398348 names in the database

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

?? do I?

Berwickshire yes, maybe not Coldstream:o I started typing one thing and changed it part way through, i know what i meant.

You have Swinton, Berwickshire as a pob in 1870, Lovettpod (Helen) also has Swinton as a pob about 10 years earlier.

KiteRunner has several Coldstream entries so i'm probably walking in the footsteps of the names she has added.

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

Own up

Who is taking names out then????

The total has just gone down to 417948

[Margaret in Burton]

OOOPS That might be me Glen :o

I added some names but I have also trimmed a few off that were wrong.

SORRY !!!!!!!!!!

[Darksecretz]

Berwickshire yes, maybe not Coldstream:o I started typing one thing and changed it part way through, i know what i meant.

You have Swinton, Berwickshire as a pob in 1870, Lovettpod (Helen) also has Swinton as a pob about 10 years earlier.

KiteRunner has several Coldstream entries so i'm probably walking in the footsteps of the names she has added.

oops yea so I have, I forgot about Swinton........ :o but I have no idea where in me tree he is.....lol

[Grampa Jim]

I've just put a question to the Think Tank, but maybe you guys might know the answer, or at least by comparing sizes we might get close.

How many NAMES, not amorphous cyberbits, can we upload? The premise is that there would be 2 births with perhaps 2 baptisms, 1 marriage, 2 Deaths and/or Burials for each couple as a max.

So what size is the largest one that you have managed to upload on to this Site?

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

I've just put a question to the Think Tank, but maybe you guys might know the answer, or at least by comparing sizes we might get close.

How many NAMES, not amorphous cyberbits, can we upload? The premise is that there would be 2 births with perhaps 2 baptisms, 1 marriage, 2 Deaths and/or Burials for each couple as a max.

So what size is the largest one that you have managed to upload on to this Site?

I don't think the answer is as easy as saying that the maximum number of names is x.

The different software platforms utilise different character sets and coding, a file containing just pure names and dates of events on one platform may be 250KB but on another it may be 300KB.

A lot of files can have wasted space when notes are edited or deleted and re-written, using the reports options in some software often produces a documet with huge blank areas between paragraphs or paragraphs that overlap a page break, the addition or removal of carriage returns to make these fit a report can all impact on the filesize when converted to a GED format.
A small percentage of each file is given over to information to identify the creating software programme, gedcom version, character set etc.

As a quick experiment recently i exported a file from my FTM and uploaded it to Ancestry, i then downloaded the same file back from Ancestry, both files have the same information but they are different sizes because of the software that has produced them.

I have also made a quick file on FTM with the info you can see below, no notes, sources or anything except for the information you can see entered on the family page



The file statistics show the following, the file contains far more text characters than the screen above due to coding



When converted to GED format the filesize is shown on my pc as




See the next post for a comparison to a larger file

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

My main file has all the notes, sources, bmd refs, census refs and other assorted bits and pieces recorded, the file contains close to 900 names, exact numbers and text records are shown below but bear in mind this is everything in the file




I haven't removed any information from the file at all, it contains everything as shown in the illustration above but when converted to a GED format the filesize is probably less than expected

[Uncle John]

My main FTM file is 4521KB, with 3455 individuals and 967 marriages. It doesn't have any pictures, just BMD and census refs. My Gedcom file for the same data is 1172KB.

[Grampa Jim]

My last upload was 923 individuals, I have just uploaded a new one with no living individuals on it, totalling 1200 odd people. After the Site had filtered out those born in the last 100 years with no death date it came down to 1013 which was accepted, so I assume that I can probably fairly assume that if I split my tree into approx 1000 people chunks thay should be OK.

But thanks for the techy stuff. I hadn't realised how much baggage in Programming these things carry.

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

My main FTM file is 4521KB, with 3455 individuals and 967 marriages. It doesn't have any pictures, just BMD and census refs. My Gedcom file for the same data is 1172KB.

Two files with the same individuals but with counties included in pob, marriage and death events for one version and excluded in the other will be noticably different filesizes.

All these subtle differences mean it isn't possible to answer the question "how many is too many?" for our database.

[Mary from Italy]

My last upload was 923 individuals, I have just uploaded a new one with no living individuals on it, totalling 1200 odd people. After the Site had filtered out those born in the last 100 years with no death date it came down to 1013 which was accepted, so I assume that I can probably fairly assume that if I split my tree into approx 1000 people chunks thay should be OK.

Assuming you're stripping out the extraneous information like notes and sources, it'll accept more than that.

My tree now stands at roughly 2500 people; the complete gedcom is 1747 Kb, but without notes and sources it's 856 Kb, and FTF accepts it with no problems.

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

OOOPS That might be me Glen :o

I added some names but I have also trimmed a few off that were wrong.

SORRY !!!!!!!!!!

Trimming of wrong ones eh? I suppose that is an acceptable excuse but only just.:(

Seems to make little difference though as we now have 418223 at the time of posting

[Margaret in Burton]

My last upload was 923 individuals, I have just uploaded a new one with no living individuals on it, totalling 1200 odd people. After the Site had filtered out those born in the last 100 years with no death date it came down to 1013 which was accepted, so I assume that I can probably fairly assume that if I split my tree into approx 1000 people chunks thay should be OK.

But thanks for the techy stuff. I hadn't realised how much baggage in Programming these things carry.

Jim you can only upload one tree as each new upload overwrites the other one.

I have almost 5000 people in mine and mine uploads ok.

You need to remove anything that isn't needed. Notes, marriages etc. All you need is born or baptised and death or burial and the places of course.

When you export the gedcom from your computer, re-import it to a new file and then use the "facts to import" bit. Don't import the bits you don't need. Call it something new that you will recognise and then export a new gedcom from that. It is that stripped down gedcom that you import to this site.

[LangleyValeSue]

Phew! I finally loaded mine. I tried last night, then realised some of it was wrong so I deleted it from here and corrected it. When I tried to upload it back again it wouldn't work. I just kept getting a blank screen after I thought I'd done it right.

I thought I'd leave it until today, after I'd slept LOL, and try again.

:D I DID IT :D

I realised that the file I was trying to upload wasn't a gedcom file (I'd saved it in the wrong place - well I was very tired!) and when I changed it, it worked :D

[WendyPusey]

My gedcom on here has 7355 people, out of 11,000 in my tree. I can't add any more to it as it would go over 2MB.

[Darksecretz]

Dont forget either that the Gedcom size per person is 2mb,

but then again this all depends on the amount of characters used within that program

[Uncle John]

Dont forget either that the Gedcom size per person is 2mb,

but then again this all depends on the amount of characters used within that program

But if that equates to over 7000 dead rellies, it's not bad going.

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

It seems that the increase is continuing

now a staggering 419085 just another 260 or so and that would make 21,000 new names

[maggie_4_7]

Glen

I see you have a William Cook born Beetley, Norfolk in 1788 I have a William Cook born Beetley, Norfolk 1789.

I know there seems to be a few Cook familys in Beetley at the time.

Mine was born to Robert Cook and Elizabeth Webster, Elizabeth being Robert's second wife his first was called Ann.

Edit to say: Yep I updated but it only managed to put in 2 more for me because I don't put birth dates in unless I can confirm the birth/ baptism perhaps I should put abt .... would the database pick the people up then?

[Katarzyna]

Hi Maggie
I always put ABT when I have a baptism only. I have several where children were all baptised on the same day.

Yes the data picks up abt but doesn't stipulate that in the findings ie if you enter abt 1850 you will see 1850.