This topic was merged into another on Mon, 14 May 2018 18:25:20 +0000 Click here to see the authoritative topic.
Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Please BAN the Gedcoms

I asked for ban of gedcoms a year ago from being uploaded to Family Tree completely

Still not banned.

I am cleaning up a very big mess of sheer number of duplicates from a GEDCOM that was uploaded YESTERDAY by somebody else.

Already over 3 generations and still going.
23 people like
this idea
+1
This topic is no longer open for comments or replies.
next » « previous
  • I made some mistakes in my calculations. In both of the tests that I performed above using only FamilySearch data, the results were over 20 percent of the persons the system wanted to have added were already in the tree.

    That is TWO out of every ten persons.
    • view 2 more comments
    • Thanks for all your testing. I have repeatedly asked if there is anyone 'inside' doing data quality tests at all. Apparently, you're the only 'outside' source and we know that your testing is limited without direct access to the data.

      The numbers I want is the rate of duplicate ordinances being completed and just how high the count is for duplicate ordinances on individual records.
    • Those would be very useful stats. I do not believe that I have any way to obtain the numbers from "outside" the system. While AQ will give me updates to ordinances, that only is when an ordinance is reserved and then when it is completed for the first time that I am monitoring it.

      I wrote about this a long time ago to Gaylon Findlay, who is the author and main programmer for AQ (he also authored the Church's now discontinued PAF program) and he indicated that AQ did not do that.

      I was hoping to be able to track any change to ordinance data that appears in the system, but even the change long doesn't record that. I requested the feature and Ron Tanner in one of his live sessions basically saw no purpose to be served by it.

      I can think of several, but I am getting the feeling that unless management, which includes Ron, wants something, it isn't going to be considered or implemented.
  • (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

  • 1
    I guess the thing to do is to just STOP merging and fixing the "Family Tree" until we get a response from upper FamilySearch management why they allow GEDCOMs.
  • (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

  • Don,

    That won't work because not all duplicates are from Gedcoms. Many duplicates are from pre-computer days - that's the keypunch era.
  • (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

  • 2
    For LDS members, you really don't have to have the FamilySearch "Family Tree" correct to add a name and print a name to take to the Temple. Keeping your own computer genealogical program at home correct, is really all that is needed. We members who have gone out of our way to merge and correct the FamilySearch "Family Tree" is because duplicates make for more Temple work. Also we have gone out of our way in keeping the FamilySearch "Family Tree" the most correct we can because of our hope in helping others find their long lost ancestors. If FamilySearch does not care about keeping duplicates out of the "Family Tree," and making sure the "Family Tree" is the most correct we can make it, WHY SHOULD WE!
  • (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

  • 2
    David, I agree that many duplicates are from the previous systems, but the present dumping of duplicates is directly caused by faulty and/or broken FamilySearch site software.

    If I start using Ancestral Quest exclusively for reserving names, one of the first things it does is ask me to run its own duplicate checker, which is much more accurate than FamilySearch's in finding possible duplicate records. In addition, I can merge those duplicates from within Ancestral Quest. In addition, I can even see the temple data during the compare process, which I cannot do with FamilySearch's merge comparison screen.

    It really boils down to abandoning FamilySearch until this is fixed. What it means is that many of us who seldom, but sometimes do, make mistakes are going to leave the system to less experienced patrons who can make some very bad errors in the way they work with the tree, including attaching sources.

    The bottom line question for many of us is what is it going to take for FamilySearch upper management to acknowledge:

    1) There is a problem?
    2) Halt (at least temporarily) the faulty process (.ged upload compare)?
    3) Respond (not from Joe, he's in the same boat that we are) to these threads?
    4) Lay in plans and dedicate resources to fixing the issue?
  • (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 name is frequently called out to support or not different perspective. You can read my previous responses to understand where I stand, but in summary:

    I do know bad info like adding duplicate Persons through ALL the various apps could be improved. I do the best I can to live with the situation, and try to contribute good, and help others learn. 

    But I do not support abandoning or protesting FamilySearch. I know it's frustrating, but it is part of the community world we live in, where we all have a voice, irrespective of our individual strengths and weaknesses. I encourage users of this worthy endeavor to reflect on how we can help each other and overcome the shortcoming of technology, processes and people.
    • view 2 more comments
    • Basically, we are waiting for a suitable response. And no one is responding. If I was in Salt Lake, instead of 1,200 miles away, I would have parked my body outside a FamilySearch manager’s office.
    • Joe That is a great point, their is some things they must do on Family search, in my thoughts finding a half middle for ged coms, is one of them for many reasons, They need to get rid of duplicates because if you don't it will take up lots of servers and other kinds of space which in turn will cost the church more in the future. Their is just some things the church with 100% needs to do, to make family better.
  • (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

  • 1
    Found another "GEDCOM DATA" with duplicates all over - dated 28 April 2018 and 29 April 2019 by same person.
  • (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

  • Aside from Joe Martel galantly attempting to calm things down, I have come to the conclusion that this matter has to be or is going to be discussed in a meeting involving upper FS management, possibly the Temple Department, and possibly the general authority who has responsibility over this work. I would not be surprised if Steve Rockwood is also involved as the CEO of FamilySearch International.

    One thing is certain: the present compare function is seriously flawed. And the sequence when one uploads a GEDCOM file encourages by telling the patron to Contribute your GEDCOM to Family Tree.. The patron, in following those very specific instructions is more likely to add all of those records into the tree, than not.

    From discussions about the experiences with hints and also with possible duplicates, there are some major problems with the way some of the FamilySearch tools work. Those that are flawed and reported via this forum need some serious rethinking and replacement.

    The tires (those tools) aren't just flat, they are shredded. No amount of excuses or attempts at explanations can eliminate the problems or the bad experiences that patrons are experiencing.
  • (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

  • PLEASE NOTE this response:

    "Ron Tanner (Official Rep) 1 hour ago
    We recognize that the process is clunky and time consuming. However, we need to have a way for users to add their data to Family Tree that is not already in Family Tree without retyping it all in.

    We don't like what we have today. It works, but not well and people get frustrated and bypass the process by saying everything is not a match. We have desires to do something different that would involve more of the system to find matches against a person's uploaded GEDCOM and then offer it as a match or hint that they can then import what is new in their GEDCOM a small chunk at a time. We have several systems that need to be updated before we can move to this approach.

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

  • I’m happy
    I do like the plan Ron Tanner presented above! Sounds like a BIG improvement and I encourage others to upload their GEDCOM's as a "Read Only" snapshot in time that others can't mess up. I do love the collaboration with other cousins but some just don't get it and make HUGE mistakes that take a lot of time to re-fix. The GEDCOM can be a great resource without anyone changing anything and then when Ron's plan can be implemented we can have the best of both worlds. Family Tree is still the best and easiest to use and I LOVE IT!
  • (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

  • I’m beyond frustration
    1
    ALL

    AND, especially, any Higher Level of Management in "Family Tree"

    As I posted in https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

    A far as I can make out from this; and, the many other previous, posts:

    (1) Advising of the "Disastrous" effects with the uploading of GEDCOMs to "Family Tree"; and,

    (2) Requesting to IMMEDIATELY "Stop" the ability to up-load GEDCOMs to "Family Tree" ...

    NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE - it is still happening.

    We are NOT talking about a short time ago.

    We are talking about a LONG, LONG time ago.

    The ability to, at least, TEMPORARILY "Stop" the ability to up-load GEDCOMs to "Family Tree" SHOULD have been actioned quite some time ago.

    I am not talking about correcting the Programming code; just, putting, at least, a TEMPORARILY "Stop" in the Coding; until, the matter can be fully investigated and a solution found.

    How many time must the Users / Patrons advise; and, in some cases, express their concerns?

    Yes, an "Official 'FamilySearch' Representative[s]", "Joe Martel' [ and 'Ron Tanner ], just to name one [ or two ], is [ /are ] aware of the "Disastrous" effects with the uploading of GEDCOMs to "Family Tree"; but, seriously, how long does it take for the Higher Levels of Management in "Family Tree" ( and, for that matter, "FamilySearch" ) to ACKNOWLEDGE; and, at least, action the TEMPORARILY "Stop" of the ability to up-load GEDCOMs to "Family Tree".

    I applaud 'Tom' for his actions to continuously "Post" and "Re-Post" the subject of (1) the "Disastrous" effects with the uploading of GEDCOMs to "Family Tree"; and, (2) Requesting to IMMEDIATELY "Stop" the ability to up-load GEDCOMs to "Family Tree" - And, getting emotive about it.

    We ( the Users / Patrons ) would appreciate and love to hear from a very "Senior Product Manager" responsible for the ability to up-load GEDCOMs to "Family Tree".

    Questions:

    Can a TEMPORARILY "Stop" on the ability to up-load GEDCOMs to "Family Tree", causing such "Disastrous" effects of "Duplication" and other concerns, be actioned IMMEDIATELY or as near immediately as possible?

    If it can, WHEN?

    If can't, WHY NOT?

    What is being done at this moment; and, at what stage ( if any ) are we at!?

    Brett
  • (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

  • Thursday (tomorrow) is the opportunity (and one that I will miss) that we will have to hammer Ron Tanner about his reasoning with respect to all the cleanup we are left from the duplicates produced by a dysfunctional compare function (old code is not an excuse to leave it running).

    The session is slated for U.S. Mountain Daylight Time 7:30 PM. He posted this on his Facebook Account:

    "We have a live coming up this week, do you have a question? You can leave it here: https://goo.gl/forms/EI4LJkYV31VvFiFt2 "

    Leave copies of your comments and questions for Ron, or drop him an email to ron@familysearch.org

    If he gets flooded with our dissatisfaction, he might just get something done about stopping the madness, which is not the fault of the patrons, but of FamilySearch and its instructions that tell them to Contribute their GEDCOM to Family Tree.
  • (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

  • Tom,

    know what my beef with this type of live session? NO way for me to hear anything - you know I am DEAF. So is Ron.
    • He tends to be. However, if you submit your concerns, he should address them. The sessions are posted, usually within an hour or two, of the conclusion of the session.

      You could also email him and ask that he reply via email.

      Hopefully, he will address the issues in depth, and if so, and if the answer is something we should know, then I'll recap that part of the session. However, it will be a few days before I am able to do that, since I'm going to be traveling.
  • (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

next » « previous