Gedcom Challenge: Show Us The Data
Comments
-
Robert Wren said: SOMETIMES, persistence, logic and rational thinking does triumph - even over 'mushroom management.'
I frequently refer back to the goals of the foundational WhitePaper, why OUR family tree? (or whatever the title was) of SOURCES, COLLABORATION & ??? (forgot the other one, as it's late at night, but it wouldn't matter any way - because those in authority apparently won't take action to stop the process)
So I'll just say I agree with Jeff about 'beating the dead horse com' good night, enjoy the Sabbath. ☺0 -
Brett said: Jeff
The REASON there will be NO action (by Management) to stop the "Up-Load" of GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is simple and has been proferred in this Forum before - QUANTITY over QUALITY (or, in another way, "Participation" over "Substance").
Brett
ps: Your last sentence/paragraph, sums it up nicely, says it all!0 -
rotkapchen said: Jeff: [hugs]0
-
rotkapchen said: Tom:
1. We cannot undo loads. We can't even get access to what was loaded to systematically (rather than happenstancely) review what was entered (since no one wants to hold the contributors responsible -- which would be the CORRECT thing to do).
2. THERE are solutions. Responsible companies design in checks all the time for managing data quality -- their businesses depend on it. In the banking industry, it's all regulated. YOU FIND a way to manage it.
This is more serious than the banking industry or any legislation and is being treated without half of the level of effort that is required. It is always just ignored or passed off to someone else.
After 15 years, I'm tired of failed promises and excuses. This could have been cleaned up 10 years ago and its not getting any better.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: rotkapchen,
Thanks, I needed that :-)
Tom,
But when a supposed duplicate is found and you get the side by side comparison, do you have a reason for change for EACH piece of data/vital? Or is it a SINGLE reason for all the changes in the record the way the current merge screen works?0 -
rotkapchen said: All in a days work. Here's my inventory for today. Go ahead and explain this (so much for what's "supposed" to happen).
Shall I count up all the wasted and potentially wasted temple service hours I saved by spending an entire day working on this?
Just for clarity, for all of the PIDs shown below I clipped the 'final merge' PID with the duplicate I was merging in. That way you have direct access to click on and review the data logs for both records (which EVERYONE knows how to do - not).
Case 06104989
Support Replied
"A patron should not be able to ask for ordinance work that has already been done. If there is a duplicate the system should point out a duplicate and not allow request for ordinances until the duplicates are matched or dismissed. When you see this scenario again it is best to tell us the name, ID number, and your relationship to the ancestor and if possible send a screen shot."
I first told them how ridiculous that would be but then decided to take them up on their offer. All of this work was done in 1 day. I posted separately every time I had to go do something else throughout the day.
[1]
Here's one. I grabbed the merge info. You can look at the log file for the one merged in to see 1. It was a GEDCOM load last month, someone had printed it for ordinance work even though her duplicate was right next to it. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer...
More duplicates throughout this family because of the GEDCOM load (which we've been screaming about in the GetSatisfaction discussions for over 2 years).
For this one the B/C have already been duplicated: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer...
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per... This was part of a recent GEDCOM dump and had the wrong parents attached, and thus did not look like a duplicate. I've done the research to find the right parents and merge it.
This is just a sampling of everything I found today. This happens every time I log in. Do you understand now why we keep screaming about how HUGE of an issue this is? What about all the research that is NOT being done by others to correct these sorts of issues?
[2]
B/C already duplicated https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (another bad GEDCOM data load from RichardHoward70
Duplicate reserved for work https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (another GEDCOM dup from RichardHoward70)
Duplicate reserved for work https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer...
Duplicate reserved for work https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer...
[3]
B/C already duplicated https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (another GEDCOM dup from RichardHoward70)
[4]
Most of the duplicates were all submitted by RichardHoward70 and they were almost ALL picked up and printed. We repeatedly ask to be able to report bad GEDCOM loads of duplicates and no one seems to want to do anything about it. Please do not ask me to post this on GetSatisfaction -- we've been discussing it for 2 years with no help. GetSatisfaction is NO sa… [truncated]0 -
Brett said: rotkapchen
Most, if not all, of the regular participants in this Forum, hear; and, feel, your 'pain'.
Many, have been there; and, done that.
As to be being taken seriously ...
As I suggested previously in, this; and, other, posts in this Forum ...
The REASON there will be NO action by "Management" (ie. Church 'Leaders') to stop the "Up-Load" of GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is VERY simple; and, has been profferred in this Forum before = QUANTITY over QUALITY (or, to put it, in another way, "Participation" over "Substance").
We are ALL "Tired" of having to CORRECT the "Mess" caused by the "Up-Load" of GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
I just wonder if "Management" (ie. Church 'Leaders') have had to deal personally with the "Mess" caused by the "Up-Load" of GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" within their Ancestral lines!?
Perhaps, if they had to, that might help the cause.
Brett0 -
David Newton said: Well there's one way to find out: work out what the lines of senior general authorities are and post lots and lots and lots of duplicate GEDCOMs to those lines. Then see what happens. That would not be a good idea from a terms and conditions point of view, but it might be pretty funny. Unfortunately out-of-touch people need to have their faces rubbed in problems extremely hard before they realise those problems even exist.
However I would not say to actually do that GEDCOM uploading.0 -
Tom Huber said: In a perfect world, I would want the option of entering a reason statement for each change that is made, in addition to the reason statement for merging the two records. Right now, we only get a reason statement option for the total merge.0
-
Tom Huber said: By the way, I would like to see the change log (or change history) expanded to include the existing value and new value, as well as maintain the person who entered the existing data.
In thinking about this, it would be nice to see a "restore" button next to the existing data, simply to speed up the process and not have to go through a sometimes very long change log to find the existing entry that had been newly replaced.0 -
rotkapchen said: Second Batch [another full day wasted, no income - perhaps I should start charging for my services?]
21 Merges: Note there are at least 2 with multiple duplicates.
This isn't everything I merged today. There were many other 'errors' I found and corrected that did not qualify for this issue (deleted records with temple ordinances, really bad data that didn't match anything)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (new duplicate by by Gabriel PierreQuenet, SS reserved)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by Allyssa Edwards, released to temple for work)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by jpbmass, B/C/I completed)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (released to temple, B/C/I completed)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (new duplicate June 2019, released to temple)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by jpbmass, all work duplicated)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by MichellePerry9, record printed)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by jpbmass, released to temple, bad data deflected merge)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (new duplicate, released to temple, B/C/I completed)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by jpbmass, no work done)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by RebeccaSpiers, no work done)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by Thomas Ogletree, released to temple, attached to wrong parents)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by RebeccaSpiers, record printed)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup attached to wrong spouse, all work duplicated in 2019)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (dup by PeterSchuelke1, no work completed due to errors)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by Joan Cooney Mackay, record printed, B/C/I completed)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... (GEDCOM dup by M Carter_2, no work done)
0 -
rotkapchen said: We just need to present the 'real' data, over and over again. Bring it!0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: This really does reinforce the idea that some members are creating "their tree" somewhere else (like Ancestry.com) and then in order to get the temple work done for "their tree", they bring it over in a GEDCOM file, and then dump it into the FSFT and immediately set those records up for for the ordinance work to be done.
In these cases, they definitely would NOT be interested in merging any of their GEDCOM data with what is already in the FamilyTree, because they want to guarantee that the ordinances are done on the persons from THEIR GEDCOM file and THEIR TREE.
The poor introduction texts for the comparison and ease by which somebody can create a completely separate instance of THEIR OWN TREE via the GEDCOM process (or the overwriting of existing tree data with their own) simply encourages and enables this kind of avoidable nonsense and duplication of temple work.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: I know a lady who had the experience where someone so desperately wanted to do the work for her deceased father, that even though all the work was already done, they just cut his record free from the family, and inserted their own new record (from a GEDCOM) so that they could reserve and do the work themselves.
Pretty pathetic. Especially when you realize that all of the ordinances for her father had already happened while he was still alive! My wife was also present for all of them. And yet, the other person continues to keep changing the records on her father.
Because she has had no recourse in trying to dissuade these types of people from wrecking detailed records she has set up in the tree, when the major reorganization of the FS user interface (with all its poorly thought out changes) occurred a year ago, it was just the last straw. I cannot persuade her to even log into the site since she so strongly refuses to. She used to spend a lot of time over the years getting records set up, but she has now totally given up on the FSFT.
In spite of all the good done by FS on the FamilyTree, there are some things that appear so extremely wrong that it defies comprehension. I know that this is just from my perspective, but reasonable logic just does not appear to be there.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: I'm probably breaking my rule of not commenting on LDS religious practices but they do determine how this site works, with implications for whether or not it's worth me entering or correcting data in FSFT.
But the LDS Church, despite its protestations of what FSFT is for, appears to be quite happy to have multiple ordinances carried out for the same people. Either that's undesirable, in which case, where's the software and the process to stop it? Or they're quite happy in which case why do we have one single tree for all of us?0 -
Tom Huber said: Reporting the people responsible for situations like this needs to have a way of getting the message across. Not only is the lady wasting her time, but she is ignoring the First Presidency mandate of reducing the number of duplicate ordinances that occur in the temples. There must be a way to handle situations like this.
One of the ways to slow down the duplicate entries (in the case of this lady) is to stop GEDCOM ingest problem at the point where the GEDCOM has been uploaded.
The other way, which must be made available, is a means by which this can be reported and involve the Priesthood leadership at the person's ward. In one instance, a person actually lost access to FamilySearch because of what she was doing (this involved entering the names of celebrities and their families, the names of all the archbishops (including those now living) at the Vatican, and so on. Despite warnings passed to her by her Bishop, she continued to violate the instructions and eventually lost access to FamilySearch.
We need to be able to report inappropriate activity and have it escalated, especially where temple ordinances are involved.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Agreed. But there is no way to handle this. Yes, there is a process, but it frequently fails and everything is left hanging. "Getting the message across" has no effect when the message is ignored or played down due to some other agenda.
I can't remember the details, but in the example above, it was reported along with some other repeat offenders. In one or two cases, the behavior stopped but it's unclear that it was due to FS intervention or the person involved just gave up (survival of the stubbornest, first law of the FamilyTree because that law doesn't need to be enforce by FS)0 -
Tom Huber said: I don't think they are happy with the situation, and are working toward some kind of fix that does not hinder any user with respect to the tree. There is also two matters:
1. The site is incomplete in a number of areas, and with the tree, it has to do with areas such as the couple relationship area, and tagging all events, regardless of where they appear.
2. Limited (programming) resources with no style guide being consistently used during the development process. The limited resources is a very real challenge and because the site is not primarily supported by paying users (it is free), there is no customer base that can pull monetary support. Everything is handled by a tightly controlled budget from member donations into the general tithing fund with management behind the prioritization of projects, including fixes to reported bugs.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Adrian,
As far as the church being “happy to have multiple ordinances carried out for the same people” goes, I think it is important to realize that a SIGNIFICANT reduction in duplicate ordinance work has already been achieved through the construction of the FSFT. In spite of it all, there is an extremely large number of CORRECT merges continuing to occur all the time. Each one of those has the potential of eliminating several duplicate ordinances. When a person ties into an existing part of the FT, that also has the ability to reduce duplicate ordinances.
The problem, of course, is the uninformed or obstinate GEDCOMmer that creates a duplication of “his tree” in the FamilyTree when most of it was already there. This DOES run contrary to the reason the FT was originally created, but it’s NOT massive enough to reverse all of the benefits. We are still ahead of the game.
But it is still very puzzling (to me at least) that they feel there are some kind of benefits of having this awful GEDCOM to FSFT dumping capability, that outweigh all of the nasty side effects it creates INCLUDING the duplicates issue. Especially when there are several easy mitigations that could exist.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Tom / Jeff - thanks for the responses.
As an outsider, I understand that I don't see everything - nor do I want to - but it does sometimes frustrate me that I don't see the evidence that duplication is considered an issue. Tom's reference below to "the First Presidency mandate of reducing the number of duplicate ordinances" suggests to me that the issue is genuinely considered important and Jeff's statement that "a SIGNIFICANT reduction in duplicate ordinance work has already been achieved through the construction of the FSFT" is also encouraging.
Conversely, the GEDCOM to FSFT load issue - indeed any unmonitored load - makes me wonder....
The possibility of duplication to me is a straight matter of Data Quality. I have no wish to suddenly find 6 copies of my great-grandma Bruce because 6 different relatives of her birth family each decide to load a GEDCOM containing her ancestry - it's my one line (that I've found so far) where some of the cousins converted to the Mormon faith and went out to Utah(?).0 -
rotkapchen said: I'm still at a loss as to why we can't report errant loads for review and intervention. What's the point of Data Administration otherwise?0
-
Brett said: rotkapchen
We can; and, do report them.
We do not know what is going on behind the scenes.
Data Admin, are doing; and, do do, their job.
The desire by the Church Leaders is "Patricipation".
Unfortunately, there is never a happy medium betwen 'Quantity' (ie. "Participation"); and, 'Quality'.
Brett0 -
rotkapchen said: Tomorrow Elder Whiting will be addressing our Stake. In listening to his 2012 conference talk, "Temple Standard", I would suggest that Family Search is not built to Temple Standard
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/s...0 -
rotkapchen said: Not my point. We need a way to be able to either reverse the load (via support) or request a report of all of the PIDs in s load so we can audit all the PIDs. If we can back into them and deal with them, what's the difference in doing so directly? This is, after all, a social environment. If support is not willing to take on the talk, let us request it.0
-
rotkapchen said: I'm also still waiting for an official reply to the original request and/or justification for all the subsequent duplicate PIDs that were being worked on in the temple - something that the support staff truly believe is not possible.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Yes, it dismays me a a lot that although all of the construction and associated materials going into a temple are supposed to be "of the best quality", the records for the actual NAMES going into the temple do not seem to have have the same rigor or quality control applied to them.0
-
Tom Huber said: Definitely not in compliance with that statement in verse 24 of section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants: "Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation."0
-
Robert Wren said: Speaking of standards, families & righteousness:
I would also suggest that we work toward the idea of eliminating the idea of taking 'NAMES to the temple' by referring to them as what they REALLY ARE! Living souls, relatives, ancestors, friends, beings, persons; they are, like US, real people - not just depersonified 'NAMES' (which does not give them the respect they deserve - just my opinion.)0 -
Stephanie Spencer Booth said: Brings to mind "kicking butt and taking names." Definitely not respectful.0
-
Carolyn Wheeler said: Am I understanding this correctly?:
When person B is marked "Not a Match" for person A, then Person B will never show up again as a possible duplicate for Person A (and vice versa), and the only way to see that the two could be possible duplicates is to go into "Dismissed Helps" under "Research Help" for either Person A or Person B. Is that correct?
If it is correct then doesn't that make it a little difficult to find people who have been incorrectly marked as "Not a Match?"
Please correct my understanding if it is wrong.0
This discussion has been closed.