The combined record would be too large - WHAT?

Discussions about using and improving the new FamilySearch online application.
lajackson
Community Moderators
Posts: 9704
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: US

Postby lajackson » Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:34 pm

GarysTurn wrote: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.


This did not happen for me. When I went to print an ordinance request, I was presented with the same possible matches as I was earlier, with the same lack of information, and had to make the same uninformed decisions as to whether or not the names matched. It was not pretty. And I was not able to find any ordinance information to compare.

I ran the situation by the help desk and the response was to use my best judgment and do the best I could with the information I had. In other words, they did not know what to do. They were surprised that ordinance information was not coming up, duplicated that the information was missing (and should have been there), and took an action to look into it.

rmrichesjr
Community Moderators
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dundee, Oregon, USA

Postby rmrichesjr » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:00 pm

GarysTurn wrote: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?


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


Mozilla Firefox worked very well for me in the Spring 2007 beta. Unless Firefox is what was meant by "Netscape", that might be worth a try.

Also, some apparent browser hangs can be caused by packet loss over the network. Run a ping for at least 20 packets to a popular site that replies to ping packets and see if you're losing more than 5% or so. If so, I would recommend bugging your ISP about it, especially if browser hangs affect any other sites you use.

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

Postby jbh001 » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:36 pm

mkmurray wrote:As for a "fix" to NFS, I don't think much attention would have been given to this issue if were not for this thread...
It is nice to think so, but I am aware of other sources that indicate that the "combining" issue has been being worked on for well over a year. In a different thread someone stated that one individual had been combined with his father and grandfather. These kinds of combinations tended to create "magnets" (my term) where everyone in the database eventually auto-merged down to 11 individuals (or so). The 80-90 limit on combining individuals is a band-aid fix to prevent that from happening while they work out a better solution to the "mega-merge" problem.

In the mean time, I do the best I can with the resources I have to work with.

bryced
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:19 am

Postby bryced » Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:24 am

Almost three years later and this problem still exists...

I can't really take this software seriously while this problem exists.

pritchet1
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:12 am
Location: Richland, WA
Contact:

Combined Record too large

Postby pritchet1 » Mon May 16, 2011 11:31 am

I just hit this snag recently too. I walked through the 80 pages for one name and then got this same message. I did the "Polish circle"(tm) twice and then gave up. I also see "combined" names of lots of people who are related, but not the same person. How do we uncombine those obviously wrong decisions, so the right/correct data is presented?

I've also seen records (my direct line) where one person is "Ready" to be sealed to another person's spouse, across generations. How do we "Unready" those obviously mistaken situations?
:confused:
Robert L Pritchett
Always learning and once in a while coming to a knowledge of the truth.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 29324
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Mon May 16, 2011 12:45 pm

You may have noticed that this forum is very quiet. You'll probably have a better chance of getting your questions answered over in the FamilySearch Forums.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

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

rmrichesjr
Community Moderators
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dundee, Oregon, USA

Postby rmrichesjr » Mon May 16, 2011 8:16 pm

pritchet1 wrote:I just hit this snag recently too. I walked through the 80 pages for one name and then got this same message. I did the "Polish circle"(tm) twice and then gave up. I also see "combined" names of lots of people who are related, but not the same person. How do we uncombine those obviously wrong decisions, so the right/correct data is presented?

I've also seen records (my direct line) where one person is "Ready" to be sealed to another person's spouse, across generations. How do we "Unready" those obviously mistaken situations?
:confused:


Most cases of confused relationships I have found in my tree have been caused by incorrect combining (automatic or otherwise, I don't know) of different real people into one combined record. In my opinion, the best solution is to very carefully separate the records. I used a lot of paper, tape, and colored pen to be sure I would separate the records correctly. Here's how I did the split-ups I have done:

First, I printed screenshots of the combined records page. It would be nice if the page would print (to multiple paper pages) from a browser, but that was not working when I tried it. Second, I cut the edges and taped them together so that I had a large map-like sheet of paper. Third, I scanned the left-hand column for names of parents, names of spouses, dates, and such to get an idea of which two real people were involved. (If you have reliable sources to help with that, that's even better.) Fourth, I chose a different color for each real person and marked the left-hand column with the respective colors. Fifth, I marked the cells in the body of the table with the matching color. Sixth, I marked the header cell of each column with (hopefully) one color based on the colors in the cells in the body of the table. Finally, after a double-check of the details, I went back to nFS and marked the columns (making sure they hadn't changed or moved around) and did the split. Then, I checked the records to make sure the split had been done correctly.

In one case, I had a single component record, one with no identified contributor, that had conflicting information. For that record, I sent a request for help on nFS, and the support person took care of that one component record so I could split up the rest.


Return to “FamilySearch Family Tree Application”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests