Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m discouraged

Moving User Entered Sources from New FamilySearch to Family Tree

Ever since I heard that New FamilySearch would soon be replaced with Family Tree I have been concerned that the sources I have entered into New Family Search would be lost and I would need to start all over again in Family Tree. This would mean the loss of almost four years of effort and over a thousand hours of work. I realize that most of the original sources in New FamilySearch were from Ancestral File, Pedigree Resource File, and Church and Temple Records, etc, many of which were duplicated over and over again. Some of these, such as duplicates of the same source over and over, I can see should be reduced to only one entry or possibly eliminated if not really of value, but I would be very discouraged if I thought I might lose all the sources I personally had entered since New FamilySearch came out.

Please move user entered sources to Family Tree when it is released.
13 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • William, your concern must be shared by many others actively researching their own families.

    If you have not looked at the "White Paper" which briefly discusses the future plan, I suggest that you do so.

    It describes a sort of re-classification of the types of sources you list. It does not describe using actual documentary evidence as the basis for changes in the nFS-Tree, or wholesale elimination of the endemic duplications and fictional family relationships based on the material you refer to as "not really of value."

    The "White Paper" has been put on the "Help" section of familysearch.org, but you can't find it using the search box. Here is the site:

    https://help.familysearch.org/kb/guid...
    • Thanks, Jade. I have read the "White Paper" and it was what gave me the hope that at least some of the people in the Family History Department actually understand genealogical. Before I read it I was about to quit doing genealogy. I thought they just didn't understand what it meant to identify a person as a unique indivdual. And that it was all about adding names with no real thought that names and their associated information identifies real people. It was extremely frustrated when I found out the church had added the Ancestral File and other church records to New FamilySearch because they were so full of errors. It is kinda like adding the ingredients from a spoiled recipe to a new one and hope that the result will be better. I was afraid this time that they were going to throw everything out and start over and that would mean most of what I had done would be lost.
    • There does not seem to have been a definite plan for genealogical accuracy in nFS-tree when it was created, since most of it was compiled from databases from which specific source citations had already been removed. Even if the source data had been retained, much of the family material is wrong because not all that much of the underlying sources were genealogically accurate. There is no built-in standard for genealogical accuracy: any LDS member can add, combine or split with no necessity for actual evidence.

      While some parts of nFS-Tree are doubtless correct, as a whole it is a missed opportunity.
  • (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

  • Just a note on user entered sources in nFS as they move to the Family Tree. Our current proposal is to have any sources that were entered that are related to summary values (meaning chosen for name, birth, death, etc.) and any unique additional details will be converted into new sources in the Family Tree. Other sources that did are not associated with these assertions will be placed into a "Legacy source" entry where people can, if there is something in there needed, copy and paste it into a new source on the Family Tree.

    Do you believe this will be sufficient?

    Thanks,
    Ron Tanner - product manager nFS
  • (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

  • Ron,
    As I understand what is proposed, I believe that should be suffient. Will comments written in the source be converted as well? On several occasions I used a marriage or birth record of a child to obtain the maiden name of the mother and noted that in the "Comment" section of the mother's name source.
  • (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

  • The expectation is that the "comments" or Notes in a source would come over into the created source in Family Tree. We have not finalized all of this but I believe they should come into the notes field.

    Ron
  • (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

  • As long as you are planning on moving the previous sources over please consider my comments under "Make the Collection the source " . Right now the source list is growing very quickly because each mention of a collection is a source when the collection should be the source and then attached to the summary value and the vol/page notation making it unique. It should save lots of space and make much more sense as that is the habit taught us for generations. Why are you reinventing the wheel barrow.
  • (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

  • 3
    May I suggest that only sources submitted by users and sources resulting from extraction projects be transferred to FamilyTree. All of the "Data Admin" sources that come mostly from temple records are not at all useful, and don't need to be moved. The challenge will be transferring source data that was user created using the template in nFS into the template for FamilyTree.

    I have an opinion about how the FamilyTree source template might be improved. I have added a source to my ancestor Josephus Franciscus Antonius Vay, using parts of the FT template and modifying other fields on his personal record. I invite anyone interested to have a look at L72F-V49 in FamilyTree, and make comments on this forum.

    Venita Parry Roylance
  • (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

  • I’m happy
    I totally agree that the Temple Records are next to worthless as a source. My concern was with sources that I put in such as vital records collections, census records, and other family genealogy when they appear to be accurate.
  • (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
    Yes, the most reliable sources are the original records. The farther we get away from original records, the less trustworthy the source. My idea of a perfect source template for FamilyTree would contain only two fields - first, Name of the Source (ex. Parish Records, Chilham, Kent, England); second, the location of the original record (ex. Archives, Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury, Kent, England). That's all you really need since more and more data is becoming available on the internet, AND the internet is constantly changing and the website you find today may disappear tomorrow. The FamilyTree source would be completed on the individual record in a field that accepts either a link to a document image, or personal data extracted from the document.

    The bottom line measure when creating a source is whether or not someone will be able to find the same record I found, 50 years from now. By then today's links will likely be obsolete, but extracted data and precise identification of the source will allow someone to find it with whatever amazing tools they have then.

    Venita Parry Roylance
    • "That's all you really need since more and more data is becoming available on the internet, AND the internet is constantly changing and the website you find today may disappear tomorrow."

      Your first clause is not accurate because only a teensy fraction of genealogically useful documentation is available on the internet. Just yesterday I saw a genealogical-advice blogger's statement on the new Ancestry.com "sticky notes" blog, that "most genealogical records are on the internet." Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who has done much research in actual records in the repositories knows this. And the FHL does **not** have "most" of these records, despite so many decades of microfilming and digitization, not even those for the USA only.

      However, you are right about web addresses' being always subject to change.

      For these two reasons a complete citation of an evidentiary document is necessary.
    • You're right. Using a website (or a published digital image) as a source is not a good idea, because of the constant changes to the internet. The source should refer to the "home" of the original document whether we personally found a copy of it on the internet, on a filmstrip, or at the archive itself. Again, the point is to help someone in the future find the same document that we found. We do that best by pointing directly to its "home.".
  • (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

  • What is the status of synching sources from/to Third Party affiliates such as RootsMagic, Legacy, Ancestral Quest?
  • (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

  • We plan on providing interfaces for third-party affiliates throughout the year so they can begin an integration into the Family Tree.
  • (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

  • So these "interfaces" will include sources and citations as they are entered in the third-party affiliate?
  • (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

  • Yes, if I understand what you are saying. We are working with 3rd party affiliates so that sources entered into record managers can be uploaded into Family Tree and appear as these new sources.
  • (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

  • How about the sources we have been entering directly into new FamilySearch? Will they transfer to FamilyTree, or do we have to enter them all over again?
  • (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

  • As I said above. The sources that are entered in new.familysearch.org with your assertions will be brought over if they are part of the chosen selectable summary values. Also we will bring over sources for all non-vitals that we bring over and we will also bring over any notes attached to the ancestor and put them in notes in Family Tree. (People often put sources in the notes.)

    We have also thought that any sources that are not in the chosen set could be brought over as a single "Legacy Source". Should we do this?
    • In answer to your question whether source information should be brought over even if it is not attached to the chosen set in the summary - ABSOLUTELY. Currently in new.FamilySearch, the summary view keeps getting changed by others or even taken over by Family Search as "the" contributor.

      If a contributor has chosen to contribute a source to document an entry in new.FamilySearch, no matter whether it is a chosen set - it should be brought into the source information in Family Tree. We do not need to keep starting over nor should you discard the valid contributions which others have put into the system up to this point.

      Nor do we need to perpetuate the fear that source information we have entered into our database on our personal computer software will have to be manually entered into the Family Tree. The synchrony software of third-party vendors need to be able to transfer source titles and film/roll/page number information from repositories information. Also, extracted data in the "Actual Text" fields and information in the "Comment" where contributor evaluation of data has been made needs to be transferred into the Family Tree source field.
  • (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

  • 1
    I think that any source that has been submitted by an individual should be brought over, with the option that the submitter can edit/delete it - yes, a "Legacy Source" like the Legacy Discussions. Additionally, any record that is in there as the direct result of an extraction project should carry that information as a source. If a source is just the result of ordinance information, it should be excluded.

    It would be ideal if the sources that have been created using the nFS template could be fit into the FT template, but I can't see that happening without possible loss of important data.

    Thanks ever so much for listening!!
    • I know there are many sources associated with ordinances that are incorrect - however, some are valid. For example - living people married in the temple - The information on the sealing date and place may be the only information you have to document the marriage. This is particularly true in the early Utah years. There are always exceptions to every rule. Other that that I don't disagree with the bulk of your comment.
  • (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

  • I say any information that can help me get any information about a ancestor should be included. Who knows what I want I want to pull from Family Tree into my working tree.

    Only user submitted sources should be easily viewable. Not user (FamilySearch or DataAdmin) sources should be included in legacy sources.
    • I guess I want to know if is an extraction source and at the present time these show as familysearch in nFS. Some real thought and planning will need to go into how to formation and move nFS source information. We do not need 8 copies of the same thing but on the other had when it give batch number we do want to have that information so it can be converted into the current Family Tree format.
  • (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

  • Ron Tanner (Family Tree Guy) March 01, 2012 15:39
    So we have been discussing user sources and several have brought up extractions and ordinances. Let me talk a bit about this.

    Records in new.familysearch.org can come from several places: Ancestral File (AF), Personal Resource File (PRF) and others. All AF and PRF records are already in www.familysearch.org under Trees search. Our plan is to sweep through the system and attach a source (Title, URL, Citation, Note) to each ancestor in Family Tree that had an AF or PRF data in it on new.familysearch.org, This source with have the Title and URL back to the original AF/PRF ancestor submission now hosted in www.familysearch.org. So exactly like you link to Historical Records sources these will be links to "Trees". There will only be one source to one AF/PRF record; there is no need for more than one.

    Also on converting nFS sources into FT sources. We expect this to not be a problem. The template used in nFS, just like any template, is an effort to collect pieces of information that can eventually be used in constructing a formed and complete citation. We will take the information in the nFS sources and reformat them into a citation based on the information entered in the form. This will result in a Title - probably the assertion type and value, URL - blank, citation - the generated citation, notes - any additional information or blank.
    • What about the records which have been extracted from parish record films, etc? They are mostly christening and marriage records, as you know. Knowing that a bit of data was extracted from a film of the original record goes a long way in confirming the validity of the assertion. Will these records carry that source with them into FT? We need to know that it is and extraction, and what record it was extracted from.
  • (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

  • 1
    Right now, then, as I understand, AF and PRF submissions can appear in 3 places--the old Classic FamilySearch, Trees in FamilySearch and Family trees in FamilySearch. Here is one issue with PRF:

    The classic FamilySearch version of PRF--has the CD # which is necessary to reference back to the original CD to see detailed sources, submitter contact info and submitter ordinances listed. There is no longer a link from FS to the classic FS, so the PRF data that is at FS needs to have the CD# information that is in the Classic FS.

    Will that be resolved so that there is one place where all the reference data for the CD#'s are available for a PRF record?
    • Patricia,

      The PRF on the old site directed the patron to look at the disks because the notes were not present in the search system. The PRF data on the new site is actually better than that on the old site and, other than submitter info, is on par with what you will find on the CDs.

      The new site PRF displays all sources and notes if these are present on the record, just like the CDs. However, many records do not contain them, and there consequently is no way to know where the submitter obtained the data. Because of this, we tend to think of AF & PRF as a rich place to get hints to guide your research. Sometimes you will fall into a submission that is heavily sourced, but always you should be cautious and verify the actual research yourself.

      We've put a lot of thought into the publication of submitter info and will not be displaying submitter contact information on the website for the time being.

      We do this for several reasons. Most of the submissions came to us over many years, often from more senior patrons. A majority of the contact info is no longer valid or the submitters are now deceased. Also, when we gathered this info, submitters gave us permission to put it on DVDs, not the Internet. There is a substantially greater risk of personality theft and other mischief when publishing names, addresses, phone and email to the web than on a purchased DVD. Since that wasn't the agreement we originally had with submitters, we believe that this is the correct and respectful approach.

      We do however put the submitter initials and surname on each submission to help everyone determine if it came from their "great aunt Sally".

      At some point in the future we expect to deploy a system where a patron will be able to specify publicly available contact info for the entire FamilySearch.org website. I expect that once that is in place, we will be able to map a portion of legacy submissions, all claimed submissions and all new submissions to that info.
  • (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

  • With Ancestral File the source could also be on the microfilm but not in the ancestral file program. See the following for why it is important to preserve that information on the trees view.

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

    This is also why I gave the suggestion that the images be made available online.

    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
  • (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

  • After reading months of discussion on this topic, I'm still concerned that we will lose the ability to associate a source with a individual events or facts. In data I have entered into my family tree using Legacy Family Tree, the source is always associated with one or more facts. For example, each census may yield a variation of my ancestor's name and birth date. Every variation has some value to me, and therefore I want to know which source it came from.

    The first record I ever found of my great-grandfather came from what appeared to be a very reliable source, a thorough compilation of biographies of prominent residents of his county. I copied his biography from the film at the Family History Library. Over the next year I disproved virtually every fact found in that biography. Each new source provided information on one or two facts, so I don't want them associated with the entire individual.

    GEDCOM files I've uploaded to nFS appear to retain the association with each event, but it doesn't sound like this will be true in FT. Am I wrong?
  • (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

  • 1
    Let's resurrect this issue.
    Folks in the FH Library are STILL asking this question. When are the user added sources going to be moved over from nFS to FT? Folks are discouraged from entering sources on FT because the old sources they spent years finding and entering on that stupid nFS template, have not be moved over. When!
    • view 1 more comment
    • @Cathy. What folks in the FH library are asking about bringing sources from nFS to FT - the staff or the patrons? How many out of how many of the staff members feel that the design of the Source Documentation template in Family Tree is adequate? Do they suggest any changes to the entry data fields?
    • 1) My interaction is mostly with patrons who are not novices. These are our customers really trying hard to be accurate and improve the quality of LDS genealogy in general. These are the folks who took the time on that terrible nFS template, whether it was a film, book, or whatever, to put sources with their ancestors. These are the folks wanting to bring over their old sources.

      2. Which Source Template? I assume you are asking about the Create a Source template for Internet, etc. Sources? Right? If so, both Tree Connect and FS should have instructions to copy from the URL source and Paste the applicable data into the Describe this Record field, in case the URL link breaks and does not open in the future. And when we can upload docs, etc. in our possession along side the Create a Source template, that will definitely help some patrons who are anxious and have spent years collecting docs on their flash drives.

      3. Or are you looking at the FamilySearch records fixed-template that can't be edited? Except for Notes. I think anyone who knows sources, feels the FS template needs to put more in the citation field than just referring back to the FS source. We'd like to see the original NARA documentation there; lines, pages, etc. for example. But we love the way each record has links to other family members, and that these can be personalized.

      4. Most missionaries would not know if the template is adequate or not because most don't serve long enough to know much about what makes a good source or not. A little frightening, isn't it. While some zones may have some inservice classes regarding sources, there are no "must take" classes on sources in the Training Center, Ambassador Program, or library for missionaries, and there should be!

      5. The Employees/staff who do know what a good source record/citation is are quiet. I've not heard a peep out of them. They are experts in their certain areas, like British research in a certain time and place, but Family Tree is almost as new to them as it is to patrons. Interesting, huh! But after all, FT keeps changing, while their expertise doesn't much.

      Now I don't interact with all of the staff, mind you, but those I do, are just like most people. Some are eagerly trying to learn and teach not only their expertise but also FT, while others come to it more slowly. But now that you ask that question, I am going to start asking them.
  • (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

  • Chris, I agree with your analysis. But what should I tell users now? Go back and redo all sources, from FS records and attach, etc.? You and I know how easy that is, but to them, it is repeating all the work they did in the past.

    Further, they are now suspicious about putting more energy and time into the new way to source/attach, wondering what the future technology will bring to this issue. Will they have to do this again in the future with a newer technology? They are saying they are just going to sit this out and not use FT until they are assured that we are finally "finished" improving it.
    • view 2 more comments
    • You could create a notes only source and attach it to the person. This doesnt however fix the issue of the fact that the person no longer exists in FT
    • And why doesn't the person exist in FT anymore? Merge?
  • (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

  • I’m Hopeful
    1
    Sourcing data has forever been a problem for the LDS family history researcher, first because it has not been taught properly, and second because of the poor source templates found in the most popular genealogy data management programs. Here are my suggestions.

    1. Teach correct principles regarding the relative value of primary sources, secondary sources and all other so-called 'sources.'
    2. Teach the basic fields of an excellent source template: Type of source; Title of Source; Location of the original record. (Other fields are bells and whistles.)
    3. Teach the difference between a personalized source and a master source and where each should be used. (Personalized in FT; Master in personal database)
    4. Provide a Family Tree source template, and FamilySearch-created sources, that reflect the above.
    5. Certify only genealogy data management programs which offer the same style of source template.
    6. Allow sources created in source-template-certified genealogy data management programs to be synched with FT, with or without being personalized when attached to a person.
  • (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

  • Ron Tanner (Family Tree Guy) May 24, 2013 20:28
    In a few weeks we will be sending out a survey to ask people if they want their NFS sources brought over or not. Those who choose to not move them over, we will not migrate their entered sources. For everyone else we will migrate their entered sources. Essentially the form in nFS was to generate a citation. We will collapse these pieces to create a citation and titles other information will be in the notes. We will create sources for you (they will appear in your source box) and attach them to the person they are on in nFS.
  • (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

  • Ron, Thanks so much for the info. And here's the proverbial question: When? And don't you dare say Soon! :)
  • (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

  • @Ron

    In the previous entry to your "announcement" Venitar pleads, "Allow sources created in source-template-certified genealogy data management programs to be synched with FT... ." THIS IS WHAT I AM WAITING FOR.

    Many incorrect merges continue to occur in Family Tree yet there is no requirement that a contributor must provide their contact information before they are allowed to make changes to data. If a person chooses to modify and contribute data that they must agree to provide contact information and be willing to collaborate.

    Ron, in your announcement you say, "Those who choose to not move them [their NFS sources] over, we will not migrate their entered sources. For everyone else we will migrate their entered sources."

    I suggest the opposite action to your survey. I suggest that ONLY THOSE WHO INDICATE in a response to your survey that THEY DO WANT their source information brought over from new.FamilySearch to Family Tree should have that happen. Such behavior means that they are interested and want to work with others. This is in harmony with the suggestion that only those who choose to participate and request in the survey to have their nFS sources brought over should have that participation privilege.

    Such a decision will eliminate more undocumented garbage from being transferred from new.FamilySearch into the FT database. The new.FamilySearch database will still exist as a read only resource, so others can look at it the same way that they can look at the Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource file data.

    A FHC director on FHCNET writes, "I hope the survey has some actual examples (before and after) of how a transferred source will look. It is difficult for people to make an informed decision based on a written description alone."
  • (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

  • I am in the middle of the road on this question. Perhaps you or I submitted information available to me as well something from you, then we could share.
  • (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