"Migrated from user-supplied source citation: urn:familysearch:source:3244674730"

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Can the "urn:familysearch:source:3244674730" number be used to locate the source citation in the Ancestral File found in Genealogies?

If so, how?

Reference MGC7-YP2 (Sarah Garnder) from comments in https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Given that it has been two days with no response from anyone, employee or otherwise, it looks like this kind of source citations are useless and unless the source has otherwise useful information, should probably be deleted whenever it is encountered.

I'm going to give this the rest of the week to see if anyone from FamilySearch responds.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Since no one has responded and we have reached the end of the week,

I am of the opinion that any legacy NFS sources that do not have identifying source material and only contain the message "Migrated from ..." can be deleted.

LegacyUser

Jaynie Flippen Anderson said: I agree. If a Source is not able to be researched, what use is it? Equally frustrating are the Ancestry.com "published information" entries without the URL address to click on! Often when there IS a link I am directed to the Ancestry.com sign-up page to pay for an account first!

LegacyUser

M Geesey said: I, too, get frustrated with links to ancestry.com. Too many people simply assume that EVERYONE has an account. Links to a page that not everyone can access is ineffectual.

LegacyUser

cm.edwards said: Unfortunately these records should never ever have been brought forward as in the main they appear to be sourced from works of fiction. Not done many years ago deliberately as fiction. But by people who thought that they were helping others back then. In truth they were not doing that but causing harm where they aimed for Clarity. I can not believe the number of times where people insist that their ancestors came from another Parish. But it was in times before the latest Parish had any recorded entries. ie before records began in that latest Parish. And their Ancestors came from a Parish which was in geographical terms say about a hundred miles away. All based upon the two families in either parish having a common surname. One instance the distance was the width of the Atlantic Ocean. The boy was 10 years old, married in America in about 1640 aged 15. back in England aged 16 with his American wife where he has all his children until 1680. Then his wife dies in childbirth, And he then follows his 2 son named William back to America. Abandoning al his other children including the new born daughter. And promptly dies there. His grandson or great grandson evidently was a Captain in the Army with Washington. ( All based upon having the surname Dove. it was a pile of nonsense of course) Not that there was not a William Dove that circa 1640 or 1650 did not emigrate to Massachusetts and marry a lass with the same forename as a woman in Downton Wiltshire. ( the lass in Downton was born some 20 to 25 years earlier than the one in America. ) But William Dove of the Original Boston, England sailed from London at least some 10 years prior to the William Dove of Downton being born there. I just wish that people in America making out their versions of their family trees today realised that back then there were NO such things as Planes, Cars or the Railway. Journeys that we do in hours today, took days, weeks ,or months, and were so expensive they were one way only.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: This discussion was pertinent four years ago when the system was finally separating from nFS, Family Search's predecessor system. Four years later, it is a dead topic.

nFS used a very bad sourcing model and as such, could not be easily converted into FamilySearch's model. The development teams were scrambling just to make the new system fully functonal to the point where the "Joined at the hip" connection with the old system could be severed. I was curious if there was a way (at that time) to chase down the nFS record for the person and see what the source actually said or if it was actually useful.

LegacyUser

cm.edwards said: And yet despite the actual Archive Records being apparently none existent today. These other Family trees posted by others on the IGI sitem now unknown today. The trees are so detailed as to belie the implication that they amount to fairy tales. Dates of marriages, Baptisms, and Burials of people who might just have lived. Except for the fact the sponsor of these people and their line of descent, was the only person to have a view of the source of this information that no one else can find.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The IGI is a dataset that is person-centric, rather than tree-based and essentially from the temple ordinance database. There was an initial CD set, followed by an update set that was used back when the FHC had a Temple Ready system based upon a CD collection. At the same time, the Ancestral File (CD) set was issued and after Temple Ready was discontinued, the Pedigree Resource CD sets were used the same way as the Ancestral File CD sets. The latter two are now part of the Genealogies Collection. The IGI has also been converted, minus temple ordinance data, and is also in the Genealogies collections.

The Family Group Sheet collection that resulted from the four-generation program back before computer-based systems existed for the general public are online. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619... will take you to the H portion of the collection, but from there you can access the entire collection of the 8-1/2 x 14 sheets.

As I stated, the old nFS predecessor to the current FamilySearch FamilyTree system was an attempt to offer a single tree for all mankind. There were problems scaling the system and so without disrupting the nFS system, FamilySearch;org was developed with its tree. A new sourcing model was introduced and while the two system co-existed, the nFS system was the initial system. Entries made by early users (I was one of them) into the new tree and related sources went back into nFS for a production version of the massive tree. That process essentially made a mess of the new sources recorded in FamilySearch FamilyTree. At some point, FamilySearch FamilyTree became the production version of the massive tree. The sources were no longer mangled, but any old sources that were not created by early users of FSFT came over as you see them today -- ultimately useless, or depending upon the information entered, with a minimum of useful information.

Any discussion wanting access to the old system is wasted effort. We were told a long time ago that yes, the old system was kept, but access restricted to FS personnel who were looking for specific information in the old nFS system. That system is not available outside of the Family History Department.