Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m waiting for someone to really understand the negative impact of GEDCOMs and DO something about it.

Gedcom Challenge: Show Us The Data

For well over 2 years individuals have been lamenting the issues associated with GEDCOM loads (see a collection of former discussions at http://gsfn.us/t/52s44).

FamilySearch is purported as a collaborative environment, only it is not managed or designed to operate efficiently as such. It appears to only be as collaborative as 'the powers that be' want to allow it to be. [As an example, this system wouldn't even let me post the word GEDCOM in caps in the topic -- as the system had to chastise me that I was shouting and would not let me continue without changing it. Seriously? Can we get some help with some real issues?]

Collaborative environments need to be managed at some level, otherwise chaos reigns. It is not very collaborative to allow countless individuals to dump hundreds of duplicates into the system without everyone else having some sort of recourse (other than spend weeks finding and merging all of the duplicates, one by one, themselves) to report and/or have some administrative tool to manually review the data that was dumped in and correct it - directly, rather than happenstance.

We are repeatedly told that the negative impact of the GEDCOM loads is far less than the benefit. That is not my personal experience.

So I am specifically requesting that MY data be tested and that MY family be used as an example as to what it is I am experiencing (along with anyone else that wants to add examples to be evaluated and tested).

In a separate entry here, I will outline the economic 'cost' that GEDCOMs are adding to the work in the temple - what the time impact is for each ordinance to be done and what that 'lost cost' is for all the duplicate work I find EVERY time I get on this system to correct errors in my tree.

Let's start with one example. Just this week I stumbled onto a record I hadn't reviewed in over 6 months. It was a disaster (there are published errors that keep being repeated that people mindlessly pick up and refuse to read any of the many notes throughout the record refuting the bad published information). All of that aside, I found 5 duplicate GEDCOM records for the same person. 2-3 of them were all actively being worked on in the temple, another 2 were either reserved or had been RELEASED to the temple for someone else to waste their time.

So here's the challenge:
Pierre Lejeune dit Briard
from 1626 to 1628 – 1661 • LRSQ-HKX
Across all merges, I want a count of each of the ordinances completed for this person, separating each count for B/C/I/E/SP/SS

This individual has only one unnamed spouse and yet I know he has been sealed over time to multiple women and multiple parents.

Show it all and then I'll run the numbers for the wasted time.
6 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
next » « previous
  • I’m Still Not Being Taken Seriously
    3/16/20
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by ChristieLents (loaded 2/15/2020)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer...
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup, sealing printed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Kyle Blake_1, reserved not printed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer...
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by thomasedwardflanagan1

    3/20/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data, birth of sister
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, reserved for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by MarilynTreuil1, B/C/I already duplicated
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, B/C duplicated, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... Same GEDCOM entries by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work

    3/23/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by michelew8019, B/C/I already duplicated
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by GeorgeThibodeau, bad data, released to temple, B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data, printed, B/C completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaronhttps://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaron
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaron
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaron
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaron
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by hsl9, released to temple for work, B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data, reserved for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by jpbmass, printed, B/C completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin with errors

    What's the excuses now?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Thank you for the info. The difficult part is finding time to investigate all these. I know Gedcom import and many other products inject duplicates and mess up data so the research involves many different products to investigate.

    When I have a few moments I spot check a couple. I always go back to the date where the problem occurred, this alone takes time for me to scan changelogs of one or both affected PIDs. This takes time. If the mess up happened more than a month ago the internal data is no longer available. So I focus on the things that happened in the last month. To me that's an indication of an ongoing, current issue that might be able to be addressed.

    When it comes to user behavior it becomes more tricky. We are all at the mercy of our own and other user's work practice. Those products are all subject to their users' behavior. So we see bad players in many of the products. The ones where bulk uploads are easier, like Gedcom and other partner products, can affect data much more quickly.

    Many users, even those posting on GetSat, request easier ways to do this or that, or to reduce the repetition to accomplish tasks... and these productivity goals requested are often at odds with quality goals. Striving for the balance is a never-ending battle. Controlling users is tough. Who is right? Who polices?

    Shutting off Gedcom ingest and partner added persons functionality is unlikely to happen. I wish there were better processes for ingesting added persons and I wish we could better train these uploaders that don't understand the damage they do. Unfortunately a number of users are the popular targets of errant uploads, because their trees overlap into the uploaders tree, and this happens repetitively.

    There are approaches to gate these errant uploads, but the design is complicated and are simply guesses as to whether it would help. I wish I had better news, that there was more attention to this. Though aware, a clear, executable path is still not defined. My only advice is to reach out to those fellow users that are most likley unaware and help them in a kind way to understand.

    It's a long shot. I want to help more. If you provide some targeted PIDs over the last 30 days coming from a specific user perhaps a list could be made available to you. But I don't decide what happens, what gets coded, ...
    • view 8 more comments
    • Often it's been completed 600 times, and not just before nFS or during nFS. Because of GEDCOM uploads, this is still happening in Family Tree on a massive scale.

      I think rotkapchen would like for FamilySearch do some research on the PIDs she's posting and see that it's probably 600 times for each one. Then FS needs to recognize that GEDCOM uploads are a major stumbling block to completing temple work for individuals who actually need it.

      Then FS needs to do something to stop it, because completing this task is more important than participation in the tree or ease of inserting incorrect data on the tree.
    • Data people, data. The value of data is in the comparisons. Therein we find rates or speed. To suggest that there is not an issue and yet if in 2018 the ordinance count for one record is 35 and now it's 40 we have a rate at which the duplicate work is increasing. We can better define the problem that I am seeing first-hand, but do not have the data to tell the story.

      This is not a matter of 'feelings' Joe -- it is a matter of results and in 12 years we've seen no progress on the issue of duplicates. Sadly, you are not the correct resource to be addressing this. Is there no escalation process? How are 'issues' prioritized in the grand scheme of things? I find it very difficult to believe that anything related to data quality that impacts sacred work is not somewhere at the top of the list.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Not sure if it is just me locked out of the system just now, but in the meantime I want to capture the work of the past 2 days. Today was sidetracked by all sorts of merge unraveling issues and lots of research to correct bad data. I know there are a whole series of duplicates I haven't gotten back to.

    Happy First Vision day...the work goes on, hopefully not backward.

    3/25/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, bad data missed match, B/C/I duplicated
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new duplicate by Reese AnneHudkins
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, bad data missed match, B/C duplicated
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by GeorgeThibodeau, bad data, B/C/I duplicated, released to temple
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin bad data
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... random new record by Erin_Bergeron, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... random new record by Erin_Bergeron, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... random new record by Erin_Bergeron, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... random new record by Erin_Bergeron, reserved for temple work https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... random new record by Erin_Bergeron, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by PeterSchuelke1, released to temple, B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, printed for temple work B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, bad data, released for temple work B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... bad data record (wrong surname, corrected) by MichaelPeloquin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, bad data
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeronhttps://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron, corrected errors
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaron, bad data corrected for merge, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by bchalk
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron, including duplicates of entire family
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by TanyaHebert1, bad data corrected
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron released to temple for work

    3/26/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, bad data corrected for merge, B/C duplicated
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup byPeterSchuelke1, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaron, bad data corrected for merge, printed for temple work, both records wrong gender
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Joe.
    You seem to be entirely missing the point of this post. It isn't just about GEDCOM loads, its about duplicates in general. If I'm finding remnants of GEDCOM loads from years ago (most of the dups I worked on then and you've never seen the details for) and these are still being released to the temple for work or picked up and printed, just imagine the potential for duplication that is just sitting there as a time-bomb.

    THIS Is the point I'm trying to draw attention to -- this is what no one is paying attention to and this is what there is no solution for.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 3
    Joe: I had to interrupt my chores (which were difficult enough to engage in today) to pass along these words given to me. They are of utmost importance.

    What we are observing is the putting first of the interests and needs of the lowest common denominator over that of the sacredness of the Lord's work. This is akin to suggesting that we have no needs for borders and that all are welcomed.

    At some level this is true. But one critical difference exists: there are conditions to the gospel. I have marked throughout the scripture a pattern that all programmers should be familiar with: the pattern of "if, then". These are conditional parameters.

    Currently the entire environment of Family Search is not focused on the main function for which it exists -- to do the sacred work of saving souls -- not engaging people in capturing their family history or for entertainment value (which seems to be the focus of all the ridiculous 'campaigns' I find dumped into my inbox and annoyingly put into the messaging system).

    These are Vaudevillian trappings of entertaining the masses. This is not the vestiges of sacred work. Can we have fun? Sure, but not before putting in place the critical elements of taking care of sacred ordinances and respecting the time of both patrons and temple workers.

    Now is the time to put these fixes in place, before the temples are open again. This is an opportunity to right the wrongs of these many decades. Look at the data. You will see that we are wasting valuable precious time. Share this far and wide and gain support for a just cause.

    It's up to you.
    • Well said! Hits the nail on the head in every paragraph, especially in the one where you state, "...the entire environment of Family Search is not focused on the main function of why Family Search exists..."!

      Interesting that you've been marking scripture patterns of "if, then". Recently, in the BOM I have begun marking the passages regarding the keeping and passing down of the records, including the genealogies, and especially the care that was taken to preserve them through the centuries.

      Thank you, for taking time to document the topic of GEDCOM issue so thoroughly.
    • ATP: Pass along the word wherever you can. Most people are oblivious to the severity of this issue. As fast as people load duplicates into the system others are picking them up or worse, releasing them for others to waste their time doing.

      Never leave home without your own printed ordinances.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    rotkapchen

    As I have suggested previously ...

    The REASON there will be NO Action to STOP the "Up-Load" of GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is simple; and, has been proffered in this Forum before ...

    PARTICIPATION ...

    QUANTITY over QUALITY ...

    Or, in another way, "Participation" over "Substance" ...

    The problem/issue is that the general populous WANT their, DATA; and, their (Temple) WORK to prevail, no matter what ...

    Unfortunately, that is 'human nature' ...

    We ALL think WE know all; and, WE are the ONLY "One" that does ...

    Hence, the amount of (Temple) WORK being done for "Duplicates", that were "Dismissed" as "Duplicates"; and, NOT, "Merged"/"Combined".

    That 'all boils down to' ... TRAINING, Training; and, more, training ... by the "Stake/Ward/Branch, Temple and Family History, Consultants".

    There is much less trouble from the non-member Users/Patrons, than from the Member Users/Patrons.

    The non-member Users/Patrons ARE better "Genealogists" (ie. Genealogy/Family History Researchers), than the Member Users/Patrons.

    There is ALREADY the ability to load GEDCOM Files into "Genealogies" part of "FamilySearch" - just leave it at that, that is all that is needed ...

    Even if the (individual) "Branches" of a NEW User/Patron, of this massive, interconnected, SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" 'Tree", are NOT there, have them add individuals/person on a 'one by one' basis - they (the new Users/Patrons) will at least learn how "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" works.

    And, that will, at least, slow down (but, certainly not stop) the ability for those that want their, data; and, their (Temple) Work to prevail, no matter what ...

    And, there is still the ability to load through the 'Third Party' Programmes that are "Certified" to work with "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".

    In the least; IF, "FamilySearch" will NOT "Stop" the ability to upload GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch"; THEN, "FamilySearch" should ONLY allow the individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" to BE the "Surviving" Record; and, NOT, the individual/person from a GEDOM File - not perfect; but, better than what we have now.

    Brett

    .
    • view 3 more comments
    • rotkapchen

      As I have always expounded ...

      I would rather that "FamilySearch" just STOPS the ability to upload GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch". That is an easy FIX

      And, IF, "FamilySearch" will NOT do the aforementioned; THEN, "FamilySearch" should ONLY allow the individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" to BE the "Surviving" Record; and, NOT, the individual/person from a GEDOM File. That would not be too hard a FIX. Not the best; but, better than allowing an individual/person from a GEDOM File to be the "Surviving" individual/person.

      Brett

      .
    • Brett: At least they fixed the surviving record issue.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I must admit much of the discussion on GEDCOM issues goes right over my head. I very rarely even see the word against the IDs I work on, but did come across this one, added just yesterday. It is a duplicate of the ID shown (top right).

    So, does this mean it IS still easy to load these records after all, or is the point that they can now only be added individually, rather than in batches?

    Also, any point in messaging the person concerned, and what should I say if I do?

    • view 3 more comments
    • I also wonder the exact same things about messaging, Paul.
    • Paul, so you've never seen a "GEDCOM" reason before, and now the very first one you find is a duplicate.

      Statistically it may be a very small sample, but then again, statistically what does that mean about the relationship between GEDCOM files and duplicates in the system?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Here's more of the problem that doesn't exist. What this doesn't show is all the days I spent fixing hundreds of real errors not caused by duplicates but old data quality issues. I still have hundreds if not thousands of hours of that kind of work. I don't need to have all of this new crap cropping up. The DESIGN can catch this. It's called data quality.

    3/27/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... wrong gender record by TerryMcElroy, printed for temple work https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JKoplowitz, printed for temple work, B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JKoplowitz, alternate name, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JKoplowitz, printed for temple work, B/C completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JKoplowitz, printed for temple work, B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by TedSarvata, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by Erin_Bergeron
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... bad data dup by TerryMcElroy
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by ChristieLents
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by ChristieLents
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by ChristieLents

    4/1/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by Kandice Hope Miller, released to temple for work
    4/7/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... both random new records, released to temple for work, B/C completed on base record
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... newer bad data record
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Lois Richard, released to temple for work, marked as 'not a match'
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Lois Richard, B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer..., bad data, B/C/I completed, marked as not a matchhttps://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by NancyCupido https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Yvonne Costales, B/C/I completed 4/10/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaron, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaron, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy, wrong parents
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, B/C/I duplicated
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple. B/C completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by KarenShowell1, bad data, printed for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by KarenShowell1, bad data, printed for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by KarenShowell1, bad data, printed for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaron, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JCaron (wrong name assigned), reserved for temple work

    4/12/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple. printed for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    rotkapchen

    FYI

    This is 'scary' ...

    "Knowledge Article" in "FamilySearch"

    How do I transfer sources between Ancestry and Family Tree?
    https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...

    And, the FIRST sentence is ...

    Quote:
    ------------------
    Information
    To transfer information, create a GEDCOM file of the information you want on Ancestry.com, and then upload that data to FamilySearch Family Tree.
    ------------------

    Now ... what can be misconstrue as ... 'information" ... I wonder ...

    I came across it this morning looking for something else.

    As I said ... 'scary' ...

    Brett

    .
    • view 1 more comment
    • David
      We must be careful ...
      Brett
      .
    • Brett,

      There are a couple of knowledge article links that appear to be fouled up.

      That GEDCOM text is not from the "How do I transfer sources between Ancestry and Family Tree?" members knowledge article that you referred to.

      It has INCORRECTLY been put into the all patrons part of the "How do I connect a name on my tree on Ancestry.com to a person in Family Tree?" knowledge article:

      https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...
      https://www.familysearch.org/help/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=transferring-information-ancestry&lang=en_US

      Note that the url name for that page is "transferring-information-ancestry".

      If you go to the "How do I transfer sources between Ancestry and Family Tree?" article that you referenced, there are two links there named "How do I move information to and from Ancestry? (272603)". Both of them take you to the URL that I just mentioned above. HOWEVER, the Title and member content of of that page has nothing to do with moving information to and from Ancestry! It's all about linking names between Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.

      Furthermore, the GEDCOM related information on the all patrons part of that page ALSO has nothing whatsoever to do with the title and the member information on that Knowledge Article.

      The "How do I copy information from my GEDCOM file into Family Tree?" knowledge article that you can eventually find now appears to be fairly comprehensive. The "What happens to information uploaded from a GEDCOM file?" article also looks really good!

      https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...

      https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...

      These knowledge articles are a real improvement IMHO. But the "How do I transfer sources between Ancestry and Family Tree?" article definitely does have some problems in that it is schizophrenic.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • More duplicates

    4/22/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Cajunbaby225 https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by RebeccaCundiff, printed for work, B/C completedhttps://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by RebeccaCundiff, all ordinances duplicated
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by CarsonEd, printed for work, B/C/I completedhttps://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by CarsonEd, printed for work, B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work

    4/25/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by MarySt John, someone had standardized the birth and subtracted 50 years in error

    5/3/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup released to temple for work

    5/5/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup released to temple for work (B/C/I completed)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by AllisonKanipe1

    5/8/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by Judy45ab, printed for work
    GEDCOM load March 7 2020 by christineantcaagnesevans1
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new GEDCOM by christineantcaagnesevans1
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new GEDCOM by christineantcaagnesevans1
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by jpbmass, released to temple for work, listed with wrong mother
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin

    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (dup of a dup)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, bad data failed match
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, bad data failed match
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, bad data failed match
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, bad data failed match
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by TerryMcElroy, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by christineantcaagnesevans1 released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by christineantcaagnesevans1 released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by christineantcaagnesevans1 released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by christineantcaagnesevans1 reserved for temple for work, record had wrong surname
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by OliviaHeinen3
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by OliviaHeinen3, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by OliviaHeinen3
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by Don Louviere, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by daniellecarter2
    • view 1 more comment
    • Thanks for your additions Mark.
    • This comment was removed on 2020-05-09.
      see the change log
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    Mark,

    Your observations are all very correct. Unfortunately, none of this is new information.
    We need a better way to bring these issues to FamilySearch's attention so they can be dealt with promptly and effectively
    Mark, Unfortunately, this is not the problem at all. This subject has been raised in many topics over the past several years. In fact one of the largest topics to have existed on this forum (with well over 1000 replies originally on it) was specifically about this problem. This was one of the key issues that brought me to this forum a couple of years ago where Robert Wren asked a key question on that topic which was never really answered:

    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

    (Note that well over 600 replies in that topic were lost when it was merged with another similar topic thread)

    The fact that the topic continued on and on without being answered resulted in this topic we are in now being started by rotkapchen, and if you do a search on GEDCOM in the forum, you will find the same discussions coming up again and again over at least the last 6-7 years with no resolution.

    No. The problem is NOT having "a better way to bring these issues to FamilySearch's attention". There is NO WAY that they are missing or overlooking any of this. The problem is that FS does not consider this a serious enough problem to do anything about it.

    The choice was made a long time ago that this capability which supports all kinds of abuse, invites misunderstandings, and creates extremely large loads of REPEATED cleanup activities for innocent and hard working patrons, is going to stay. Although serious mitigations for these problems could be implemented in as little as a day, they will not happen.

    This is why Robert Wren's question was never answered and rotkapchen's challenge was never met. This is why all requests on this forum to do something about this has had no effective solutions created. This is why customer service will not get involved in any of these issues.

    FS has some kind of very high priority on leaving these system behaviors in place which has nothing to do with a lack of resources. I am totally flabbergasted by these priorities. However, I have never worked for a theologically founded company before, so my experience in setting priorities in those kind of products is rather limited.

    In any event, the issue here is NOT getting FS's attention on this subject.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • [My butt is numb...]

    5/10/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (entire family duplicated with alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (entire family duplicated with alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (entire family duplicated with alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (entire family duplicated with alternate surname)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM Dup by JCaron (aligned to wrong husband)
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Susan Reilly_1, printed for temple work, alternate name
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Susan Reilly_1, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Susan Reilly_1, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Susan Reilly_1, printed for temple work, alternate name, bad data
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Susan Reilly_1, printed for temple work, bad data
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work, bad data
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy, shared with temple, B/C/I completed, alternate name
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, B/C/I duplicated, aligned to wrong parents https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, aligned to wrong parents
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, aligned to wrong parents

    New GEDCOM load 3/30/2020 Karla LeComte [I'm sorry, did someone say this is no longer happening? May I remind you that I have to write a message every time I find these duplicates often both to the contributor and to the person who either printed it or released it to the temple? Do you realize how time consuming this is for every record I have to correct? Do you know that there are still thousands of bad data errors I still have to find/correct and that this only represents half of the hours I'm spending fixing stuff in Family Search to save hundreds of wasted hours in the temple. I'm not sure why you think that managing this manually is better than developing the software to maintain better data quality.]

    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Karla LeComte, printed for temple work

    5/11/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Karla LeComte, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Karla LeComte, released to temple for work, aligned to wrong parents
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/ver... GEDCOM dup by Robert Jardine_1, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, full of errors, printed for temple work, B/C/I completed under wrong name
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by renae nordgaard, reserved for temple work, dup not picked up, included dashes
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by renae nordgaard, reserved for temple work, dup not picked up, included married name
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by PeterSchuelke1, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work, bad data (wrong mother, bad dates)https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM Dup by JCaron, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM Dup by JCaron
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    A couple of days ago I merged 30 maybe 40 duplicates created by GEDCOM upload.

    I thought there was an effort to limit them? These were all on the same line.

    Even today I came across some that I had missed and had to do merges.

    GEDCOM uploads = bad.
    • view 2 more comments
    • Write a comment...
    • Not to mention the lack of functions even for the contributor to undo a load or review it and selectively undo it, let alone allowing anyone else to do it for them. I'm still backing into duplicates from loads from years past that I've just never stumbled on yet.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m Still Waiting for the Calvary
    You'd think 10 months of detailed data would be enough to illustrate this MASSIVE problem related to THOUSANDS of hours being wasted in the temple. But then again, they're not the ones doing the duplicate work.

    Nor apparently are they interested in keeping people from releasing duplicate records to the temple for others to waste their time with. As fast as I can find duplicate records people are releasing them for others to do and several are outrightly indignant when I point out what they are doing and refuse to audit their own list of reserved records to check for duplicates.

    No one really cares about studying the data. No one really 'gets' the significance of all the data behind the scenes. Not even represented by this effort are all the many PIDS I've spent the entire day with today from one person who randomly changed the names and the dates on 10s of records. Who knows how many of their records I didn't find. Once the names were changed then another ner-doer merged them into the changed name records. That took me forever to figure out, other than following the trail of the ner-doer (who is regularly responsible for all sorts of errors I find -- we're not talking simple data -- we're talking entirely different people data).

    No good deed goes unpunished...

    5/12/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by LindaCruttenden, wrong name on record
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by LindaCruttenden, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by LindaCruttenden
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy, printed for temple work, aligned to wrong parents
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by PeterSchuelke1, reserved for temple work
    GEDCOM dup by Cajunbaby225

    5/13/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by bchalk, released to temple for work B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by bchalk, released to temple for work

    5/18/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by debsalley1, reserved for temple workhttps://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by debsalley1
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by debsalley1
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... old duplicate, printed for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, printed for work, B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new GEDCOM dup by ToddBourque
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work, B/C/I completed
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by michelle contant, reserved for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by michelle contant
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by michelle contant
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by michelle contant
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by michelle contant

    6/6/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... 2 GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by LeoArsenault reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new duplicate by debsalley1
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by GeorgeThibodeau, all ordinances completed in duplicate
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by michelle contant, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new duplicate by Desblanc, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new duplicate by debsalley1https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by KeithFritze, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    After five years of editing here, I finally got a six-month membership at Ancestry with a DNA test. Now I understand where so much bad information comes from and how it gets propagated.

    Ancestry's design flat-out encourages false information to spread. For example, my relative Thomas Mullinix (L1HB-17G), who had only one known child, has been confused with a different Thomas Mullinix (L7JQ-HXY), who had 11 children.

    The "source" Ancestry pushes hardest is other user-generated family trees. Ancestry relies on those to determine who a person "really is". So for my example, even with Thomas's profile completely filled out -- his parents, spouse and child -- because so many people have copied the bad info from tree to tree, Ancestry always and only pushes hints and records relating to the other person.

    Plus their other main sources are similarly unreliable "Family Histories", "International Marriage Records", and Find-A-Grave. It's actually kind of hard to find solid primary info, unlike here. Ancestry at best is sandbox, and it's baffling to me that Family Search freely allows automated GEDCOM import from Ancestry, or any site without a shared tree with peer review.

    I have two suggestions:
    1. FS should block GEDCOM or 3rd party app profile creation for people born before 1800 (at least for the US). These are the ancestors with the most frequently-repeated false information floating around, bad dates, fathers and sons with the same name confused for each other, etc.. These ancestors have hundreds or thousands of descendants -- chances are very, very low that they're not already here.

    2. FS should not allow any kind of GEDCOM or app editing until a new editor has passed some kind of learning threshold, like, say, 500 edits. This would help prevent the drive-by GEDCOM dumps by people who get excited by genealogy for a week, then disappear.

    Anyway, sorry to vent here, but if you close the other thread and don't solve the problem, what do you expect?
    • view 2 more comments
    • And then there's support who recently suggested that I use this forum for an issue I was asking them to resolve to which I pointed out both of these discussions and said this forum is effectively useless and welcomed any other meaningful recommendations they might have.
    • Ryan, what you said (the following point) deserves a thread in itself:

      "After five years of editing here, I finally got a six-month membership at Ancestry with a DNA test. Now I understand where so much bad information comes from and how it gets propagated.

      Ancestry's design flat-out encourages false information to spread. For example, my relative Thomas Mullinix (L1HB-17G), who had only one known child, has been confused with a different Thomas Mullinix (L7JQ-HXY), who had 11 children.

      The "source" Ancestry pushes hardest is other user-generated family trees. Ancestry relies on those to determine who a person "really is". So for my example, even with Thomas's profile completely filled out -- his parents, spouse and child -- because so many people have copied the bad info from tree to tree, Ancestry always and only pushes hints and records relating to the other person. "
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 6/23/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, reserved for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new duplicate by Desblanc

    6/29/2020
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, printed for temple work
    new GEDCOM load May 28, 2020 by RogerVitello
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new GEDCOM dup by RogerVitello, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new GEDCOM dup by RogerVitello, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new GEDCOM dup by RogerVitello, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new GEDCOM dup by RogerVitello, printed for temple work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... duplicate by PeterSchuelke1, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... duplicate by PeterSchuelke1, released to temple for work
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released for temple work, B/C duplicated
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released for temple work, B/C duplicated
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

next » « previous