New Beta Family Search

Discussions around Genealogy technology.
rmrichesjr
Community Moderators
Posts: 2911
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dundee, Oregon, USA

Post by rmrichesjr »

With that enthusiastic an outburst, please don't leave the rest of us in the dark about the cause of your excitement: 1) you just got in to the FamilySearch beta; 2) it's Friday and the quitting bell just ran; 3) a close relative just won the lottery; 4) ...
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 31145
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by russellhltn »

rmrichesjr wrote:With that enthusiastic an outburst, please don't leave the rest of us in the dark about the cause of your excitement:
It's was on-topic. :D
User avatar
bhofmann-p40
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:47 am
Location: Tulsa, OK
Contact:

Post by bhofmann-p40 »

thedqs wrote:The Search Engine for this site doesn't look for anything under 4 letters so API even though it shows up in the searching criteria, was not used to search. This was talked about in another thread.

Anyway I haven't heard anymore then you on the API, but I am sure if you start a thread asking for info, people in the know will respond to your questions.
What is the database and search engine being used for Family Search? If we knew we could do some research on our own and determine tips and tricks and limitations.
User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Post by garysturn »

rmrichesjr wrote:A lot of my ancestors, both parents and children are duplicated. The "tree" right now has a bit of resemblance to a briar patch, at least on that one branch. Unless the real, post-beta system does more thorough automatic combining of duplicates, there will be a lot of combining to do when the system goes live for real..

It is my understanding that the program will only link possible matches together. It will not attempt merges, or combining. They what that decision to be made by people. So there will be a lot of work for decendents to do once this goes live, but the end result will be much cleaner than if software trys to decide if people are the same. As new resources come online those will also be linked by the software, but someone will still have to make the decision to combine the info after looking at it. The ability to unmerge is also a great feature in case errors are made. While working with the beta we practiced unmerging someone and it works great. Until some sort of Syncing is devised, I would not be suprised if we will have to combine every GEDCOM that is uploaded.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new Code of Conduct
User avatar
bhofmann-p40
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:47 am
Location: Tulsa, OK
Contact:

Post by bhofmann-p40 »

GarysTurn wrote:The ability to unmerge is also a great feature in case errors are made. While working with the beta we practiced unmerging someone and it works great.
The merge and unmerge function does sound great. It will really help clean stuff up. I have a question though, who has the final say in dispute resolution? What if both parties feel they are right?
User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Post by garysturn »

bhofmann wrote:The merge and unmerge function does sound great. It will really help clean stuff up. I have a question though, who has the final say in dispute resolution? What if both parties feel they are right?

I do not know the answer to that. I don't think all of those types of policies have been determined. It does say in some of the documents I have read that you can agree to disagree, but I don't know how that will affect what is displayed in the public view of a pedigree. Maybe like in PAF you can have two sets of parents or spouces, but I don't know how they will choose on differing date sources. I would hope that each patron would be allowed to rank the source and the source with the most votes would display as the primary entry. With a good reliable source and the ability eventually to link to an image of that source, I would think there would not be to many disagreements.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new Code of Conduct
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 31145
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Post by russellhltn »

GarysTurn wrote:but I don't know how that will affect what is displayed in the public view of a pedigree.
Uh, define "public view". As far as I know you can't see much of anything until you graft the individual(s) in question to your tree. At that point it becomes "your view". As long as everyone's individual view confirms to their expectations, then there is no "fight".
User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Public View

Post by garysturn »

I have only played with new FamilySearch Beta2 for a couple of hours so I don't pretend to be an expert. I was looking at it with a friend who is a Beta tester while he was logged in under his name. When I did a search for my great grandfather, I found him and got to see him all linked up to all my ancestors without me having linking or combining anything. There were over 40 contribuitors listed in his record. The top submissions listed were from my cousin who had submitted a lot of sources with his submission. The screenshots I posted were of my Great Grandfather just as I found him without me doing anything. There were possible matches, but they were already linked just not combined. In the time I used it, it did not appear that each person could build a different pedigree. It appeared to me to be wiki style with everyone working on the same data. You can not change other peoples data, you can only make comments about others info and add or update your own submission. The only "Your" view I am aware of is when you go to preferences you can select an option to see your submission, and then you see only what you have submitted without any thing you have combined or any one elses information linked to it. This is how things appear to work to me. If there are others that have used it and have seen differently, please let us know.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new Code of Conduct
User avatar
bhofmann-p40
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:47 am
Location: Tulsa, OK
Contact:

Post by bhofmann-p40 »

GarysTurn wrote:I would hope that each patron would be allowed to rank the source and the source with the most votes would display as the primary entry.
Thanks. I like the source ranking idea, either by popular vote or a preset ranking.
User avatar
daddy-o-p40
Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by daddy-o-p40 »

Have you considered using parallels (see www.paralells.com) to faciliate PAF on a Mac?
"What have I done for someone today?" Thomas Monson
Post Reply

Return to “Family History”