From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Steve Hayes   
    writes:   
   >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.   
      
   Thanks all; it's been an interesting discussion, though as I   
   anticipated, there's no new solution.   
      
   >   
   >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.   
      
   That is actually different to the sort of cloud I wasn't sure of; my   
   main concerns about the cloud were the possibility of sudden loss, which   
   I presume is unlikely to happen in this case, and access to your data by   
   unknowns, which participants in that enterprise are obviously not   
   concerned about anyway.   
   >   
   >But it *does* do everything you have mentioned.   
      
   Yes, and it also reduces duplication of effort by being one master tree   
   for all.   
   >   
   >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.   
      
   I think that's the main disadvantage with it (also see below) - that you   
   have to access it via special means. Plus I'm not sure how much facility   
   it has to add what some might consider material of only marginal   
   genealogical relevance (stories, pictures, and video), though as I   
   haven't really tried it I shouldn't say that.   
   >   
   >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, I guess, is my main other disadvantage to it: it's the question of   
   who has ultimate control. And that's intractable, and not a _criticism_   
   of the "one universal tree" _idea_. Anyone who _does_ keep their own   
   personal database (except where they're just keeping it for convenient   
   access for when and where they have no internet connection) shares this   
   concern.   
   >   
   >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.   
   >   
   Even before you got to "didn't have much clue", I was thinking, this   
   could get nasty. Do such comments about other contributors eventually   
   get removed in time? Even if they do, it implies some arbitrator, with   
   whose decisions themselves you may not agree. But again - whether they   
   are or aren't - it's a problem intrinsic to the concept, and if it's   
   surviving, then it's probably working. (I did think it could get to the   
   level of libel/slander actions; I _presume_ there's some term in the Ts   
   and Cs you agree to in the first place that you indemnify LDS against   
   any costs arising out of misuse, but it _could_ still get nasty. But   
   hopefully that doesn't happen. [Has the clueless contributor whose   
   contribution you commented on come back at all? If they have and they   
   concede your points, that's the best possible outcome; if they haven't,   
   that _could_ still be a good outcome, or it could be that they've been   
   put off genealogy altogether, which I would argue is a less good one.])   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   5   
      
   I must look into how easy it is to both access, and contribute (e. g.   
   upload a GeDCom) to, this One Tree.   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   one can't go from `supposed crackpot ideas have been right before' to `we   
   should   
   take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance   
   like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)