How far do we go with this book, "which shall be worthy of all acceptation” - ?
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Don M Thomas said: I know, I will be ridiculed for bringing up such a matter when nothing is too good for the Lord, but more and more I am seeing red exclamation marks in the "Family Tree." More and more I am seeing where I have to preform more work.
I still haven't gotten over the fact that changes are constantly being made to my ancestors in the "Family Tree," that when Temples open again, I am going to start using Family Tree Lite, just to get their Temple Ordinances completed.
https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/...
Production "Family Tree" seems to be getting more and more wrong data added to our ancestors (daily) for a book that is suppose to be, "which shall be worthy of all acceptation.”
I still haven't gotten over the fact that changes are constantly being made to my ancestors in the "Family Tree," that when Temples open again, I am going to start using Family Tree Lite, just to get their Temple Ordinances completed.
https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/...
Production "Family Tree" seems to be getting more and more wrong data added to our ancestors (daily) for a book that is suppose to be, "which shall be worthy of all acceptation.”
Tagged:
0
Best Answer
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Don, also remember that there was a lot of "bad data" in the system all along. As the system is refined, so much of that bad data is now just becoming visible. It's not that it is just becoming harder for us, we are just now having to correct for many short-cuts we took before.
E.g, a location "shortcut" name of "Monroe, VA". What does that mean in the global sense of things? What year was that name even legitimate? "VA" was a postal assignment that happened long after Virginia was around. Was it Monroe county, Virginia, United States (after 1876)? or Monroe county West Virginia, United States (before 1876)? Or even British Colonial America (before 1776). Or perhaps it is Monroe city, Virginia, United States (1776-present)?
A lot of these issues have to do with making the system more accurate on a global basis. As a result many of these things weren't even known about a few years back.
Now regarding your issues of people changing things in a collaborative shared tree and refusing to "collaborate" (or event read information it is already clearly documented), I don't know what to say. I believe that there are a lot of things where policing of the shared resources should be done (all shared resources on this earth needs rules and policing in order to function effectively). However, in spite of all the discussion on this forum about it, most of our opinions appear to run tangential to what FS feels are their mandates, so I have no idea of how any of that may be improved.
"Worth of all acceptation" certainly implies accuracy. However, after listening to some of the things shared by president Nelson about his great-grandfather, I am reminded that records are being kept on the other side as well that are guaranteed to be more accurate that ours. So I suspect that we need to take the imperfections that we are dealing with here and few it it terms of a larger plan. There may be some things that are more important than accuracy as far as this database is concerned :-)0
Answers
-
Tom Huber said: Simple answer -- all the way. Every ancestor related to you and their spouse(s) that you can make changes to the profile is open.
I don't need to repeat what I have found to be very effective in reducing the number of changes, but no system is truly effective. If you have made a person's profile as complete as you can, including associated memories, and changes are still being made, then communicate with the persons making those changes.
FamilyTree Lite has its limitations, especially with respect to reserving names for vicarious temple ordinances.0 -
Tom Huber said: That is, according to something that Jim Greene recently posted with respect to the new reservation system.0
-
Don M Thomas said: Tom, don't like changes being made to my ancestors. For now, Just going to stick with just completing Temple Ordinances while the information, Birth, Death and Marriage are correct. If changes to the Production "Family Tree" are made after completed Temple Ordinances, that won't matter.0
-
Tom Huber said: Actually, it can matter if a record is merged with a profile that isn't the same person, but has earlier ordinances than those you submitted and completed.
This is a problem, but the open-edit nature of the tree is not going away. Therefore, it is up to me, as a user, to work with others helping them understand why their conclusions (if incorrect) are such.
Most of the problems deal with not taking the time to study the existing profile before making changes.0 -
Tom Huber said: Oh, and the profile is no longer "worthy of all acceptation."0
-
Don M Thomas said: Just sticking with getting Temple Ordinances completed, nothing more.0
-
Don M Thomas said: Just sticking with getting Temple Ordinances completed, nothing more.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Of course you could always follow what seems to be a trending fad where you keep all of your records in a private tree somewhere else (e.g., PAF, Rootsmagic, Ancestry.com, etc.), then when you think they are ready for ordinance work, load them (either directly or via GEDCOM file) into the FamilyTree database as a full set of independent duplicates and do the work from those "private" records of yours.
When the ordinance work is done, you don't even have to worry about cleaning up the duplicates mess. You can just walk away. No need to worry about more corruption by the supposedly incorrect changes or bad merges others may make to those records. Those are all the jobs of all the other people who are responsible for making THE record "worthy of all acceptation"
But at least you got the Temple Ordinances completed (but nothing more).
It is a royal pain in the tush to have to live in a wild west type environment where any rules that exist are totally subject to the preferences of those living there since there appears to be so little policing or enforcement of those rules.
Maybe we don't have enough limits with checks and balances to enforce people to "do the right things" here. Maybe FS just doesn't want to get involved with the "people problems" in the system.
Or maybe, the Lord just wants each of us to try and kindly deal with and assist those others using this site so that in addition to the contents of the site being maximally benefited in volume and accuracy, we all can grow closer together and stronger as individuals as well.
It's probably a combination of all of this. But if the main reason is the last one, I would hate that, since it is sooo DIFFICULT!
:-)0 -
Don M Thomas said: Boy, Tom, (even more work).
You have only driven me further away from the totally open edit "Family Tree" by your above statement, "Actually, it can matter if a record is merged with a profile that isn't the same person, but has earlier ordinances than those you submitted and completed." Turn off the merging tool! I now must sit next to my computer hoping to prevent others from making a wrong merge, or merge back other patrons wrong merges so the Temple Ordinances will be correct? (This totally open edit system is not a good system if that is the case).
I turned off my people you are watching tool because I can not take having to see and fight with other patrons making wrong changes to my ancestors in the "Family Tree." Contention is not of the Lord. 2 Nephi 26, verse 32. That is why I am saying, Just sticking with getting Temple Ordinances completed, nothing more. (Please, nothing more.)0 -
Robert Wren said: Ah, Don, I feel your pain. If I remember correctly (which I often do NOT), I think you dropped out for a year or so a while back - then came back.
However with these stats: "Joined October 22, 2012 266 stars received 1,468 replies 189 topics 39 topics followed" it would be a shame to see you leave, but I can certainly understand.
Echoing Jeff's comments; I use Ancestry as my "primary" tree and keep it as 'clean" as I can & mainly just use FS for ordinances. It's an easy interface. Works for me.
Of course, I still get drawn back in to spend too much time in FS CORRECTING ERRORS and doing merges. You can note from my icon or logo, or whatever they call it, I totally agree with you.
BTW, Don, MY first post to this forum was on the same basic subject https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...0 -
Don M Thomas said: Boy, Tom, (even more work).
You have only driven me further away from a totally open edit "Family Tree" by your above statement, "Actually, it can matter if a record is merged with a profile that isn't the same person, but has earlier ordinances than those you submitted and completed." - Turn off the merging tool! - I now must sit next to my computer hoping to prevent others from making a wrong merge, or merge back other patrons wrong merges so the Temple Ordinances will be correct? (This totally open edit system is not a good system if that is the case).
I turned off my people you are watching tool because I can not take having to see and fight with other patrons making wrong changes to my ancestors in the "Family Tree." Contention is not of the Lord. 2 Nephi 26, verse 32. That is why I am saying, Just sticking with getting Temple Ordinances completed, nothing more. (Please, nothing more.)0 -
Don M Thomas said: Kind of going off track here Jeff with your, "There may be some things that are more important than accuracy as far as this database is concerned," I thought the whole purpose for this FamilySearch "Family Tree" database was to get the most accurate information on our ancestors? Now you are telling me accuracy is not the most important thing? We need to stop pretending this totally open edit database solves all our problems, and start doing things that will solve all our problems.
We have tried the experiment of a totally open edit database, now let us try an experiment of locking parts of the database. Yes, it will cause some work, but no more than having to go into this totally open edit database and correct bad changes made to our ancestors, or now, having to work to correct bad merges. We need a database that will save our correct information, and not leave it open to the "wild west," or anyone who wants to change it. We need a database that will not change our Ordinances information when someone makes a bad merge. We need to stop throwing band-aides on this database and start working towards a database that will solve all our problems. We need a new and correct working database.0 -
Don M Thomas said: We have tried the experiment of a totally open edit database, now let us try an experiment of locking parts of the database. Yes, it will cause some work, but no more than having to go into this totally open edit database and correct bad changes made to our ancestors, or now, having to work to correct bad merges. We need a database that will save our correct information, and not leave it open to the "wild west," or anyone who wants to change it. We need a database that will not change our Ordinances information when someone makes a bad merge. We need to stop throwing band-aides on this database and start working towards a database that will solve all our problems. We need a new and correct working database.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said:
I thought the whole purpose for this FamilySearch "Family Tree" database was to get the most accurate information on our ancestors? Now you are telling me accuracy is not the most important thing?
No, you've got me wrong. Accuracy is very important, but it's just not the whole story.
My guess here is that FS has been charged with (among other things) the following mandates:- Develop a database so that information can be collected as accurately and quickly as possible in order to reduce the amount of duplicate temple work that is being done.
- Make the system so that people can easily learn and document more about their families (both alive and deceased) in order to grow closer to them.
- Make the system so that it is easily available and usable by ALL members of the church regardless of age or computer systems expertise. Get young adults and children learning how to do research for themselves and stop the process of every family having one "researcher" that provides everyone else in their extended family with temple cards
Anyway, it has just been occurring to me more frequently that the theology of the church is mandating at least 3 major importances in this database, and not just the one on accuracy (that would, of course, be much easier to accomplish if we removed the other two). So in spite of how important maintaining accuracy is to me, it is very unlikely that it is going to come by FS eliminating support of those other two mandates.0 -
Robert Wren said: Don, And that is precisely what was proposed (and forgotten/ ignored/ misunderstood) in the formative White Paper the "created" this universal tree and pointed out the need for SOURCING, COLLABORATION, & MINIMIZING duplication.
http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fh...
I've often repeated this plea to, at least, REVIEW these proposed goals (and solutions) - resulting in 'that"s an OLD document' or 'the goals have changed' (to WHAT, I ask) OR ........ We need more participation, gimmicks and frequent changes to attain our (undeclared) goal.
For example:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Exit soapbox!!0 -
Don M Thomas said: Thank you Robert for pointing these things out. I quickly looked at them. I will now go back and look them over good. Thanks again.0
-
Don M Thomas said: The first mandate is not followed by FamilySearch. Patron rotkapchen has shown over and over again in his replies to this "Feedback" that tons of duplicates are still being made by GEDCOMs and other ways and duplicate Temple work is still very much going on.
The second mandate, if anything, has totally been changed. The present FamilySearch "Family Tree" is anything but "usable by ALL (family) members." One has to have a masters degree to totally understand it now days.
Jeff, as much as FamilySearch seems to think the present "Family Tree" is working, you and everyone else knows in their heart it is not working. Every couple of days someone writes into this GetSat database complaining that their information has been changed in the "Family Tree." Tom can keep sending out his "found to be very effective in reducing the number of changes" reply, and all will be fine, and we can keep putting another band-aide on this database. Sorry - I am just on one. I am just going to do Temple work without all the other.0