Jump to content


GEDCOM exports bad?


4 replies to this topic

#1 TomP

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gig Harbor, WA
  • Interests:Putnam, Putman, Pootenham, Finney, Phinney, Cooledge, Coolidge

Posted 09 February 2010 - 12:07 PM

I've exported my data into GEDCOM format twice now, once in Ver. 5.5 and once in 4.0 and have tried to upload both to 2 different websites with no apparent success in either case. On one site the transfer apparently completes but nothing else happens. Okay, that could be a problem with the website. So, I tried uploading both versions to Ancestry.com. Both uploads start and as the progress bar starts moving, it gets about half way and then seems to pause for an extended period of time. After awhile, the bar completes and Ancestry.com comes back and tells me that the upload was not an apparent valid GEDCOM format. Any idea what is happening here? There are just under 8000 people in the data set so it certainly doesn't seem if size would be the problem!

Tom

#2 Jim Byram

  • Moderators
  • 5,649 posts

Posted 09 February 2010 - 12:57 PM

The GEDCOM v5.5 export is a standard GEDCOM with no custom extensions as some programs do. There is no reason that anything reading the v5.5 format shouldn't accept the file.

There is one thing. If you are using the Name-Nick tag type, make sure that it is set to export as a NAME tag in the tag type definition.

You should not use the long obsolete GEDCOM v4 format for export.

Bottom line... This is some sort of Ancestry.com issue. This has come up before and the user was able to resolve things.

Here's one topic on a similar issue. Not much help.
http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index...showtopic=11698

#3 Michael Hannah

  • Moderators
  • 1,767 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Ranchos, New Mexico, USA

Posted 09 February 2010 - 04:36 PM

The only other related posting I could find was here where the problem was caused by the specific browser (Google Chrome) being used.
Michael

#4 TomP

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gig Harbor, WA
  • Interests:Putnam, Putman, Pootenham, Finney, Phinney, Cooledge, Coolidge

Posted 10 February 2010 - 04:57 PM

QUOTE (Michael Hannah @ 9 Feb 2010, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The only other related posting I could find was here where the problem was caused by the specific browser (Google Chrome) being used.


Michael: Seeing that Ancestry had a problem with Chrome, since I've been using Firefox for a number of years, I thought that might be the root of my problem. So, I went back, tried it again using IE and, sure enough, the problem was solved and the file uploaded. The only reason I've kept a copy of IE around was in case I had to go onto a Microsoft's site so now I guess I've got 2 reasons to keep a copy of it around. <g>

Thanks for the valuable hint that solved my problem.

Tomhttp://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/style_images/1/folder_post_icons/icon1.gif

#5 TomP

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gig Harbor, WA
  • Interests:Putnam, Putman, Pootenham, Finney, Phinney, Cooledge, Coolidge

Posted 10 February 2010 - 04:59 PM

QUOTE (Jim Byram @ 9 Feb 2010, 12:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The GEDCOM v5.5 export is a standard GEDCOM with no custom extensions as some programs do. There is no reason that anything reading the v5.5 format shouldn't accept the file.

There is one thing. If you are using the Name-Nick tag type, make sure that it is set to export as a NAME tag in the tag type definition.

You should not use the long obsolete GEDCOM v4 format for export.

Bottom line... This is some sort of Ancestry.com issue. This has come up before and the user was able to resolve things.

Here's one topic on a similar issue. Not much help.
http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index...showtopic=11698


Thanks for the reply, Jim. Mike noted that the Ancestry site has a problem with Chrome and since I use Firefox, I tried an upload with IE and it went off without a hitch.

Tom

http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/style...icons/icon1.gif





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users