The combined record would be too large - WHAT?

Discussions about using and improving the new FamilySearch online application.
User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Netscape and nFS freezing

Postby garysturn » Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:34 am

scion wrote:I don't know if my nFS feedback is going anywhere. Roughly half of my feedback has caused nFS to freeze, which also froze Netscape so I ended up having to completely turn off my computer. This is the only website I use that has this problem repeatedly--and I've only been on nFS since Sunday, 6 July 2008.

Sometimes when I log in the screen is blank. nFS "cheerleaders" have already told me to use nFS when it is less busy. Given that I am gainfully employed and have a full household, the time available to devote to nFS is minimal. However, even being online at midnight Pacific Time does not decrease these problems. If nFS cannot handle part of the US, what will happen when the world is online?

I'm using XP on a computer that is only 1 year old.


I do not experience this problem of nFS freezing up. I use Internet Explorer. Perhaps the problem is related to nFS and Netscape. Have you tried Internet Explorer with nFS and had the same problems?
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

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

Postby scion-p40 » Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:56 am

I will not use IE. It has too many security problems.

User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

Postby brado426 » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:32 am

scion wrote:I will not use IE. It has too many security problems.


This should probably be a new topic, but I'll leave that up to the moderators.

Maybe IE6 had some issues, but with IE7 with Windows Vista and/OR WinXPSP3, the security provided is as good as or better than any other provider out there.

Rule of thumb: The operating system or application that is the most popular and is overwhelmingly used by businesses will be the one targetted with malicious attacks. This will always be the case. If Linux suddenly overcame 95% of the market, I guarantee you that nearly all malicious software would be created to target Linux.

To further illustrate my point, check this article:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

If you want to be perfectly safe, run Linux or something else unpopular that no one cares to write malicious software for.

Brad O.

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:06 am

scion wrote:I will not use IE. It has too many security problems.

FYI:

IE 8 will finally adhere to the standards (both security and HTML & Javascript standards).

User avatar
brado426
Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Contact:

Postby brado426 » Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:13 am

mkmurray wrote:FYI:

IE 8 will finally adhere to the standards (both security and HTML & Javascript standards).


As a developer, I am anxiously awaiting that. :) Unfortunately, we will still have IE6 and IE7 installations to deal with for years to come. :mad:

BradJackman-p40
New Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:09 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

Turning the battleship...

Postby BradJackman-p40 » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:51 am

Mikerowaved wrote:As someone who's been on the programming side, let me just say your suggestions are NOT going unnoticed. I don't think anyone is claiming the current release of NFS is "glorified and perfected" in its current state, however, adding features in a major program is sometimes akin to trying to turn a battleship in open water. It takes a LOT of planning, time, and room to do it.


I am incredibly pleased that someone from programming (assuming that you are programming for NFS) is watching these threads. I don't envy your job. We have a proprietary lineage-linked genealogy program that we use where I work to manage the original research for thousands of clients, and after 15 years we're still making improvements weekly. I know that NFS will be a work-in-progress for some time.

As far as the "glorified and perfected" database, you and I know it's got problems, but that's the way the church membership is seeing it. Everyone I talk to has a completely different understanding of what it will do (I live in SLC, most people don't have access to it yet), but EVERYONE is under the impression that this is the holy grail of genealogy, and it will solve ALL the problems. I'm currently assisting our ward Family History Consultant in a genealogy class, and he just can't stop talking about how "glorified and perfected" the new system is. It's a little unnerving.

As far as the battleship analogy, I understand that too. A lot of what I hear from employees at NFS is that there's lots of beaurocracy involved in making changes, and they're too tightly managed to make any real changes without a lot of red tape. All of the major kinks will be worked out of the system, I suppose, and I like where it's eventually headed with evidence and source images. I could also deal with a long and drawn out beta program, and even a limited pilot program in one or two temple districts that lasts for a couple years. I'd be okay with submitting thousands of concerns and waiting a year for them to get implemented.

What I'm terribly worried about is sending the battleship into war while it's still faced backwards. Before we get it turned around, it very likely could be sunk.

There's not enough training, not enough caution, and not enough people who care about sources and authenticity for this to become what it needs to become. Tying online temple submission into NFS at this point is a mess. THAT is my main concern - Duplicated and erroneous temple work and research. Have family tree, pedigree viewer, life browser and record search all up and running perfectly before you take away the ability of members to check names through TempleReady. It's WAY, WAY, WAY too early in the development of the program (even if it is 5+ years old) to implement online temple submissions. Too many bugs, too many problems, too many concerns, too many errors, too much duplication, too many false-positives.

But, like a battleship headed into the port at 20 knots, there doesn't seem to be a way to stop it, and I feel a terrible collision is imminent.

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:13 am

BradJackman wrote:I am incredibly pleased that someone from programming (assuming that you are programming for NFS) is watching these threads...

Unforuntately, I think you have misunderstood Mikerowaved. He does not work on the NFS project, nor does he work for the Church at all. His profile mentions that he is a "Retired Engineer."

User avatar
Mikerowaved
Community Moderators
Posts: 4007
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:56 am
Location: Layton, UT

Postby Mikerowaved » Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:21 am

BradJackman wrote:I am incredibly pleased that someone from programming (assuming that you are programming for NFS) is watching these threads.

Just to clarify, I'm not on the programming staff for the Church. I'm just expressing my feelings from past experiences in helping to write major programs. However, I'm told that NFS developers DO monitor these forums and pick up on the many ideas presented, so please feel free to continue to constructively suggest improvements.

Mike
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

BradJackman-p40
New Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:09 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

I figured

Postby BradJackman-p40 » Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:41 am

mkmurray wrote:Unforuntately, I think you have misunderstood Mikerowaved. He does not work on the NFS project, nor does he work for the Church at all. His profile mentions that he is a "Retired Engineer."


Aww shucks, one can hope, right? Either way, my concerns about the system still stand. There are far too many serious problems for it to be released right now, but I doubt anyone's going to be able to stop the roll-out at this point.

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

Temple Ready online

Postby garysturn » Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:52 pm

Have you cleared or tried to clear a name in newFamilySearch. Before the nFS system prints the ordinance request it does go through the same process as the old Temple Ready does and the nFS database it is searching contains all completed ordinances which the old Temple Ready does not contain. So even if people select names without doing all the combining, when they get ready to print the ordinance request they are presented with possible matches in the new Temple Ready process. In these possible matches screens the ordinance dates are shown in the comparison screens. There are safeguards in place.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct


Return to “FamilySearch Family Tree Application”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest