Why I'm disappointed with TMG6
I've been having a couple of issues with TMG6. As you might remember, I upgraded to TMG in January as I really wanted to start my family history book and needed real footnotes/endnotes (which Legacy 6 doesn't have).
Well after a long import process (there are some bugs with the way TMG imports Legacy files re sources and citations) I finally got my report. I hadn't had much opportunity to use TMG since and finally felt prompted to use it the last couple of days as I had discovered a link to a well documented line of McMurachys. I wanted to merge a McMurachy gedcom with my own file. I came across the following issues/annoyances:
1. The merge function is terrible. By default the automatic merge looks for soundex similarities which causes way to many matches. I changed this to surname exact spelling and first name soundex.
Funnily enough though, even with the default setting, it didn't pick up the most obvious matches (those with the exact same name but with a space Mc Murachy vs. McMurachy, or those names in capitals?).
2. When you check a pair as non-duplicates, the check mark does not show (to confirm you checked it) even though a confirmation message appears. In fact, there is no way to tell that you have even selected the pair as non-duplicated unless you exit the Merge function and run it again. Even then, when you select "don't show non-duplicates" the pair is still included in the count of duplicate pairs.
When I checked with the technical support for TMG I was told that there was nothing wrong with this functionality (it was intentional). Gotta be the most stupid thing I've even seen and I work in the software industry! I'd never let my software developers get away with something so dumb :) Save to: Digg | | Yahoo | Furl | Reddit
Well after a long import process (there are some bugs with the way TMG imports Legacy files re sources and citations) I finally got my report. I hadn't had much opportunity to use TMG since and finally felt prompted to use it the last couple of days as I had discovered a link to a well documented line of McMurachys. I wanted to merge a McMurachy gedcom with my own file. I came across the following issues/annoyances:
1. The merge function is terrible. By default the automatic merge looks for soundex similarities which causes way to many matches. I changed this to surname exact spelling and first name soundex.
Funnily enough though, even with the default setting, it didn't pick up the most obvious matches (those with the exact same name but with a space Mc Murachy vs. McMurachy, or those names in capitals?).
2. When you check a pair as non-duplicates, the check mark does not show (to confirm you checked it) even though a confirmation message appears. In fact, there is no way to tell that you have even selected the pair as non-duplicated unless you exit the Merge function and run it again. Even then, when you select "don't show non-duplicates" the pair is still included in the count of duplicate pairs.
When I checked with the technical support for TMG I was told that there was nothing wrong with this functionality (it was intentional). Gotta be the most stupid thing I've even seen and I work in the software industry! I'd never let my software developers get away with something so dumb :) Save to: Digg | | Yahoo | Furl | Reddit
2 Comments:
I just bought the Gold Edition of TMG. I was also a software engineer in a previous life (before going into teaching for the "kid friendly" schedule). I had been using PAF forever, and doing genealogy since the late 70's!! I can't believe how "unintuitive" TMG is. I'm sure all the great sorting and searching capabilities would prove to be useful - sometime -, but the daily input of data and moving around in your data is just not there. How sad. I also own Legacy, but keep going back to the useful PAF. How sad that it will soon not be upgraded.
Deb
Hi Deb, thanks for your comment. You know, I really do like PAF especially as it is free. It is great for beginner and intermediate genealogists, and its search and filter features are more advanced than many other programs. It just lacks a little in the area of citations and reports, but for most everything else it is fine.
Unfortunately, the history of PAF is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has few resources working on its maintenance (even though the code was donated by Ancestral Quest). And you know what, I don't mind that seeing as they are working on digitizing the entire contents of the Family History Library!
However, for those users that area looking to upgrade their PAF or add new features, I suggest looking at Ancestral Quest's PAFWiz to see if that will meet your needs.
http://www.ancquest.com/pafwiz/update20.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home