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

Re: newFamilySearch to Family Tree

Expand Messages
  • Ken Doyle
    Hi Stewart, http://www.rootstech.org/videos#video-player The video is available now. I am currently watching it. Cheers, Ken
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Stewart,

      http://www.rootstech.org/videos#video-player

      The video is available now. I am currently watching it.

      Cheers,

      Ken

      --- In AQ_NFS@yahoogroups.com, Stewart Millar <stew999@...> wrote:
      >
      > Gaylon,
      >
      > Having watched most of the video broadcasts from RootsTech - whilst all
      > were interesting and absorbing, presenting a futuristic view of technical
      > help for the genealogist, I believe that the only presentation that covered
      > the nFS replacement was the appropriately titled session "Future of
      > FamilySearch Family Tree" by Ron Tanner which uniquely amongst the videoed
      > sessions is still reported on the RootsTech site as . . . "will be posted
      > at a later date" . . . very strange . . . . I am glad I was able to watch
      > it before it was taken off the site.
      >
      > With regard to your point referring to possible lost valuable information
      > by adopting the nFS Summary data - the points made in the presentation (as
      > far as my memory recall!) were that (a) the incorporation of AF and PRF in
      > nFS was a mistake; (b) the AF and PRF data would now be taken out of nFS
      > and included with a new user contribution category of "contributed family
      > trees" - which will continue to be searchable via familysearch.org as part
      > of the research process - so that data (better data or bad data) would not
      > be lost. What I cannot recall being covered was the data from duplicated
      > temple submissions that may have been made; (c) any data added or changed
      > on FS FT should be supported using the new features for attaching source
      > documentation and statements of justification and conclusions - try to
      > swamp any other contributor who may be tempted to add non-sourced or
      > non-justified data; (d) whilst not in their plans at the moment for FS FT,
      > Ron stated he was looking at an improved notification system other than the
      > "Watch" feature (that is currently in FS FT), namely that if any other
      > contributor changes any data I have submitted, I would be notified
      > automatically; (e) a surprising announcement that FS FT would replace nFS
      > before the end of this year . . . and be open to the general public.
      >
      > I can imagine some big changes need to the AQ interface for FS FT - I
      > certainly hope that you are being appropriately kept informed by
      > FamilySearch.
      >
      > ===Stewart
      >
      >
      > On 27 April 2012 17:03, Gaylon Findlay <gfindlay@...> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > Stewart:
      > >
      > > Thank you for mentioning the recorded sessions of RootsTech. For others,
      > > this is the launch page to see those sessions:
      > >
      > > http://rootstech.org/#video-player
      > >
      > > As you stated in your 4th bullet item, I have understood that a
      > > FamilySearch representative essentially said that for any given person in
      > > the nFS database, the summary values would be preserved in Family Tree, but
      > > that other values would be discarded. For example, if nFS shows three opin
      > > ions for a person's birth as being:
      > >
      > > 12 June 1850 in Salt Lake City (Summary)
      > > 12 June 1850 in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah
      > > 15 May 1850 in Boston, Massachusetts
      > >
      > > then only the first of the above entries will survive, because it is the
      > > Summary value. If the person happened to be born in Massachusetts, and the
      > > other two entries were erroneous, then we will lose valuable information
      > > when nFS goes away. I wonder if someone who attended RootsTech, or watched
      > > the videos, can tell me which of the lectures covered such a discussion?
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > >
      > > Gaylon
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.