I have a branch in PGV that I want to remove. (Lost track of how they link back to me). After doing backup/download of PGV and databases, how can I proceed offline (I assume) If I do find the connection again, can the Gedcom be added back as additional part of existing? I'd keep the numbers.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2009-10-17
How big is the branch MAC?
If relatively small, simply delete each individual, one at a time, in PGV. I've done 20 or so like this, and it doesn't take long.
If larger, I recommend GEDSplit.exe. (http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gumby/ged.html). I find it helps if you do remove one person from PGV (the one who is the link to the rst of the tree you are keeping) before you download from PGV. Then its easy in that product to select an entire branch and delete it.
Putting it back later is not so easy. Lots of discussions on these pages if you hunt for them. Look for "Merging". Stephen always recommends GEDITCOM for MAC users though, which seems to do a pretty good merging job.
The other alternative is just to break the link, in PGV, but leave all the people in place. They will still be searchable, but won't appear as connected to any other part of the family. VERY easy to reconnect later if you want to.
But before you do any of this, you said "Lost track of how they link back to me". Have you used PGV's "Relationship Chart" to see how they connect to you? If your tree is in good shape I would expect EVERYONE on it to link back to you somehow, even if the link is a little convoluted at times. Thats certainly true on my 9,000 INDI tree.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
kiwi: At first I thought the connection would happen when I got enough entered. My PGV entried fall into 3, all 1 big gedcom file
GEDCOM-1: direct family links; GEDCOM-2: relatives connected via 1st cousin by marriage; GEDCOM-3: the problematic one. Correct branch links to -2 via six FAMilies however it branches off and I followed wrong branch of the tree. There are several hundred (yes it took me that long to realize my error).
Want to remove GEDCOM-3 records. Will wait until this is done before tackling which ones, if any, are to be added back, if ever.
The file URL you gave is for Windows 95 so can't use. Wanted to save for reuse the INDI numbers because there are so many. Tried GEDitCom but too cumbersome to change NAM then SURN then GIVN to "Unknown" then delete every Fact /Event. Or does this add compication?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Mac
1) Save a copy of these INDIs/FAMs/Events for future use as it would be a terrible waste of effort not to do so. Someone, if not you, might be able to use the data.
2) Delete them using PGV's delete mechanism. Shouldn't take too long.
3) Reset the INDI and FAM 'next ID' number in your SQL database to a low number and let PGV fill in, unless you'd like to renumber the entire lot and reimport. If the latter, use GEDITCOM to do the renumbering.
I think you are mistaken or unfamiliar with GEDITCOM's feature set if you find it complicated. In reality, it rather simplistic, but frankly with all the improvements in PGV, I hardly ever use it - except for merging GEDCOMs for others (or myself). It is an excellent tool for simply adding one gedcom to another, but the new version has no match/merge function, unlike Daniel's GDBI.
-Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2009-10-18
MAC, I can remove them using GEDSplit if you like, and save them as a separate GEDCOM file for future use at the same time. Just make sure they are not still linked to any INDI'd you want to keep, then send me the file.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
(Not sure why my replies don't show in paragraphs!)
kiwi: I first want to go through my "master" Reunion" file and follow which INDI/FAMs are affected. It will take bit of time as I want to b very careful. Then I can tell which ones have been entered in PGV as I xref with the PGV INDI number as I entered.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Okay, here's where I stand and would apreciate opinion. This is all within one Gedcom but for illustrating here, I've separated. PGV doesn't give written explanation of connections, only diagram so I am trying to explain in words:
Gedcom 1 links ME to JERRY BROWN a spouse to my 1st cousin.
Gedcom 2 links ME to JOHN WHITE a 2Cousin to JERRY BROWN.
Gedcom 3 links ME to MIKE SMITH a distant relation to JOHN WHITE.
"Gedcom 4"
MIKE SMTH's wife links back to her 5C3R & 5Gparents which would have very remote connection back to me. (These are the ones I was questioning removal of.)
"Gedcom 5"
MIKE SMTH's 1st wife links back to her 1C6R and 7Gparents.
I guess my question now is, if I do have the information, is it "too remote" to add or is it valid as they eventually do link back to me, however remote. Or, should I "trim" to stay within GGGparents of each wife and immediate parents/siblings?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Jeepers Mac - why are you asking us?
If your intention is to have a gedcom with blood relationships, then the answer is no - don't include these trees.
If your intention is to have a gedcom that reflects you, your relatives and their relatives, to the extent that you can document them, then the answer is YES - and do include these trees.
You have been here long enough to have observed that each PGV-admin has his or her own agenda or goal. Personally, I believe in offering ancestral tree assistance to those who may just be beginning, who may not have access to my resources, who may not have a powerful server and presentation software at their disposal, or those who have simply a passing interest - so we choose the latter. Many here choose the former method and for their reasons are equally right. I can say that, because of our 'stretching', we've found many leads and some documents, photos and maiden names for blood relatives that I believed we may not have otherwise discovered, so this reinforces our decision.
Choose for yourself. Hard drive space is cheap and with PGV no longer bogged down with a painfully slow response given larger GEDCOMs, I no longe have good reason to choose differently.
_Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2009-10-26
Stephen's right Mac, its down to personal choice. I have a similar philosophy to him. My only restriction is that EVERYONE on the tree links to everyone else somehow. No exceptions. But I do have "4th cousin of the brother's wife of the grandfather of my third cousin's sister's husband's niece three times removed" type relationships.
I think part of the answer comes down to how you want to manage the web site. Is it "yours", where you do all the work (so needing to be smaller, more focussed and manageable), or is it "ours", meaning it belongs to all the family members who actively participate in the collaborative effort of developing it. Stephen and I favour the latter.
There are parts of "my" tree I've hardly ever seen, but to another family member it is the central part of the whole system, and they spend many hours maintaining it.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Okay, thanks guys. I'm now back in the 12th Century with someone's 15G Greatgrandparents but can work up to the link to everyone else. The ones i have entered as "strays" will eventually link as work progresses. For time's sake I trimmed how direct a path I'm taking but note offline how to fill in when I can. My tree is meant for all family members, just lost my way :)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I have a branch in PGV that I want to remove. (Lost track of how they link back to me). After doing backup/download of PGV and databases, how can I proceed offline (I assume) If I do find the connection again, can the Gedcom be added back as additional part of existing? I'd keep the numbers.
How big is the branch MAC?
If relatively small, simply delete each individual, one at a time, in PGV. I've done 20 or so like this, and it doesn't take long.
If larger, I recommend GEDSplit.exe. (http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gumby/ged.html). I find it helps if you do remove one person from PGV (the one who is the link to the rst of the tree you are keeping) before you download from PGV. Then its easy in that product to select an entire branch and delete it.
Putting it back later is not so easy. Lots of discussions on these pages if you hunt for them. Look for "Merging". Stephen always recommends GEDITCOM for MAC users though, which seems to do a pretty good merging job.
The other alternative is just to break the link, in PGV, but leave all the people in place. They will still be searchable, but won't appear as connected to any other part of the family. VERY easy to reconnect later if you want to.
But before you do any of this, you said "Lost track of how they link back to me". Have you used PGV's "Relationship Chart" to see how they connect to you? If your tree is in good shape I would expect EVERYONE on it to link back to you somehow, even if the link is a little convoluted at times. Thats certainly true on my 9,000 INDI tree.
kiwi: At first I thought the connection would happen when I got enough entered. My PGV entried fall into 3, all 1 big gedcom file
GEDCOM-1: direct family links; GEDCOM-2: relatives connected via 1st cousin by marriage; GEDCOM-3: the problematic one. Correct branch links to -2 via six FAMilies however it branches off and I followed wrong branch of the tree. There are several hundred (yes it took me that long to realize my error).
Want to remove GEDCOM-3 records. Will wait until this is done before tackling which ones, if any, are to be added back, if ever.
The file URL you gave is for Windows 95 so can't use. Wanted to save for reuse the INDI numbers because there are so many. Tried GEDitCom but too cumbersome to change NAM then SURN then GIVN to "Unknown" then delete every Fact /Event. Or does this add compication?
Mac
1) Save a copy of these INDIs/FAMs/Events for future use as it would be a terrible waste of effort not to do so. Someone, if not you, might be able to use the data.
2) Delete them using PGV's delete mechanism. Shouldn't take too long.
3) Reset the INDI and FAM 'next ID' number in your SQL database to a low number and let PGV fill in, unless you'd like to renumber the entire lot and reimport. If the latter, use GEDITCOM to do the renumbering.
I think you are mistaken or unfamiliar with GEDITCOM's feature set if you find it complicated. In reality, it rather simplistic, but frankly with all the improvements in PGV, I hardly ever use it - except for merging GEDCOMs for others (or myself). It is an excellent tool for simply adding one gedcom to another, but the new version has no match/merge function, unlike Daniel's GDBI.
-Stephen
MAC, I can remove them using GEDSplit if you like, and save them as a separate GEDCOM file for future use at the same time. Just make sure they are not still linked to any INDI'd you want to keep, then send me the file.
(Not sure why my replies don't show in paragraphs!)
kiwi: I first want to go through my "master" Reunion" file and follow which INDI/FAMs are affected. It will take bit of time as I want to b very careful. Then I can tell which ones have been entered in PGV as I xref with the PGV INDI number as I entered.
Okay, here's where I stand and would apreciate opinion. This is all within one Gedcom but for illustrating here, I've separated. PGV doesn't give written explanation of connections, only diagram so I am trying to explain in words:
Gedcom 1 links ME to JERRY BROWN a spouse to my 1st cousin.
Gedcom 2 links ME to JOHN WHITE a 2Cousin to JERRY BROWN.
Gedcom 3 links ME to MIKE SMITH a distant relation to JOHN WHITE.
"Gedcom 4"
MIKE SMTH's wife links back to her 5C3R & 5Gparents which would have very remote connection back to me. (These are the ones I was questioning removal of.)
"Gedcom 5"
MIKE SMTH's 1st wife links back to her 1C6R and 7Gparents.
I guess my question now is, if I do have the information, is it "too remote" to add or is it valid as they eventually do link back to me, however remote. Or, should I "trim" to stay within GGGparents of each wife and immediate parents/siblings?
Jeepers Mac - why are you asking us?
If your intention is to have a gedcom with blood relationships, then the answer is no - don't include these trees.
If your intention is to have a gedcom that reflects you, your relatives and their relatives, to the extent that you can document them, then the answer is YES - and do include these trees.
You have been here long enough to have observed that each PGV-admin has his or her own agenda or goal. Personally, I believe in offering ancestral tree assistance to those who may just be beginning, who may not have access to my resources, who may not have a powerful server and presentation software at their disposal, or those who have simply a passing interest - so we choose the latter. Many here choose the former method and for their reasons are equally right. I can say that, because of our 'stretching', we've found many leads and some documents, photos and maiden names for blood relatives that I believed we may not have otherwise discovered, so this reinforces our decision.
Choose for yourself. Hard drive space is cheap and with PGV no longer bogged down with a painfully slow response given larger GEDCOMs, I no longe have good reason to choose differently.
_Stephen
Stephen's right Mac, its down to personal choice. I have a similar philosophy to him. My only restriction is that EVERYONE on the tree links to everyone else somehow. No exceptions. But I do have "4th cousin of the brother's wife of the grandfather of my third cousin's sister's husband's niece three times removed" type relationships.
I think part of the answer comes down to how you want to manage the web site. Is it "yours", where you do all the work (so needing to be smaller, more focussed and manageable), or is it "ours", meaning it belongs to all the family members who actively participate in the collaborative effort of developing it. Stephen and I favour the latter.
There are parts of "my" tree I've hardly ever seen, but to another family member it is the central part of the whole system, and they spend many hours maintaining it.
Okay, thanks guys. I'm now back in the 12th Century with someone's 15G Greatgrandparents but can work up to the link to everyone else. The ones i have entered as "strays" will eventually link as work progresses. For time's sake I trimmed how direct a path I'm taking but note offline how to fill in when I can. My tree is meant for all family members, just lost my way :)