Family Tree Maker for Mac 3.1

I’m returning to Family Tree Maker for Mac.

Tech Tuesday

In December 2015, I ranted about how unhappy I was that Family Tree Maker was being dropped by Ancestry as a product. I did consider staying with Family Tree Maker 3 for Mac; however, I kept having problems the synchronization of my tree with Ancestry was corrupting my database. So, I decided to search for alternative products.  I wished that Legacy Family Tree had a Mac version and I wanted Roots Magick 7 to have a real Mac product and not a runtime windows version.  Besides the weird file locations (C: and F: drives), I never could get the fonts correct and details displayed in inconsistent ways. I tried several other products, Mac Family Tree, Reunion, and Heredis.  I settled on Heredis and have used it for the past year but I’ve been having problems with it.  When I zoom into some of my sources, the system crashes, sends a crash report to Apple (who is supposed to send it on to Heredis) and then allows me to restart.  It seems that details that I cut and pasted from a website, which has several different fonts and hyperlinks seem to be the culprits. I finally decided to drop Heredis because of this and use something else for my 2017 research. I decided on using Roots Magic 7, exported my two large research files from Heredis to GED format, importing them into Roots Magic, then began working with them.

Then I received the notification that Family Tree Maker has been re-released by MacKiev.  The upgrade from FTM 14 for windows and FTM 3 for Mac was free.  I decided to upgrade and give it a try. I exported my two Roots Magic files to GED format then imported them into FTM.

Wow within a seven-point starWow.  I was immediately reminded of how much I liked Family Tree Maker Mac 3 when I reviewed it in December 2013. I began working on one of my projects, Project Drexl, and saw how nice it was to work with.  Clearly designed for Mac, all the features worked. There were many features that Heredis didn’t have that I was really happy to have back, such as a calendar function. (For example, a calendar of all my ancestors who had birthdays in January.) Also, and probably the biggest thing, was that there are templates for sources that follows Elizabeth Shown Mills’ Evidence Explained.  Linking sources to facts is easy. I liked navigation through family members a bit better with Heredis, but the FTM method is fine.

I haven’t tried to upload and sync my FTM files with Ancestry, yet; and I am not certain that I will do so.  I may just upload what I have with FTM and then break the link. In any event, I’m hoping that Ancestry’s on-line tree isn’t the master of all.

So far, I’m very happy that Family Tree Maker is back and I am looking forward to using it over the next year or so. I think they may have gotten me back.

My Response to Ancestry’s “Business” Decisions


I have never done a rant before, but I think it is finally time…. 

RANT ON

Angry Face Gnome IconI used to really like Ancestry. They were my go-to company for everything genealogical. However, over the past couple years, they have really let me down.
First, I did my Y-DNA testing through Ancestry. Ancestry quit doing Y-DNA; so whatever matches I had when they quit is all that I will ever have from them. I had to transfer my results to FamilyTree DNA and pay them their fee. I really feel that the money I spent on Ancestry’s Y-DNA test was wasted because they canceled the program about a year after I tested with them.
Next, I decided to go “all-in” with Family Tree Maker for Mac. I had used Family Tree Maker long ago. I tried Mac Family Tree, Reunion, and Heredis but found that Family Tree Maker was better for my needs.  So I bought it, upgraded it, and learned the nuances of its use. Then I started having more and more problems with the synchronization between my database and what was at Ancestry. Whenever the two (my local and the Ancestry) trees got out of sync and corrupt, the answer Ancestry support had was to accept what I had on Ancestry and replicate it back down to my local machine. Of course, that would break any private information I had or any media that I hadn’t uploaded to Ancestry. I have a lot of private sources, mostly correspondence or interviews with living individual where personally identifiable information is included in the original text or recording.
I decided to continue with Family Tree Maker for Mac but stop any synchronization with Ancestry. My trees seemed to remain stable and I figured I could upload what I had once or twice a year and keep the public parts of my work fully shared. Sound like a great idea except we know it won’t work after next December when Ancestry quits all support for Family Tree Maker.
Ancestry’s decision to eliminate Family Tree Maker is more than just a nuisance. What it did was eliminate any trust I had and crushed my respect for the company. I now truly believe Ancestry does not care about their customers and will not support them in the long run. What they seem to care about is maximizing their profits. It appears that lower profit product lines and legacy products just aren’t worth supporting.
The bottom line is I do not trust Ancestry any longer. When the bubble bursts on atDNA and something newer and better is in the market, I’m sure that Ancestry will drop atDNA support too — It seems to be their way.
Photo of "Angry Mob"What can I do? First, I’ll quit using Family Tree Maker for the Mac. I know they will support it for another year; however, I will not. I will quit recommending Ancestry for atDNA, mostly because I can’t trust they will keep with the program. Finally, over the next few weeks, I plan to review alternatives to Family Tree Maker for Mac 3. Once I find a desirable solution I will begin the tedious process of exporting my trees from Family Tree Maker for Mac 3 to GED files then importing them into whatever software I decide on using. It is a lot of tedious work to restart a tree and fixing anything that broke during a migration from a GED file, but it is clear that Ancestry doesn’t care about that. You know what? I don’t care about them either.  
I know that for Ancestry it is “only business,” but because of their attitude I’m weaning myself off Ancestry products, ‘cause you know, it is “only consumption.”

RANT OFF



———- DISCLAIMER ———- 

  

Relinking Family Tree Maker 3 — David Swayze in 1820 Census.

Relinking Family Tree Maker 3


Frustration strikes again with the linkage between Family Tree Maker 3 for Mac and my tree on Ancestry. I’m not sure how it happened but my Family Tree Maker (FTM) file for the Darling-Huber tree said it wasn’t linked to Ancestry, but when I went to Ancestry, it indicated that it was linked with Family Tree Maker and gave me the file name it was linked in. The same one that said it wasn’t linked. My on-line tree has many people I’m sharing with and my FTM has underlying source links and media that I don’t want to lose connections to.

I called Ancestry and spoke to their support. No help. They told me to break the tree, then go to FTM, start a new tree, and then download from Ancestry. Basically, revert to Ancestry’s version of my data. I have done that in the past and found that my sources were generally all messed up and that most of the media I had with my sources seemed to be lost. Then I happened upon a new idea.

I decided to go ahead and break the tree on Ancestry. Then in FTM, create a new tree by importing from Ancestry. After that task was complete, I merged my old FTM file into the new one. After completion there were a few duplicated individuals and a few duplicated sources but, all the connections appear to be correct. That’s okay. I’d rather have duplicates that I can select the best source from than have missing source information.

I’ll work with it for a while and let you know if I find any serious problems.




David Sweazy [Sr.] & the 1820 Census

The 1920 Census is always problematic because only the head of the household is named. Others in the household are only given a range of ages, sex, and status. There is also identification of what sector of the economy the individual was engaged in.

1820 Census Entry for David Sweazy – Image via Ancestry.Com.

I find it important to analyze the census information and associate all that I can determine.

For example:

The David Sweazy household of Richland, Fairfield County Ohio[i].
Census Item
Value
WM* Ages to 10
2
1 Presumed to be William Marsh who was age 6.
1 Presumed to be Daniel S who was 9 or 10.
WM ages 16 to 26
1
Presumed to be Evan who was 17 or 18.
David Jr. is enumerated elsewhere in the Census.
WM ages 26 to 45
3
All three are unknown individuals.
WM 45 & Up
1
Oldest male presumed to be David Sweazy age 58
WF** 10 to 16
3
1 Presumed to be Edith, age 12 or 13.
1 presumed to be Elizabeth, age 15 or 16.
1 Possibly Sarah who would be 19 or 20.
WF 45 & Up
1
Presumed to be wife Alice, age 51
* WM = White Males | **WF = White Females

In addition, an entry indicates that four people were engaged in Agriculture and one was engaged in Manufacture.

First, I believe there is enough detail to assure that I have the correct David Swazey/Swayze.

Then I take the information that is there and derive the following facts

For David, William, Daniel, Evan, Edith Elizabeth, and Alice I would add the following:

Name – I’d add Sweazy as an alternate surname for all.
Birth – In the Notes section, I’d add, “1820 Census is consistent.

For David – Census – Date: 7 Aug 1820 | Place: Richland, Fairfield, Ohio: Living with 10 others in household, He was engaged in either Agriculture or Manufacture.

For Sarah, – Birth – in the Notes section, I’d add “1820 Census is NOT Consistent” Sarah may have been 10 to 16 in 1820 Census or may be numerated elsewhere.

In the notes for the 1820 Census Source Citation I’d add: Neighbors: Love, Bailey, McBride, & Young
For Alice and any of the children, I might or might not add:

Lived 7 Aug 1820 – Richland, Fairfield, Ohio – Presumed to be living with (father) David Swayze.

I think that fairly well covers the things that we know from the Census. I would love to hear in the comments anyone who thinks I missed a fact or I added a “fact” not in evidence.




David Sweazy [Jr.] & the 1820 Census

Using the same process for David Sweazy (Jr.) I find

1820 Census entry for David Sweazy [Jr.] from Ancestry.Com

The same process for

David Sweazy [Jr.] household of Richland, Fairfield, Ohio[ii]:
Census Item
Value
WM* Ages to 10
1
Unknown male – b. 1810-1820
WM ages 16 to 26
1
Presumed to be David [Jr.] Age 24
WM ages 26 to 45
1
Unknown Male born b. 1775-1794
WF** to 10
1
Presumed to be Elizabeth, age 2
WF 26 to 45
1
Presumed to be Catherine, Age 25-26
WF 45 & Up
1
Unknown female – b. bef 1775

* WM = White Males | **WF = White Females

In addition, an entry indicates that two people were engaged in Agriculture.

This Census is a bit more concerning because a daughter, Emily Ann Swayze is not accounted for. If she was born on 21 Jan 1820 she should be enumerated here but isn’t. Also, there are two other adults who are unknown. We know that David’s parents were enumerated elsewhere, so, these two adults could possibly be Katherine’s parents, James & Margaret. Everything else seems to fit so I’m going to accept this entry as being that of David Swayze/Sweezey

Facts Found

For David, Elizabeth, and Catherine I would add the following:

Name – I’d add Sweazy as an alternate surname for all.
Birth – In the Notes section, I’d add, “1820 Census is consistent.

For David – Census – Date: 7 Aug 1820 | Place: Richland, Fairfield, Ohio: Living with five others in household, He was engaged in Agriculture.

For Emily – Birth Notes – 1820 Census NOT Consistent – Not enumerated. May have been born after 7 Aug 1820.

For Emily – Under Tasks – Analyze birth information regarding Emily. Could she have been born after 7 Aug 1820?

In the notes for the 1820 Census Source Citation I’d add: Neighbors: Noble(?), Williams, Marguhart, & Martin
In my research notes for Catherine’s parents, James & Margaret Walker, I’d add 

the following note:

“Conjecture:  May have lived with daughter Catherine during 1820 Census. “

And under my tasks for them, add a task to search for James Walker in the 1820 Census.

Again, I would love to hear in the comments below if anyone thinks I missed a fact or I added a “fact” not in evidence. 

Endnotes
—–

[i] “United States Census, 1820,” Database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHLS-J2K : accessed 16 June 2015), David Sweazy, Richland, Fairfield, Ohio; citing p. 191, NARA microfilm publication M33, (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 87; FHL microfilm 181,393.

[ii] “United States Census, 1820,” Database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHLS-VQG : accessed 16 June 2015), David Sweezy, Richland, Fairfield, Ohio; citing p. 188, NARA microfilm publication M33, (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 87; FHL microfilm 181,393.
————  DISCLAIMER  ————-


Start Looking