Treebard GPS, Showing the Way Since 2020
Dec 8, 2019 15:28:07 GMT -8
Post by Uncle Buddy on Dec 8, 2019 15:28:07 GMT -8
I'll be using this site as a blog till people find it and start posting. The focus of this forum is to generate discussion on specific mistakes genealogists and software developers are making and then copying from each other. That's two very different topics, both apparently negative so I'll state outright that our aim is essentially positive. We don't want any backbiting, whining or bickering here. There are no rules because adults don't need a list of rules, but it's my living room and there are unwritten rules as you might imagine.
As a genealogist, currently my main focus is writing some software for multi-purpose genealogy databases called Treebard GPS. The GPS version is intended to show the way to developers of genieware (genealogy software), most of whom are trying to create a program they can sell. By starting out as a free, open-source, portable demo showcase for genieware functionalities (instead of a program for routine accomplishment of database building), Treebard GPS can avoid the shortcomings of commercial software such as trying to maintain backward compatibility with the unfinished junk that version 1.0 tends to be, and other problems shared by the genieware that exists today. Good intentions and money don't always mix, so Treebard (the GPS version) is not necessarily intended to be finished or versioned, but usable for demonstration purposes and making smaller family trees to test functionalities. Since it's open-source, and public doamin, anyone can fork it and make a version for consumer use in creating real family trees of any size. That said, the GPS version is written in Python, Tkinter, and Sqlite so novice coders like me can write code easily without losing years to learning the more difficult languages usually used to write standalone applications.
I'll soon be posting discussion topics on some specific mistaken conclusions I see genealogists copying from tree to tree. I think this approach is better than confronting other researchers directly since they are proud of their work no matter how wrong their conclusions. Even copying someone else's tree takes some effort, though I can't imagine why anyone would bother. Isn't the personal search the biggest thrill in genealogy? Last time I spent several days proving a crazy theory and I turned out to be right, I literally fell on the floor laughing when the proof jumped off the page at me. Copying someone else's data doesn't make me happy like that, so most of my research is done on obscure families because it's more fun being the first one to figure something out. So I've been researching the family background of old-time inventors for almost ten years. Sometimes I research my own lines (Robertson-Rathbun-Saunier-Gaume and others) but I have too many hobbies and too little time.
Anyway, once the truth is told here about who Phyllis Miller was really married to (in spite of what all the online trees are saying), it's conceivable that the mistaken tree builders could find out about the thread here and might take it less personally since it's not aimed at them. Keep it friendly and who knows what might be accomplished in these days of robo-genealogy (don't get me started).
Besides critiquing the specific conclusions of genealogists in their research, we will have topics on what genealogy software should do and how it should work. My main interest is in the basic features and how the interface should work in terms of user friendliness, intuitiveness, etc. I'm not too big on the bells & whistles, it's not my area. Currently I know nothing about writing or reading GEDCOM files, so it'll be a long time before I start working on a Treebard version 0. My other main interest is in developing a genieware that cares about evidence and gives the art of sourcing its proper place without skewing the user experience so far in that direction that only the most nit-picking perfectionists would want to use the program.
In that vein, my project slogan is currently "assertion-evidence-conclusion" and GPS currently stands for "genieware pattern simulation".
Have fun and I hope to see this blog become a discussion forum someday.
As a genealogist, currently my main focus is writing some software for multi-purpose genealogy databases called Treebard GPS. The GPS version is intended to show the way to developers of genieware (genealogy software), most of whom are trying to create a program they can sell. By starting out as a free, open-source, portable demo showcase for genieware functionalities (instead of a program for routine accomplishment of database building), Treebard GPS can avoid the shortcomings of commercial software such as trying to maintain backward compatibility with the unfinished junk that version 1.0 tends to be, and other problems shared by the genieware that exists today. Good intentions and money don't always mix, so Treebard (the GPS version) is not necessarily intended to be finished or versioned, but usable for demonstration purposes and making smaller family trees to test functionalities. Since it's open-source, and public doamin, anyone can fork it and make a version for consumer use in creating real family trees of any size. That said, the GPS version is written in Python, Tkinter, and Sqlite so novice coders like me can write code easily without losing years to learning the more difficult languages usually used to write standalone applications.
I'll soon be posting discussion topics on some specific mistaken conclusions I see genealogists copying from tree to tree. I think this approach is better than confronting other researchers directly since they are proud of their work no matter how wrong their conclusions. Even copying someone else's tree takes some effort, though I can't imagine why anyone would bother. Isn't the personal search the biggest thrill in genealogy? Last time I spent several days proving a crazy theory and I turned out to be right, I literally fell on the floor laughing when the proof jumped off the page at me. Copying someone else's data doesn't make me happy like that, so most of my research is done on obscure families because it's more fun being the first one to figure something out. So I've been researching the family background of old-time inventors for almost ten years. Sometimes I research my own lines (Robertson-Rathbun-Saunier-Gaume and others) but I have too many hobbies and too little time.
Anyway, once the truth is told here about who Phyllis Miller was really married to (in spite of what all the online trees are saying), it's conceivable that the mistaken tree builders could find out about the thread here and might take it less personally since it's not aimed at them. Keep it friendly and who knows what might be accomplished in these days of robo-genealogy (don't get me started).
Besides critiquing the specific conclusions of genealogists in their research, we will have topics on what genealogy software should do and how it should work. My main interest is in the basic features and how the interface should work in terms of user friendliness, intuitiveness, etc. I'm not too big on the bells & whistles, it's not my area. Currently I know nothing about writing or reading GEDCOM files, so it'll be a long time before I start working on a Treebard version 0. My other main interest is in developing a genieware that cares about evidence and gives the art of sourcing its proper place without skewing the user experience so far in that direction that only the most nit-picking perfectionists would want to use the program.
In that vein, my project slogan is currently "assertion-evidence-conclusion" and GPS currently stands for "genieware pattern simulation".
Have fun and I hope to see this blog become a discussion forum someday.