First Impressions Feedback
I'm in Chrome.
- "Some of the data in this GEDCOM was not upload correctly. View imported tree differences." The second sentence is a hyperlink. It freezes, does not connect to that next interface. I also lose that page because it has to be closed and doesn't recover even when I click refresh, or stop the process.
-There's a lot of 'working from scratch' from the outset of this transfer which is problematic. I have a full tree in FS, with sources attached, and in CET everything needs to be manually connected.
-The ID numbers are all different. That is mind blowing. That exponentially duplicates records. There needs to be a better way for this feature to function.
Like the FS tree is the root tree, and the CET tree is the snapshot and then the user can edit from the snapshot in their own local copy.
It doesn't make sense to start from a GEDCOM and work backwards / sideways reconnecting records. Then the user may as well just use a completely different private tree interface. Know what I mean?
- Here is another brain explode: I just took a FS tree ID number and tried to add it into a missing hole in CET and that doesn't work. "This person is from a different tree and cannot be added to this tree." If there is no shorthand to corrections… that's frustrating.
So it seems that CET is a separate entity from FS, which I understand because testing and separating the datasets… but is the intention for it to work more seamlessly together? Or is it meant to hold separate projects entirely?
This is a very prickly introduction. I think it will frustrate and dissuade some users.
Are there any particular things you really want crash tested in here?
Comments
-
I also get the message that some of the data in this GEDCOM was not uploaded correctly. I also thought that I'd still have access to the way my FS tree was. To be honest, I'm super frustrated.
0 -
@Julie62354 GEDCOM import is still very much a work in progress, I continue to have issues as well. But then again this is an 'Experiment' so not too surprising. It's early feedback that FamilySearch Labs is looking for from those of us willing to give it a go in its present state.
CETs are their own unique trees which stand apart from the collaborative FamilyTree [FT] and even though my CET, FT and your CET may all have the 'same' individual, each person has a unique PID. Might get 'messy' otherwise.
The separation of FT and CETs is one of the primary purposes behind the CET concept. Allowing you and other family members to work freely on your CET without the often times well-intended changes that are made to FT profiles. I personally am a backer of the FT and the concept of one big tree that we all work on to our mutual benefit
But I understand that when someone has invested a huge amount of effort into a FT profile to 'get things right' it can be frustrating to see not too well thought wholesale changes made by another FamilySearch member. Hence the desire to 'fence off' my CET from those not having edit privileges. 'You can look, but you can't touch' idea. [I say that in the hopes CETs can't be 'hidden']
I can see where a CET is used to get everything 'put together' and then added to FT. Leaving your CET profile[s] as a 'backup'
I understand FamilySearch is working on a Tree2Tree function which can be used to copy a Profile, along with connected Sources, between trees [FT to your CET, Your CET to My CET]. I'm hopeful it would allow more than one individual at a time, being more of a 'branch' idea where you could copy/paste immediate family, all in one go. That would be an ideal way to start a CET and not rely on GEDCOM import as is now the case.
They need to eventually get GEDCOM import firing on all cylinders as I suspect most of us want to get our 'work' migrated from the commercial sites over to FamilySearch which has so many advantages in terms of access and longevity.
I fully expect FamilySearch Labs will really need our feedback/input once they get this Tree2Tree idea put together and rolled out of the hangar for a test flight. Hopefully not 'crash tested' but I don't doubt that it might be a bumpy ride initially…
0 -
Debra, Thanks for your observations.
Mark you did a great job providing info, & I won't just repeat your comments. Let me add a few additional details that might benefit everyone.
1) IMPORTED DIFFERENCES: It sounds to me like the imported differences issue you are experiencing is a bug. Our team will need to get that filed for engineers to look at. The primary function of this feature is applicable only immediately following Gedcom file import and is intended to give the user a chance to correct any data that may be different in the new tree vs the Gedcom.
2) INITIAL WORK: The Gedcom upload is not intended to be the primary method for creating these trees (it just happens to be the first method that could be made available to facilitate early access). Shortly, most leading genealogy software will release versions of their software that is integrated and can create, populate and sync a CET with the desktop/web tree it originated from. The reason this is important is that Gedcom versions prior to v7 do not support all the rich content, templates and sourcing present in the desktop and web software (it gets stripped out). The communication protocols that allow the remote software to integrate with CETs directly will not have this limitation. These software products will be able to copy almost all of the data present in the remote tree into the CET. This will minimize this initial work.
3) UNIQUE PIDs: Up until now the primary FamilySearch tree system contained a single collection of tree data called Family Tree (which is the large one-world community shared tree). CETs expand this tree system to contain multiple collections of trees, and CETs will be one of these. There is work to create other collections of tree data in the system, from societies assns, including some of the high quality collections currently in the Genealogies product. Each tree is separate from all others. Person IDs (PIDs) cannot exist in two trees simultaneously and cannot be moved between trees. If you have a deceased person in your tree who I am related to I cannot move your person to my tree, I can create a new PID in my tree and copy the data from your person onto that new PID (see the cross tree note below).
4) WHY CETS?: FamilySearch serves a worldwide audience who, for many various reasons, find that there are legal, cultural or privacy concerns incompatible with a community shared one-world tree. There are also many segments of the genealogical community (societies, professionals, family assns, etc) who cannot put the data entrusted to, or managed by them into a tree where anyone can edit it. CETs are intended to serve these users. They represent a second primary tree feature to stand as a peer to the Family Tree. As development progresses, it is the intent that all key features will be delivered into CETs so that users may choose which tree system they wish to work in (Family Tree or CETs) and may conduct all their research in the one of their choice, without a need to work in both unless they choose to. It is not intended to be just a "work-n-progress" space.
5) CROSS TREE DATA FLOW: Accelerating access to the good conclusions of others will be done by matching most of the trees in the system (Family Tree, CETs, others) against each other. Users will be alerted to high confidence tree2tree matches. They will be enabled to align the matched persons, and surrounding family, across the two trees. They will be able to compare all conclusionary data, and the underlying sources/evidence, and evaluate if "these people are those people". If so, the user will be able to copy people, conclusions, sources, notes, etc between the trees as efficiently as possible.0 -
Is the name CET final? It is so meaningless.
0 -
No, The codename CET is not the final name for this feature. It is intended to be a meaningless codename used during early-access and early development. Research is underway to determine the most appropriate name that will replace the CET codename.
0 -
Here are some suggestions:
1) Is there a way to make it so that you can print the sources names along with the citation that is listed?
2) Also, please find a way to add multiple children to a set of parents and attached a source to multiple people simultaneously.3) It would be very cool if you the engineers could make it to where you can print your family tree and next to each ancestor/aunt/uncle/cousin would be
the source name and citation used to prove each generation. (image is the example of how it could look)
0 -
@Stephen9594 Thank you for agreeing to test early access CET and offering feedback and suggestions for improvement. Your comment is primarily about sources, so I am going to create a new discussion for each question posed above. Your suggestions will be given to the engineering team for review. Thank you, again.
0
