efcharvet 0 Report post Posted March 20, 2010 I am wondering if TMG plans to become FamilySearch Certified? (Competing products such as Legacy Family Tree and RootsMagic are certified.) According a web page about FamilySearch Affiliates and Product Certification ( http://www.familysearch.org/eng/affiliates/index.html ), here is what is required: Certified Features: •Access : Search and read new.FamilySearch.org family tree. •Helper : Enter and exit Helper Mode and clearly display the helper status. •Multi-Language : Displays navigation, content, help, and all messaging in languages supported by new.FamilySearch.org family tree. When available, these translations can be easily installed by users. •Ordinance Reservation : In addition to Access, Update, and Ordinance Status the application needs to be able to identify persons needing ordinances, prepare for Ordinance Request, and check for duplicate ordinances. •Ordinance Request : In addition to Access, Update, and Ordinance Status, the application needs to request ordinances in order to print the cards. •Ordinance Status : In addition to Access, the application needs to be able to read and display ordinances status information. •PAF Add-In : Enables PAF 5 program to access, update, sync, and print with new.FamilySearch.org family tree. Information can continue to be loaded and saved in the PAF file format. Affiliates also offer their product with this feature for free or with a 60-day trial. PrintPrint multiple reports using data from new.FamilySearch.org family tree.Research WikiSearch Research Wiki and display results and detail pages. •Print Service : Purchase multiple poster-size reports by submitting family tree files to a print service. •Sync : Sync both ways and match/combine persons: -- Ability to keep FamilySearch family tree current with Affiliate's application for selected persons and information ("Sync-up"). -- Ability to Affiliate's application current with FamilySearch family tree for selected persons and information ("Sync-down"). • UpdatePublish to new.FamilySearch.org family tree. Also includes request to combine matched individuals. On my last visit to the Family History Library, a researcher mentioned that he never considered buying TMG because it was not an "approved product." I didn't have a clue what he meant, but he then pointed me to the website above. Perhaps you know about this and are addressing the issues to stay competitive with Legacy, et al., but since it was news to me, I thought I would pass it along. Regards, Earl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jim.orrell 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2010 I like the idea very much, the more communication/ ability to share the better. At first site this sounds very complicated and harks back to the GEDCOM/ GENBRIDGE sharing of data discussions. However, if products like Legacy and Rootsmagic can do it, why not TMG? Or is TMG so different in structure it is not possible? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EMTTT 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) Edited May 9, 2010 by EMTTT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Terry Reigel 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2010 I pretty much agree with you EMITT. I regard the Internet as an extremely valuable tool, and use it regularly to find original sources, especially scanned images of source material, and also find leads and locate other researchers working on my lines. (While many have no clue where their "data" came from as you mention - a few can offer valuable clues or even provide copies of obscure source documents.) But I've never used the Internet Search feature in TMG, and don't see any value in it. I find useful searches often require one to be much more creative than a simple look-up. And I'd certainly never want a program to import data from the Internet into my project directly. I want complete control of what data I use, and what I record about it. Nevertheless, it appears there is some demand for such features by some users, so I suppose that has to be considered by the developers, and that's fine with me so long as it doesn't interfere with the way I want to use the program. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EMTTT 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) Edited May 9, 2010 by EMTTT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Dietz 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2010 I need to respond to this thread. I have been using TMG for many years. I had started with the good old 3 ring notebooks and 3x5 index cards. I still have boxes of these which I need to go through and transcribe some of the stuff into my current database. I then switched to Family Roots version 2. I used it on my Apple 2E and when it went bust with version 3 I started looking for a replacement. By then I did have an IBM clone and was running Windows. I searched the Internet for reviews of software and found TMG. I am quite satisfied for the most part with the product (now using 7.4) except for a couple of minor things I would like to see. But I am troubled by one aspect of TMG. At our local genealogical societies (I belong to two of the three) there are many users of Legacy, FTM, and PAF. When I ask them why, they say ease of use, especially the FTM and PAF users. I think it would behoove TMG to have two products, TMG as it now is and TMG Lite. The lite product would only have the basic features, i.e., similar to PAF or FTM. It would also be completely compatible in an upwards direction to the regular product. That way those beginners or researchers who only want a simple database to record the basic stuff would have a product which would compete with others on the market. My aunt is one of these type. She has a couple of thousand relatives in her database using FTM. When she looks at my stuff she says it is too complicated. In the context of this discussion, the lite product could have the interface into the Internet that many people want. They are basically looking for an easy access to easily found data for the most part. However for those individuals who want to expand because they really get into the capabilities of the project(s) they would be able to upgrade easily into the full TMG. At that point they would be at the level as Terry says of doing their own searches. Just a thought. Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RWells 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2010 Just my 2 cents worth. If I want to do a internet search I use GenSmarts and do the look up then if I want I can copy the results back to TMG using copy and past or just key it back in. What helps is I don't have to key in the search criteria each time I do a search. If I want to do a search of newFamilySearch I use FamilyInsight to do the look up. Again I do not have to enter the search criteria but if I want the results I can copy and paste or just key the results back to TMG. I have to agree the internet searches of RM or Legacy are pretty good and I would like to see them intergreted into TMG and allow me to decide what I want moved to TMG. Then fact that you do not have to key in name, dob, pob etc into the search criteria each time saves a lot of time. If the search dose not work then most sites have the ability to refine the serch. Roger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
efcharvet 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2010 " ... I don't have an objection to the ability for a program to integrate with the internet. My reasons for leaving The Family Tree Maker had to do with my perception that the integration seemed more important than the end users ability to have the tools to record and report the data. ... My reason for changing from Legacy had to do with my decision to go with the better program, triggered by Legacy appearing to begin going down the same path as The Family Tree Maker. Legacy didn't lose any functionality when it added Family Search capabilities, but this was the turning point for me ..., Legacy seems to be heading in the direction of The Family Tree Maker. ... I would be saddened if TMG would lose functionality or force internet integration though. I really value my ability to decide what is in my project, how I can look at my information for future research or reporting, and what I share with others. EMTTT: It is very interesting to me that you see this in terms of a Win-Lose proposition. I don't understand why the prospect of adding competitive features that might increase TMG sales could cause you to even suggest that "TMG would lose functionality." I really don't understand your "perception" that efforts to add optional features to integrate with the one of the largest genealogical databases in the world at the world's largest genealogical library will make the product any less than it is now. I don't understand how you see that "Legacy [is] appearing to go down the same path as The (sic) Family Tree Maker"... which "became a turning point" for you to abandon their product. I also don't understand how the addition of any feature like a search option and post option "forces" you to do anything. - - - My statements are rhetorical. (I am not seeking a reponse. You have stated your case well enough to satisfy me. I just don't see it your way.) From the appearance of everyone's posts here, save one, users prefer that TMG goes its own way, and ignore competitors or any certification programs, which is certainly one way to do things. That's fine. TMG already has issues that make it non-competitive to many people: Date handling is poor. (For example: TMG cannot calculate exact ages of death (DMY) on reports. And, it cannot generate a report that shows everyone born on the same month and day, or anniversaries, or make a calendar of events, like Legacy.) TMG can't handle names in Polish or other non-Western European languages (the infamous UNICODE problem - which is not a problem with GenBox or RootsMagic.) And, for all of its pros and cons, GEDCOM is still the standard; the number one way to share data between users. TMG's implementation of the GEDCOM standard is so far from the norm that data loss during exports is greater than any other product I've experienced. (For all of their quirks, Legacy, RootsMagic, and GenBox have much less data loss during GEDCOM exports.) TMG's code could be altered without a loss of functionality so the magnitude of data loss would not be so great, but sharing of data with other programs is not one of TMG's priorities, and I am certain never will. ... These, among others.... Not addressing another issue like FamilySearch Certification that competitors have addressed does not make a difference according to those posting here, it seems. TMG's feature set is satisfactory enough, I suppose. No researcher can rely on just one genealogical program to answer all of his or her needs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Terry Reigel 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2010 No researcher can rely on just one genealogical program to answer all of his or her needs. While I don't necessarily agree with all your other points, I'll not address them as they've been hashed over before. But I'm very surprised by this one. I've been using a single program for some 10 years and have never seen any need to use another. While I know some researchers find sufficient value in one feature or another to use multiple programs, I'd think the vast majority happily use whatever program they have chosen and no other. Of course many do migrate from one to another over the years as their needs change, just as I did, but I don't think that's what you meant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jim.orrell 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2010 Why do we choose TMG? Because it is the best for our needs, or perhaps it compliments other genealogy programs we use. For me it mostly boils down to a flexible database that stores my info better than other programs combined with a way to filter and manipulate that data to produce output that is useful. I think it is easy, a bit like buying say a car, to be very defensive about the product one has chosen. But the advantage of software over a car is that is has great potential to be improved. TMG might be the best out there for my needs, but it could take an awful lot of improvement. Firstly, and to my mind most importantly, if a development team are serious about what their users want, they have an official "wish list", I and many others have asked for this. If it is there will someone please direct me to it? For me, and it might not be for others, TMGs major failings are: <> the speed of data entry compared to any other program on my PC (I suspect this is the underlying database). <> no "in cell" editing. <> lack of UNICODE - I don't need it now, but I'm sure I will in the future. <> a more flexible GEDCOM output (including incorporating Witness data as say an event tag, GEDCOM geared up for other databases). I hope you don't think this is "off topic", but I think the original query is about communicationg with the genealogical world outside of TMG and WGs "perceived" attitude to it and updates in general. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Byram 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2010 > Firstly, and to my mind most importantly, if a development team are serious about what their users want, they have an official "wish list", I and many others have asked for this. If it is there will someone please direct me to it? There is an official wish list. It's just not publically available. It contains over 500 items. TMG users ask for so much that it's obviously only possible to deliver a small fraction of what is requested. the speed of data entry compared to any other program on my PC (I suspect this is the underlying database). That's the case. no "in cell" editing. What does that mean? lack of UNICODE That's a major issue that needs to be addressed but it means throwing out the existing codebase and starting over. a more flexible GEDCOM output (including incorporating Witness data as say an event tag, GEDCOM geared up for other databases). GEDCOM customizations are allowed but are designed to be used by the exporting program only. No developer writes GEDCOM customizations for exporting to other programs. They are written to allow seemless import back into the exporting program. There are no standards to add GEDCOM customizations "geared up for other databases". TMG itself has no need for GEDCOM customizations for its own uses. If there were standards for customizations that allow data exchange with other programs, then they would be added to TMG. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Hannah 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2010 Gently, folks, Earl made a wish for an enhancment to TMG. That is very appropriate, and this is the right Forum for users to make such wishes. No one who has replied thus far has any authority to speak for Wholly Genes or its future plans for TMG, and that includes me. We are all just users, who each have our own needs and desires for this program. What one user wants another may not. That is normal. You may have no need for Earl's wish, but that does not make it any less a valid wish. As for whether a new feature will cause TMG to "lose functionality" that would depend on the way it was implemented. If history is any indicator, my user perception is that Wholly Genes has only ever added functionality, and usually in a way that the user had the flexibility of whether or not to use that new functionality. Earl also made some statements that TMG "cannot" do some things. When users say this I have often found that TMG can, but it may require selecting an option that may not be obvious. Rather than high-jack this thread for those issues, I strongly recommend that whenever any user feels TMG "cannot" do something, they post a question to the Forum phrased as "how can I do this?" Other clever users have probably already found a way that TMG actually can do it. Just one more user's perspective, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jim.orrell 0 Report post Posted March 24, 2010 Jim - Thanks for the info on the "official wish list", a pity it's not made public. I understand "in cell" editing to be able to edit/update displayed text (especially if it relates directly to a cell in the underlying database) without opening the complete record. E.G. with the PERSON tag list, to amend the date, or address or memo details without opening the whole record. Or to do similar from the Master Event List. This becomes more useful if more columns/cells of data are viewable. Michael - Thanks for your usual calming influence, but it's nice to know we are passionate about our software. There are only a few topics which seem to "light the blue touch paper". Jim Orrell Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cheryl 0 Report post Posted March 24, 2010 Was there ever any comment as to whether TMG 8 will do this, is considering doing it, is not considering doing it? I didn't see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
efcharvet 0 Report post Posted April 5, 2010 No researcher can rely on just one genealogical program to answer all of his or her needs. While I don't necessarily agree with all your other points, I'll not address them as they've been hashed over before. But I'm very surprised by this one. I've been using a single program for some 10 years and have never seen any need to use another. While I know some researchers find sufficient value in one feature or another to use multiple programs, I'd think the vast majority happily use whatever program they have chosen and no other. Of course many do migrate from one to another over the years as their needs change, just as I did, but I don't think that's what you meant. Hi Terry, I've been out of town and just returned, so couldn't follow-up until now.... Unlike you, I WISH I could keep everything in just TMG, but can't handle what I need a genealogy program to do. I consider TMG one of my main programs (with Heredis 11) because of the ways I can access the data files. Unfortunately, I must use others. 1.) I have families and places in Poland and a few in Russia with names that TMG can't handle, so I keep these branches in GenBox, which handles UNICODE. (I don't keep any of this family data in TMG anymore.) 1a.) GenBox is also my preferred "utility" for creating GEDCOM imports and exports without horrific data losses. GenBox has a useful import routine that specifically handle TMG's file format. (See: point 2.) 2.) I download and share my genealogical data online at both GeneaNet and Genealogie.com, the two largest French genealogical databases. If I download data in a TMG GEDCOM file into them, it is unreadable chaos. TMG concatenates the Memo field and Detail Place info and other data into the Place fields in its GEDCOMs, which is the cause for the biggest mess. -- To get the clean, useable files, I export TMG to GenBox then to Heredis 11, which works great. (I could use GenBox or Heredis directly, but the double-export actually works fastest for me.) 3.) I do most of my own work in Heredis 11, and nearly all of my colleagues in France use Heredis as well, where it is far-and-away the biggest seller although quite expensive. (It comes in Mac and Windows formats, too.) Heredis is a very solid program with lots of excellent, unique features for French users. It also is easier for me to move data from Heredis to TMG without data losses than the other way around. 4.) And yes, I also use Legacy. Frankly, so many people I consult with use it, especially Americans, I gave up trying to convert them to TMG. And, I understand why they prefer it, too. I know that no one reading this forum will believe it, but reporting and book reports are better with 130 fixed formats (although less flexible than TMG). The SourceWriter is superior to TMG's way of doing citations (learning, writing, & manipulating code), the data Search Tool is great, Timelines also just work better , too; neat little things like US County Verifier helps users avoid errors; the mapping integration with Yahoo maps and Distance Calculator is nice; it has a good File Comparison tool; ... and I like the design and functionality of the Notes Fields design and the To-Do List, far superior to TMG, I think. (When I have a "project", I prefer to start it in Legacy most of the time. Etc., etc., etc. --- In general, I think most people find Legacy is just friendlier. --- And now, it is a FamilySearch Certified product. I know this means nothing to readers here, but it does to new users in Salt Lake City and at other places I must work. To be completely honest here, none of my friends, family, or colleagues like TMG. Just one of my colleagues use it yet. -- I'm a hold-out because I've used TMG since Version 3, and have become so familiar with it and love some of its unique features. However, if The Master Genealogist did not have John Cardinal's absolutely outstanding TMG Utility tools, his wonderful Second Site product, and Terry's Tips, I don't think TMG is a competitive product, and I wouldn't continue to use it or recommend it. ---- This is just one guy's opinion. I don't expect anyone reading this forum to agree with me, which is fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Terry Reigel 0 Report post Posted April 5, 2010 Earl, I totally understand the issue with UNICODE, and the need to communicate with other researchers if one wants to exchange data directly with them. As I said, I understand that some users find it helpful to use multiple programs. I'm confused about the issue with concatenating Memo field and Detail Place info on export, but I'm no expert on that. It was your sweeping statement that "No researcher can rely on just one genealogical program..." that I objected to. From our sample of two - you and me - we find that 50% of users find a single program totally adequate. I suspect if we took into account all users of genealogy software we would find that the vast majority of users use a single program, perhaps changing to another over time as their needs change. But clearly, as you have described, some find the need for more than one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Byram 0 Report post Posted April 5, 2010 (edited) TMG concatenates the Memo field and Detail Place info and other data into the Place fields in its GEDCOMs, which is the cause for the biggest mess. You're going to need to explain that with examples. There are two export settings on the export 'Step 7: Option screen 3' which might help with your issues. 1) You can change the Maximum GEDCOM line length to 246. (This is actually the value length but a setting of 246 gives you the legal GEDCOM maximum line length of 254 characters plus 2 line terminator characters) 2) You can change how lines that exceed the maximum line length are handled by changing the standard method to the alternative method by selecting 'Break long values between words'. Edited April 5, 2010 by Jim Byram Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenealogy 0 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 FWIW, I would like to see version 8 FamilySearch Certified. My best researcher friend just bought one of the competing products specifically because it was FamilySearch Certified, even though she has a copy of TMG. Honestly, I don't see how TMG will be able to compete for long without doing so. Yes, right now the NewFamilySearch is limited to LDS Church members, but it will be opened up worldwide in the near future. And a totally agree with efcharvet's comments, and do think that we should be able to have everything in ONE program. Why not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
laura1814 0 Report post Posted July 15, 2010 I have a question and this seems the most appropriate place to post it. Is there any way to integrate TMG data with a dynamic site builder like "The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding," used by the Genealogics website? Some of the sites produced with SecondSite are amazing and it's definitely the top choice for web publishing right now. But static html sites have one major flaw that I have discovered over time, to my distress: when they are updated, URLs change. What was on p. 197 may now be on p. 210. Thus the many citations I have in my own dataset to websites of genealogical data have been rendered obsolete. Dynamic websites, by contrast, serve up a page when requested from data stored in a table on the server, generated/referenced through static individual IDs, and thus individuals have a permanent URL. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Terry Reigel 0 Report post Posted July 15, 2010 But static html sites have one major flaw that I have discovered over time, to my distress: when they are updated, URLs change. What was on p. 197 may now be on p. 210. Thus the many citations I have in my own dataset to websites of genealogical data have been rendered obsolete. Not necessarily with sites built with Second Site. If you check the "Static Page Assignments" property on the Pages > Pages Sizes screen, and don't change the number of people per page, people always stay on the same page. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
altenbernd 0 Report post Posted July 15, 2010 I use static pages on my Second Site web site and have no problems with people showing up on different pages when a rebuild (unless I have merged people :-) ) A dynamic site builder has some appeal, but how do they interact with search engines. On my static site, names in my database show up in a Google Search and bring people to my site that might not otherwise visit it. If the data is stored on the server and only served up on request, does that mean that none of the names would be picked up in a search engine? If so, it seems the static web sites are more useful for connecting with other researchers. Sheila Altenbernd Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
laura1814 0 Report post Posted July 15, 2010 Thanks, Terry-- that is good to know about Second Site. Sheila, that is a really good point. The dynamic sites do not generally interact with search engines; they have their own built-in search routines, which may be quirky. Too bad we can't have the best of both of them in some kind of integrated approach. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ggilbert1 0 Report post Posted July 18, 2010 Is there any way to integrate TMG data with a dynamic site builder like "The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding," used by the Genealogics website? Some of the sites produced with SecondSite are amazing and it's definitely the top choice for web publishing right now. But static html sites have one major flaw that I have discovered over time, to my distress: when they are updated, URLs change. What was on p. 197 may now be on p. 210. Thus the many citations I have in my own dataset to websites of genealogical data have been rendered obsolete. Dynamic websites, by contrast, serve up a page when requested from data stored in a table on the server, generated/referenced through static individual IDs, and thus individuals have a permanent URL. TMG data can be exported to a GEDCOM and that can be used with a dynamic site builder. I know of at least one user, Ian Singer who uses TNG see: Singer Family Tree. Setting up a dynamic site is something I've been interested in experimenting with and your post on this topic is timely as I've just set up a dynamic site using PhpGedView which is open source. I've got a Second Site site, a PhpGedView site and a Reunion site all based on the same data so they can be compared. I've covered some of the issues encountered see: Gilbert-Genealogy Other Webs. I have not had a chance to do a good comparison yet. There are definitely limitations associated with GEDCOM, and I'd love to see John Cardinal develop a dynamic site builder for TMG. A dynamic web site or a site created with another program may or may not retain an individuals ID#, I was careful when generating the GEDCOM from TMG that the ID number was included, and that when loading it into PhpGedView, and importing it into to Reunion the ID# was used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Hannah 0 Report post Posted July 19, 2010 As Ian has often mentioned, limiting yourself to GEDCOM is an issue. You are forced to avoid a very large number of useful TMG features, such as Witnesses, sentences, etc. which cannot be exported to the extremely out of date GEDCOM structure. As Ian has shown, it can be done, but it takes a great deal of effort to carefully do only those things that will export to GEDCOM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Vance Baker 0 Report post Posted August 17, 2010 Dynamic data, Family Search Certified, the internet, TMG vs. 'others' TMG is one of the best programs on the market. In my opinion, all genealogist have the same common goal. Build their trees, verify it's accuracy with sources, and share thier work with family. The best feature of TMG is its flexability. I tell my cousin's, if you can think it, TMG can do it. And there in lies the problem for beginners and some intermediate users that are genealogically savvy but not "computer literate". There is no digrace in not being an advanced computer user. We each have our area's of expertise. The question is,,, How to get users up to speed using the advanced features of TMG. I guess the answer is simple. Use the beginner mode and ,,,,,,, be happy they can eventually turn on the advanced mode. Family Search Certified, sounds GREAT. But does it provide new data. Or does 'just' link you to someone else research. From someone else's reseach I think is the crux in genealogy research. I we think about it. All the research we do has been "done" by someone else. It is our job to record what we found and where we found, the weigh it against the preponderance of the evidence. I have relatives in my database whose tombstones read that they were born in 1881, yet I have found them on the 1880 census 6/12 months old, born Nov. Thus I record both dates and where I found each one. In this example, I use the census that was enumerated in 1880 as my evidence to prove (at least to myself) the the more correct date of birth should be recorded as __ Nov 1879 After we cite our sources, other can site our work as having credibility. Dynamic data, that in my opinion is where Genealogy is and should be headed. [bC] - Before Computers, genealogy was completed on paper. A cousin of mine has one 10x12 room of her home designated for genealogy. Three walls are lined with legal size file cabinets filled with 60 years of her own research. But with no easy way to share,,, or sell her work. Share our work, that is how I have grown my database and how I think others do too. We add relatives then we publish our findings in hopes of making links/connections wth fellow researchers with common interests. Thus the proliferation of genealogy on the web in the last 10 to 15 years and the growth of sites like FamilySearch, Ancestry, Rootsweb, One Great Family, etc. So how do we get TMG and Second Site, and Terry's Tip's to become one all encompassing entity. I don't know!! My own database has grown so much in the last few years that I can no longer keep up with requests to add folks when descendants provide me with updated names, dates and places. With updating data in mind, and looking back at the evoltution genealogy software, the explosion of internet grow and web enabled devices what Wholly Genes, IMHO, must do to remain a viable contender in the geneaolgy area is to move ahead of the pack. That is, be able to sell their wares. (Nobody works for free) and still have the best, most flexible software available. The last thing that I would like to see happen is for anyone to work themself right out of a job. We need them, and they need us. I've subscribed to Ancestry because they have an incredible amount of data available for my areas of interest. I post my [gedcom] on their World Family Tree, but refuse to "house" my data soley on their servers. I have keep soft copies of my tomstone pics, census's, death and marriage certificates, etc. on my local hard drive. If we look at Google, specifically Google Docs, I notice that many users still want to "own a copy" of the file on their own hard drive. How do we get genealogy on the web,,, so it's Dynamic. How do we "get it out there" but still feel like we are the "owners" of the data. How do we enable data owners to share/give edit rights,,, but still feel in control of the final product. I worked with one group who housed TMG on their server and allowed access to those who wanted or needed edit rights. I believe the next jump in the evolution of the genealogy, the web, and TMG could be data set owners and online colaborators. One thing that I dislike about sites like Rootsweb is some of the redundant information. Sometimes due to users uploading newer copies of their data and failing to overwrite or remove their older datasets. And the second problem is multiple users submitting their own files. You must exclude users too find new connections. In a perfect online world, once two dataset owners agreed that two individuals where one and the same, they could be merged. After all we are trying to build connections and share resources,,,,,,, in my opinion anyways. I have no less than a half dozen folks that I regularly share data with. Unfortunatley each data owner must update their own work. If everything was in a central repository, and each user had their own id, then everyone could see who edited/added what. And when the edit was completed. So how do we get TMG to be web based, user id's, report writing capabilities, then publish to a dynamic web site. We still need the ability to use double -- to hide that of which we do not want published. And still make the owner of the data feel like if the pulled it all off the web the could have an unaltered copy of all the data on their local drive. Thanks, Michael B Share this post Link to post Share on other sites