PDA

View Full Version : Using Reunion to build genealogy webpage?


Gordon Watson
26 September 2005, 10:14 PM
I'd welcome advice re the above. I recall criticism of Reunion's "web-building" performance years ago; I presume much has changed. I note that some Reunion-users now use "The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding" and another infers "built with the reluctant help of Reunion". Comments please.

I should add that I'm a Mac and Reunion fan and that I would prefer to work with Reunion (and help improve it if necessary). HOWEVER: I'd like my site to be "world-class" via "elegant simplicity" -- which might be best intepreted as: allowing visitors to have a "Reunion" experience as they navigate through the data.

Pointers to such "world-class" sites would therefore be welcomed; especially those built with Reunion.

PS: My Reunion-Index has 56000 names (which I'd like to share) but only 4200 are direct relatives.

johnpritt
27 September 2005, 01:45 AM
I'd like my site to be "world-class" via "elegant simplicity".Well, I suspect that you'll get as many interpretations of that as you get answers to your mail, Gordon! Fortunately for you, you'll notice that some of us include details of our websites in our signatures, whilst the good folk at Reunion also enable us to publicize our sites via a page on the Reunion home site (http://www.leisterpro.com/doc/users/linkSearch.php) -- so go take a look.

You're right in that there are many ways of creating a site: the simplest being to use Reunion to create web cards. Many of us have gone that route. The advantage is that you need to know next to nothing about creating a website, and if you use say the .Mac service or something similar, then your site is ready to go. And, of course, it meets your criteria of allowing vistors to have the Reunion experience.

The other advantage is that you can experience that yourself more or less immediately, since you can build the site right there on your desktop and view it locally.

Others (like myself) have adopted a hybrid approach, embedding the Reunion webcards into pages we have built ourselves. This gives us a little bit more flexibility. It also gives us more opportunity to "mess up" the Reunion look and feel. But then, elegance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder! As far as I am concerned, I took this route for 3 main reasons: I built the site before I started using Reunion and the programme I was using was much more limited, I wanted to include additional texts, and I did not want to host my own site or use server side applications (I use .Mac that doesn't allow that anyway).

Finally, there is the third class of users who take a much more sophisticated approach, hosting their own sites and using TNG and other applications to create their sites.

Horses for courses, I guess. I think it's a little bit unfair to refer to "built with the reluctant help of Reunion" -- most of the complaints/suggestions seem to turn around the fact that CSS support would be nice, plus a few tweaks here and there. Reunion is primarily a genealogy application, not a webcreation tool, so it's always going to offer something tending towards the "basic" end of the scale, rather thant he "sophisticated" end, anyway.

Incidentally, with that many names in your index, if you do decide to see what it looks like, you might want to try with a subset of the data :) and, if you do regular updates, you might want to check out Steve Jackson's excellent utility "Folder Updater" (http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/MacStuff.html). Steve is a regular contributor to these forums and knows what he's talking about (and Folder Updater is recommended by Reunion too, so don't just take my word for it).

Happy hunting!

dcosten
27 September 2005, 05:11 PM
I'd welcome advice re the above. I recall criticism of Reunion's "web-building" performance years ago; I presume much has changed. I note that some Reunion-users now use "The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding" and another infers "built with the reluctant help of Reunion". Comments please.The main advantage of TNG is you basically handle one file - a GEDCOM file, that you upload to your server, and TNG then reads the GEDCOM and generates a dynamic database. On the other hand, if you want to add pictures, documents, etc., you do have to upload those seperately into TNG, but even then the genealogy database is still just that - a database and not a ton of individual files.

I wouldn't be surprised if Reunion 9 addresses the CSS/HTML issues that some have complained about, and makes it easier to publish to the web and/or CDs like MacFamilyTree and the new version of Heredis coming out soon (especially in regards to customizing the output).

I think some people are a little hard on genealogy applications in general as far as web publishing, but it's the nature of the beast - It would take a lot to include an online database component with any "offline" genealogy application like Reunion, MFT, Heredis, and the Windows apps, not to mention the technical support headaches that would be incurred.

I'd rather they spiffy up the HTML output (mainly for publishing to a CD or DVD to hand out to family members), and save the resources needed for an online database for adding more to the "offline" genealogy application.

Edit: the other thing is, the majority of people probably only have websites that will take simple CSS/HTML - getting into TNG and other online databases, you have to pay anywhere from $4-$5 and on up a month for a hosted server that allows you to create/use databases, plus domain name fees (yearly - usually $5-10 plus another $10 if you want private registration).

S. Kennedy
27 September 2005, 06:37 PM
I'd welcome advice re the above. I recall criticism of Reunion's "web-building" performance years ago; I presume much has changed. I note that some Reunion-users now use "The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding" and another infers "built with the reluctant help of Reunion". Comments please.

PS: My Reunion-Index has 56000 names (which I'd like to share) but only 4200 are direct relatives.Gordon,

The answers to your question is of interest to me but my files are not ready yet. However I would like for you to contact me off line concerning your Boyd research. I sent an email to a 2001 address but it bounced so this is the only way I know to contact you.

S. Kennedy

Gordon Watson
28 September 2005, 05:23 PM
The answer to your question is of interest to me but my files are not ready yet.I keep saying the same thing: ''not ready''. However: with good success finding distant relatives by my ''old method'', I think it's time to go on-line so that what I have is available to others (at the same time encouraging some ''slackers'' in my family and maybe finding some new distant relatives). Thus part of my search for ''elegant simplicity'' is to allow me to easily edit my material ''on-line'' -- despite that ''not ready'' -- with 56000 names and 4200 relations!!

PS: From the helpful comments I've received, my position is moving to ''go with Reunion and its elegant simplicity'' ... and investigate its synergy with .Mac.

Gordon Watson
28 September 2005, 06:01 PM
I'd rather they [Leister] spiffy up the HTML output (mainly for publishing to a CD or DVD to hand out to family members), and save the resources needed for an online database for adding more to the "offline" genealogy application.Given the dynamic nature of this ''genealogy business'', and given the benefits of prompt global co-operation and communication, CDs and DVDs are too limited for my present purposes. Also, with Reunion-8 nicely meeting my regular needs, ''on-line'' is the way to go IMHO.Edit: the other thing is, the majority of people probably only have websites that will take simple CSS/HTML - getting into TNG and other online databases, you have to pay anywhere from $4-$5 and on up a month for a hosted server that allows you to create/use databases, plus domain name fees (yearly - usually $5-10 plus another $10 if you want private registration).Good point; I'm all for saving money. HOWEVER: These are small costs compared with the time spent finding original documents and copying them. So if these ''advanced'' approaches were beneficial in locating relatives or new data, that would be money well-spent.

Perhaps Reunion-8 plus a .Mac investment is the smart way to go (for starters)?

Gordon Watson
28 September 2005, 06:37 PM
You're right in that there are many ways of creating a site: the simplest being to use Reunion to create web cards. Many of us have gone that route. The advantage is that you need to know next to nothing about creating a website, and if you use say the .Mac service or something similar, then your site is ready to go. And, of course, it meets your criteria of allowing vistors to have the Reunion experience.
Many thanks John. Your comprehensive reply has me quickly up-to-speed. I believe that Reunion-8 meets my essential basic needs and (importantly) allows me to focus on DATA rather than web-gimmicks. Put another way: Reunion will surely keep pace with any developing ''web-sophistication'' that I might aspire to.

I now need to understand/evaluate the combination of Reunion-8 and .Mac; which will presumably take me to another section of this site. All comments, as always, most welcome.

Incidentally, with that many names in your index, if you do decide to see what it looks like, you might want to try with a subset of the data :) and, if you do regular updates, you might want to check out Steve Jackson's excellent utility "Folder Updater" (http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/MacStuff.html). Steve is a regular contributor to these forums and knows what he's talking about (and Folder Updater is recommended by Reunion too, so don't just take my word for it).
Excellent advice! Especially for me!

dcosten
29 September 2005, 12:32 AM
Perhaps Reunion-8 plus a .Mac investment is the smart way to go (for starters)?If you do not already have a .Mac account...Unless you qualify for the education or corporate discount:
.Mac - $99
1 e-mail address with aliases

You can do a year of hosting from a company like http://totalchoicehosting.com/ for $50 ($4 a month for starters). You get unlimited email addresses (if you have other family members who would perhaps like an email address from your site say it was called watsonfamily.com, you could have gordon@watsonfamily.com, whoever@watsonfamily.com, etc.).

Hosting $50
Domain Name $12 (This includes private/proxy registration, which shields your identity - GoDaddy.com has this deal currently going on)
The Next Generation of Genealogy Site Building $29
Total = $91

You could replace TNG with http://phpgedview.net/ , which is free/open-source, and which has come a long ways.

.Mac is easy, no doubt about it, but if your on dial-up, I would go with a TNG or PhpGedView setup for the simple fact that your not having to deal with uploading a multitude of HTML files that could take who knows how long - you would just be uploading a GEDCOM plus photos/documents. If your on broadband, it's a little more difficult decision.

I do find that relatives seem to like having a "family" site, and some have their own email addresses (we also have forums and a candid photo gallery in addition to TNG).

Having a seperate domain also makes it easier to transfer in case you are unable to continue to maintain it and need to pass it on to somebody else.

Julianne
21 October 2005, 10:04 PM
TNG looks interesting. I already have a .mac account. Can .mac host a TNG site?

By the way, you can get .Mac for a substantial discount if you buy it from Amazon.com.

theKiwi
23 October 2005, 01:06 AM
No, .Mac can not host a TNG site as .Mac is not setup to handle PHP and mySQL which is needed for TNG to run.

The TNG site

http://lythgoes.net/genealogy/software.php

has a note on it about a couple of companies that provide cheap hosting, including the site the author of TNG uses.

I host my own TNG sites on my PowerMac G4 from home which is connected online via a DSL line. Instructions on how to setup a Mac to use PHP and mySQL (the instructions I used in 2002 when I set my PowerMac up to run TNG) can be found here

http://www.macworld.com/2002/11/features/database/

Cheers

Roger

Julianne
23 October 2005, 09:09 AM
Thanks for replying Roger. I had the feeling that the answer would be "no" about .mac. I read the MacWorld article. I actually have GoLive 6 so I might be able to try setting up the AMP with it, though the entire process looks a bit daunting. Once you set that up did you use TNG for everything else? How do you set up the domain name?

Julianne

theKiwi
23 October 2005, 10:11 PM
I purchased my domain names (I own several of them) from http://GoDaddy.com/ for about $8 a year, and then use their controls to set the DNS from those names to point to the static IP numbers that I have on my DSL line which comes from http://SpeakEasy.net/

Once that's in place requests for those domains then come to my router, which is set to forward the requests (on Port 80) to my PowerMac G4, and the httpd.conf file on that machine (the same file mentioned in the MacWorld article) then sorts out which folder in the WebServer/Documents folder belongs to which domain names.

Much easier said than done LOL!!

Cheers

Roger

mcdonald44
23 July 2006, 09:27 AM
Add me to the list of those looking to purchase Reunion 8/9.

Very interested and curious about current and future web publishing abilities and formats.

Webarcher
23 July 2006, 12:15 PM
What about iWeb integration?

Jeroen