From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:55:56 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"   
    wrote:   
      
   >I _suspect_ it's an intractable problem, especially where (or at least   
   >more so where) the two (or more) participants use different software.   
   >   
   >I don't have a solution; I just thought it'd be an interesting   
   >discussion to have.   
      
   Legacy has Intellishare.   
      
   I've never used it, I've just noted that it has it.   
      
   And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, there is already multiuser   
   genealogy database in the form of the FamilySearch family tree, though   
   it is "in the cloud" and you've said you don't like that.   
      
   But it *does* do everything you have mentioned.   
      
   You can invite all your cousins to contribute their data to it, which   
   makes it accessible to you -- at least if you are using lineage-linked   
   software (such as Legacy and RootsMagic) that has an interface to the   
   FamilySearch database.   
      
   As in your subject line, it has not merely two, but multiple workers   
   on the same database. And each of you can have your own personal   
   database on your own computer at home, that no one else can touch.   
      
   That, it seems to me, is the best use of "the cloud" and a multiuser   
   database, at least at this stage. And I'm not holding my breath   
   waiting for someone to come up something better. I prefer to use what   
   is available right now, and if something better comes along, I'll   
   check it out when I see it.   
      
   It has disadvantages, of course, some of which were discussed in the   
   previo0us thread.   
      
   For example I recently discovered that someone had changed a baptism   
   date fromn 1753 to 1747, from Appleby in Westmorland to Warcop in   
   Cumbria.   
      
   I changed it back (restored the original, which had been inserted by   
   Family Search Data Admin to create that person in the database from a   
   church baptism record). I had linked to it in my tree.   
      
   I also stated WHY I had changed it back:   
      
   1. the person who changed it gave no reason for doing so.   
   2. the person who changed it gave an inaccurate source for the changed   
   record   
   3. The person who changed it mwentioned Cumbria rather than Warcop,   
   and Warcop- was not in Cumbria until more than 200 years in the   
   future, which suggested that the person who changed it didn't have   
   much clue about the place and its history.   
      
   Any time you have a multiuser database you will have such problems,   
   but I think the way FamilySearch deals with them is pretty good -- by   
   encouraging discussion of the problems and the interpretation of the   
   data, and keeping track of who changed what and when.   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/   
        http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com   
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)