I’m wondering & puzzled

Will the Beta site eventually include PRF, SSDI and IGI?

Can I get a straight answer? Are these gone forever once beta takes over familysearch.org: the Pedigree Resource File;the SSDI; the IGI, with the IGI distinction of extracted record or member submitted included? If so, the beta site will never be an improved edition. Genealogists use these tools daily.
21 people have
this question
+1
Reply
  • 5
    Here's the straight answer. Pedigree Resource File, SSDI and IGI will be included in the beta before it replaces www.familysearch.org. We are making some changes to IGI. Specifically, we are separating the patron contributed conclusions from the extracted records.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m better
    Dan Lawyer, that answers the question.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I’m anxious & frustrated
    Where is the IGI on the beta site? Where is the SSDI on the beta site? Where is the full Library Catalog on the beta site? You kept Ancestral File, but why not keep the most useful data??

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Will the Beta site eventually include PRF, SSDI and IGI?.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I’m worried
    I research a lot using the IGI on the present Family Search.org. Will we not be able to do that on the new sight?

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Using the IGI for searching.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I’m frustrated
    Does this mean, that at some point, the thousands of citations I have created using the publication information of "familysearch.org, pilot.familysearch.org, and beta.familysearch.org", will be invalid website addresses? I agree that it makes sense to have all of fhe information in one place, but as a researcher, I get tired of "website not found" error messages, or clicking on links that have not been updated. Hopefully, you will have a forwarding mechanism in place. I just keep thinking of people ten or twenty years from now wanting to see the information that I saw, and running into these error messages; or just as bad, having to redo all these citations. Is there a better way that I could note the publication information?
    • view 7 more comments
    • I think I slightly misunderstood your position in the first place. Your initial answer came across as if you were something to do with this transition process. I realise now that, thankfully, you are not. This was the reason I suggested the simple one line site fix, because it really is that simple. With this one fix, everyone's website referencing problems go away. Obviously, people that require trees to be pointlessly destroyed will be unaffected.
    • The thing about genealogy sources is that you should provide data which will allow someone looking at your data 50 years from now to be able to find the same record that you found. The best chance of that happening is when your source refers to the document itself, not to the pathway you used to get to it. So the source for a census record which I saw a digital copy of on the RecordSearch website will not be RecordSearch, but the data that is on the record itself. Savvy?

      By the way, this should be a whole new thread, shouldn't it? What happened to the original question? The one about searching the extracted data currently in the IGI?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I’m sad that this feature may be lost
    1
    Please allow us to continue to search the IGI records by batch number. That is an excellent tool for finding additional family members, especially in the extracted data. It would be a pity to lose that feature.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Please Keep IGI Batch Number Search Option.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I’m hoping this "new" familysearch site can become truly useful.
    1
    The SSDI and the IGI extractions are trustworthy, excellent databases which should be available for genealogists, in my opinion. I hate to see them lumped with member submitted records which are very often questionable at best. Since you are including Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File, why not put them in the pot called "family trees" and put SSDI and the IGI extractions in with the "historical records?" The rest of the IGI will most likely be more duplications of data that is in AF and PRF.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • Some are asking questions about why we are "not keeping" this or that. The beta site is like a house that is not yet finished - completing specific "rooms" or functionality is being done in a priority order. Just because something does not appear on the site today does not mean that it has been permanently deprecated.

    Here's some answers that I hope are helpful in understanding what is on our roadmap to deliver in the future:

    1) SSDI will show up soon as a collection in the list of available "historical records." Initially it will appear with a generic search form, just like all the other collections. However, we will be moving as quickly as possible to implement a collection specific search that: a) lets a user search on the specific fields indexed in the collection, b) displays results with collection specific & prioritized fields.

    2) The "extracted" parts of IGI (as opposed to the member submitted records) actually came from many different collections and these records are currently part of the "Historical Records" collections. (I'll get to batch number searches in a moment...)

    3) The "patron submitted records" part of IGI is currently available to members at new.familysearch.org, and will be available to non-members as well in the future. Eventually we will fully integrate new.familysearch.org into the site so these portions of the old IGI will be searchable from the same place.

    4) The "Family Trees" search will be the home of the user submitted pedigrees from AF and PRF. AF is currently searchable. The PRF data will be added as quickly as we can complete our work to make it searchable. AF is a static data set. PRF will continue to grow after we deliver a Gedcom upload utility similar to what was available on the old site.

    5) Searching IGI records by batch number.
    We are in the early stages of designing a search that will address the core user intents around IGI batch number search. I've been doing a lot of talking with users to insure we really understand the goals. Currently it goes something like this... (I welcome your input):

    User Intent:
    I want to search for a person in a collection, and then find all the records around that person (ex. in the same parish) that have relevant family names.

    Possible Workflow
    1) User does a search, finds their person and views the image.

    2) Desiring to find all the family in the parish (which unknown to them has 200 images) the user uses the waypoint hierarchy displayed above the image to select the parish and thereby sets the size of the data set to view. (To see an example of waypoints see the following: https://beta.familysearch.org/s/image...)

    3) The user can view, browse and sort a list of all the records present on the 200 images that pertain to the specified parish.

    NOTE: We recognize that users have over the years built up a large collection of notes that have IGI batch numbers that they use regularly. In addition to the above workflow, we are exploring a batch number search field as well to support legacy notes.

    -Robert
    • view 3 more comments
    • I think we have two concerns here that need to be addressed by the developers. The first one is the ability to continue searching extracted records by batch number, which I believe is an absolutely necessary addition to the search options.

      The second one is having the complete source information shown on each record which will allow us to create a usable source reference for the data we find. In the IGI, we find the name of the parish, the FHL microfilm number for the parish records, and the batch number for the ones that were extracted. This data, except for the batch number, does not show in the Historical Records records. Just using the name "Historical Records at FamilySearch" as a source is about as useful as no source at all. One needs to be able to create a source which refers to the location of the original document. An assertion without a trustworthy source is no better than hearsay. This applies to family history research as well as research done in any other field.
    • I would add to Ventar's two very important concerns the concern that we are able to find the record abstracts or images in the first place.

      I tried unsuccessfully today to find reference to a man born in 1778 who died in 1848. I used 1775 and 1850 as parameters. I gave a specific English parish and county. The first two reference I got were to US 1850 census records for men born in England. I couldn't find him.in the first four pages of returned results (none of which they said fit my criteria, though certainly his exists and has been abstracted).

      How can I narrow down the search to make this record -- or others I am seeking -- come up higher on the search results?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I’m worried and frustrated
    I am also concerned about not being able to search extracted records in a collection by batch number. It's a feature I use frequently and was very disheartened to hear from Support that it is not available. Even if the image itself is not immediately available, PLEASE don't take away our ability to at least access the extracted/indexed information by batch number.
    • I am fully in agreement. We really need to be able to search using batches of extracted records. Taking away batch listings will cancel a valuable tool.
    • The batch number was useful in the old IGI - it could be useful in the new version of familysearch - BUT really not essential if you fully use the advanced search features that allow for exact specifications of locations - remember, all the entries in the historical collections from from extracted church or government records.
      With regard to the previous comment about getting US records mixed with an English query - go to the initial screen and select the geographical area (Europe) then sub select down to the England records that seem most appropriate - works very well.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • My take is a little different. I have found four different ancestors in the last 18 months that found their names into the IGI while while they were still living thanks to adding bad or bogus data.

    One of the submitters was Samuel Smith, 1st Cousin to the Prophet Joseph.

    We still find people "inventing" dates into nFS.

    As I understood it when nFS (new FamlySearch) was first introduced to FHC folks, there would be a combining of the data with extracted information that links to images of documents. The Church has started doing that already. It won't be working in my lifetime (I'm 50 something) but we have to have patience and pray or think good thoughts for the developers.

    Alan
    FHC Pamplona, Spain
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I just got the Year End Update News of nFS and was checking out all the links. I was excited about all the tutorials helping us see where things from old FS are in the nFS. I came across all the questions in the help part and thought, boy there are some mean people here. I think that people should be respectful with their suggestions. I KNOW they want feeback. This whole project is so complicated and it's amazing what they've accomplished so far. Everyone with good ideas please share them, but wow, some of you don't be so mean about it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • Jean,

    The site WILL include the ability to search PRF as well as the ability to upload a GEDCOM file and have it included in the PRF database.

    We are a small team and moving as quickly as possible to add features and data. I expect this will be added in the first half of 2011.

    We definitely do desire constructive feedback on the site. The most valuable feedback outlines a real genealogical workflow with sufficient data for us to replicate the work if possible and an clear explanation of the type of feature or enhancement that would enable the workflow.

    There are fortunately passionate people who do genealogy. Some have not fully understood that this site is a work in progress with some features being fleshed out month by month in public view. There have been some instances of data collections that had to be pulled from the old projects for legal reasons causing frustration. Finally there are always a few misguided folks who think that the harsh tone of their posts will speed up the development work.

    We don't necessarily ignore anyone, but the patrons who take the time to write clear detailed explanations of how they do their work and how we can enable that are vastly more useful to moving the site forward.

    -Robert
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned