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

Re: [AQ_NFS] Fields returned on Upload Individual

Expand Messages
  • Bob Penry
    I agree the wait time might not be worth it for records since 1500. But for Medieval Records it would be extremely valuable and worth the wait. There would
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 16, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree the wait time might not be worth it for records since 1500. But for Medieval Records it would be extremely valuable and worth the wait. There would have to be a line in program code that only pulls the ordinance data if the DOB is prior to 1500. This should satisfy most users. I wouldn't worry about the seal to spouse capture. Medieval records that have BCEIP have been combined and will almost always include the seal to spouse. If not, then further checking on non-BCEIP records is warranted.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: George Wright
      To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:04 PM
      Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] Fields returned on Upload Individual



      Personally, I am satisfied with the existing format on the match screen.
      However, I accept (but do not like) the delays I encounter whenever I have to
      wait for downloads from NFS. Although the additional information might be
      useful, I would not personally consider it to be worth the wait every time I
      performed a match.

      I do not consider this tradeoff to be worth the waits.

      George

      ________________________________
      From: Gaylon Findlay <gfindlay@...>
      To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 12:03:59 PM
      Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] Fields returned on Upload Individual


      Bob:

      On the BCIEPS of the Match screen, here is the tradeoff:

      The current display allows AQ to ask NFS for summary data -- a fairly
      quick read over the Internet. Compiling the ordinances has two parts --
      we can ask for the basics, which would make the above summary read take
      just a little longer for the BCIEP (and a lot longer to include the Seal
      to Spouse), but this would miss any "in process" type of indicators. To
      get a thorough read of the ordinances, AQ would have to ask NFS for the
      Ordinance Reservation information. This can much more than double the
      amount of time it takes NFS to respond, and for AQ to show this screen.
      Would you want a complete analysis of the BCIEPS if it meant that the
      Match screen would load much more slowly, everytime you wanted to match
      someone? I'd like to know what some other users think of this tradeoff.

      Gaylon

      Bob Penry wrote:
      > Thanks. You are absolutely correct - two needed enhancements.
      >
      > I want to see the BCIEPS on each line, not after opening. This way, I can
      >choose which one I desire to open. With say 75 lines, I really don't want to
      >open all of them. This is where the BCIEPS on the first screen would really,
      >really be helpful. I am more concerned with making sure my ancestors have their
      >temple work done then in the minutia of their lives. In most cases, the
      >information contained in the detail is so variable as to make it totally
      >unreliable. Most individuals have at least a dozen birthdates and birthplaces
      >listed. Medieval Research is usually based on data gleaned from books and is
      >often the result of wild guesswork.
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Gaylon Findlay
      > To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 12:05 PM
      > Subject: Re: [AQ_NFS] Fields returned on Upload Individual
      >
      >
      >
      > Bob:
      >
      > I see two primary enhancement requests here:
      >
      > 1) Add BCIEPS to the summary line of the match screen.
      > 2) Handle Marriage and Parent sealings on the individual review screen.
      >
      > We are working on something that take care of #2 for you.
      >
      > On item 1, did I misunderstand? Do you want the BCIEPS on the summary
      > line, or in the data once you click on the possible match to see the
      > details? If it is on the latter, there is a preference option that
      > already gives you essentially this information. In Preferences, under
      > the FamilySearch tab, you can ask to view LDS Ordinances on the Match
      > screen.
      >
      > Gaylon
      >
      > bob.penry wrote:
      > > I have ancestors that were European royalty. I have thousands of of these
      >names in my AQ database. An upload search often returns many possible duplicates
      >per individual with over 90% having temple work completed. Attempts to combine
      >duplicates in either AQ or NFS usually fail because the combo limit has been
      >reached. This means that some of these individuals were gleaned from Ancestral
      >File and IGI with several hundred hits. This makes searching down the long list
      >of possibilities trying to find the individual record(s)with temple work
      >completed, time consuming.
      >
      > >
      > > I would like to see a field added to the possible duplicate screen that
      >returns the ordinance indicators from each record. Seeing BEPS displayed in a
      >field would really be a great help in this work. I am sure I can't be the only
      >one experiencing this frustration.
      >
      > >
      > > I know the counter-argument would be that it would discourage doing combos.
      >Perhaps a line could be put in the program code that only returns the Temple
      >Data for dates before 1500.
      > >
      > > It would also be nice to be able to directly enter the Marriage Sealing date
      >and Sealing to Parents date directly into the individual's record while the
      >upload screens are still open. Having to open the show parents or spouse tabs
      >can be counter-productive. What I have now is a little Notepad@ window where I
      >type in these dates/temples and then type then into the record after I have
      >saved and closed the Synch record.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > 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]
    • Ken Doyle
      Dear Bob, it would discourage doing combos Often I see what I call muddied IDs . Many IDs making up one ID that has been combined. It is very hard to
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 16, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Bob,

        "it would discourage doing combos"

        Often I see what I call "muddied IDs". Many IDs making up one ID that has been
        combined. It is very hard to decipher what comes from the 30 "muddied" IDs.

        Often I see that some of the combinations should never have happened. It becomes
        a nightmare trying to uncombine and challenge. Also trying to upload 65,000
        names approximately. Only uploaded over 6,000 names. It takes time to check
        these all.

        Often wondered if the combo should only be local on your own computer. But nFS
        show others that people are combining to.

        Like when you go to Microsoft and download a program or fix and they say others
        are downloading this file too.

        The real big worry about this is that it is hard to decipher if you ancestor had
        their temple work done or if one of the combined "muddied" IDs had there work
        done.

        You know if we think our ancestor had their work done but it was really the
        other bloke (muddied IDs) then we have failed.

        That is my biggest concern that "muddied IDs" may cause us to inadvertantly fail
        to have our ancestors work done. As more combinations are done then it will
        become nearly impossible to UNGLUE the muddied IDS.

        Even if we do UNGLUE the muddied IDS some people may still fall through the
        cracks. Say our ancestor was done but the other bloke (muddied ID) was not done.
        If we manage to UNGLUE then the descendent of the other person may think they
        have an ancestor done. Their local record on their computer may never change. So
        that person falls through the cracks.

        "it would discourage doing combos" I wonder if combos in their present form are
        good or a future nightmare.
         
         
        Cheers,

        Ken Doyle

        Phone: 02 63 61 8865
        International Phone: 612 63 61 8865





        ________________________________
        From: bob.penry <bob.penry@...>
        To: AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, 17 July, 2010 1:10:14 AM
        Subject: [AQ_NFS] Fields returned on Upload Individual

         
        I have ancestors that were European royalty. I have thousands of of these names
        in my AQ database. An upload search often returns many possible duplicates per
        individual with over 90% having temple work completed. Attempts to combine
        duplicates in either AQ or NFS usually fail because the combo limit has been
        reached. This means that some of these individuals were gleaned from Ancestral
        File and IGI with several hundred hits. This makes searching down the long list
        of possibilities trying to find the individual record(s)with temple work
        completed, time consuming.


        I would like to see a field added to the possible duplicate screen that returns
        the ordinance indicators from each record. Seeing BEPS displayed in a field
        would really be a great help in this work. I am sure I can't be the only one
        experiencing this frustration.


        I know the counter-argument would be that it would discourage doing combos.
        Perhaps a line could be put in the program code that only returns the Temple
        Data for dates before 1500.

        It would also be nice to be able to directly enter the Marriage Sealing date and
        Sealing to Parents date directly into the individual's record while the upload
        screens are still open. Having to open the show parents or spouse tabs can be
        counter-productive. What I have now is a little Notepad@ window where I type in
        these dates/temples and then type then into the record after I have saved and
        closed the Synch record.







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.