Possible nFS Combining and Uncombining Solutions

scion-p40
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:56 pm

Postby scion-p40 » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:14 pm

Selecting the "correct" information or the "preferred" spouse or parents needs to be visible to the person choosing it. One person's preferences need not change another person's selected settings.

User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Postby garysturn » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:34 pm

jbh001 wrote:
Additionally, when there is more than one ordinance date for a given ordinance, we need either the ability to select which date to display (a la "Summary"), or the system should automatically display the earliest date for a given ordinance.


The oldest ordinance date in the folder is already the default.

I agree we should be able to select the correct marriage date.

We do already have the ability to select the preferred parents, we need that same option for the preferred spouse. This selection of the preferred parents can be different for each user.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

jbh001
Community Moderators
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Postby jbh001 » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:32 pm

GarysTurn wrote:The oldest ordinance date in the folder is already the default.
Then there are bugs in the system because "old" Family Search for this individual has IGI entries that have BOTH a 1997 date (Boise Temple) and a 1992 date (Logan Temple) for proxy endowment. Apparently nFS is pulling one IGI date for the initiatory and the other date for the endowment. The logic nFS uses to determine which of these dates to use for "initiatory" escapes me since IGI labels both dates as "endowment."

Regardless, I would think that by now the temple records would have been extracted to IGI so that the original 1919 live endowment date (FHL Film 177977) was available somewhere to link to this individual. I guess I'll just have to wait for the digitized versions of the old temple records are made and made available for online searching.

scion-p40
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:56 pm

Postby scion-p40 » Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:57 pm

jbh001, that is my experience, too.

Unfortunately, the feedback system on nFS all seems to be filtered through nFS missionaries, rather than an option to give feedback directly to IT or whatever they call the tech dept.

I did provide feedback on the same problem that you noted, but the rambling responses from the volunteers did not address the issue and closed the case. Why provide feedback via nFS if it never gets to the IT folks working on the software because the volunteer answered his/her own question & then closed the case?

whitcomb-p40
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:47 am
Location: Pamplona, Spain

Postby whitcomb-p40 » Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:27 pm

A some of us think the OLDEST ordinance date should be the valid one. The other dates, like all duplicate information (I have one relative endowed 15 times) should be sent to a archived or referenced but not listed. If any "new" information was entered it would be a dispute and could be dealth with in the new system.

There is some information that is obviously wrong (a person born in 1480 with a recorded baptism/christening in 1940 comes to mind) where I am trying to contact the submitter comes to mind.

Alan

jbh001 wrote:I need to submit this formally through the nFS feedback system, but there also needs to be a way to select which marriage information to display.

Additionally, when there is more than one ordinance date for a given ordinance, we need either the ability to select which date to display (a la "Summary"), or the system should automatically display the earliest date for a given ordinance.

I have an example in my line of proxy initiatory occurring several years AFTER proxy endowment which is itself several decades AFTER live sealing to spouse (for some reason the "live" endowment was never recorded on the membership record, or the temple records in question have not been extracted that far back or are otherwise not correctly linked to this individual).

law1k-p40
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Murray, Utah, USA

Good topic contains some information that needs to be addresed.

Postby law1k-p40 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:41 pm

I think one question we need to ask with separating records is do we want to create orphan quarantined records that just sit out there. Or would it better to add a summery view on the relationship screen much like there is one for individual information.(Like whatjbh001 said)

This is a big issue with me especially with my tree containing a smith line. I don't necessarily see a problem with individual information. I more see a problem with relationship information. Like someone’s who record should be restricted being married to at least 7 wifes but he only(To my recollection) had one and the sealing were done incorrectly by members.

I also agree with the need for having a block preventing (or at least making it more difficult) separated individuals (I will call them quarantined record to distinct them from not this individual separations, the current do not combine notice does not work.) from being combined. There is such a block in place for individuals with Church Membership records.

I recently separated an entire AF submission (5 generations) to where the children were born when one of the parents was dead. So I separated the entire AF submission out of the tree. I then added a DO NOT COMBINE NOTICE. Did not dispute the records but did follow current policy on that. I was a bit frustrated to find out that they were later combined. I came to the conclusion that someone using Family Insight combined the record without seeing the note. It would be nice to add an extra warning to a flagged record asking are you really sure this information is correct and though that error out not only to people using NFS but people combining though the API of NFS.

In regards to separating records when I separate a record I want the relationships separated out of the record view (Currently when you separate a record with relationships it keeps it in the tree as a Alternate relationship. It is fine if it stays there but I would like it to go out of view. Or a copy sent to the record I am separating so I can then FLAG the record as incorrect(this needs improvement too see paragraph above.)

Comments on what has been said so far.

RickParker wrote:The third combine error I've come across consist of single records which list their point of origin as Ancestral File, and are clearly containing information about two distinct individuals. These usually cause the system to recommend records from both individuals as being matches (which makes sense). However, there doesn't seem to be any way to unlink the problem record. These are the times when all out destruction of the bad record would be nice.


Due to it seams to be necessary to preserve information I don't think destruction is the answer. I think for display issues "filtering" incorrect relationships, or completely separating adding a flag would be an answer.

RussellHltn wrote:I'd like to see a block on combining records when it would result in a impossible combination - such as a son who is his own father. Or two individuals who are simply too far apart in time or space to possibly be the same. The error would have to be resolved or bad data disputed before the combining could take place.
I really like this idea but be a little leant on this. Some women have had children past child bearing years.


GarysTurn wrote:I like the idea Earl gave of archiving some of the records. I think that once a folder contains completed ordinances and someone has selected the correct entries in the Summary area. All other records which are not used should be archived and not loaded each time the folder is loaded.

I think this is a good idea but only when primary sources have been attached to the events displayed in the summery screen verifying all information is correct.



GarysTurn wrote:Some other options might be:
Archive unclaimed records until someone claims them

This would be nice but may leave out valuable data.

GarysTurn wrote:Allow users to mark records to be archived

I think this is a good idea depending on what it would prevent while searching for duplicates.

GarysTurn wrote:Allow several users working together to mark a record as bad and archive it

This is a very good idea and could be attached to the dispute system.(which also could have some improvements currently the dispute system only displays information and makes records look bad and people are disputing incorrectly due to the usability issue with disputes.) Set a threshold on votes and not only archive it but take the record out of view.


whitcomb wrote:A some of us think the OLDEST ordinance date should be the valid one. The other dates, like all duplicate information (I have one relative endowed 15 times) should be sent to a archived or referenced but not listed. If any "new" information was entered it would be a dispute and could be death with in the new system.


I have a relative in my direct line what was baptized twice when he was alive once at 6 ½ and the other at the age of 8. I still think that selection should be restricted and the proper procedure is due to it is LDS Ordnance data submitting a membership correction on the record.


Return to “Genealogy Industry Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest