Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [AQ_NFS] syncing FT and nFS

Expand Messages
  • Leslie Vaughn
    Because we can do it through AQ with minimum of effort. All my changes made through AQ to nfs are updating to FT. When AQ can interface with FT then I will
    Message 1 of 26 , Dec 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Because we can do it through AQ with minimum of effort.



      All my changes made through AQ to nfs are updating to FT. When AQ can
      interface with FT then I will use it that way. I occasionally go directly
      to FT to view my changes and to do some editing and adding just so I can be
      familiar with it. But I much prefer using AQ for that feature. Also
      using AQ you can see the various data on nfs that is not transitioning to FT
      and I am using Gaylon's tips to make sure the most correct information is
      kept.



      I know that most of the good features will be available in FT but they are
      not there yet, such as adding my notes or getting the notes of others. As
      long as the information transitions from nfs to FT I will continue to use AQ
      to make changes and to reserve temple ordinances. I believe that if we
      were not supposed to be doing it that way at all, the ability to do so would
      be removed.



      Leslie Vaughn











      From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      stew999@...
      Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 4:03 PM
      To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [AQ_NFS] syncing FT and nFS





      Why is anyone continuing to combine or uncombine duplicates in nFS?

      nFS is slated to be withdrawn in early 2013 - I know they still have to
      transfer Notes and any nFS Sources before then.

      The message is - get off nFS asap - do all your corrective work in Family
      Tree without the complication of duplicates.

      ===Stewart

      From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
      [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
      Of
      Mary-Theresa Dameron
      Sent: 07 December 2012 20:40
      To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] syncing FT and nFS

      My real question is that since FamilySearch doesn't really talk to
      FamilyTree since Halloween, are our changes being made in the latest
      database? If you are trying to uncombined individuals and click on the
      option to link to FamilySearch, you are warned on the screen that all such
      changes should be in FamilyTree.

      Mary-Theresa Dameron

      [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]
    • Rosemary Hopkins
      I am continuing to use AQ for all of my family tree updates. It is easy to do and I can have a nice red tag that shows me who I have checked in family tree.
      Message 2 of 26 , Dec 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I am continuing to use AQ for all of my family tree updates. It is easy to
        do and I can have a nice red tag that shows me who I have checked in family
        tree. Once I have tagged everyone I am concerned with, I will go back and
        add more sources. It is a slow process, but I still find I like AQ for
        doing everything related to my family history research and for submitting
        things to the temple. Occasionally I hit a snafu, but if I close
        everything out and try later, I can usually do what I need to do. I am a
        great fan of AQ. It is so easy to use and helps me keep things straight.
        Thank you, Gaylon, for a fine product. Rosemary Hopkins

        On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Leslie Vaughn <Leslievaughn@...>wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Because we can do it through AQ with minimum of effort.
        >
        > All my changes made through AQ to nfs are updating to FT. When AQ can
        > interface with FT then I will use it that way. I occasionally go directly
        > to FT to view my changes and to do some editing and adding just so I can be
        > familiar with it. But I much prefer using AQ for that feature. Also
        > using AQ you can see the various data on nfs that is not transitioning to
        > FT
        > and I am using Gaylon's tips to make sure the most correct information is
        > kept.
        >
        > I know that most of the good features will be available in FT but they are
        > not there yet, such as adding my notes or getting the notes of others. As
        > long as the information transitions from nfs to FT I will continue to use
        > AQ
        > to make changes and to reserve temple ordinances. I believe that if we
        > were not supposed to be doing it that way at all, the ability to do so
        > would
        > be removed.
        >
        > Leslie Vaughn
        >
        > From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        > stew999@...
        > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 4:03 PM
        > To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: RE: [AQ_NFS] syncing FT and nFS
        >
        > Why is anyone continuing to combine or uncombine duplicates in nFS?
        >
        > nFS is slated to be withdrawn in early 2013 - I know they still have to
        > transfer Notes and any nFS Sources before then.
        >
        > The message is - get off nFS asap - do all your corrective work in Family
        > Tree without the complication of duplicates.
        >
        > ===Stewart
        >
        > From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
        > [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
        > Behalf
        > Of
        > Mary-Theresa Dameron
        > Sent: 07 December 2012 20:40
        > To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] syncing FT and nFS
        >
        > My real question is that since FamilySearch doesn't really talk to
        > FamilyTree since Halloween, are our changes being made in the latest
        > database? If you are trying to uncombined individuals and click on the
        > option to link to FamilySearch, you are warned on the screen that all such
        > changes should be in FamilyTree.
        >
        > Mary-Theresa Dameron
        >
        > [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]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • mkitchen@juno.com
        For your information, using Ancestral Quest to combine followed by a selection of the Summary values accomplishes the same thing as a merge in Family Tree.
        Message 3 of 26 , Dec 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          For your information, using Ancestral Quest to "combine" followed by a selection of the Summary values accomplishes the same thing as a merge in Family Tree. It also gets on the change-log as a merge which you or others can do an unmerge if needed.

          So, for all intents and purposes, in using AQ, you are actually doing a merge.

          At the moment, AQ is much better at finding duplicates than is Family Tree.

          FamilySearch has told Incline Software that they will keep the old methodology running until they tell him to start using new methods.

          My advice: use the sandbox website (beta.familysearch.org) and practice a few merges and unmerges.

          As always, make sure that your are combining or merging records that are truly duplicates and not just people of the same name.

          In my estimation, a much bigger problem is records that previously have been improperly combined. With AQ, you can better see that problem. The other day, I helped a patron where four sisters had been combined into one record (Bessie, Essie, Dessie, and Mary!)
          In my own work, just this week, I found a record where a Homer J. Beck, b. 1902 in Arkansas was combined with a Homer C. Beck, b. 1890 in Kentucky. Looking at the person in AQ showed the different birth dates and places and gave a strong hint of an improper combining.
          When records are improperly combined in new.familySearch, it migrates to Family Tree as only one person.

          So: KEEP ON USING AQ!

          Merlin Kitchen



          Please note: message attached

          From: <stew999@...>
          To: <AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: RE: [AQ_NFS] syncing FT and nFS
          Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:02:41 -0000


          ____________________________________________________________
          Veteran Home Loans
          Apply for VA Loans with competitive interest rates at Military.com.
          http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/50c26d56299d96d556369st04vuc

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bill Buchanan
          Actually the two sites are still linked and there is some exchange of information. Names, dates and places are communicated, but not necessarily relationships.
          Message 4 of 26 , Dec 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Actually the two sites are still linked and there is some exchange of
            information. Names, dates and places are communicated, but not necessarily
            relationships. The biggest problem is probably combined records, which
            cannot be separated in FT. If you can separate them using AQ, please do.
            Otherwise send all the info to support@..., where wrongly
            combined records can often be separated by a special unit.


            Bill Buchanan


            On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Mary-Theresa Dameron <jbdmtd@...
            > wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > My real question is that since FamilySearch doesn't really talk to
            > FamilyTree since Halloween, are our changes being made in the latest
            > database? If you are trying to uncombined individuals and click on the
            > option to link to FamilySearch, you are warned on the screen that all such
            > changes should be in FamilyTree.
            >
            > Mary-Theresa Dameron
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >



            --

            Bill Buchanan
            website: http://billbuchanan.byethost17.com
            blog: http://billbuchanan.blogspot.com


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mary-Theresa Dameron
            Thanks for all your replies. The Quaker records I am working on need a lot of work according the current AQ interface - be interesting to see what happens
            Message 5 of 26 , Dec 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks for all your replies. The Quaker records I am working on need a lot
              of work according the current AQ interface - be interesting to see what
              happens when AQ is linked to Family Tree.



              Mary-Theresa



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • tomhuber.yah@gmail.com
              The only thing that AQ doesn t handle is unmerging previously-merged records. It can be used to establish the visible records and it is very good at merging
              Message 6 of 26 , Dec 7, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                The only thing that AQ doesn't handle is unmerging previously-merged
                records. It can be used to establish the "visible" records and it is
                very good at merging records.

                But for "unmerging" incorrectly merged records, you'll need to use
                Family Tree for that. For correcting such mistakes as wrong gender,
                you'll need to open a ticket via FamilySearch help. Make sure you
                provide all the required information (FS ID, name, relationships,
                etc., and proof that the person has had the wrong gender applied.)

                One last thing: FS is continuing to work on its documentation. Make
                sure you always are using the latest version for the "how to"
                instructions.

                Tom

                On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 18:09:40 -0700, you wrote:

                >Thanks for all your replies. The Quaker records I am working on need a lot
                >of work according the current AQ interface - be interesting to see what
                >happens when AQ is linked to Family Tree.
                >
                >
                >
                >Mary-Theresa
                >
                >
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Cleadie B
                I just use AQ yesterday to combine one complete family. As Bill said, relationships did not transfer for most of them. Had to go fishing in FT to get them
                Message 7 of 26 , Dec 8, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  I just use AQ yesterday to combine one complete family. As Bill said, relationships did not transfer for most of them. Had to go fishing in FT to get them linked.

                  As for not being able to separate incorrectly combined records -  nFS Has this to say about how to do it.

                  "The combine and separate features are being turned off because Family Tree is now available.
                  Family Tree handles duplicate records in a new, improved way that is incompatible with new.familysearch.org.
                  If you need to deal with duplicate records or fix an incorrectly combined record, copy the person's name and person
                  identifier. Then use that information to find the person in Family Tree.
                  From there, you can resolve duplicate records or make the needed  corrections."

                  Maybe I am wrong, but I believe the old records not moved to FT and will all be deleted, so there is no need to worry about data that had not transferred. What ends up on FT being the only thing to survive, and we are to work with what is there to correct the data for our line - if this is done through FT or AQ, it is up to the individual doing the work.


                  There are very few records in my line that have possible duplicates, so I haven't had to manage any incorrectly combined record. Unless the example mentioned next counts as an example.

                  I have come upon a man married to two women named Mary (each with their own IDs), and his children split between the two women. One had another husband and family, so when I took the children that belonged to the other Mary off her file, and put them with the right couple, all I then had to do was delete the unwanted marriage, and everything was fine, both Marys had their right husbands and children. (Except there were children missing from my family since the relationship didn't work from AQ, as stated at the top of this message.)

                  I did run into a couple that gave a list of one or two duplicates to
                  check. You could mark the data you wanted to use from each file, and it
                  would merge. I have not seen any way to fix incorrectly combined record other than to just remove data that wasn't right, and add new data in
                  its place. Maybe that is what they mean by fixing wrongly merged
                  individuals. ??? Have to do a bit more searching the help files. :-)


                  Cleadie B
                  ________________________________
                  From: Bill Buchanan <genealogistbuchanan@...>
                  To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com

                  Actually the two sites are still linked and there is some exchange of
                  information. Names, dates and places are communicated, but not necessarily
                  relationships. The biggest problem is probably combined records, which
                  cannot be separated in FT.

                  ...
                • tomhuber.yah@gmail.com
                  ... Wrongly merged individuals often include a child merged with a grandparent, creating an impossible loop. That has happened far too often because merging in
                  Message 8 of 26 , Dec 8, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 08:14:13 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

                    >its place. Maybe that is what they mean by fixing wrongly merged
                    >individuals. ??? Have to do a bit more searching the help files. :-)

                    Wrongly merged individuals often include a child merged with a
                    grandparent, creating an impossible loop. That has happened far too
                    often because merging in nFS was sometimes done without considering
                    who was being merged, only that the names were the same.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.