new FamilySearch Beta2 Complete

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

Merging, Ranking, and Clearing names

Postby garysturn » Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:16 pm

rmrichesjr wrote:Regarding the issue of wanting to combine some but not all of a duplicate record, I had understood thatt the basic architecture of the system has a "record" as an atomic unit, and that combining part but not all of a "record" would not be possible. It appears there are two ways of dealing with that aspect (could perhaps be called a limitation) of the system. One would be to combine the record but go back and dispute and/or correct the wrong information. The other would be to manually enter the correct information and either dispute the existence of the person described in the partly-wrong record or leave it alone to be combined with something else if that would be more correct. Additionally, if the partly-wrong record in question is made up of a combination of other atomic records, they could be split up as needed.


I think that some sort of Ranking of entries or sources would be the best method to allow the system to ignore incorrect information. I saw several different spellings of my Great Grandfathers name. If the patrons had the ability to vote or rank the sources this could solve the problem by showing the version with the most votes as the default version.

The problem with names being sent to the Temple without enough research is not a problem relating to new FamilySearch, that problem has always existed. The only way to cut down on that would be to tighten the requirements on what information is required to clear a name. I don't think it is fair to say that this is a problem related to new FamilySearch.

I think that the GEDCOM merging function which creates a lot of merging work will only be something we will have to deal with until syncing software is available, which will allow working with the data without having to upload an entire GEDCOM everytime we have a little new information. The FamilySearch Desktop open-source program which is mentioned in the Q&A question about PAF will be able to have syncing capabilities. Also PAF add ons will be able to do this syncing function when they become available.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

rmrichesjr
Community Moderators
Posts: 2484
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dundee, Oregon, USA

Postby rmrichesjr » Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:48 pm

GarysTurn wrote:I think that some sort of Ranking of entries or sources would be the best method to allow the system to ignore incorrect information. I saw several different spellings of my Great Grandfathers name. If the patrons had the ability to vote or rank the sources this could solve the problem by showing the version with the most votes as the default version.


I also saw a few cases where I wanted to see a different name spelling than what it was showing as the default. I did the "add another opinion" operation, giving the spelling I wanted to see and the source for that spelling. At least for me, the system seemed to show my new added opinion as default.

If the system actually works the way it appears it might, showing the patron's own opinion as default, that might even get around cases where equal groups of patrons have different opinions (and documentation to support their opinions).

One related thing I didn't get a good feel for was how pedigree mode is going to show the default spouse in a multi-spouse situation. If you and I are descended from different wives of a given common male ancestor, each of us is going to want to see the wife through whom we descended as default when navigating around the pedigree. I found when I selected a given "spouse to view", then navigated back in time a few generations, then navigated forward to the same place where I had selected the spouse to view, my selection had not stuck. I sent that in as an issue, that it's going to be problematic if the system is always defaulting to the 'wrong' spouse. The response was that my feedback would be taken into consideration. Maybe that's something the 'desktop record manager' is going to have to take care of.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 29091
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:00 pm

Jacksbox4you wrote:This responsibility rests solely on the individual members to properly prepare their names but to often people refuse to do what is necessary.


Yeah, but look on the bright side. With the new system, anyone who gets out of hand can have their ability to submit names turned off. <evil grin> THAT will get their attention!

Under the current system, they just need to find another FHC or another staffer to do a TempleReady run. It's hard to stop them. Because the new login is tied to membership info, it's not easy to get another login.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 29091
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:19 am

Uh, oh. If this beta is accurate, I think I see a bigger problem. I was able to do a random search for a person, look at their tree, and submit some names for the temple. I did not have to make that tree part of my tree.

Does this mean what I think it means? I was always under the impression that one of the goals of the new system was to limit the name submission to your own family.

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

Postby mkmurray » Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:15 am

Tom W.,

Is there someone from FamilySearch that is or could be reading this thread. I would think this particular thread would be of great interest...

sandrajarvis1
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Warsaw, Illinois
Contact:

Beta2 has ended with me feeling unfulfilled

Postby sandrajarvis1 » Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:16 am

The new familysearch as presented by the beta2 is headed in the right direction but it is not "there" yet. I was frustrated that I could not jump to an individual in my pedigree whether or not they were direct line. I also wished I had more control over the merging process. Putting 'all" the info about a person in one folder so to speak has its drawbacks. For example, when I come to the spouse and children screen and/or the individual screen, the program defaults to a name of the certain individual that I do not want to appear. The name I want to appear is in the "folder,' but I have to go deeper with an extra click to see it. I want to be able to control what first appears on the screen when I go to that person.
One last thing, I wish that when I leave me and my family tab, whether or not it is in the same oline session, and then come back to it, I would be in the same place/person as when I left. Or at least the history remains so that I can go to the history and go back and resume whatever project I was doing.
That said, I still enjoyed the experience of beta2. My fav: Temple submissions!
Sandra Raymond Jarvis

User avatar
WelchTC
Senior Member
Posts: 2088
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:51 am
Location: Kaysville, UT, USA
Contact:

Postby WelchTC » Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:17 am

mkmurray wrote:Tom W.,

Is there someone from FamilySearch that is or could be reading this thread. I would think this particular thread would be of great interest...

Yes, people from the FH department are moderators on this forum.

Tom

thomasjking
New Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: englewood,tn 37329

Postby thomasjking » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:23 pm

the few problems that i found were handled over the phone very well. i have used the 24 hr phone info system --i'm up late many nights so at 2am edt i was alway able to get an answer or any other time of day
i do hope that some teaching on how to use the new system will be sent out. our present FHC director doesnt understand computers
anyway this will be a big step forward when it comes out

User avatar
greenwoodkl
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:59 am
Location: Orem, Utah, Utah, United States
Contact:

Postby greenwoodkl » Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:00 pm

rmrichesjr wrote:In case it might help a little, I found a way around the (sometimes problematic) standardization of place names. I would type in my place name as I wanted it, then choose "none of the above" from the list of the system's guesses at a standardized place name. The system appeared to record the 'original text' and leave the standardized place name field blank.

I also submitted a problem or suggestion about the place name standardization scheme being problematic in at least some cases. If we're lucky, they'll improve that at least as much as they can before the system goes into production.


I had similar issues with place names. I submitted names through TempleReady a year ago... The town names for this particular family of several hundred records were different then than they are now. So, somehow the standardization dropped the village/town name and left it at the state level only. When I uploaded a GEDCOM of the same family, the full place names were accepted, but they were not deemed to be the same individuals (by my guess) either because my submitter name from a year ago was not tied to my membership or the place names were different since my earlier submission got cropped by the place standardization system.

ghoffman
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: San Diego

Beta Test Experience

Postby ghoffman » Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:16 pm

Sandrajarvis wrote:
One last thing, I wish that when I leave me and my family tab, whether or not it is in the same oline session, and then come back to it, I would be in the same place/person as when I left. Or at least the history remains so that I can go to the history and go back and resume whatever project I was doing.


Sandra Raymond Jarvis


That was one of my frustrations, too. I submitted a suggestion to have "bookmarks" or favorites so I could return quickly to someone several generations back and over a couple of removes without having to click so many times.


Return to “Family History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest