Page 1 of 2

PAF themes or add-ons

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:52 am
by jabbadoo-p40
Why not? To have themes for PAF, would not make any sense, but you could have some fun with your old PAF system. Add-ons can be really hard to do, because of security reasons, but it's a cool thought... or what do you think?

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:23 pm
by russellhltn
PAF is a tired old program based on an outdated data model. It's time for something new. Read this blog.

Edit: Sorry, this comes off a bit harsh. Nothing against jabbadoo, just against PAF. Having seen the light on where genealogy programs should go, trying to breathe more life into PAF strikes me as counter productive.

OK

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:35 am
by jabbadoo-p40
OK, I understand... but what if we could make a PAF online... and you could compare with other familysearches and see if maybe some other has done babtisms for some parts of your family... I've heard that you can do something like that, but it would be better if [almost] all lds members had their search online all the time and you could compare it

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:34 pm
by russellhltn
And that is the direction things are going - on line collaboration. Take a look at the new Family Search. It's being rolled out by temple district and should be complete by the end of 2008.

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:37 pm
by scion-p40
Would genealogists then maintain two databases-- one of proven data with high confidence in assumptions made that would be online, and a second working database that is not online? There is plenty in my database that, although highly likely to be correct, lacks adequate documentation in my software. I also have assumptions yet to be proved that should not be downloaded and dumped into someone else's file.

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:09 pm
by russellhltn
scion wrote:Would genealogists then maintain two databases-- one of proven data with high confidence in assumptions made that would be online, and a second working database that is not online?


I would hope not as that would spoil the whole collaboration issue. Note that with it being on-line, it's now a "living" database rather then the old static ones we've been used to.

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:00 pm
by thedqs
Though we don't know for sure, I believe there will be the option of rating your information (documented with source to I just thought this name would look cool here) and so others can see what you have and why you think that it is the way it is and then pull other resources together to get a sure answer yes or no. And of course another generation added to the tree. :D

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:35 pm
by russellhltn
nFS does allow you to record sources, but it's still "conclusion-centric" so many may not bother to enter sources. I'm not sure if it "ranks" sources. On the other hand, if we did move to a source-centric program, the source would be there and everyone could see how strong the conclusion is.

Since it's easier to prove/disprove then to find "out of thin air", I think others would appreciate whatever tips they can have to start their search.

Again, nFS is a dynamic system. Anyone "downloading" a snapshot into their system rather then syncing deserves what they get. I realize that's a whole different train of thought then we've been used to.

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:36 pm
by JamesAnderson
One thought here might be a way of the submitter using a rating system to tell everyone how far he's gotten on that particular name.

Let's say that 1 is barely have the info and 5 is substantially complete info.

1. I have very little information on this person. (end-of-line, 'brickwall' ancestor).
2. I have some information, but need more.
3. I have basic name, date, and some other information.
4. I have most information needed for htis person
5. I have extensive information on this person.

This could use refining somewhat, but you get the idea. That way, a person could see at a glance if there was help needed in finding the information on a person, or he could see that all the information that was desired would be there if he looked more closely at the underlying data.

Great for collaboration, great for saving time looking for things too. On the collaboration, someone would see a name and say, yes, that doesn't have the information, but I have more, and would combine his record with that one, and then both could end up benefiting from seeing that, and the person who said they had less information and needed help would then raise the rank to a higher one.

What might anyone see as pros or cons on such an idea?

Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:51 pm
by russellhltn
JamesAnderson wrote:What might anyone see as pros or cons on such an idea?


If you're talking about rating the information for color coding, that's fine. But I'd let the computer rate it. After all, if you've got the info, it should be recorded in the computer anyway. Maybe only the highest levels of information would have to be manually entered.

In most cases I'm not sure as I see the value of the rating system. If you're looking at the chart and the information becomes sketchy, it's usually quite obvious. Also, programs like nFS are more interested in allowing people to connect their lines to other people's lines rather then seeking volunteer researchers to fill in the holes.

I think I'd rather use the color coding to denote the quality of the sources. According to genealogists, ancestry without sources is just fairy tales. You can have all the detail in the world, but if you don't have the sources to back it, it might as well be created by a random number generator.