Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Keep New.familysearch.org as a View-only site

I just read on What's New that you're planning to shut down new.familysearch.org That's fine, I love Family Tree. But please leave it up as a view-only site. There are some things on that site that are nowhere else. For example: 1. I can see how incorrect combining took place. That's important to know if I suspect temple work was done for 2 people and they were combined. Family Search needs to uncombine them so proper temple work shows for the correct people. The uncombining method I've seen videos on, doesn't seem to address that problem. 2. If a name was EXTRACTED, that information shows on Sources for that person on the old site. Also in Sources, it shows a BATCH number. With that important information, I can search for other family members in that batch. 3. I can find out the names of the people who submitted a family member to the Tree on the old site. On Tree it migrates over as being submitted by Family Search. No help there. For those of us who use new.familysearch.org for this kind of information, please consider leaving it up as a view-only site. Thank you. Kathy
115 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
next » « previous
  • The example for Kristi was an Ancestral File person and many times users want to find where that record is in Family Tree. I am in no way suggesting you use Ancestral File as a source to make changes in Family Tree. But to find records that were buried in nFS this is one of the only options we have.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Gasmodels, I agree, AF can be used to find buried records in FT, but NOT as source material, I detailed very thoroughly what happened during the era of AF in this thread & explained why nFS was the best tool to ferret out these problems in AF.

    Joe, now that, that has been said, what do you mean when you said: "We do not want users changing a FamilyTree Person to match a Genealogies Person."

    Are you really unaware how inaccurate FT is? You took the combine page in nFS away, you shut down nFS, you put the IGI, etc. back together and tell us it will be sufficient w/o nFS--you tell everyone who hates a community tree to submit there documented trees to PRF, and NOW you say we do not want patrons using Genealogies to add to FT?

    Are you expecting everyone to come up with new sources for the 1700s, and, at the same time, totally reinvent the wheel? You have forgotten that the earliest and best research in genealogy was done by our church & church members? You forgot that there are things our great grandparents knew that we will never find in records? You never read this thread when we detailed the original records that exist at Duke University, VA State Library & Archives, North Carolina State Library and Archives that truly could be added IF we could just get FT correct?
    • It is only insufficient because those out there have not taken the time to add there notes to the line and good sources and books etc...all they do is complain and never merge duplicates and correct mistakes. Its just like playing a video game or spending time reading a book, if your interested it just takes a few clicks. Then the line will be accurate. Proofs is KING!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    In response to a direct question, Ron Tanner, Product Manager for Family Tree, during his Tuesday session: "FamilySearch Family Tree: Roadmap" at the #BYUFHGC said he had no intention of preserving the combine page from newfamilysearch. This is in spite of the Church Historical Department's Digital Record Preservation System (DRPS) specifically designed to preserve just such databases. It will be a first for FamilySearch and its predecessors. A major genealogical database will be completely wiped off the planet. For all its problems, it holds the key to fixing any and all of the messes in Family Tree today.
    To quote my friend, "the decision to destroy newfamilysearch.org is destroying the historiography of how you arrived at where you are today".
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • If you keep it only view only or read only mode then you might as well let everything be diced up and mixed to plad. Because then its like saying might as well be stagnant as nothing will get accomplished. What really needs to happen is once a person has the line fixed with merges and adding sources (proofs), then familysearch needs to be the only editor in a future day. Then if a person wants to make the change, familysearch will look at what they submitted, and after review with there team they will post it or let you know if its incorrect. Otherwise it is open to the community and its up to you to fix your own stuff my friends. How else to do it? Go back to the way we were doing it? Doing work for the same dead thousand diff ways creates endless chaos, and you say that it needs to stay because your line is right and nobody else's? I DONT THINKS SO. The end game = proofs, you got the proofs then nobody can question you.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Of course proof and sources are needed, but what happened in the era of nFS is that all similiar names were put in a jar and instead of falling out they all stuck together--by giving us access to the combine page we have the missing link--what happened to the records of the LDS church between the actual Temple Records/TIB/AF/IGI/Pedigree Resource and FamilyTree.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Cherie, the problem with the combine page is that there were glitches in nFS that sometimes caused data from one of the many databases in nFS to inadvertently be transferred from one mis-combined person to another, making the data you could see within the "inner records" on the combine page unreliable. Although it will be more difficult to access the individual databases that comprised nFS separately, that is the best way to sort out what these original records really contained. None of the original databases are being scrapped.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Like anything that went through all the different algorithms the engineers exposed the data to is reliable--besides which I am only asking to view the data. It is a window into what happened to many individuals that are no longer in FamilyTree but were in newFamilySearch.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    It is also a window into as many as 19 different unique individuals that were combined into one PiD during the era of AF---while 19 was rare it was very common to have 6 unique individuals combined into the same PiD...this can only be see on the combine page in nFS--no where else.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

next » « previous