Tech Forum

I am new here and you may have already discussed this, but I also use the OGF and I just love the way they connect families automatically. Is this something that may happen in FS too later??

I am not familiar with the abreviation OGF so I don't understand your question completely.

FamilySearch does connect some families in the newFamilySearch FamilyTree application in an automated process, though many links require some human intervention.

GarysTurn wrote:I am not familiar with the abreviation OGF so I don't understand your question completely.

I believe the reference is to the OneGreatFamily site, which does claim that "OneGreatFamily automatically merges two family trees together into one when it finds the exact same person in both."

Yes One Great Family... it connects families, if there is one person that seems to be the same... ofcourse one has to be very carefull and check it out... but it ts nice to be connected to others, even though us Finns are not that many there yet... Mostly it is my husband He has been connected through Seem all the way to Adam and Eve .... hmmm... need to check many to know for sure!
I think that is very great system.
All Finnish LDS use Family Search/PAF would be great if that would give warnings of persons that have the same person in their Familysearch... might find some family.

Maya wrote:
All Finnish LDS use Family Search/PAF would be great if that would give warnings of persons that have the same person in their Familysearch... might find some family.

There are several options that will soon be available to link your PAF data with new FamilySearch data. Ancestral Quest 12.1 has a PAF add on feature that will work from inside PAF and will locate duplicate persons from your PAF file in new FamilySearch. FamilyInsight will be released soon and it will have the same functions that will find duplicate persons from your PAF file in new FamilySearch. One more product RootsMagic4 will be released soon, it is a replacement for PAF and will import your PAF data into RootsMagic4 and you can then use RootsMagic4 to locate duplicates in new FamilySearch from your personal data. All of these programs will allow you to exchange data to (or from) your personal data to (or from) new FamilySearch.

Hi, I discovered a combining mess. Hundreds of record togather and cannot be combined any more. If you actually compare the same root files are being multplied hundreds of times. I hope some body can straighten this out it is terrible waste of storage space when there is a limit as to how much can be combined.

Thank you,
M. Kay Thrush

Hi, I discovered a combining mess. Hundreds of record together and cannot be combined any more. If you actually compare the same root files are being multiplied hundreds of times. I hope some body can straighten this out it is terrible waste of storage space when there is a limit as to how much can be combined.

Thank you,
M. Kay Thrush

The current limit is 250 instances of the same person.

Many of the issues can be resolved by looking for anything that doesn't seem right, usually what you look for is where the person was sealed to a person and the relationship has been disproved by other data, skipped generations where the person was sealed to a grandparent, and other types of merging errors in various databases.

The two biggest areas/time periods where this was most common are:

LDS pioneer era, particularly Nauvoo to after 1890s. Can be especially problematic where polygamous relationships were involved, while those are quite few relatively, the data in the system regarding there can be voluminous.

American (US) Colonial era. Can involve many from the LDS pioneer area, where they have gotten lines back into particularly New England. The further south you go in the colonial areas, the less you run into this although there is still some.

I've seen a few issues with England and even the areas covered by Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but those are usually scattered and are not usually too large.

The best way to pare away at the data is to look for obvious major errors. However, if one date is right but one is obviously a typo, like I've seen where a person born in 1660 was shown as being born in 1600, or one that I saw that had the person dying in 1547 when it should have read 1847, those don't have to be pared away if the rest of the info is rightm adding an opinion if no correct date exists is usually enough and the error suggests the correct date. Tree pruning will be 'de rigeur' for many who have pioneer ancetry or Colonial US ancestry for some time to come.

Ok I unterstand that, this family was born in the late 1500's to the early 1600's in England. I did not see any obvious errors when looking at the ones that where combined. People have kept using the same sources over and over again. There has to be away to stop it from happening.

Thank you,
M. Kay Thrush