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

Re: [AQ_NFS] False positives using "Check for changes" option

Expand Messages
  • Gaylon Findlay
    ... What you probably have in your file is only the information you consider of value. On NFS, there is (hopefully) that useful information, along with often a
    Message 1 of 22 , Jun 11, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      > First, there is not function that truly compares what I have locally against what is found in NFS. What we have now is good in that it is fast and mostly accurate. But it seems to me that a function that would compare my data against what NFS has - even if it needs to run overnight or in the background - would be a good addition (for the reasons I list below).
      >
      What you probably have in your file is only the information you consider
      of value. On NFS, there is (hopefully) that useful information, along
      with often a lot of information that is not so useful. Unless you bring
      all of the less useful information into your file, AQ would almost
      always find differences between what you have and what is in NFS. In
      order for a review process to be useful, AQ would need to record exactly
      what was contained in both your record and in the NFS record the last
      time you compared them, so that it could compare both your current
      record and the current NFS record against the old records when you run
      this function. This would be extremely useful, as it would tell you
      exactly what had changed in either record, but this would also tend to
      eat up more room on your hard disk than most users would be willing to
      allow for genealogy record keeping. And there is another problem. Until
      the "February/March" release of NFS, AQ could download everything it
      might need to store for a typical record in about 8 seconds. After the
      "February/March" release of NFS, to get the same information from NFS
      would now take about 4-5 minutes. That's just for one relatively simple
      NFS record. (Complex NFS records would take much, much longer.) To
      record everything of value from NFS, for purposes of a later comparison
      review, now simply takes too long to be feasible. (Prior to the
      Feb/March release of NFS, AQ used to always read all the information
      from NFS so it would be ready for you. After the Feb/March release of
      NFS, AQ now reads everything but the notes and sources from NFS, and
      waits for you to ask for notes and sources before it retrieves them.
      Unless you take the time to look through all the notes and all the
      sources for an NFS record, you'll end up never retrieving the *entire*
      information on an NFS record with the newer builds of AQ.)
      >
      > * If I review a record, find no changes, and exit without "saving" anything, what happens to the revision number? Will this record continue to show up?
      >
      This depends, I believe, on whether you are reviewing from the "Check
      for Changes" screen, or from the Pedigree or Family view. I believe that
      if you review the record from the Check for Changes screen, the version
      number will be updated so that the next time you use the Check for
      Changes feature, it will not show up, unless another change has been
      made. However, if you review from the Pedigree or Family view, if you
      Close rather than Save, the version number will not be updated, so the
      next time you run the Check for Changes, the process will check against
      an older version number. You don't have to actually save anything --
      just use the "Save" button rather than the "Close" button to close this
      screen.
      >
      > * Next, if I review a record with some changes, accept some of the changes (ie. temple work) but do not accept other changes (ie. birth/death dates or information on spouse/parents windows) and SAVE those changes, that this record will NOT show up the next time, even though there are still differences.
      >
      Correct. Whether you accept any data from NFS at all, simply using the
      Save button to close this screen will indicate to AQ that you have
      reviewed it, and don't want to be reminded to look at it again until
      another change is made.
      >
      > * Or if I make changes to my local database updating any of the information in an individual's record (and didn't update NFS at that time), nothing will highlight that my local record is different/updated.
      >
      The Check for Changes feature only checks for changes on the NFS
      records, not for changes to your local records. To check for changes on
      your local records, use the "Change Log" feature in AQ. (This is found
      under the "Tools" menu. If you are using an AQ database, it keeps a very
      detailed log of your changes, but if you are using a PAF database, the
      log of changes is much more cryptic.)
      > Lastly, the problem with the corrupted files may be part of the problem. I get corrupted files on a regular basis and each time I will get 200-300 NFS record problems. No one has been able to tell me what the impact of that corruption was (until now). What I understood is that if the NFS information is lost on a record, then the version number reverts back to 0 and that record will show up next time I request a list of changes. Is that the only information that is lost with a corrupted NFS record?
      >
      I think that sometimes when you get errors in the NFS portion of your
      file, some of the version numbers could be lost, and sometimes this may
      even cause the linkages between local records and NFS records to be lost
      -- meaning you'd have to link the records again. But most of the time, I
      think that there are no bad side-effects to having these NFS records
      reported in the Check/Repair process. In these cases, it is a matter of
      "house-cleaning" -- when AQ went to rewrite some NFS information, it
      wrote the new information and forgot to properly remove old data. In
      this case, the Check/Repair often simply completes the process of
      cleaning out old data that should have been removed earlier. If anyone
      finds a sequence of steps that causes these errors/warnings to show up
      in Check/Repair, we are very anxious hear of this so we can fix AQ to
      never again allow the NFS portion of the file to show problems in
      Check/Repair :-)

      Gaylon
    • Scott, Robert L
      Gaylon, Okay, one more question and then I will give this a rest :) There seems to be one piece missing here. You indicated that this Check for Changes
      Message 2 of 22 , Jun 11, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Gaylon,
        Okay, one more question and then I will give this a rest :)

        There seems to be one piece missing here. You indicated that this "Check for Changes" process only checks for changes in NFS. If so, why would changes to the locations in the local database (see Ken Doyle's email) show up as differences with NFS?

        Thanks a bunch for your help. Bob.


        From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gaylon Findlay
        Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:26 PM
        To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] False positives using "Check for changes" option



        > First, there is not function that truly compares what I have locally against what is found in NFS. What we have now is good in that it is fast and mostly accurate. But it seems to me that a function that would compare my data against what NFS has - even if it needs to run overnight or in the background - would be a good addition (for the reasons I list below).
        >
        What you probably have in your file is only the information you consider
        of value. On NFS, there is (hopefully) that useful information, along
        with often a lot of information that is not so useful. Unless you bring
        all of the less useful information into your file, AQ would almost
        always find differences between what you have and what is in NFS. In
        order for a review process to be useful, AQ would need to record exactly
        what was contained in both your record and in the NFS record the last
        time you compared them, so that it could compare both your current
        record and the current NFS record against the old records when you run
        this function. This would be extremely useful, as it would tell you
        exactly what had changed in either record, but this would also tend to
        eat up more room on your hard disk than most users would be willing to
        allow for genealogy record keeping. And there is another problem. Until
        the "February/March" release of NFS, AQ could download everything it
        might need to store for a typical record in about 8 seconds. After the
        "February/March" release of NFS, to get the same information from NFS
        would now take about 4-5 minutes. That's just for one relatively simple
        NFS record. (Complex NFS records would take much, much longer.) To
        record everything of value from NFS, for purposes of a later comparison
        review, now simply takes too long to be feasible. (Prior to the
        Feb/March release of NFS, AQ used to always read all the information
        from NFS so it would be ready for you. After the Feb/March release of
        NFS, AQ now reads everything but the notes and sources from NFS, and
        waits for you to ask for notes and sources before it retrieves them.
        Unless you take the time to look through all the notes and all the
        sources for an NFS record, you'll end up never retrieving the *entire*
        information on an NFS record with the newer builds of AQ.)
        >
        > * If I review a record, find no changes, and exit without "saving" anything, what happens to the revision number? Will this record continue to show up?
        >
        This depends, I believe, on whether you are reviewing from the "Check
        for Changes" screen, or from the Pedigree or Family view. I believe that
        if you review the record from the Check for Changes screen, the version
        number will be updated so that the next time you use the Check for
        Changes feature, it will not show up, unless another change has been
        made. However, if you review from the Pedigree or Family view, if you
        Close rather than Save, the version number will not be updated, so the
        next time you run the Check for Changes, the process will check against
        an older version number. You don't have to actually save anything --
        just use the "Save" button rather than the "Close" button to close this
        screen.
        >
        > * Next, if I review a record with some changes, accept some of the changes (ie. temple work) but do not accept other changes (ie. birth/death dates or information on spouse/parents windows) and SAVE those changes, that this record will NOT show up the next time, even though there are still differences.
        >
        Correct. Whether you accept any data from NFS at all, simply using the
        Save button to close this screen will indicate to AQ that you have
        reviewed it, and don't want to be reminded to look at it again until
        another change is made.
        >
        > * Or if I make changes to my local database updating any of the information in an individual's record (and didn't update NFS at that time), nothing will highlight that my local record is different/updated.
        >
        The Check for Changes feature only checks for changes on the NFS
        records, not for changes to your local records. To check for changes on
        your local records, use the "Change Log" feature in AQ. (This is found
        under the "Tools" menu. If you are using an AQ database, it keeps a very
        detailed log of your changes, but if you are using a PAF database, the
        log of changes is much more cryptic.)
        > Lastly, the problem with the corrupted files may be part of the problem. I get corrupted files on a regular basis and each time I will get 200-300 NFS record problems. No one has been able to tell me what the impact of that corruption was (until now). What I understood is that if the NFS information is lost on a record, then the version number reverts back to 0 and that record will show up next time I request a list of changes. Is that the only information that is lost with a corrupted NFS record?
        >
        I think that sometimes when you get errors in the NFS portion of your
        file, some of the version numbers could be lost, and sometimes this may
        even cause the linkages between local records and NFS records to be lost
        -- meaning you'd have to link the records again. But most of the time, I
        think that there are no bad side-effects to having these NFS records
        reported in the Check/Repair process. In these cases, it is a matter of
        "house-cleaning" -- when AQ went to rewrite some NFS information, it
        wrote the new information and forgot to properly remove old data. In
        this case, the Check/Repair often simply completes the process of
        cleaning out old data that should have been removed earlier. If anyone
        finds a sequence of steps that causes these errors/warnings to show up
        in Check/Repair, we are very anxious hear of this so we can fix AQ to
        never again allow the NFS portion of the file to show problems in
        Check/Repair :-)

        Gaylon



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Gaylon Findlay
        Bob: I just re-read part of Ken s message. If I understand it correctly (and I may have misunderstood something he said), he had made lots of changes to his
        Message 3 of 22 , Jun 11, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Bob:

          I just re-read part of Ken's message. If I understand it correctly (and
          I may have misunderstood something he said), he had made lots of changes
          to his file by way of adjusting many place names. Knowing the code as I
          do, I don't believe that this would have any affect on the Check for
          Changes -- at least not if AQ were the tool you used to adjust the place
          names.

          Ken mentions a tool he used to help in this project. Some tools could
          actually cause the linkages to NFS to be lost. For example, if you use
          FamilyInsight to adjust place names, you should be fine. But if you use
          the older PAF Insight to adjust place names in a PAF database, PAF
          Insight would throw away all the links to NFS. Make sure the tools you
          use are certified properly with both NFS and with your local database.
          (Certification doesn't actually mean much -- make sure you test the tool
          to see that it does what you hope it will do.)

          Gaylon


          Scott, Robert L wrote:
          > Gaylon,
          > Okay, one more question and then I will give this a rest :)
          >
          > There seems to be one piece missing here. You indicated that this "Check for Changes" process only checks for changes in NFS. If so, why would changes to the locations in the local database (see Ken Doyle's email) show up as differences with NFS?
          >
          > Thanks a bunch for your help. Bob.
          >
          >
          > From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gaylon Findlay
          > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:26 PM
          > To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] False positives using "Check for changes" option
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >> First, there is not function that truly compares what I have locally against what is found in NFS. What we have now is good in that it is fast and mostly accurate. But it seems to me that a function that would compare my data against what NFS has - even if it needs to run overnight or in the background - would be a good addition (for the reasons I list below).
          >>
          >>
          > What you probably have in your file is only the information you consider
          > of value. On NFS, there is (hopefully) that useful information, along
          > with often a lot of information that is not so useful. Unless you bring
          > all of the less useful information into your file, AQ would almost
          > always find differences between what you have and what is in NFS. In
          > order for a review process to be useful, AQ would need to record exactly
          > what was contained in both your record and in the NFS record the last
          > time you compared them, so that it could compare both your current
          > record and the current NFS record against the old records when you run
          > this function. This would be extremely useful, as it would tell you
          > exactly what had changed in either record, but this would also tend to
          > eat up more room on your hard disk than most users would be willing to
          > allow for genealogy record keeping. And there is another problem. Until
          > the "February/March" release of NFS, AQ could download everything it
          > might need to store for a typical record in about 8 seconds. After the
          > "February/March" release of NFS, to get the same information from NFS
          > would now take about 4-5 minutes. That's just for one relatively simple
          > NFS record. (Complex NFS records would take much, much longer.) To
          > record everything of value from NFS, for purposes of a later comparison
          > review, now simply takes too long to be feasible. (Prior to the
          > Feb/March release of NFS, AQ used to always read all the information
          > from NFS so it would be ready for you. After the Feb/March release of
          > NFS, AQ now reads everything but the notes and sources from NFS, and
          > waits for you to ask for notes and sources before it retrieves them.
          > Unless you take the time to look through all the notes and all the
          > sources for an NFS record, you'll end up never retrieving the *entire*
          > information on an NFS record with the newer builds of AQ.)
          >
          >> * If I review a record, find no changes, and exit without "saving" anything, what happens to the revision number? Will this record continue to show up?
          >>
          >>
          > This depends, I believe, on whether you are reviewing from the "Check
          > for Changes" screen, or from the Pedigree or Family view. I believe that
          > if you review the record from the Check for Changes screen, the version
          > number will be updated so that the next time you use the Check for
          > Changes feature, it will not show up, unless another change has been
          > made. However, if you review from the Pedigree or Family view, if you
          > Close rather than Save, the version number will not be updated, so the
          > next time you run the Check for Changes, the process will check against
          > an older version number. You don't have to actually save anything --
          > just use the "Save" button rather than the "Close" button to close this
          > screen.
          >
          >> * Next, if I review a record with some changes, accept some of the changes (ie. temple work) but do not accept other changes (ie. birth/death dates or information on spouse/parents windows) and SAVE those changes, that this record will NOT show up the next time, even though there are still differences.
          >>
          >>
          > Correct. Whether you accept any data from NFS at all, simply using the
          > Save button to close this screen will indicate to AQ that you have
          > reviewed it, and don't want to be reminded to look at it again until
          > another change is made.
          >
          >> * Or if I make changes to my local database updating any of the information in an individual's record (and didn't update NFS at that time), nothing will highlight that my local record is different/updated.
          >>
          >>
          > The Check for Changes feature only checks for changes on the NFS
          > records, not for changes to your local records. To check for changes on
          > your local records, use the "Change Log" feature in AQ. (This is found
          > under the "Tools" menu. If you are using an AQ database, it keeps a very
          > detailed log of your changes, but if you are using a PAF database, the
          > log of changes is much more cryptic.)
          >
          >> Lastly, the problem with the corrupted files may be part of the problem. I get corrupted files on a regular basis and each time I will get 200-300 NFS record problems. No one has been able to tell me what the impact of that corruption was (until now). What I understood is that if the NFS information is lost on a record, then the version number reverts back to 0 and that record will show up next time I request a list of changes. Is that the only information that is lost with a corrupted NFS record?
          >>
          >>
          > I think that sometimes when you get errors in the NFS portion of your
          > file, some of the version numbers could be lost, and sometimes this may
          > even cause the linkages between local records and NFS records to be lost
          > -- meaning you'd have to link the records again. But most of the time, I
          > think that there are no bad side-effects to having these NFS records
          > reported in the Check/Repair process. In these cases, it is a matter of
          > "house-cleaning" -- when AQ went to rewrite some NFS information, it
          > wrote the new information and forgot to properly remove old data. In
          > this case, the Check/Repair often simply completes the process of
          > cleaning out old data that should have been removed earlier. If anyone
          > finds a sequence of steps that causes these errors/warnings to show up
          > in Check/Repair, we are very anxious hear of this so we can fix AQ to
          > never again allow the NFS portion of the file to show problems in
          > Check/Repair :-)
          >
          > Gaylon
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Stewart Millar
          Something strange with the AQ Reserve Ordinance Window. I note that when a candidate is added to the list it brings across the Qualifying events with the
          Message 4 of 22 , Jun 13, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Something strange with the AQ Reserve Ordinance Window.



            I note that when a candidate is added to the list it brings across the
            "Qualifying" events with the associated date and place --- with the place
            being the "standardised" place name.



            I have several occurrences when for a selected individual on the list, the
            qualifying event is "Birth" and it correctly displays the birth date but has
            the place name left blank. For these individuals, there is actually a
            standardised place name present. Why is it not being brought across?



            Let me give you an example from nFS:



            Name: Maria Ward

            nFS PID: L7BG-5QQ



            This example is from a ward member I am assisting as a fh consultant.



            In the "Details" window you will note the "entered" place name is "St
            Saviour, Southwark, Surrey, England" --- hovering the cursor over the
            entered place name will display the "standardised" place name as "Southwark,
            Surrey, England, United Kingdom" (or alternatively using the edit button to
            display the details, but of course will tell you cannot edit this entry).



            On the majority of my entries in the Reserve Ordinance window (about 60%) it
            is getting it right with the standardised place name being brought across -
            but for the remaining 40% of entries, despite their being a standardised
            place name present, it has the place name blank in this Reserve Ordinance
            window.



            Any suggestions?



            And --- will it give me a problem further down the line, in that the minimum
            requirement for submissions is a name, date and place and here the proposed
            submission is showing without a place.



            === Stewart



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Tom Huber
            ... The Church recently added a considerable number of places to the list, many of which have more than four political divisions. I ve noticed that when the
            Message 5 of 22 , Jun 13, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 02:45:33 +0100, you wrote:

              >Something strange with the AQ Reserve Ordinance Window.

              >I have several occurrences when for a selected individual on the list, the
              >qualifying event is "Birth" and it correctly displays the birth date but has
              >the place name left blank. For these individuals, there is actually a
              >standardised place name present. Why is it not being brought across?
              >
              The Church recently added a considerable number of places to the list,
              many of which have more than four political divisions. I've noticed
              that when the place has more than four political divisions, the place
              is not brought into the AQ Reserve Ordinance Window.

              Hope this helps.

              Tom
            • Stewart Millar
              Thanks Tom - but in this case both the entered and standard (assigned by nFS) have each only 4 divisions. === Stewart From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
              Message 6 of 22 , Jun 13, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks Tom - but in this case both the "entered" and "standard" (assigned by
                nFS) have each only 4 divisions.



                === Stewart







                From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                Tom Huber
                Sent: 14 June 2010 02:52
                To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] AQ Reserve Ordinance Window occasional problem with
                Standard Place Names





                On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 02:45:33 +0100, you wrote:

                >Something strange with the AQ Reserve Ordinance Window.

                >I have several occurrences when for a selected individual on the list, the
                >qualifying event is "Birth" and it correctly displays the birth date but
                has
                >the place name left blank. For these individuals, there is actually a
                >standardised place name present. Why is it not being brought across?
                >
                The Church recently added a considerable number of places to the list,
                many of which have more than four political divisions. I've noticed
                that when the place has more than four political divisions, the place
                is not brought into the AQ Reserve Ordinance Window.

                Hope this helps.

                Tom





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Gunilla Manell
                I am not sure it what I have seen is the same thing or not, but when I add a person to the Reserve ordinances screen, before he or she has been linked, the
                Message 7 of 22 , Jun 13, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I am not sure it what I have seen is the same thing or not, but when I add a
                  person to the Reserve ordinances screen, before he or she has been linked,
                  the place name shows. As soon as the link is complete, in most cases, the
                  place name disappears.



                  I have been wondering about this also, but it has been doing it ever since I
                  started using AQ to reserve names. I have been doing it since a year ago,
                  when my temple district finally got access to nFS.



                  However in most cases, the cards print out OK including place names. And I
                  say MOST, because sometimes it links up with a name that is not the
                  preferred name, it even ignores the date I have uploaded and submitted, and
                  the name may have become abbreviated instead of the spelled out name that I
                  have uploaded. I sure wish the cards would print out with the complete
                  information that I have submitted.



                  /Gunilla





                  From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                  Stewart Millar
                  Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 7:46 PM
                  To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [AQ_NFS] AQ Reserve Ordinance Window occasional problem with
                  Standard Place Names





                  Something strange with the AQ Reserve Ordinance Window.

                  I note that when a candidate is added to the list it brings across the
                  "Qualifying" events with the associated date and place --- with the place
                  being the "standardised" place name.

                  I have several occurrences when for a selected individual on the list, the
                  qualifying event is "Birth" and it correctly displays the birth date but has
                  the place name left blank. For these individuals, there is actually a
                  standardised place name present. Why is it not being brought across?

                  Let me give you an example from nFS:

                  Name: Maria Ward

                  nFS PID: L7BG-5QQ

                  This example is from a ward member I am assisting as a fh consultant.

                  In the "Details" window you will note the "entered" place name is "St
                  Saviour, Southwark, Surrey, England" --- hovering the cursor over the
                  entered place name will display the "standardised" place name as "Southwark,
                  Surrey, England, United Kingdom" (or alternatively using the edit button to
                  display the details, but of course will tell you cannot edit this entry).

                  On the majority of my entries in the Reserve Ordinance window (about 60%) it
                  is getting it right with the standardised place name being brought across -
                  but for the remaining 40% of entries, despite their being a standardised
                  place name present, it has the place name blank in this Reserve Ordinance
                  window.

                  Any suggestions?

                  And --- will it give me a problem further down the line, in that the minimum
                  requirement for submissions is a name, date and place and here the proposed
                  submission is showing without a place.

                  === Stewart

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Tom Huber
                  ... The other thing that I ve noticed is that if the summary in nFS does not show a place, then the AQ Reserve Ordinance Window is also missing the place. I
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jun 13, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 03:06:07 +0100, you wrote:

                    >Thanks Tom - but in this case both the "entered" and "standard" (assigned by
                    >nFS) have each only 4 divisions.
                    >
                    The other thing that I've noticed is that if the summary in nFS does
                    not show a place, then the AQ Reserve Ordinance Window is also missing
                    the place. I have to go into nFS manually and select the place for it
                    to show. I don't know if Gaylon can do anything for the AQ Reserve
                    Ordinance Window to use the place we have in our AQ/PAF file or if it
                    will always default to the Summary View in nFS.

                    You may want to play around with the Summary view to see if it makes
                    any difference in the AQ Reserve Ordinance Window.

                    Tom
                  • Stewart Millar
                    I continue to have a queasy feeling about the missing standard place name in the Reserve Ordinance window (ROW). As these missing place names do not reflect
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jun 15, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I continue to have a queasy feeling about the missing "standard" place name
                      in the Reserve Ordinance window (ROW).



                      As these missing place names do not reflect the situation in nFS - they
                      therefore must indicate a problem in AQ.



                      In further experiments I was able to alter an entry in the ROW which
                      initially was displaying a standard place name - but it was an incorrect
                      choice of standard place name - for an "entered" place name of "Cork,
                      Ireland" it was displaying "Corcaigh, Ireland" i.e., using the Irish Gaelic
                      name for "Cork" ------ so from the ROW I went into nFS and changed the
                      standard name to the valid alternative standard place name of "Cork,
                      Ireland" ---- on returning to the ROW, the previously displayed standard
                      name disappeared with no replacement.



                      An explanation scenario might be ----- this record was synched to nFS using
                      AQ --- in doing so, AQ must have found and assigned the initial "standard"
                      place name. It now seems to me that any time the "standard" name that was
                      initially assigned via AQ is changed, the ROW becomes unable to find and
                      display the existing "standard" place name from nFS.



                      Any comment from Gaylon or the techies?



                      === Stewart



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • emregister
                      Yesterday a patron came to the FHC. She had two 3.5 inch floppy disks with data from the 1980s. Fortunately she had a USB stick with her. To transfer the
                      Message 10 of 22 , Oct 6, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yesterday a patron came to the FHC. She had two 3.5 inch floppy disks with
                        data from the 1980s. Fortunately she had a USB stick with her. To transfer
                        the data to the USB stick was straight forward. The patron intended to use
                        PAF but the data format was filename.dat and PAF did not recognize it. So..
                        AQ to the rescue. AQ recognized the data instantly and configured it to AQ
                        data. Then we asked AQ to configure the data for PAF. All was well and
                        took very little time. She left a very happy patron. Thanks AQ.



                        Eric



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • emregister
                        On a regular bases I review all batch files. There is a column completed which will contain some X s. I would expect that all ordinances that have been
                        Message 11 of 22 , Oct 6, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On a regular bases I 'review' all batch files. There is a column
                          'completed' which will contain some 'X's. I would expect that all
                          ordinances that have been reserved have been completed if there is an X in
                          the completed column. However, many times the X is there but the ordinances
                          are not yet completed. Any ideas/comments?



                          Eric



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Donald R. Snow
                          Many people aren t aware that all the earlier version of PAF are on the PAF CD that you get from the Distribution Centers and they are made so that they
                          Message 12 of 22 , Oct 6, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Many people aren't aware that all the earlier version of PAF are on
                            the PAF CD that you get from the Distribution Centers and they are made
                            so that they install in Windows. Using that any PAF database from an
                            earlier version can be opened in the appropriate PAF version and then
                            you can make a GEDCOM and import it into any newer genealogy program
                            that takes GEDCOM's. I haven't used AQ to upgrade from an older PAF
                            version, but I lost lots of links when I did the automatic upgrade in
                            PAF 4 and 5, so I don't recommend the automatic upgrade, but I use the
                            GEDCOM route.

                            Don


                            On 10/6/2010 10:03 PM, emregister wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yesterday a patron came to the FHC. She had two 3.5 inch floppy disks with
                            > data from the 1980s. Fortunately she had a USB stick with her. To transfer
                            > the data to the USB stick was straight forward. The patron intended to use
                            > PAF but the data format was filename.dat and PAF did not recognize it.
                            > So..
                            > AQ to the rescue. AQ recognized the data instantly and configured it to AQ
                            > data. Then we asked AQ to configure the data for PAF. All was well and
                            > took very little time. She left a very happy patron. Thanks AQ.
                            >
                            > Eric
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >

                            --
                            Dr. Donald R. Snow, Retired Professor of Mathematics, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah - snowd@...



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Gunilla Manell
                            From what I have seen with my data, when all ordinances that were cleared and printed on a card had been completed, the X would show the all ordinances on the
                            Message 13 of 22 , Oct 7, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              From what I have seen with my data, when all ordinances that were cleared
                              and printed on a card had been completed, the X would show the all
                              ordinances on the card were done.

                              If you haven't cleared seal to parents yet, then you still need to perform
                              that from a different card. Sealing to spouse is done from a different card
                              also.



                              I have not yet seen what you apparently have experienced. Just a thought,
                              did you update all, to transfer the dates to your database after ordinances
                              were performed?



                              /Gunilla



                              From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                              emregister
                              Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:11 PM
                              To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [AQ_NFS] Bath files are marked 'complete' but are not







                              On a regular bases I 'review' all batch files. There is a column
                              'completed' which will contain some 'X's. I would expect that all
                              ordinances that have been reserved have been completed if there is an X in
                              the completed column. However, many times the X is there but the ordinances
                              are not yet completed. Any ideas/comments?

                              Eric

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • emregister
                              This occurs with records that were reserved for the temple. If all ordinances were not reserved this does not appear to affect the X . It does not appear
                              Message 14 of 22 , Oct 7, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                This occurs with records that were reserved for the temple. If all
                                ordinances were not reserved this does not appear to affect the 'X'. It
                                does not appear to be related to 'updating'.



                                Eric

                                Subject: RE: [AQ_NFS] Bath files are marked 'complete' but are not





                                From what I have seen with my data, when all ordinances that were cleared
                                and printed on a card had been completed, the X would show the all
                                ordinances on the card were done.

                                If you haven't cleared seal to parents yet, then you still need to perform
                                that from a different card. Sealing to spouse is done from a different card
                                also.

                                I have not yet seen what you apparently have experienced. Just a thought,
                                did you update all, to transfer the dates to your database after ordinances
                                were performed?

                                /Gunilla

                                From: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
                                [mailto:AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
                                Of
                                emregister
                                Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:11 PM
                                To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:AQ_NFS%40yahoogroups.com>
                                Subject: [AQ_NFS] Bath files are marked 'complete' but are not

                                On a regular bases I 'review' all batch files. There is a column
                                'completed' which will contain some 'X's. I would expect that all
                                ordinances that have been reserved have been completed if there is an X in
                                the completed column. However, many times the X is there but the ordinances
                                are not yet completed. Any ideas/comments?

                                Eric

                                [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]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.