. The ones that were converted, however, seem to have identical record numbers in both programs (as far as I can tell through spot checks). Probably would need to fine-comb through them to say for sure.
Non-numeric isn't an issue, and neither is the max number you gave.
Number of repository records and place records also differ but I have not had time yet to look into those.
It is puzzling to me because I cannot tell what would be different about the ones that were converted to Gedcom, and the ones that weren't. Could it have something to do with 'Type of Source'? TMG might have had several source types that did not convert to Gedcom and consequently sources defined as such types were omitted? Just guessing here. I will have to play around with this, change source types etc. and see if that changes anything. Just hope my trial doesn't run out on me before I am done testing this.
Thank you much for your help - it did clarify some things for me, such as the Gedcom spec not requiring preservation of record ids...
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28409
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
You should perform a similar comparison with a Direct Import from TMG.
So it seems that the Record Id all tally correctly, and just some records are omitted, which is a known scenario.
See how_to:import_from_tmg|> Import from The Master Genealogist (TMG) that identifies Citations (and thus Sources) that get omitted, and other things that get omitted, etc.
Thus any Citation on a Relationship Tag and any Citation linking a Source to a Source is omitted, as they cannot be represented in GEDCOM. Any Repository or Media only linked to such omitted Sources will also be omitted probably.
See Import Relationship Citations in above [kb]|[/kb] reference for a workaround.
I suspect Place records in FH and TMG are rather different, and are non-standard GEDCOM anyway.
So it seems that the Record Id all tally correctly, and just some records are omitted, which is a known scenario.
See how_to:import_from_tmg|> Import from The Master Genealogist (TMG) that identifies Citations (and thus Sources) that get omitted, and other things that get omitted, etc.
Thus any Citation on a Relationship Tag and any Citation linking a Source to a Source is omitted, as they cannot be represented in GEDCOM. Any Repository or Media only linked to such omitted Sources will also be omitted probably.
See Import Relationship Citations in above [kb]|[/kb] reference for a workaround.
I suspect Place records in FH and TMG are rather different, and are non-standard GEDCOM anyway.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Will do, Mike. Thank you again for your patience and willingness to read through my posts. While I am an advanced user of TMG and computers, incl. basic knowledge of programming etc., this is by and large stuff I have never looked at and consequently am a bit lost. I'll check everything you listed. Thanks again.
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28409
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Please confirm that contrary to your subject line, Record Id are NOT wrongly assigned, just some are missing.
These issues are typical of migration between products.
The GEDCOM Specification handles most stuff, but product specific extensions pose a challenge.
However, without GEDCOM the challenge would be inordinately greater.
These issues are typical of migration between products.
The GEDCOM Specification handles most stuff, but product specific extensions pose a challenge.
However, without GEDCOM the challenge would be inordinately greater.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Gedcom import: They are missing altogether, apparently 505 total.
Direct Import: The sources seem to be all there per se (FH file statistics lists 1,916 source records which is correct), but the numbers are in part wrongly assigned, i.e. some sources were given new numbers, or assigned numbers that had already been assigned to other sources in TMG (resulting in those sources also getting new numbers, all the way up to 2,039 as the highest record number assigned). As I said in my example: TMG no. 1528 became FH no. 1634, TMG no. 1634 then became FH no. 1743 and so on. The new FH no. 1528 used to be TMG no. 1424. Very confusing.
I could understand a random record number assignment but I don't understand why some are exactly what they are supposed to be, and others got new numbers, or numbers that had already been assigned in TMG.
Direct Import: The sources seem to be all there per se (FH file statistics lists 1,916 source records which is correct), but the numbers are in part wrongly assigned, i.e. some sources were given new numbers, or assigned numbers that had already been assigned to other sources in TMG (resulting in those sources also getting new numbers, all the way up to 2,039 as the highest record number assigned). As I said in my example: TMG no. 1528 became FH no. 1634, TMG no. 1634 then became FH no. 1743 and so on. The new FH no. 1528 used to be TMG no. 1424. Very confusing.
I could understand a random record number assignment but I don't understand why some are exactly what they are supposed to be, and others got new numbers, or numbers that had already been assigned in TMG.
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28409
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Yes, that Record Id numbering does seem strange.
But at least all the Source records migrated across, and once you have moved on from TMG to FH the Record Id won't matter.
In the Direct Import Records Window on the Sources tab, I wonder if there are 505 Sources with Citations = 0?
Those are the 'missing' Relationship Citation Sources that FH has imported, but the Citations themselves are missing.
i.e. There is no link between the family Relationship and the Source record.
But there are ways in FH to insert those links. See how_to:recording_credibility_of_family_relationships|> Recording Credibility of Family Relationships.
When viewed like that, does the Record Id numbering look any more rational?
But at least all the Source records migrated across, and once you have moved on from TMG to FH the Record Id won't matter.
In the Direct Import Records Window on the Sources tab, I wonder if there are 505 Sources with Citations = 0?
Those are the 'missing' Relationship Citation Sources that FH has imported, but the Citations themselves are missing.
i.e. There is no link between the family Relationship and the Source record.
But there are ways in FH to insert those links. See how_to:recording_credibility_of_family_relationships|> Recording Credibility of Family Relationships.
When viewed like that, does the Record Id numbering look any more rational?
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
The problem is that unfortunately it does matter a great deal to me.
Over many years, I have cross-referenced the actual image scans of the source records with their respective TMG source number as well as (in TMG) the TMG source numbers with the file names of the image scans (entered into the TMG Citation Reference field). So I really need to figure this out.
I will check out your suggestion regarding "Citations=0". I had thought of this earlier and checked in TMG if the affected sources were ones that had not yet been cited, but that is not the case. I will now look at it in FH. Maybe citations for these sources were there in TMG but got lost in transfer. Will report back...
Over many years, I have cross-referenced the actual image scans of the source records with their respective TMG source number as well as (in TMG) the TMG source numbers with the file names of the image scans (entered into the TMG Citation Reference field). So I really need to figure this out.
I will check out your suggestion regarding "Citations=0". I had thought of this earlier and checked in TMG if the affected sources were ones that had not yet been cited, but that is not the case. I will now look at it in FH. Maybe citations for these sources were there in TMG but got lost in transfer. Will report back...
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28409
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
OK, since it will be a once off exercise, it is straightforward to renumber the Source records to match your Image names.
See glossary:work_with_record_identifiers|> Work With Record Identifiers referenced from glossary:record_types_and_record_id|> Record Types and Record Id that I mentioned earlier.
See glossary:work_with_record_identifiers|> Work With Record Identifiers referenced from glossary:record_types_and_record_id|> Record Types and Record Id that I mentioned earlier.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
-
- Megastar
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: 11 Oct 2014 07:59
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
I bring my TMG Projects into fh using the Direct Import - not using Gedcom.
I export a Gecom from TMG to run Mike's invaluable plug in to preserve sort dates.
I n my mother's tree mentioned above, there is no match. In TMG they run to 1063. And in the Gedcom too (I have just read it in Notepad)
Whereas fh source numbers come to 1809. It is possible I added a few more sources working in fh but not that many.
However there is a break in the sequence in fh . a run to 588 and then restart at 1162.
If I open the TMG Sample file in fh there are 64 sources. In TMG there seem to be only 39. have you tried this?
I fear I have never paid much attention to ID numbers of people nor source numbers. I have worked and added considerable data in fh to three of my projects previously in TMG and have never noticed any expected sources missing.
Most of my work in fh - using queries and doing data entry has been on Places studies, Projects that I began in fh. It was these that won me over to fh, and I didnt pay much attention to the import. Just opened it and got on with the work.
I export a Gecom from TMG to run Mike's invaluable plug in to preserve sort dates.
I n my mother's tree mentioned above, there is no match. In TMG they run to 1063. And in the Gedcom too (I have just read it in Notepad)
Whereas fh source numbers come to 1809. It is possible I added a few more sources working in fh but not that many.
However there is a break in the sequence in fh . a run to 588 and then restart at 1162.
If I open the TMG Sample file in fh there are 64 sources. In TMG there seem to be only 39. have you tried this?
I fear I have never paid much attention to ID numbers of people nor source numbers. I have worked and added considerable data in fh to three of my projects previously in TMG and have never noticed any expected sources missing.
Most of my work in fh - using queries and doing data entry has been on Places studies, Projects that I began in fh. It was these that won me over to fh, and I didnt pay much attention to the import. Just opened it and got on with the work.
Genealogy site at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.anc ... /~wilcock/
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28409
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
As I said earlier, do NOT rely on largest Record Id to give record counts.
Use File > File Statistics in FH and File > Project Summary in TMG. The Sample project has 39 Sources in both!!!!!
Individuals = People = 64
Sources = Sources = 39
Repositories = Repositories = 8
Media = Exhibits = 18
Use File > File Statistics in FH and File > Project Summary in TMG. The Sample project has 39 Sources in both!!!!!
Individuals = People = 64
Sources = Sources = 39
Repositories = Repositories = 8
Media = Exhibits = 18
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
-
- Megastar
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: 11 Oct 2014 07:59
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Sorry Mike - my fault but am confused as I thought the problem was the ID numbers for the sources? Not any lack of sources.
I did say that after bringing four family history projects plus one research project from TMG to fh, I havent noticed the loss of a single source. And only volunteered to try out these source numbers when Jane said she had no access to TMG.
I did say that after bringing four family history projects plus one research project from TMG to fh, I havent noticed the loss of a single source. And only volunteered to try out these source numbers when Jane said she had no access to TMG.
Genealogy site at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.anc ... /~wilcock/
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28409
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
The lack of Sources problem only applies to GEDCOM import.
The Record Id mis-assignment applies to Direct import, and is only a problem because Schnarps uses them in Media filenames.
In both cases the Relationship Citations are missing.
The Record Id mis-assignment applies to Direct import, and is only a problem because Schnarps uses them in Media filenames.
In both cases the Relationship Citations are missing.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
As Mike has said, use File > Project Summary in TMG to check the statistics of numbers of Sources, etc (you're getting to know TMG, Mike ). You can also run Report -> Project Information for more detail and a print/saved copy.
However, to go back to the original problem, I think it may be due to not running the TMG Maintenance options, (Optimise, Validate File Integrity) before doing the direct import (which is the only sensible way to import into FH).
Don
However, to go back to the original problem, I think it may be due to not running the TMG Maintenance options, (Optimise, Validate File Integrity) before doing the direct import (which is the only sensible way to import into FH).
Don
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Don, Thanks, but I run Maintenance often as a rule in general, and have definitely run it before Direct Import and also Gedcom Import, so that is not the problem.
I am in the process now of renumbering via the Record Identifier tool as suggested by Mike. It will take a while since there were not only new numbers assigned but many sources "switched" numbers, however I am reasonably hopeful that this will solve my issue.
I am in the process now of renumbering via the Record Identifier tool as suggested by Mike. It will take a while since there were not only new numbers assigned but many sources "switched" numbers, however I am reasonably hopeful that this will solve my issue.
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28409
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Don, that advice to run File > Maintenance is in how_to:import_from_tmg|> Import from The Master Genealogist (TMG) TMG Tips.
Schnarps, I suggest you wait until all TMG import issues are resolved before renumbering Source Record Id.
Otherwise, if you need to perform the TMG import again, you risk having to renumber all over again.
(It might be possible to Merge an old import with a new import and preserve Source Record Id but why complicate things.)
Schnarps, I suggest you wait until all TMG import issues are resolved before renumbering Source Record Id.
Otherwise, if you need to perform the TMG import again, you risk having to renumber all over again.
(It might be possible to Merge an old import with a new import and preserve Source Record Id but why complicate things.)
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
Thanks, Mike. That sounds like smart advice.
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
I do question why you’d ever need to know the source ID, let alone worry that it might change.
In my 20+ years of research, I’ve never referred to a source ID. (Source yes, ID no). I always find sources by their title, not their ID.
I’m of the firm belief that these ID’s are part of the internal workings of a program, and shouldn’t be of concern to the user of that program.
The only ID I ever use is my Custom ID. This has a unique value for every individual, AND tells me at a glance where someone fits into my tree, and what is more important, is used to identify various documents assoctiated with that individual. Far more useful to me than an arbitrarily allocated ID, which has been pointed out, will not be guaranteed to transfer between different programs, what’s more, if it can change, pound to a penny it will change, sod’s law and all that
In my 20+ years of research, I’ve never referred to a source ID. (Source yes, ID no). I always find sources by their title, not their ID.
I’m of the firm belief that these ID’s are part of the internal workings of a program, and shouldn’t be of concern to the user of that program.
The only ID I ever use is my Custom ID. This has a unique value for every individual, AND tells me at a glance where someone fits into my tree, and what is more important, is used to identify various documents assoctiated with that individual. Far more useful to me than an arbitrarily allocated ID, which has been pointed out, will not be guaranteed to transfer between different programs, what’s more, if it can change, pound to a penny it will change, sod’s law and all that
Mike Loney
Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com
Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com
-
- Superstar
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 18 Dec 2014 11:06
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Suffolk, England
- Contact:
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
I am with Mike Loney on this as, in FH, I never need to refer back to the original image as it can be called up from within the program. Yes, I do keep the original images but in a named file system and not a reference or ID form but that is only there if the unthinkable happens and I lose everything that I have added as a media item into FH.
I am a former TMG user and I found that it paid to look at what FH has to offer and change some of my former methods of recording with a new approach. Although it took me some time to achieve, I managed in the process to get rid of 3 lever arch files of paper records, so was well worthwhile.
Brian
I am a former TMG user and I found that it paid to look at what FH has to offer and change some of my former methods of recording with a new approach. Although it took me some time to achieve, I managed in the process to get rid of 3 lever arch files of paper records, so was well worthwhile.
Brian
Re: Source Record ID Numbers missing or wrongly assigned after import from TMG
With due respect: I have thought out and organized my research in a certain way - and it requires the source record ID numbers.
My question was about the sources changing numbers when migrating from TMG to FH and how I could retain my original numbering. Mike Tate was very helpful in pointing me in the right direction. I was not inquiring about how to organize my research in a way that suits the program, but if there was a way to adapt FH to my organization. I am currently exploring FH in that way and will have no problem if it doesn‘t do what I need. But after 20+ years of my own research I am very happy with my approach and if FH couldn‘t accomodate that, it would simply not be the right program for me. Thank you.
My question was about the sources changing numbers when migrating from TMG to FH and how I could retain my original numbering. Mike Tate was very helpful in pointing me in the right direction. I was not inquiring about how to organize my research in a way that suits the program, but if there was a way to adapt FH to my organization. I am currently exploring FH in that way and will have no problem if it doesn‘t do what I need. But after 20+ years of my own research I am very happy with my approach and if FH couldn‘t accomodate that, it would simply not be the right program for me. Thank you.