1098Re: [AQ_NFS] ID # problem? Maybe
- Nov 4, 2012I also use AQ because it has the look and feel of PAF, and I use it
primarily as my way to keep everything straight, because, as your wife
has found, the collaboration sometimes results in a major mess. This
may prevent the system from becoming what we really want it to be. And
I feel for your wife. I have the same problem with one of my families.
For years (including in the DAR applications) people have taken what
really amounts to being a footnote as if it was a fact, and connected
an ancestor, for which we do not have birth records, and tied them to
a person for whom birth records do exist, but is not related.
I tried to do some correcting of a child that was connected to the
wrong parents and I can't get the Family Tree to disconnect. I can
disconnect one or the other parent, but not both and the instructions
in the Family Tree PDF simply do not work "as advertised". I've opened
a ticket and hope to hear of a resolution.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 09:06:05 -0500, you wrote:
>Right now, my poor wife is going crazy on one of her families. Someone went into NFS and changed relationships and linked her great aunts and uncles to the wrong parents, even going so far as to change their surnames, (her 2nd Great Grandmother had two husbands) and has reserved them for temple ordinances. All of the work was done years ago by my wife and everything was correct. Now the tree is all messed up. She has used the collaboration feature of FamilyTree, but has not received a response from the individual who made the change and has reserved the ordinances. The changes in NFS were done in May and she didnt know it until we started working in Family Tree in September. It appears that the person who did this is trying to establish a connection to Washington/Lee/ a connection that never existed.
>Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 10:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] ID # problem? Maybe
>On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 20:31:19 -0400, you wrote:
>>Why would anyone want to move the PID into the ID field, since a field already exists for the PID? Seems like wasting a field that could be used for other uses. .
>If you are working with a PAF database, the NFS ID cannot be displayed
>with the name. The only way that you can see the NFS ID is to move it
>to the Custom ID field.
>>I use the ID field for a much better use. I have codes that identify non-related people that are in my file because of marriage-only lines. For instance the parents of a spouse of a relative, or that individual?s siblings. I have found as my database grows, that many of these non-related people become relatives when we go back another couple generations. If you doubt this, start entering medieval families. Of course, since the ID field is user-defined, I am not suggesting that it be used for my reason. However, It would be nice to have the program be able to identify these relationships itself instead of making me do it.
>I run the relationship tool periodically and have the system display
>the relationship to me in the Family View. You are correct in that
>lines merge back to common ancestors, especially in areas where the
>family lived for numerous generations. In my case, that happens in two
>locations -- Lancaster Co., Pennsylvania, and Adams, County, Ohio. In
>both cases, the families move to the area in the 1700s and relatives
>are still living there.
>>Last night in Orlando had a great presentation by Jim Greene from FamilySearch.org about the new Family Tree. He discussed the various programs that interface. He told us that PAF will probably go the way of the dinosaurs soon. How will this impact AQ? Of course since the Church doesn?t really support PAF, just gives it away, might not matter too much. Also had a presentation about FamilyInsight and Sharing Time as part of the Orlando Family History Conference. In a discussion with Jim, I indicated that NFS and its replacement Family Tree are not Family History programs, they are tools for doing ordinance work. He agreed on NFS, but hedged on Family Tree since the eventual goal is to use it for tying the human family into a single tree and that in this respect it could be considered a program. We both agreed, however, that there will always exist a need for programs like Ancestral Quest, Legacy, RootsMagic, Family Insight, etc. He gave them a strange title, something like
>>database facilitators or something. I wish I written down the terminology.
>Jim is a great resource. While serving our mission at the Family and
>Church history mission, he would visit us periodically and keep us up
>to date on the plans.
>One of the things about the way LDS have been doing Family History is
>that it has been an individual thing. Collaboration wasn't considered
>for many years and the mess in NFS is the result of copying others
>work and then loading and reloading the same family (often with errors
>created while copying others work) into the system.
>Jim mentioned that one of the problems and why professionals are not
>happy with the typical LDS researcher is that we tend to make our
>research a personal thing, claiming that it is "my" family and others
>do not have the "right" to make changes. He said we even went so far
>as to name the church supported program "Personal Ancestry File." It
>really isn't "my" personal file. It is every person who is related to
>the people in that family history -- their file and we should be
>working together to resolve the problems.
>Family Tree is designed to work toward resolving the problems caused
>by what has been done with NFS. The majority of errors are the result
>of temple work that was done over, and over, and over again. Once the
>work has been done, it has been done for that persion and it doesn't
>matter if the name was spelled wrong or a place mistake was made. The
>ordinance work is done.
>But, that does not alleviate us of creating a record to be acceptable
>by the Lord. To be as accurate as possible. That's where the power of
>the evolving Family Tree program comes in. There's still a lot of work
>to be done to make it possible to fix some of the problems (like
>getting children unlinked from the wrong parents), but it certainly is
>making life easier, since one can get rid of the extranious and
>duplicate name, date, and place entries and make sure they are
>>He gave a chilling statistic. Only 2 to 2/12 % of LDS Church members are doing family history. This could explain one of the reasons that Family Tree Maker never created a connection to NFS, other than that fact that the philosophy of the Church and Ancestry.com clash when it comes to access to data. Free versus a commercial venture. Last year, I visited Ancestry.com in Orem and really received the run-around on that question. They could change the subject better than a Presidential candidate during a debate! I had planned to stop my your facility, but got tied up with some business at BYU and never made it.
>The fact remains that many LDS are on Temple Welfare -- that is, when
>they go to the temple they take someone other than their own family
>names. Temple attendance can truly bring blessings to those who attend
>regularly, but greater blessings are had by those who do the work for
>their own dead (both ancestors and their ancestors' descendants).
>>Besides being a confirmed AQ user, I also use FamilyInsight for its ability to mass-correct place names and the trim function. I decided to add Sharing Time to my NewFamilySearch login. Interesting program.
>I would use FamilyInsight because of the way one can correct place
>names, but because I have some customization in my database, using it
>will create database errors. Until the FamilyInsight folks can get
>their program to save the database without corrupting customized
>entries, I will not use it.
>>I have the Progeny add-in for AQ, and of course had it for PAF many years ago. Why doesn?t AQ expand its reports and charts area to pick up some of the great charts from 3rd Party programs? Are they copyrighted?
>>I hope to be in the area sometime in the Spring. My son is a professor of Computer Engineering at the Y. Ancestral Quest and I have communicated by e-mail, Yahoo Groups, and I have been a beta tester for AQ14 and for NFS and Family Tree. My wife is the Assistant Stake Indexing Director and we are the Family History Coordinators in the Venice Florida Ward, and I am on the board of directors for the Englewood Florida Genealogy Society. Most of our Ward uses AQ. I promoted it to replace their use of PAF. Great program ? keep up the good work.
>Be very careful in promoting any commercial program. It is against
>church policy (and Jim Greene would tell you this) to promote one
>commercial program over any other. As a result, we still have PAF and
>the only program that FHC personnel can actually promote, since it is
>a church program.
>There is nothing wrong with mentioning the other family histor
>programs, like Legacy, AQ, etc., but you cannot promote their use,
>only let others know that you prefer to use it.
>Where is AQ going from here? Obviously, with the release of Family
>Tree and the link to it when a person attempts to use NFS to merge or
>split families, NFS will be going away. At that time, Gaylon and other
>other third-party developers will need to be able to interface fully
>into the new system. I suspect that AQ 14 has some of that in place
>already and will continue to see new "builds" that become further
>integrated with Family Tree.
>I suspect that the church will eventually abandon PAF, as Jim said,
>but not because it is "long in the tooth" or can't do the job.
>Instead, I suspect that the emphasis will be on colaborating your
>research with other family members so that we can make the corrections
>needed to bring before the Lord a record worthy of all acceptance.
>Finally, Gaylon was able to determine that the problem I was seeing
>was tied to record caching. The problem isn't a serious one, but if
>you exit from the edit window with the SAVE button, you can erase what
>the Generate ID Numbers tool has done. He'll address the record
>caching issue in a future build.
>>From: Gaylon Findlay
>>Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:07 PM
>>To: AQ NFS
>>Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] ID # problem? Maybe
>>Let me make sure we are talking apples-apples. So what you are telling me is that if you, right now, run the Generate ID tool to set the IDs to the NFS ID, that it doesn't put the NFS ID into the ID field?
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "tomhuber yah" <mailto:tomhuber.yah%40gmail.com>
>>To: "AQ NFS" <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
>>Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 12:20:57 PM
>>Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] ID # problem? Maybe
>>The problem is that the set ID is not showing up in the ID# field,
>>even though it shows up in the FamilySearch ID field.
>>My question is whether or not it (the FamilySearch ID) should, since I
>>am running the tool to "Set the ID numbers to match the FamilySearch
>>Also, the filter is set to All. If you want, I can send you my
>>database, and captured images of the windows.
>>Thanks for all you do,
>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:31:26 -0600 (MDT), you wrote:
>>>When you use the "Generate ID Numbers" tool, this simply sets the IDs, using the options you specified, as of right now -- the moment you run this tool. It does not tell AQ to continue setting IDs in the future. So if you have linked 5 people in your file, then run this tool, it will set the IDs for 5 people. If you later link 5 more people, only the original 5 will have their IDs set. When you run the tool again, it will then set the IDs for all 10 of your linked people, but when you link more people, their IDs will not be set until you run the tool again.
>>>I may have missed something, so if I don't answer your question, please ask again.
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "tomhuber yah" <mailto:tomhuber.yah%40gmail.com>
>>>To: "AQ NFS" <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 10:21:25 AM
>>>Subject: [AQ_NFS] ID # problem? Maybe
>>>Hopefully you can determine if this is me, or a setting problem.
>>>At one time, I would run the tool to Generate ID numbers and the "Set
>>>the ID numbers to match the FamilySearch PIDs". Then, when looking at
>>>the individual edit screen, I would note that at the bottom of the
>>>window, the FamilySearch ID appeared in its own field (left most) and
>>>also in the ID #: field (right most). Then, a number of versions back,
>>>that copying of the IDs stopped.
>>>Is this something that I imagine happened a long time ago, or
>>>something that broke and no one brought it to your attention, or
>>>something else (a change in purpose for the ID # field)?
>>>According to the help file, " Set to FS PID. If you are linking your
>>>records to the records in the FamilySearch database, the FS Person ID
>>>will already be recorded in your records. If you are also using PAF to
>>>work with your records, you will not be able to see these IDs.
>>>However, if you use this option, you can set the Custom ID of your
>>>records to match the FS PID, and then you will be able to see this ID
>>>in the CUSTOM ID field."
>>>Is the CUSTOM ID field the same field as the ID # field, or is there a
>>>checkbox that I don't have checked to display that field in the
>>>individual edit screen?
>>>Thanks, I'm using the most current version of the program.
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic