Gedcom Challenge: Show Us The Data
Comments
-
rotkapchen said: Joe.
You seem to be entirely missing the point of this post. It isn't just about GEDCOM loads, its about duplicates in general. If I'm finding remnants of GEDCOM loads from years ago (most of the dups I worked on then and you've never seen the details for) and these are still being released to the temple for work or picked up and printed, just imagine the potential for duplication that is just sitting there as a time-bomb.
THIS Is the point I'm trying to draw attention to -- this is what no one is paying attention to and this is what there is no solution for.0 -
rotkapchen said: Joe: I had to interrupt my chores (which were difficult enough to engage in today) to pass along these words given to me. They are of utmost importance.
What we are observing is the putting first of the interests and needs of the lowest common denominator over that of the sacredness of the Lord's work. This is akin to suggesting that we have no needs for borders and that all are welcomed.
At some level this is true. But one critical difference exists: there are conditions to the gospel. I have marked throughout the scripture a pattern that all programmers should be familiar with: the pattern of "if, then". These are conditional parameters.
Currently the entire environment of Family Search is not focused on the main function for which it exists -- to do the sacred work of saving souls -- not engaging people in capturing their family history or for entertainment value (which seems to be the focus of all the ridiculous 'campaigns' I find dumped into my inbox and annoyingly put into the messaging system).
These are Vaudevillian trappings of entertaining the masses. This is not the vestiges of sacred work. Can we have fun? Sure, but not before putting in place the critical elements of taking care of sacred ordinances and respecting the time of both patrons and temple workers.
Now is the time to put these fixes in place, before the temples are open again. This is an opportunity to right the wrongs of these many decades. Look at the data. You will see that we are wasting valuable precious time. Share this far and wide and gain support for a just cause.
It's up to you.0 -
Brett said: rotkapchen
As I have suggested previously ...
The REASON there will be NO Action to STOP the "Up-Load" of GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is simple; and, has been proffered in this Forum before ...
PARTICIPATION ...
QUANTITY over QUALITY ...
Or, in another way, "Participation" over "Substance" ...
The problem/issue is that the general populous WANT their, DATA; and, their (Temple) WORK to prevail, no matter what ...
Unfortunately, that is 'human nature' ...
We ALL think WE know all; and, WE are the ONLY "One" that does ...
Hence, the amount of (Temple) WORK being done for "Duplicates", that were "Dismissed" as "Duplicates"; and, NOT, "Merged"/"Combined".
That 'all boils down to' ... TRAINING, Training; and, more, training ... by the "Stake/Ward/Branch, Temple and Family History, Consultants".
There is much less trouble from the non-member Users/Patrons, than from the Member Users/Patrons.
The non-member Users/Patrons ARE better "Genealogists" (ie. Genealogy/Family History Researchers), than the Member Users/Patrons.
There is ALREADY the ability to load GEDCOM Files into "Genealogies" part of "FamilySearch" - just leave it at that, that is all that is needed ...
Even if the (individual) "Branches" of a NEW User/Patron, of this massive, interconnected, SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" 'Tree", are NOT there, have them add individuals/person on a 'one by one' basis - they (the new Users/Patrons) will at least learn how "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" works.
And, that will, at least, slow down (but, certainly not stop) the ability for those that want their, data; and, their (Temple) Work to prevail, no matter what ...
And, there is still the ability to load through the 'Third Party' Programmes that are "Certified" to work with "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
In the least; IF, "FamilySearch" will NOT "Stop" the ability to upload GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch"; THEN, "FamilySearch" should ONLY allow the individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" to BE the "Surviving" Record; and, NOT, the individual/person from a GEDOM File - not perfect; but, better than what we have now.
Brett
.0 -
Paul said: I must admit much of the discussion on GEDCOM issues goes right over my head. I very rarely even see the word against the IDs I work on, but did come across this one, added just yesterday. It is a duplicate of the ID shown (top right).
So, does this mean it IS still easy to load these records after all, or is the point that they can now only be added individually, rather than in batches?
Also, any point in messaging the person concerned, and what should I say if I do?
0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Although there has been some minor rearrangement of things in the interface a few months back, it has ALWAYS been easy to do this. In fact it ENCOURAGES people to either make duplicates or blow away data that is in supposed duplicates already in the system.
You couldn't actually load GEDCOM data "in batches", but since adding a record from a GEDCOM file only involves a few quick clicks, for all intents and purposes many records can be dumped into the FT from a GEDCOM record extremely quickly. Then it will take efforts that are 2 orders of magnitude longer to correct things by somebody else.
Note that the original record (that actually has 13 sources for it and is far more complete) already has all of the temple work done. That new duplicate that was created from a GEDCOM file yesterday has nothing done on it. You would be advised to quickly go in and merge it with the correct duplicate so that the Ordinances Ready or someone else doesn't come in and snatch it up hoping to do the duplicate temple work for it.
There is no telling how many OTHER records that person created yesterday as they don't have to all be contiguous.
You might want to message the person and ask them if they knew that the record they created in the FT was a duplicate of a record that was not only far better documented, but also had most of the temple work done.0 -
ATP said: A few Quick Clicks! And, Viola! Instant genealogy and family history!0
-
m said: I am seeing gedcom uploads daily on NM lines.
(For some reason my LDS pioneer lines never have gedcom uploads. )0 -
m said: I also wonder the exact same things about messaging, Paul.0
-
rotkapchen said: Brett: In an open environment like this training is not controllable. It MUST be done JIT (just in time) - it must inherently be baked into the design.0
-
Brett said: rotkapchen
'Yes' ...
In a Perfect World, that would be the way to go ...
But ... we do not live in a Perfect World ...
We have enough trouble with getting the many competing priorities in "Family Tree" (and, the Other parts) of "FamilySearch" implemented; WITHOUT, diverting much need resources into developing and implementing very sophisticated 'On-Line' Training Modules, whatever you want to call it.
'No', it really only 'all boils down to' ... TRAINING, Training; and, more, training ... by the "Stake/Ward/Branch, Temple and Family History, Consultants", for Member Users/Patrons; and, by "Staff Members" at "Family History Centres" of the Church, for all Patrons/Users (But, especially, for the non-member Users/Patrons) - of course, available again only when this COVID-19 Pandemic is over.
The only real option at this current juncture is to keep promoting the "The Family History Guide".
Introducing The Family History Guide
https://www.familysearch.org/ask/lear...
Introducing The Family History Guide
https://ps-services-us-east-1-9142486...
The Family History Guide
https://www.thefhguide.com/.
"FamilySearch", cannot; and, should not, take time to diverting much need resources into developing and implementing very sophisticated 'On-Line' Training Modules.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
ps: I would rather that "FamilySearch" just STOPS the ability to upload GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch"; and, also "FamilySearch" should ONLY allow the individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" to BE the "Surviving" Record; and, NOT, the individual/person from a GEDOM File. That is an easy FIX.
.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Paul, so you've never seen a "GEDCOM" reason before, and now the very first one you find is a duplicate.
Statistically it may be a very small sample, but then again, statistically what does that mean about the relationship between GEDCOM files and duplicates in the system?0 -
rotkapchen said: This is not about a 'perfect' world. This is about a very imperfect design. Training was relevant in the 90s. This is not the 90s. You cannot control for training because the environment is too open. You CAN control for design. I've done it before and you can test for it.0
-
Brett said: rotkapchen
As I have always expounded ...
I would rather that "FamilySearch" just STOPS the ability to upload GEDCOM Files into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch". That is an easy FIX
And, IF, "FamilySearch" will NOT do the aforementioned; THEN, "FamilySearch" should ONLY allow the individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" to BE the "Surviving" Record; and, NOT, the individual/person from a GEDOM File. That would not be too hard a FIX. Not the best; but, better than allowing an individual/person from a GEDOM File to be the "Surviving" individual/person.
Brett
.0 -
Brett said: rotkapchen
FYI
This is 'scary' ...
"Knowledge Article" in "FamilySearch"
How do I transfer sources between Ancestry and Family Tree?
https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...
And, the FIRST sentence is ...
Quote:
------------------
Information
To transfer information, create a GEDCOM file of the information you want on Ancestry.com, and then upload that data to FamilySearch Family Tree.
------------------
Now ... what can be misconstrue as ... 'information" ... I wonder ...
I came across it this morning looking for something else.
As I said ... 'scary' ...
Brett
.0 -
David Newton said: What profoundly ridiculous "advice" they have written!
How do you create sources of Ancestry documents on FSFT? Recordseek! Hardly perfect sources, but considerably better than doing it via GEDCOM!0 -
Brett said: David
We must be careful ...
Brett
.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Brett,
There are a couple of knowledge article links that appear to be fouled up.
That GEDCOM text is not from the "How do I transfer sources between Ancestry and Family Tree?" members knowledge article that you referred to.
It has INCORRECTLY been put into the all patrons part of the "How do I connect a name on my tree on Ancestry.com to a person in Family Tree?" knowledge article:
https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...https://www.familysearch.org/help/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=transferring-information-ancestry&lang=en_US
Note that the url name for that page is "transferring-information-ancestry".
If you go to the "How do I transfer sources between Ancestry and Family Tree?" article that you referenced, there are two links there named "How do I move information to and from Ancestry? (272603)". Both of them take you to the URL that I just mentioned above. HOWEVER, the Title and member content of of that page has nothing to do with moving information to and from Ancestry! It's all about linking names between Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.
Furthermore, the GEDCOM related information on the all patrons part of that page ALSO has nothing whatsoever to do with the title and the member information on that Knowledge Article.
The "How do I copy information from my GEDCOM file into Family Tree?" knowledge article that you can eventually find now appears to be fairly comprehensive. The "What happens to information uploaded from a GEDCOM file?" article also looks really good!
https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...
https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...
These knowledge articles are a real improvement IMHO. But the "How do I transfer sources between Ancestry and Family Tree?" article definitely does have some problems in that it is schizophrenic.0 -
rotkapchen said: More duplicates
4/22/2020
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Cajunbaby225 https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by RebeccaCundiff, printed for work, B/C completedhttps://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by RebeccaCundiff, all ordinances duplicated
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by CarsonEd, printed for work, B/C/I completedhttps://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by CarsonEd, printed for work, B/C/I completed
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work
4/25/2020
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by MarySt John, someone had standardized the birth and subtracted 50 years in error
5/3/2020
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup released to temple for work
5/5/2020
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup released to temple for work (B/C/I completed)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by AllisonKanipe1
5/8/2020
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by Judy45ab, printed for work
GEDCOM load March 7 2020 by christineantcaagnesevans1
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new GEDCOM by christineantcaagnesevans1
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new GEDCOM by christineantcaagnesevans1
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by jpbmass, released to temple for work, listed with wrong mother
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (an entire family was duplicated with an alternate surname)
https://www.familysear… [truncated]0 -
MAC said: These are good examples. At least 2 of the users above are repeatedly loading GEDCOMs/duplicate batches.
In the one case, I found a (non-existent) person created 5 times over about 6 months. I asked the user twice to be mindful of duplicates, and the second time, the person basically told me it's FamilySearch's problem, since it's not showing it as a duplicate when using your software.
In the other case, I found a person (already in the system) created 4 times under 4 different usernames (all variants of the same name -- almost certainly the same researcher) in less than 2 months! No response to messages to any of the accounts. When I brought this up to FamilySearch, the first response basically didn't address the issue, and I had to request them escalate to Data Administration. We need a better way to bring these issues to FamilySearch's attention so they can be dealt with promptly and effectively.0 -
rotkapchen said: Thanks for your additions Mark.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Mark,
Your observations are all very correct. Unfortunately, none of this is new information.We need a better way to bring these issues to FamilySearch's attention so they can be dealt with promptly and effectively
Mark, Unfortunately, this is not the problem at all. This subject has been raised in many topics over the past several years. In fact one of the largest topics to have existed on this forum (with well over 1000 replies originally on it) was specifically about this problem. This was one of the key issues that brought me to this forum a couple of years ago where Robert Wren asked a key question on that topic which was never really answered:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
(Note that well over 600 replies in that topic were lost when it was merged with another similar topic thread)
The fact that the topic continued on and on without being answered resulted in this topic we are in now being started by rotkapchen, and if you do a search on GEDCOM in the forum, you will find the same discussions coming up again and again over at least the last 6-7 years with no resolution.
No. The problem is NOT having "a better way to bring these issues to FamilySearch's attention". There is NO WAY that they are missing or overlooking any of this. The problem is that FS does not consider this a serious enough problem to do anything about it.
The choice was made a long time ago that this capability which supports all kinds of abuse, invites misunderstandings, and creates extremely large loads of REPEATED cleanup activities for innocent and hard working patrons, is going to stay. Although serious mitigations for these problems could be implemented in as little as a day, they will not happen.
This is why Robert Wren's question was never answered and rotkapchen's challenge was never met. This is why all requests on this forum to do something about this has had no effective solutions created. This is why customer service will not get involved in any of these issues.
FS has some kind of very high priority on leaving these system behaviors in place which has nothing to do with a lack of resources. I am totally flabbergasted by these priorities. However, I have never worked for a theologically founded company before, so my experience in setting priorities in those kind of products is rather limited.
In any event, the issue here is NOT getting FS's attention on this subject.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Mark,
Your observations are all very correct. Unfortunately, none of this is new information.We need a better way to bring these issues to FamilySearch's attention so they can be dealt with promptly and effectively
Mark, Unfortunately, this is not the problem at all. This subject has been raised in many topics over the past several years. In fact one of the largest topics to have existed on this forum (with well over 1000 replies originally on it) was specifically about this problem. This was one of the key issues that brought me to this forum a couple of years ago where Robert Wren asked a key question on that topic which was never really answered:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
(Note that well over 600 replies in that topic were lost when it was merged with another similar topic thread)
The fact that the topic continued on and on without being answered resulted in this topic we are in now being started by rotkapchen, and if you do a search on GEDCOM in the forum, you will find the same discussions coming up again and again over at least the last 6-7 years with no resolution.
No. The problem is NOT having "a better way to bring these issues to FamilySearch's attention". There is NO WAY that they are missing or overlooking any of this. The problem is that FS does not consider this a serious enough problem to do anything about it.
The choice was made a long time ago that this capability which supports all kinds of abuse, invites misunderstandings, and creates extremely large loads of REPEATED cleanup activities for innocent and hard working patrons, is going to stay. Although serious mitigations for these problems could be implemented in as little as a day, they will not happen.
This is why Robert Wren's question was never answered and rotkapchen's challenge was never met. This is why all requests on this forum to do something about this has had no effective solutions created. This is why customer service will not get involved in any of these issues.
FS has some kind of very high priority on leaving these system behaviors in place which has nothing to do with a lack of resources. I am totally flabbergasted by these priorities. However, I have never worked for a theologically founded company before, so my experience in setting priorities in those kind of products is rather limited.
In any event, the issue here is NOT getting FS's attention on this subject.0 -
rotkapchen said: [My butt is numb...]
5/10/2020
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (entire family duplicated with alternate surname)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (entire family duplicated with alternate surname)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (entire family duplicated with alternate surname)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work (entire family duplicated with alternate surname)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM Dup by JCaron (aligned to wrong husband)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Susan Reilly_1, printed for temple work, alternate name
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Susan Reilly_1, printed for temple work
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Susan Reilly_1, released to temple for work
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Susan Reilly_1, printed for temple work, alternate name, bad data
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Susan Reilly_1, printed for temple work, bad data
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work, bad data
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy, shared with temple, B/C/I completed, alternate name
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, B/C/I duplicated, aligned to wrong parents https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Louise A. Martin, released to temple for work
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, aligned to wrong parents
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, aligned to wrong parents
New GEDCOM load 3/30/2020 Karla LeComte [I'm sorry, did someone say this is no longer happening? May I remind you that I have to write a message every time I find these duplicates often both to the contributor and to the person who either printed it or released it to the temple? Do you realize how time consuming this is for every record I have to correct? Do you know that there are still thousa… [truncated]0 -
ATP said: Well said! Hits the nail on the head in every paragraph, especially in the one where you state, "...the entire environment of Family Search is not focused on the main function of why Family Search exists..."!
Interesting that you've been marking scripture patterns of "if, then". Recently, in the BOM I have begun marking the passages regarding the keeping and passing down of the records, including the genealogies, and especially the care that was taken to preserve them through the centuries.
Thank you, for taking time to document the topic of GEDCOM issue so thoroughly.0 -
m said: A couple of days ago I merged 30 maybe 40 duplicates created by GEDCOM upload.
I thought there was an effort to limit them? These were all on the same line.
Even today I came across some that I had missed and had to do merges.
GEDCOM uploads = bad.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Yea, I just had to merge-out a bunch of newly added GEDCOM records myself.
As far as efforts to limit them, the only thing that I've seen is a few mitigations that they have added to the GEDCOM compare tool which is used to transfer data from your GEDOCM file stored in the Genealogies area over to the FS FamilyTree. It tends to slow people down a little bit when merging into the tree.
However, if a person has already decided that they want to just transfer their whole GEDCOM file into the FamilyTree as ALL NEW RECORDS, they can just ignore all possible duplicates with a few clicks and very quickly dump a large number of records from their GEDCOM file into the FamilyTree as duplicates. What's worst, if they believe that "their" data is infallible, they can fairly quickly overwrite all the attributes in existing records in the FSFT without even being able to see a lot of the documentation for why it had the values it did.
My other concern is that in spite of how prolific the GEDCOM import problem is for duplicates, we have been told that statistically, duplicates being added via many partner sites and applications are FAR GREATER in number than those from the GEDCOM imports! However, they are much harder to see because they aren't marked with the partner site that they came from. So they look like normal entries made from a browser. If the change history logs actually recorded true timestamps (they don't) you could see that many changes had been made within a few seconds of each other.
So GEDCOM uploads in themselves aren't bad. It is the ability to very quickly transfer that uploaded data into the FS FamilyTree0 -
Tom Huber said: At some point last year, the compare/add/update feature was revised.
Unfortunately, any uploaded GEDCOM that had the compare run use the previous system which easily allowed duplicates to be added is still a problem.
The newly introduced feature did not force a rerun of the new feature, but allowed to previously run compare feature to remain in place, along with the faulty add routines.
The flaws that I discovered in the upload/compare feature were addressed, but not retroactively. It is unfortunate that we users still pay the price by having to deal with duplicate entries.
Other means to avoid creating duplicates can be bypassed by users who want their material to be used, not what is currently in place. It doesn't matter which method is used to create new people (even the source linker), some users want their record to be the one used.0 -
rotkapchen said: Write a comment...0
-
rotkapchen said: Not to mention the lack of functions even for the contributor to undo a load or review it and selectively undo it, let alone allowing anyone else to do it for them. I'm still backing into duplicates from loads from years past that I've just never stumbled on yet.0
-
rotkapchen said: Brett: At least they fixed the surviving record issue.0
This discussion has been closed.