This session aims at helping you to understand the issues involved in determining the capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses of various genealogy software programs. Specifically, we will focus on web pages or books created from genealogical data entered into the various programs.

The idea of having an expert examine various types of genealogy software and then reporting which is the best sounds like a good idea. What isn't apparent is the extreme complexity of deciding what is best. Simply, the best program is the one that best suits your needs or most appeals to you. There is no one BEST program for everyone.

Let me give you some examples. I think that a genealogy program that won't create web pages should be thrown out. I believe that the greatest value of a genealogy is in the sharing of the results. Likewise, I believe that a genealogy without sources might as well not have been shared and is, in short, defective. Thus, I consider ability to create web pages that cite sources a requirement. Others might disagree (yeah, well they're wrong!)

Even if we were to agree on these two points, let's take the issue of privacy in our book or web page (see Preparing to Publish Electronically). Most of us included information about living people in our database. If we don't want to contact every one of them and get permission to publish data about them, we should remove that data from what we publish. But should we remove everything (even a "space filler" to indicate there was a child), everything but their name, nothing except their birth date, or leave their initials only?

Assume that program A automatically removes everything, program B gives you the choice of everything or nothing, program C gives you the choice of initials or nothing, and program D lets you choose between three or more choices? Some would argue A is best, some would say C is best, and others D. Some would say program D is too complicated and give A a better rating for simplicity and D a better rating for flexibility. Just on this one issue it becomes almost impossible to give an "impartial" assessment. Throw in dozens more complex issues, and comparison ratings become too subjective.

Another way to compare would be to have an expert or volunteer create books and/or web pages from various programs and publish the results (in a book or on a web page). This has been done, but there are still problems. What about the accuracy or completeness of the underlying data?

Mark Knight created a comparison with the idea of letting us choose which is best. Unfortunately, he used web pages created by others. If one page includes complete data and another doesn't, you don't know if that's because the person creating the page didn't include the data or the program didn't handle it. None of the data Mark used included sources! This makes the comparison interesting, but not satisfactory.

Along came GenTech and asked volunteers to create web pages. The idea was to use the same data. That data would be entered into each program, complete with sources. Then web pages would be created. Unfortunately, not all volunteers input data the same way. If something doesn't look nice, is that because of the program or the way the data was entered? Further, when you create web pages there are options to choose and the results are influenced by the options chosen. If something doesn't come out the way you like, is it because the program is flawed or because the page creator made the wrong choices?

Then Richard Wilson and Alan Mann have tried to create web pages from the same data, but again the problems of comparison depend on how the data was input and what options were chosen in the creation process. For example, I dislike "linked" notes and images—I would rather have them embedded. The fact that Richard Wilson used the "link" option for notes in PAF might bias me against PAF if I didn’t know that there was an option to do it the way I would prefer to see it.

My conclusion about comparisons? Use them, but understand their limitations. Question the people who created the comparison, and ask questions of the software developers themselves about the capabilities of their program.

To help you find the program that will create pages that you feel will best present your data, I recommend that you take a look at these pages which show examples of web pages created from various programs and tells you how to get a copy of them:

What do the web pages look like?

What enhancement options are included in the program?

Are sources included in the page, footnoted, or what?

Where are the web pages created (my hard drive, or directly to a web site?)

Once on my hard drive, how hard is it to transfer the web pages to the Internet (upload)?

How much does it cost?

What report formats do I have to choose from (many are only one)?

What options are there for handling data on living people

what information is suppressed (name/dates/notes...)

How does it determine who is living

Can I set the threshold for what is living and what isn’t

What is the best way to create family tree web pages? Which program does it that way?

Could a combination of two or more programs be used to give me exactly what I want?

Take a look at the comparison examples shown above. Look at the web pages produced and decide which program appeals to you the most. After all, your goal is to have other genealogists easily find your families to determine if they match any of theirs. Make sure the program you choose will list at least dates (and consider place as well) in an index, otherwise it may be difficult for a visitor to determine if he is interested in your surnames.

There may yet be some issues that aren't addressed. I am continually surprised to see FamilyTreeMaker included in the list above. The truth is that FamilyTreeMaker (FTM) produces some of the most attractive books and web pages, gives you some of the most options and control over the appearance of the output in the initial creation, and gives you the option to include a variety of forms. Most of this is at least equal if not superior to the results from its competition. However, FTM has one glaring, fatal flaw and several major flaws that are not apparent. The fatal flaw--it will not substitute christening for birth nor will it replace death with burial. Therefore, if you have an ancestor with a burial date but no death date, FTM will not print anything for death or burial even if you have entered a burial date--and the same for christening. This is totally unacceptable. This alone causes me to tell people not to use FTM to create a book or web page.

CAUTION: Whatever you do, DON’T GEDCOM back and forth between programs. Just figure that every time you GEDCOM, something is lost. The more GEDCOM transfers between input and output, the more errors and problems there will be.

©Copyright 1997-2002 by Alan E. Mann. All rights reserved. Written permission to reproduce all or part of this syllabus material in any format, including photocopying, data retrieval or any computer bulletin boards, must be secured in advance from the copyright holder.