Genealogy Chat

I wonder whether anyone can help as I can't get a proper answer from the Support team.

William Davis Bull, born 1833 in Whitechapel has been on my tree for a few years. I've now returned to that part of my family. In full view, he was showing without spouse or children (some of his siblings had spouses and children and they were all showing on full view). So, having found him married to Elizabeth and with two children, Henry & Walter in the 1861, I added them. "Elizabeth Unknown 1830 Whitechapel, Henry 1859 Stepney and Walter 1860 Stepney.

So I added them, clicked on Attach Record, under quick relation put Henry Bull 1859 in, two came up, both born 1859, both born Stepney and one of them had a tick saying "record successfully attached". I then clicked on "View in Tree" to both the Henry Bulls and saw that William with Elizabeth, Henry & Walter were on the tree twice.

I mailed GR who haven't answered the question despite emails flowing back and forth. Can anyone tell me why didn't William's family show up on Full Family the first time and how can I stop this happening again?

Thanks.

The only advice i can offer is that you continue your attempts to get GR to sort your problem out,

Are you using the "new tree" try the "old tree" that appears to be the better option but i personally removed my tree months ago because of ongoing problems such as yours and only in the last week one member has lost his entire tree along with years of research,

I would advise you to export a copy of your tree (Gedcom file) then if you do have problems in the future you will still have a copy as a back up, also you can download a family tree program off the Internet for free that will enable you to import your tree (Gedcom file) to the family tree program and work on it whilst off line

Roy

Thanks for the advice.

I emailed the (non) Support Team this morning with the problem and they "corrected" it, i.e. deleted Elizabeth, Henry and Walter. They confirmed that there was only one William Bull. When I asked why it happened, they told me it was an easy mistake to make (i.e. my error). I mailed them again asking how the mistake had happened and they told me that because they'd "corrected" it, they couldn't go back to find out why it happened in the first place.

One of the reasons you pay a subscription is for GR to run a managed service, it's not just because of the records they have.

The number of times I mail the (N) ST and they respond having not properly read the message. It's so frustrating.

An hour ago, I found the marriage of Victoria Bull born 1838 to James Hoyle, born 1832 in Cork. Marriage, 25/12/1858 in St John's Church, Stratfod. Pressed save. Just gone back in - no marriage shown ... ???

Oh dear!! There are a lot of problems with the GR trees at the moment. I would repeat what Roy said and emphasise the importance of having a tree off-line. I do all the work on mine off-line, and back it up, then gedcom it up to GR every so often. Most of the time it appears OK on the GR tree, but if it doesn't, it doesn't matter and I haven't lost all my hard work.

Thanks Andysmum (thought you were at Wimbledon this afternoon :-)

Can I ask what off-line software you use? Will it take all the censuses I've attached?

I'm not sure whether that's a compliment!!

I use Family Tree Maker 2005, which suits me fine, although there are newer versions. There have been lots of threads on this subject and generally, people seem to prefer whichever one they started with - there are several which can be downloaded for free.

I'm not sure about censuses - I tend to copy the entries into the individual notes, but it will take photos and newspaper articles (scanned) so I don't see why it shouldn't take censuses. I'm sure the more recent versions will, and if they don't, someone on here will probably say so.

If you put Family Tree Software into Google, it will come up with a selection.

I have just noticed a thread on here about FTM 2012, and someone has said it takes censuses.

Of course it was a compliment. Looks like you're now going to be at the semi finals too now!

OK, thanks for the info. I'll have a looksee tomorrow.

Kind regards

Lindsey