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
63 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
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. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

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

  • Tom Huber,

    Are you talking about profiles in this getsatisfaction site?
  • (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. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly 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.)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

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

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

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

  • 1
    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. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly 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. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

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

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

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

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

next » « previous