I’m wondering what it takes to get a response AND ACTION!!

Would Someone in Upper FS Management Please Explain WHY it is Necessary and/or Desirable to allow GEDCOM submission to the FSTree?

It seems to be a nearly unanimous desire in this forum to ONLY allow GEDCOM's to be loaded to Genealogies (aka PRF)
Please leave this open for an OFFICIAL response. Someone can update it every day, or so, to put it back on the first page until a rational explanation is offered.


In case these TOPICS on the subject have been missed, here are a few of them:
1. Please do not allow gedcom uploads -- they are destroying Family Tree https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

... FamilySearch Support missionary. Please don't let people upload their gedcom files to Family Tree anymore. Putting them in Pedigree Resource File is fine, but many of the messed up families in the tree happen because of people uploading their whole gedcom files and then they get tired of the comparison process and just hurry ... (2017-04-03) Tags: gedcom, upload, mess · 61 replies · 18 stars

2. Please BAN the Gedcoms https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

... 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 ... (2018-03-15) · 124 replies · 19 stars

3. Please don't encourage Gedcoms https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

... and are causing a merging mess. It took me 2 weeks to clean up a gedcom share on one family. It was very evident that this person skipped ... (2017-03-11)
· 18 replies · 3

4. Insanity of allowing Gedcoms https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

... stopped for good from ever getting into FamilyTree. I had to deal with another round of GEDComs making a mess of same family (3 generations, again). I have to clean ... (2017-01-23) · 20 replies · 3

5. Uploading of GEDCOMs https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

When uploading a GEDCOM there should be a couple of warnings posted: 1. people who have passed on MUST have the data in the death field. 2. there should be a limit on the number of people in a GEDCOM to help ensure continuity of information. (2014-04-28) Tags: gedcom, upload, uploading, warning · 22 replies

6. Why is using "GEDCOM data" allowed to create a duplicate record so easily? https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

... for Walter Woodworth, with only this information provided: Reason This Information Is Correct GEDCOM data. While this new duplicate record has now been merged into the preferred ... (2016-09-29) Tags: duplicate records entered by gedcom data · 19 replies

7. Duplicate records are being created by GEDCOMs https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
... of duplicate records and incorrect data by patrons using a GEDCOM continues to be vexing and seems to be a particular problem for records of ancestors who lived ... in the reason statements for this new, duplicate record are "MyTrees GEDCOM Match against FamilySearch" and "GEDCOM data." While diligent searching ... (2016-05-02) Tags: duplicate records created by using a gedcom
· 19 replies

8. It is distressing to have ridiculous or unsubstantiated changes made to data solely on basis of " GEDCOM data" https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

... having children until 1695. In both instances the reason given for the change was "GEDCOM data." Does this mean that this patron submitted these changes ... or that she acquired her information from someone else's GEDCOM? Is there anything else we can do, other that keep close tabs on the watch list, when we have already attached any known Sources, indicated ... (2015-12-20) Tags: "gedcom data" ised as reason statement · 14 replies · 2
68 people like
this idea
+1
This topic is no longer open for comments or replies.
next » « previous
  • A staff member at our family history center pointed this out to me today.

    Brigham Young GM5H-Z92​​

    Guess how it was added? You got it, GEDCOM data.

    Here's another one.

    Brigham Young G959-DSD

    Not added as a GEDCOM, but just as unnecessary. Which makes me think that the problem is more than just not allowing GEDCOM uploads to Family Tree. These dups can't be merged with the real record for Brigham Young because that record is read only. So the duplicate remains, and I'm sure that someone is going to do temple work for Brigham Young yet another time.

    I think I agree with Joe when he said he'd like to see better data quality control coming in.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Adrian,

    Unfortunately, I have to say that I am totally convinced that your suggestion would have absolutely no effect at all. The key FS employees have obviously become totally calloused to anything presented in this thread since they have already decided long ago what their path on this issue would be. It doesn't matter what logic or evidence you present here, it will not have any effect on the direction and priorities that FS has already set.

    If you go back and review just the Promoted Responses for this topic, you will see that for years there has already been an INSANE amount of logic already presented as reasons to at least do something minimal until a more lasting solution can be had (especially when that minimal activity might take less than a day to achieve).

    This is equivalent to a mountain road being washed out, and even though many innocent drivers in their ignorance have already driven over the edge, the highway department won't even bother to put up a "Road Washed Out" sign with barrier to prevent others from driving over the edge too! Why? Because they don't want to put any effort at all into dealing with the situation until they can actually get around to "completely fixing it properly".

    This is the subject that originally got me active here on Getsatisfaction.com because it just seemed so unreal that it even existed at all. Now, over a year later I'm still totally dumbfounded by what appears to be an obvious disdain that FS has for this entire topic.

    I do believe that "all messages are read by FS employees", but for this specific topic I sincerely believe that they are all falling on deaf ears.

    No further input on this topic by members of Getsatisfaction.com is going to make any kind of a change. To me, the last several months seem to have proven that.
    • Well, yes. It appears to me that the statistics to which Joe refers - which are not necessarily pointless in themselves - are being interpreted in one particular way, and the other implications, such as the GEDCOM duplication rate exceeding individual's correction bandwidth, don't form part of that interpretation, so are pushed to one side.

      I did hope that, if logic failed, there might be some emotional response to the messing about with people like Brigham Young.
  • (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

  • 2
    The goal of FS appears to be increased participation by the untrained masses; at all costs.

    This can be an acceptable goal, but it offends “we purists” where efficiently and accuracy is our goal. I have significantly reduced my contributions for this vary reason.
    • view 12 more comments
    • In my experience, messaging someone via email has about a 1% chance of getting any response, less of getting any meaningful action. Messaging them where there is no email address, via the FS system, is about as effective as writing them a note on a paper and burning it, hoping bacteria will eat the smoke when it lands and worms will eat the bacteria and a bird will eat the worms and deposit the result on the head of the target person.
    • Woody: Great entertainment value to minimize the pain.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Jeff Wiseman said it all about GEDCOMs preventing a lot of COLLABORATION in the "Family Tree" in his above statement:

    "Yes but "increased participation" in the collaboration process is obviously NOT part of that goal since they are providing tools to "the untrained masses" that allows (and in fact, ENCOURAGES) them to bypass any collaboration processes in the system."
  • (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

  • Tom Huber,

    Are you talking about profiles in this getsatisfaction site?
    • view 1 more comment
    • When I speak of a profile, I am talking about a deceased person's pages in family tree. I don't know of any other way to be all-inclusive. Previously, with everything on one page, it was easy to say "on my father's page" and everyone would understand what I was talking about and that it was in the massive tree.

      Today, it isn't that easy, although I suppose I could say, "on my father's pages in the massive tree," but to me, that indicates there is more than one record involved. "Profile" has reference that is both singular (for one person) and plural (more than one "page") at the same time, which is why I use it.
  • (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

  • hmmm. I didn't mean to say message them all at the same time. I meant to me message each of them. But I do understand the desire to broadcast to all those users.

    But that seems like a great spamming potential. I know you may want to just send one message to all those 100 users. But would you want messages from all the users that happen upon that ancestor. "Hey, we're related! How are you related to Grandpa Jack?" The messages may be very detailed about research and ideas, but could easily be from new beginners that just attached a hint and new to the system and not afraid to broadcast to meet all those users.

    Maybe we may want to get to being able to broadcast messages from one user to the other 100, but maybe we could show correlation between the groups of users (watchers, contributors, there-right-now) to filter it down to the set of users that you really want to communicate to. Also if one:100 messaging is allowed, how does that get showed and managed in the User Messaging UI?  Do you want to be able to turn off some users that you don't want to keep bothering you? 

    Also, most the time it's going to be like this: "Hey, I found this other birth certificate and want to change the birthdate of Jack. Is that OK?" Well, that is exactly what Discussions is for. But the UI buries that capability and we need to have more immediate notification when a user posts to Discussions.  

    So there's a lot to consider. But I'd like to hear your thoughts. Think, helpful users, and not so helpful users and how they help/hinder your work and what you want as impedance to noisy communication.
    • view 1 more comment
    • Re numbers - in the sort of areas that I work with, I'd be surprised to see more than 5 or 6 watchers and other contributors in total. (Still don't understand your Cat 3, Joe). So I don't see any spamming potential!

      I might want to mute future messages about a PID if all I did was standardise a place name or if I unmerged someone from "my" relative. Probably best to do that when I get an unwanted message rather than stick the mute button into all possible exits after an update.

      There might be a need to mute certain users overall because they try your sanity but that should surely be a facility in messaging anyway.

      Yes, there might be overlap with Discussions so designers with a stake in Discussions might push back. All I can say is that I've never yet seen a Discussion used as that - I use them because (if I recall correctly) another idiot can't corrupt your note. Maybe, as suggested, such a messaging system might benefit Discussions because you could message interested parties to say: "Please see this Discussion that I just started on this profile." In fact, that might be an automatic all-interested- parties message that didn't need your intervention.

      One way or another, I reckon that we need to have the facility to send one message to all parties with one click.
    • Joe

      It is, both, frustrating; and, disappointing, that two (x2) relatively recent SIMILAR posts in this Forum on this very subject came to 'naught'.

      They being:

      Robert Wren
      Year ago
      Collaboration Needed to Avoid Duplications and Resolve Misunderstandings
      https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

      and,

      Mine
      8 Months ago
      Please provide (ie. add) a "Pop Up" / "Drop Down" Box, with a LIST of Users/Patrons who are WATCHING an individual a User/Patron is CHANGING
      https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

      The two (x2) biggest problems/issue/concerns raised by other participants in this Forum were that of (1) "Privacy"; and, (2) "Spam Mail"; personally, neither of which I considered to be a problem/issue/concern at all.

      Just bring up ( 'dredging up' ) the past

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

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

  • 6 May 2019 Gedcom!

    Sent polite msg to this person (not to add gedcom to FT, add to Genealogies, and ASKED who told her to do it.)
    • view 2 more comments
    • I've seen it too. It is where a person is using a GEDCOM of "Their" Tree and comparing it to the Family Tree so that they can "correct all of the mistakes" in the Family Tree.

      These people usually get confused after they do it and then someone goes in and changes something on them.
    • Jeff, that is so bad in some instances that I had to restore the data and send a scolding message to the offender for replacing good and proven data with bad and unproven data.
  • (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

  • I created a new thread to discuss the messaging of other community users. Should have thought about that before I posted my idea in this thread. https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics/working-together-in-familytree-with-other-community-users?rfm=1
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Oh great. I haven't even tapped most of the dups that Wilfred G. Leblanc introduced. A whole new batch were loaded 13 May 2019 by kwh.

    DOESN'T ANYONE GET THIS??????!!!!!!?????!!!!!!??????!!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!

    Oh, great. Another batch I missed: April 18, 2019 by MaryMcBride4
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    I am reviewing the old January posting of existing unresolved issues. In the case of the GEDCOM compare/add/change issue, I've entered the following (comments are welcome):

    * (Older problem): Stop the GEDCOM upload process at the end of the upload and prevent using the compare and add/change/mangle Family Tree via the add and change features. I don't know how many discussions or how many people support stopping the GEDCOM upload process at the point where the GEDCOM file has been added to Genealogies. While we recognize that most of the problems are with inexperienced users of FamilySearch, the real problem is that this is the only process that actually instructs a person to add people from their GEDCOM file into FamilyTree or change existing information. A recent test showed some changes to the system. Unfortunately, it does not impact previously uploaded GEDCOM files. Several things have been done to improve the compare, then add or change data, process, including requiring a reason statement.

    Note: The real problem is that the display of both the GEDCOM information and the data in a "found" FamilySearch FamilyTree profile is not set up like the merge screen (even that fails to show any existing reason statements in the existing profile.

    Essentially, using the GEDCOM compare tool is essentially a merge operation. Several enhancements are needed:

    1) Present as many potential existing profiles as possible, just as if one is entering a new person into Family Tree.

    2) present the information in a merge screen, just as reviewing two records for merging is now used.
  • (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
    A good reason for the STOPPING of GEDCOM uploads to the FamilySearch "Family Tree.

    If someone wanted to cause havoc to the "Family Tree" all they would need to do is upload a 22,000 or 33,000 people GEDCOM with their sex changed.

    It would take familysearch support forever to get the sex right, and Temple Ordinances restored and showing on the correct person.
    • view 1 more comment
    • Regardless, and I do not support doing anything of that nature, the current GEDCOM upload, then Compare/add/change system is still badly flawed. But I really do not think that FS personnel, especially upper management cares about the problem and does nothing but making lame excuses about how duplicates are created just as much with other systems.

      Fortunately, most people who want to upload their GEDCOM Family History File do not have nefarious intentions toward FamilySearch and the massive Tree.
    • I have no doubt that is true. They just need somebody to tell them don't do this. And that somebody has to be FamilySearch -- one way or another. Either a nice big obvious warning with a good explanation or disable the ability altogether. Seems like either one would be very easy to do. And it would take a lot less time than the days or weeks it takes one of us to fix the mess one GEDCOM transfer to Family Tree can create in one of our lines. I wish a GEDCOM upload would cause a big problem for one of the engineers' trees, just once. But I wonder if any of them actually use Family Tree for the purpose for which it was intended. It's hard to believe that if they ever do they haven't had problems caused by GEDCOM's, bad Record Hints, and wrong Possible Duplicates. I am a consultant and help people all the time. I think just about everyone I have helped has had at least one big problem caused by one or more of these "Helps."
  • (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

  • 3
    The root of the problem is larger than the details of how the utility functions. The root of the problem has to do with how the system is managed (or not) as a whole.

    This is a social system. There are 'best practices' that have to be out in place in order for accountability to work. None of these are in place.

    Look at the history. I have the moniker Rotkapchen because in the early days of the system we were 'protected' from knowing who each other was (which is the opposite of what is needed for accountability). It took years before we could message each other directly.

    Turn after turn, this system is intentionally designed to work against individual accountability and does nothing (save for this platform which is merely a panacea) to support collective accountability (I've posted hundreds of 'discussions' and not once has a discussion ever ensued).

    Nothing is done to encourage and support a model of data stewardship
    http://tdan.com/to-own-or-not-to-own-...
    • An excellent reference article, Rotkapchen. Regrettably those who could institute appropriate changes in policy will NOT read (or understand?) and institute the concept.
      But, keep the faith, at some point an Awakening might occur, or recur. Perhaps simply a review of the "White Paper" goals might help.
  • (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
    This person was added by GEDCOM was added in the last hour or so, and the temple work is already reserved. I'm pretty familiar with this family, and this person did not exist.

    Elizie Burns
    G91P-99J
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    I have suggested that the compare function be discontinued until FS developers come up with a fully functional comparison function that can be used for adding hinted sources, merging two records, as well as working with GEDCOM uploads and the tree and adding new people to the tree.

    Such a system would display everything entered in a manner similar to the merge screen, but include reason statement, notes and discussions, and the life sketch. If memories were tagged to the person, the compare screen could link a memory count with the ability to open the memories (for a person) screen in a separate tab.

    When a person is added (again, regardless of the source system), all possible existing persons in the tree would be presented for a person to select from.

    Right now, the system that is being used is incredibly weak and by providing all the details in the source, GEDCOM upload, or potential duplicate record against the same level of details of the existing record, then that would go a long way to reducing the number of duplicates, regardless of whatever system was involved.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    Something to consider when I asked about why she did gedcom.

    Her reply: "I thought I had done it correctly via Genealogies. My apologies.""

    Something is wrong with the process.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    W David

    The problem/issue with the "process" is that when you have uploaded a GEDCOM File into the "Genealogies" part of "FamilySearch", it [ ie. "FamilySearch" ] GIVES you the OPTION to upload the GEDCOME File into "Family Tree"!

    Therein lies the problem/issue.

    "FamilySearch" should NOT allow a GEDCOM File to be uploaded into "Family Tree", EVEN with a "perfect" COMPARE process/tool - it should just never be allowed to happen.

    But, perhaps, that is just me!

    Brett
  • (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
    Brett,

    No, it's not just you! You are exactly right! There is every reason to not allow it and no reason that it's a good idea. Not one! Other than maybe it's cool that it's possible. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.
    • Dale

      I was only being sarcastic with my last sentence.

      And, I agree ... "Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done."

      Unfortunately, as been proffered in this post and other posts in this Forum previously, Leadership want PARTICIPATION (in "Family Tree"), which is leading to QUANTITY over QUALITY. Hence, the COST of that PARTICIPATION (in "Family Tree"), through the upload of GEDCOM Files in "Family Tree", is the LOSS of QUALITY for, in most cases, EXTREMELY Poor QUANTITY.

      Brett
    • Quantity vs Quality is something that I do not believe FS leadership understands. By allowing GEDCOM data to be added to Family Tree, they are actually discouraging conscientious contributors from continuing to use the site.

      The excuse that other means creates just as many duplicates is weak at best. Yes, there are those that do create duplicates and make a mess of existing data, but in most cases, those people often do not know what they are doing and / or don't care that they are creating a lot of work for others.
  • (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

  • Dale

    I was only being sarcastic with my last sentence.

    And, I agree ... "Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done."

    Unfortunately, as been proffered in this post and other posts in this Forum previously, Leadership want PARTICIPATION (in "Family Tree"), which is leading to QUANTITY over QUALITY. Hence, the COST of that PARTICIPATION (in "Family Tree"), through the upload of GEDCOM Files in "Family Tree", is the LOSS of QUALITY for, in most cases, EXTREMELY Poor QUANTITY.

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

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

  • 2
    Jeff Wiseman. Thank you for the EXCELLENT comment on importing Gedcoms. On this site they are like the BLACK PLAGUE. The real problem lies within the site itself
    by not adding video links to show members how to use the site. 75% if not more haven't a clue what their doing.
  • (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

  • Roderick B,

    "BLACK PLAGUE" is an apt description for GEDCOM additions to FSTree!

    Here's a possible solution to aid in EDUCATION in FSTree - by promoting the Family History Guide:

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

  • 2
    (she added gedcoms repeatedly)

    When I asked "Why"

    "It's my family tree and I can do what I want.
    When I get a chance I will clean up the duplicates."

    Where is THAT welcome message written by Tom Huber? I need it again since I couldn't find the copy in my file to begin with.
    • I think you want the Family Tree file that I will use on occasion to help others understand the nature of the tree. It appears that the user has no clue and thinks she is working with "her" tree and therefore, she has the right to do what she wants.

      I need to set up some kind of shared facility where I can post my standard responses. Unfortunately, they can get out of date.

      Any ideas? I could also post my list of unresolved issues out there as I work on them.
    • I would be extremely tempted to take a very small GEDCOM file (say child and two parents), find someone in "her" tree and repeatedly upload that GEDCOM file say half a dozen times. Then write her a note pointing out that it's "your" tree and you can do as you want, so you have. Can't do that in reality however.

      That may be the only way to get through to some of these people. Just shows how bad the documentation on the site is, and how inattentive an awful lot of people are.
  • (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

  • 2
    D-Day being yesterday brings to mind the situation that existed at the beginning of WW2. In the Pacific, submariners came home from patrols having shot all their torpedoes without a single ship sunk. This continued for quite a while. In the Battle of Midway the US torpedo bombers went in and released torpedoes again without inflicting any significant damage. Just a few dents in hulls. Finally one sub captain decided not to fire his last torpedo and brought it home. Test run on the thing showed that the trigger mechanism was crushed on impact so it didn't detonate the warhead. Still, it took about a year to root out the problem: the torpedoes were manufactured by one company in New Jersey, they had the contract, they had a monopoly, a solid steady income, why rock the boat asking whether their torpedoes actually worked?

    Somebody some night needs to get lubricated on root beer enough to write a letter and print it out and send it to Pres. Nelson explaining politely the problem, point him to this thread... See also Alma chapter 60
    • view 8 more comments
    • Woody, your analogy is perfect.
    • This comment was removed on 2019-06-08.
      see the change log
  • (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

  • The only problem is Woody's analogy works with each case where an inexperienced person is involved. It doesn't matter what the process involved is.

    And even more important, we were all there at one time. Even with over 50 years of experience working with my family's history, when FamilySearch FamilyTree because available to me some ten years ago (and I was a very early user) I made mistakes -- oopsies. We all have done that and it is part of the learning process.

    A lot of the problem is on the development management team. newFamilySearch's tree was a prime example and as a result of learning, FamilySearch was created. Now, around a decade into this new system, they are still learning and rewriting code to make it better.

    One of the areas that needs attention isn't the GEDCOM process or any of the other processes, but a screen comparison that is far from complete.

    I have started pushing for a universal screen that (yes, it will take time to load) that will allow every element that exists in both the possible match in the tree and what every is being compared against the tree to be seen, side by side. That comparison contains everything that currently exists, including life sketch, discussion, memories, notes, details (including reason statements) Family, including parents, siblings, spouses, children, marriage sources (reason statements), discussions, timeline -- on the left side -- and everything from the possible duplicate, the uploaded person's record, the hint's indexed values (and even a link to the image) on the right side.

    Add to that comparison screen, noted discrepancies should be highlighted (different background) and any attempt to move into the existing record analysed for dates and places and any discrepancies flagged with "Are you sure you want to continue with this edit" and "Please enter/append the reason statement for your conclusion."

    Then and only then can we start getting a handle on what newbies (to Family Tree) can do. Otherwise, we are stuck with the ongoing problems that newbies can cause (and that included us when we first started using Family Tree. It would also give us a reason to stop and look at what we are doing if we did something that does not match up with the existing record.
  • (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

  • (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

  • Maybe we are not being emphatic enough...

    WHERE IS OUR OPTION TO GET GEDCOMS REVERSED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    New load by jpbmass (loaded 30 June 2019). Who knows how many duplicates were in the load. I've been 2 hours on 1 family and every duplicate has been reserved for work!!!!!!!

    This is after a day of finding duplicates (some being entirely repeated B/C/I/E because I didn't find them in time) and correcting all the mess and leaving messages along the way.

    Not to mention the 10+ notes sent out to other duplicate records already in progress with printed or released records.

    Surely there will be great rewards in heaven -- there better be. This is beyond annoying.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • GEDCOM!!!!

    Created duplicates and errors as well.

    Close that bloody gate!

    I would have nipped it sooner if FamilySearch Weekly Watch Report isn't broken.
  • (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

  • Another one with mass duplicates to clean up. Sent not-so-kind msg to the person.
    This one is on my constant watch. Hence the absolute importance of weekly reports.

  • (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

  • W David Samuelson,

    I no longer trust the weekly reports so I've taken to just checking my watch list every day or so. It's fast when I just open the list and select the changes to persons I'm watching. By turning off the changes I've made, all of the recent changes by others rise to the top of the list.

    With the (sometimes) weekly reports, you can't even do that. I.e., you cannot filter out all the changes that you've made yourself. So I find that it can be superior in many ways to the (sometimes) weekly
    • view 3 more comments
    • Right! ESPECIALLY on a feature of the system that has had years of postings here for requests to change it or shut it down. You would almost think that any improvement there would justify its own advertising campaign!

      "Hey we've made some changes on this feature, what do you think?"

      But instead, it is silently slipped into the system almost as if someone is hoping that the change isn't spotted right away. Very odd...
    • "It would be nice if FS would give us updates when they make changes to the GECOM upload process"
      Cynicism alert:
      The above should read "It would be nice if FS would give us updates when they make changes PERIOD"

      Several of the FS employees on GetSat have told us about changes - usually in response to bug fixes highlighted here. Thank you to them.

      However, we are often told that FS participation in this forum is not guaranteed and may even be in their own time. Again major thanks to those who do voluntarily participate.

      But those guys appear to be carrying the communications effort of FS. It's not fair on them. It's pointless a Blog entry appearing several days after software has gone live - the danger is that we add, "Now you tell us - and a right mess you made of it didn't you!"

      And why does this upset me and a whole bunch of other guys? Because we've been in software, we got (not literally) battered into submission for releasing software without warning and without telling people and ... And we still see it happening with FS.
  • (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

  • joe martel stated: "BTW: last month GEDCOM ingest had the lowest duplication rate of all the input products - it really depends on the users using the tool."
    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

    Yes joe, we all know that it all "depends on the users using the tool"

    Users using GEDCOMs and the comparison tool get tired of digesting 15,000 plus ancestors into the "Family Tree" and just hit yes to everything, which replaces good "Family Tree" data, with bad "Family Tree" data.

    STOP using GEDCOMs as a way to upload or input data to the "Family Tree."
    • Don, the current design does not allow a user to "just hit yes" to everything. The current system goes through the entries on a one-by-one basis, so there is no ability for a newbie to just hit yes. There is no "add" function on those records where existing record or records have been identified.

      Unfortunately, the new design does not apply (thanks to the "old clunky code") to any uploaded GEDCOM file on which the compare function was run before the latest changes of a couple of months ago. Those still give the user the capability of separating the various elements (found and not found) so that all those not found can be added relatively easily.

      The whole reason the GEDCOM process has the lowest duplicate rate is because newly added GEDCOM files are not easy to add to the massive tree, except as one goes through the records one-by-one. Even paging to the next list of persons does not speed the process and so i suspect that many newbies are not bothering with the process at all and just accepting that their uploaded file is now part of Genealogies where it can be searched.
  • (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

  • I’m frustrated!!!!
    This Topic is now:

    12th in "Popular Ideas"

    7th in "Under Consideration" and the most RECENTLY posted one in the top 20, but 18 of the 20 have been there for a LONG time (up to nine years).

    AND we still have NO IDEA what is "Under Consideration" (if anything)

    Hopefully, discontinuing the addition of GEDCOM names into the FSTree - but leaving them, fully searchable in "Genealogies."

    What does it take to get action???? (Reply # 794)
  • (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
    Somebody just uploaded a GEDCOM that created duplicates and wrong parents for my ancestors. They won't be easy to see now, because I fixed it all. But not only did this person add duplicates and wrong relationships, he added wrong parents in which the father and mother were both born in Virginia but married in England before they were born. FamilySearch and Family Tree have been a long time now. The only people adding GEDCOM's now are not serious genealogists. They are people decide that genealogy sounds like a fun hobby so they copy a tree from another website and then they hear about our worldwide multi-user tree and they think, "Ooo......that sounds fun! :) I think I'll put 'my' tree there and play around with it." And FamilySearch is not concerned about that? It's all about the cool feature of being able to upload a GEDCOM and the really cool comparison process. Technology IS amazing, but what's even more amazing is that it's more important than accurate records and accurate temple work. And the years that have gone into trying to perfect features that will never be safe in Family Tree no matter what, because humans use them, when probably it would take mere minutes to just turn off the ability to upload GEDCOM files to the tree. And what a wonderful contribution that little act would be to Family Tree.

    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...

    And these additional wrong parents were added to my ancestor:
    https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...
    • view 6 more comments
    • Tom, I did write to the contributor. I ALWAYS write to the contributor-- immediately. And I tell them the ridiculous data they added -- all kinds of things, like adding a man's mother as another spouse, adding a wife/mother who is 30 years older than the husband and whose children were born before her, etc. And sometimes they reply thanking me for letting them know. Sometimes nothing. This time it was nothing. I beg them to look at what they are doing before they do it. I tell them they are messing up lines that have been established in FamilySearch for decades. I asked them if they really looked at the page before they added the info, I ask if they saw the sources that clearly show, just an example, the correct wife is already there, and the one you added was actually her mother or the one you added as an additional wife died before her children were born. I mean it's ridiculous stuff. Oh, yes, I always contact the person and I try to be as nice as I possibly can all the while hoping they are scared to use the tree ever again. Better one person doesn't use it than a whole tree perish.
    • Um, yes and no on the scared them to not use the tree again.

      What I have found more effective is not to tell them how wrong they are or ridiculous or anything along the lines of "shaming" them (something that seems to be popular in today's internet culture).

      You may use the following pattern, and if you do, that's good. I'm in the same boat in that sometimes I don't get a response, but sometimes I do. In one case, the person felt sure that my Irish immigrant ancestors had a church record in Scotland.

      The problem, which I explained to them, is that we have no way of knowing where they lived, even in Ireland and therefore, had no way to prove they were the same person in the Scottish Church record. The problem was further compounded by their religious affiliation (Methodist) and that Scotland was largely Presbyterian (Church of Scotland).

      No response, so the person evidently chose not to argue as they had no real evidence that my Irish Ancestors were the same as in the OPR.

      Anyway, my pattern generally follows this:

      -- Thanks for their interest in making the person's record as accurate as possible.
      -- The person or family involved and my relationship.
      -- My thoughts and sources with respect to the changes they made. -- I do not criticize their changes, but ask for their reasoning (if not provided) and sources (if not provided).
      -- The corrections I made to their incorrect changes and why I did it (including sources I used).
      -- Request that before they make changes that they study the record, including the sources that are attached, any notes and stories that may be included in memories.
      -- Remind them (if they have not provided a source or a reason) that sources are crucial to establishing conclusions and facts, and that a person's reasoning is needed to let others know what research and thinking was done to reach those conclusions.
      -- What I did to correct what I perceived to be incorrect material.
      -- Thank them in closing for their interest in making the record as complete as possible.

      In the case of a genealogies file, I have run into that only once before and since they cannot go back through the system, I didn't bother contacting them as the changes were several years old. Of course, there were no sources other than the GEDCOM note in the reason statement.

      If they respond, I'll respond back and encourage them, often providing additional sources to check out, depending upon where they are working. I try to be as helpful for their own research as possible. If they bring up their "years of experience" as evidence that they know what they are doing, most will have a lot of problems trying to top my own 50+ years of experience as well as my trips to where these folks lived (here in the United States) and a description of what it was like when our relatives (or the ones being discussed) were alive. If has often resulted in some great cooperative efforts.

      Anyway, good luck with the latest Genealogies additions. Hopefully, that person will eventually respond and look forward to working in a collaborative effort. A lot can be accomplished.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    August 2, 2019
    Another dump - RichardHoward70

    The first record I found, someone has already printed for Temple work. I have to
    + construct a memo to them to let them know that just because something is in Temple Ready does not mean the work has to be done (the system isn't that smart)
    + send a standard message to RichardHoward70 letting him know of the dilemma he has created for himself by doing a GEDCOM load and the responsibility he now has to go find all the duplicates and merge them (I don't know that anyone has ever followed up with this directive as I continue to find hundreds of them -- ALL with temple work already started)
    + merge the duplicate GSKF-6C7

    Instead, I could submit a support request and get someone to UNDO the merge. When will this madness end?

    Why is this not recognized for the tremendous burden that it is?
    • view 4 more comments
    • Joe,

      it really kinda sounds like you are inferring that if the GEDCOM marked records weren't marked that way, then it wouldn't be a problem (i.e., because it was less visible)

      Even if the GEDCOM changes were a very small part of the problem, it has already shown for years now (and that in a very significant way) that it needs to be dealt with.

      In my personal opinion, just because the problem is easy to single out is no justification for ignoring the issue for so many years

      I do agree that it is based on the type of user adding them. In the GEDCOM arena, it currently does appear that the bulk of the people bringing stuff in that way are inexperienced and usually have no concept of a shared tree (i.e., thinking that that are creating "their own tree" in the database from their GEDCOM file). When you add up everything in this subject, you can see that these people are not contributing to the tree, they are very frequently creating destruction.

      And again, duplicates are only PART of the problem. The resultant incorrect merges from the tool suggesting duplicates raises real havoc.
    • Joe, while l agree that the GEDCOM load is only too obvious and therefore infamous, if other methods produce as many dupes, then I would expect people to be complaining in other threads about the general level of duplication. But I don't see it as an issue being raised. Yes, the occasional complaint but not to this degree. So something doesn't add up, I fear.

      My own wild guess is that the other duplication creation takes so much longer for other methods - one at a time, I guess - that the number of dupes per day per monitoring patron is low and inside their correction bandwidth. A GEDCOM, however, probably hoses them in in a very short time, so bursts the correction bandwidth - and the psychological tolerance. And a GEDCOM concentrates the input in one family (in its loosest sense) while there might indeed be many more dupes elsewhere but few connected, another reason to spread the impact.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I have a question related to all the issues I find auditing/correcting records. I'm working with some hijacked records right now (done back in 2016 -- so clearly no one is really studying the data). My question is, without transparency of the temple work done, how do we know for sure what name the work was done under?

    If you know of a different conversation addressing this, let me know.
    • view 2 more comments
    • I would suggest you join or create another thread. You would likely involve a larger audience than this thread.
    • rotkapchen,

      Joe is right, this would really benefit from its own topic discussion. Perhaps a title such as "Duplicate Ordinances Being Performed" or "Hijacked Records Causing Duplicated Temple Work".
  • (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

  • (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

  • 2
    This marks about a ONE YEAR anniversary for this Topic, still with NO answer to the question posed - WHY?

    Re queries in this topic about what "Under Consideration" might mean - and to ensure to FS that many users are still interested in this Topic (aka, stop loading GEDCOM entries into the FSTree, and save a lot of problems); this post showed up in another Topic by "Our" User advocate summarizing suggestions:

    "3. Disallow "GEDCOM file" and "Ancestry trees" and similar as an acceptable reason statement *for overriding existing data.* Hearsay should never trump anything. A little NLP triggering an explanation of refused change could go a long way.
    - There has been thought about how to limit low quality batch entry - by recognizing discrepancies and gaps and running the analysis dynamically as each entry is ingested, and pausing the upload when certain conditions indicate widening discrepancy. There is not much movement in this aspect, but there are wholesale considerations of how to ingest genealogies info into the tree via other mechanisms, similar to hints."


    So what we users all thought could be an "easy fix" CONTINUES!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

next » « previous