Hello users of Gramps! In looking over the thousands of feature requests made, we are attempting to prioritize them. There are way too many to list, but let’s start with what categories of development are you most interested in?
Below is a Ranked Vote set of choices. For each category, you can give it a number (lower is higher preference) . You can abstain on a category, or assign it a number. You can NOT give them all “1”, but each one should have its own ranking.
Not what I meant — I’m not criticizing what you’re doing here.
I just meant that I can’t guess what you include in the different categories. What I’ve suggested earlier are structural changes: backend workflow, data input, data integrity, and user‑experience fundamentals. All of those are weighted high for me.
That’s why I wrote what I wrote — not to start a discussion, but simply to point back to what I think is important to focus on, even if it doesn’t really fit into the poll format.
And just so it’s clear: I salute you for pulling together all the small things that have been floating around for a decade or more.
I’m a very basic user of Gramps. The one thing I’d like to see for v6.1 will be out of of the control of the core developers but I’ll mention it anyway…
I’d like a non-beta version of @ztlxltl’s FamilyTreeView addon:
This addon saves significant time and effort when adding to or editing a family tree in Gramps. It’s like having a clipboard that appears only when you need it, saving screen space, with only the items you might want, for example, no citations when you are interested in places, and those you are most likely to need presented in order. Installing this addon is more complex than normal because it’s in the Isotammi collection, so less experienced users are unlikely to find and use it.
Minor enhancements
On opening, set the focus on the top item in the Recent items list, so that [CNTL-O] will add this item, without needing an additional mouse action and click.
Include recently created items in the Recent items list.
These enhancements are less important than the integration.
Doug, you forgot the most important issue: speed. I’ve been pointing out this for some time. Gramps desperately needs a modern database backend and must be able to leverage the full speed of that backend. We now have SQLite as backend (even if I’d prefer PostgreSQL) which is a first step, but Gramps 6.0.x is significantly slower with SQLite as it is with the good ole BSDDB in 5.1.x. There have been a lot of discussions here on the forum about that and I don’t want to repeat those discussions here. At the end of the day, somebody with a large database (approx 50k+) is stuck with 5.1.x and BSDDB and that’s not a good thing.
Oh, no I haven’t forgotten that at all! In fact I have been working on a solution for more than a year. I’ve been developing a way for database backends to “register” filter rules so that they can implement them directly (in SQL or whatever). The first part is the registration architecture in this PR. The next part I’m doing as a plugin. Stay tuned!
My point of view on this has changed from being more interested in the
GUI than the speed however with my database at over 20000 I am noticing
the speed issues more and more.
I see this with the various options to Select or Find a person.
Graphview: either search for Forename, Surname or Surname, Forename
Data Entry to a Form: Select Person search for Surname
Tools Relationship Calculator: using CTRL+F Surname followed by Forename
is searching as you type. The latter is by far the quicker method.
To me as an average user integration with Ancestry, MyHeritage etc via
GEDCOM is a complete red herring (I know some people see benefits) I use
GEDCOM once per year to export mine and my wife’s trees to
replace/refresh the old trees on Ancestry, MyHeritage and FMP. I never
download or import a GEDCOM (far too much hassle and error).
As for FamilySearch I now rarely use it they have the data but
presentation is awful and the Family Trees are like every other site
full of mistakes and additionally subject to change by others.
phil
To me as an average user integration with Ancestry, MyHeritage etc via
GEDCOM is a complete red herring
That’s interesting. Though I’ve had issues with GEDCOMs before, they are few and far, and often just come up when associating previously associated images.
This might be how you particularly interact with the various services, but in my workflow I’ve always meticulously reviewed FamilySearch and MyHeritage sources/information, and then constructed my offline tree with reviewed information (whatever the source)
FamilySearch is a global repo and like you said, anyone can edit anything. This is good and bad for obvious reasons. I typically go on the FamilySearch side first and correct what’s incorrect, remove stuff that’s without a source (or message the people who added the event and request they source their claim), and after that I use the FamilySearch integration plugin to import those corrected people into Gramps, which is my authoritative offline master copy. As I update Gramps I also update my tree on MyHeritage, I believe there’s a Gramps plugin for that as well….but I just built a script that lazily uses mouse automation with screen coordinates to update whatever I put into Gramps into my MyHeritage tree as well, as the changes occur. So the purpose for me is to share genealogical data and build a better and better tree with more data over time. This goal is facilitated by making my tree available to others, so integration with MyHeritage and FamilySearch and others is quite a useful, non redherring feature, IMO. The problem of people editing everything is mitigated by your master copy, and you can also star people of interest (I star direct ancestors), so that you receive notifications if changes are made. Sometimes people will just blindly merge totally random people with my triple great grandpa or something so having that notification setup lets me revert that pretty quickly & message that individual who did it. Maintaining trees on 3 different platforms is exhausting, but ultimately the one that matters is the Gramps one, and having the corrected data on FamilySearch and Myheritage has undeniably allowed me to reach new connections I would not have found otherwise. Especially to modern day descendants of some of my family branches. A quick Facebook search of the name of some editor’s of my grandfather’s FamilySearch records lets me find them and send them messages to discover more.
I too use multiple sources to build my offline tree in Gramps, my online
trees are there for Hint Hunting & DNA matching they sometimes contain
speculation rather than proven fact to generate an alternate view.
I have completely given up correcting people, trees or transcription
errors online they are endemic and systemic even when I have presented
solid evidence I have had people refuse to accept it and even get really
angry that I should have the temerity to question their version of
events, the companies are just as bad at not correcting information
there is no profit in that for them.
I deleted my trees on FamilySearch and WikiTree because I got fed up
spending time putting back what I had already put on.
I am not saying that the integration should not be developed but
actually wonder how many people will use it and understand the risks.
phil
I am not saying that the integration should not be developed but
actually wonder how many people will use it and understand the risks.
Can you clarify what you mean by risks?
Ultimately it’s up to you to have discernment. Chasing false rabbitholes in genealogy is a tale as old as time. Lord knows I’ve spent weeks going down branches of family that were suggested to me by Familysearch only to discover a critical error that makes me have to remove 200+ people, haha.
I’ve edited over a thousand people (sometimes back and forth on some individuals) on FamilySearch, and over my hundreds of interactions with editors, it has never been as you described. Most people share a common goal of making their tree more and more correct with correct data, they’re not maliciously changing your tree. There are a lot of new users who have no idea what they’re doing and mess things up. This happens all the time and it’s indeed quite annoying, perhaps there’s an argument for increasing the barrier to entry…but regardless I’m not constantly going back and fixing things for all 10k+ people. I fixed them the first time as I was going through them in FamilySearch, and then imported to Gramps for the master “correct” copy. I only go back and fix bad changes done to direct ancestors, but that’s happened only a handful of times over the last half decade.
For me a family tree isn’t like, just a long list of records. That’s a critical part don’t get me wrong, and at least for me, the fun part, but what makes a family tree a family tree is / are the stories and fun facts/ bibliographies of those individuals…they’re not just documents on a screen they’re people with stories and a favorite food, a favorite color, a profession, etc etc. Even if I knew my father’s entire life story and wrote an entry for him in Gramps, other people/family members may know other facets of him that are worthwhile documenting to paint a better picture of who this person was to future individuals looking at the tree. To create a connection to the ancestor/family member. FamilySearch and MyHeritage and so on are critical for gathering these stories and makes it possible to do this for hundreds more individuals on any given tree. I can only go so far with my family’s passed down stories. That’s my philosophy at least, I know not everyone does genealogy for the same reason
The risk in my opinion is that your create/enable a self fulfilling loop
of rubbish unsuspecting, uncaring or naive people download GRAMPS start
dragging material from FamilySearch, MyHeritage wherever (for the short
period they are willing to pay), enhance it, corrupt it, accept it and
never check it because they want to prove they are linked to Napoleon or
Alfred the Great or whoever, this then feeds back into FamilySearch, My
Heritage etc. So we perpetuate the error a bit like AI on an
hallucinatory day.
I personally need the firewall of a standalone system to be sure
everything that is contained within is mine warts and all. I am
responsible and accountable for it.
Last word on this from me if you are 100% convinced that all the data on
FamilySearch etc is 100% correct then no problem.
phil
Last word on this from me if you are 100% convinced that all the data on
FamilySearch etc is 100% correct then no problem.
I didn’t say that, I explicitly stated it’s often wrong, not just in this thread but also elsewhere. But yea it’s up to you to discern whats real and whats not, whether or not there’s an integration with FamilySearch or Ancestry or whatever doesn’t change that.
I guess I don’t see your point, regardless of the “standalone firewall” aspect of Gramps, naive/uncaring people were/are doing what you described, even now. Before any integration. I am still responsible and accountable for everything that goes in my tree because I verify it best I can, and always review. Having integrations available to me doesn’t change that…?
If your point is that you’d rather resources be allocated to speed and what you mentioned in your original post, rather than integrations, that makes more sense to me, yea.
Familysearch are more than the tree… most use it to access sources, and the only thing you need to check regarding sources are the transcription…
I use the familysearch sync in Legacy, but I use it manually, I never download a single person, but I do download sources… when I have found something I can’t find in the original archives…
I think yours is a very important point @comeng. In fact, I consider it a necessary boilerplate caveat that every FamilySearch user should read and understand. I also think FS is very useful (more eyes), but keeping these considerations in mind may help people avoid placing more trust in crowd-driven data mining than is warranted, ultimately avoid loosing information. Because if 1000x more people can edit the same tree, the amount of errors will increase 1000-fold too likely, unless someone corrects those. Your message may also encourage more users to maintain an offline version alongside the online one; for a certain period and level of engagement, the two can coexist quite stably without significant conflict. And during this period (or correlating subparts of large trees), 1-way or 2-way synchronization would certainly be useful.
As a modest Gramps user for a few years now, I’m convinced that the Graphview remains a great way to learn Gramps and focus on the completeness and consistency of data entry.
A few improvements to the context menus and Express report would be helpful for one-click access to information similar to that provided by my other favorite view, “Combined View”:
Labels for GraphView events
The Biography Express report lacks an indication of the Source Event link
The gender avatar could be replaced with an icon representing profession or group membership, for example.
I think the Cardview and NewFamilityTree views could do all this, but I’m mainly thinking of the beginners I meet when explaining data entry and search methods.
Just my personal opinion.
But Gramps remains a fantastic tool for me.
