Image Unavailable??

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: Someone in FS tech support might want to look at this at some time:

All images seem to be perfectly viewable., (Both notices pop up when another image is select

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

LegacyUser

Jacob Reid said: This issue should be resolved.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: WOW, that was quick!!
How about doing that with GEDCOM's??

LegacyUser

Jacob Reid said: Can you explain the issue with GEDCOM's so we can address it?

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: Thanks for asking, Jacob; and good luck - it's not a new problem

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: lol

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: The little icon on Robert's reply was him with his tongue in his cheek :-) I suspect that his question was asked in jest.

Here are GEDCOM topics that have never really been resolved. The first one was one of the longest threads in the forum with well over a thousand replies (before several hundred were lost when it was incompletely merged with a similar thread), and then the thread was closed. What seemed to most to be a simple solution appears as though it was never considered (see the final entry in the topic). The simple question asked in the topic was never answered in a way that made sense when being compared to the damage that was being done:

https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

After the above thread was closed, the following one had just gotten started and has also never been resolved:

https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

There are several others over the last several years. Just do a search on the term "GEDCOM" on this forum. Currently there are about 883 separate topics that will be found (and as I already mentioned just ONE of them had over a thousand replies in it), almost all of them are related to problems created due to the method that FS has chosen to support it with along with many requests to disable the feature.



This topic has produced an extreme opposite experience for the participants when compared with your really fast response to Robert's issue :-)

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I will add to this in a bit, but first, I want to report my discovery.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Another of the "Add" persons has no established death date, although there is a find a grave record for the person. The problem is that the gravestone has the person's name inscribed on it, along with the husband (who is dead and has both birth and death dates.

Again, this GEDCOM ingest process allows me to add the person as a "deceased" person, even though there is no evidence they have died.



The rest of the adds are not (as far as my records indicate) in the tree, but I haven't taken the time to check at this point. The GEDCOM I used was created back in January of 2019 !!!

Now to the other problem that continues to plague the system. It doesn't have to do with creating duplicates or deceased person when they are still alive, but with mangling a currently-existing record.

This is a compare process problem and one that could be resolved with a much better display, more along the lines of comparing two duplicate records which is actually what is happening.

In the following shot, note that the only difference is the date and how it is recorded. I have converted to spelling out the month in my records, but now the system thinks that the dates are not the same. Image demonstrates the inconsistency with the way the month is presented. With the birth and death dates, the existing record has the month spelled out. The system suggests that I should replace the existing record. The burial date shows that is not the case because both the existing record and the GEDCOM use a three-letter month that matches.

If I press replace, the screen shifts downward and a reason statement is presented at the top of the details. It is easy to miss in the present design.

Well, at least the option of recording a reason statement is there, even if no explanation is provided.

But...

That reason statement has to cover ALL replacement changes made. It is not tied to the vital item... And that is also a problem.

To say the least, the current system is far from as good as it could be. The compare fails with anything recorded in the death field, including the word "Living" and the comparison of matched records is sadly lacking and needs to be at least as good as the duplicate merge comparison screen.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: I actually posted two links two GED posts in the comment above, but they 'disappeared' when posted. My first response above may have been "asked in jest"(due to previous FS responses to the issue).

But I AM often persistent!!!!!

Thanks to Jeff & Tom for filling the information void for Jacob.

But I DO still wish him good luck!!!!