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

Re: [FHCNET] Hmm

Expand Messages
  • Ron Tanner
    Adding patron contributed ordinances only exists in Family Tree on labs. We have plans to eventually get that into nFS, but have no date when this will happen.
    Message 1 of 11 , Dec 21, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Adding patron contributed ordinances only exists in Family Tree on labs. We
      have plans to eventually get that into nFS, but have no date when this will
      happen. Most people were using this to cover large ancestors that they could
      not combine. The limit on combining has been increased and patrons should
      try to combine them now and avoid using patron contributed ordinances unless
      necessary.

      Thanks,
      Ron

      On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ronald Sudweeks <rsudweeks@...>wrote:

      >
      >
      > Thelmer Smith wrote:
      > > Does anyone know if the feature in Family Tree that allows a person to
      > see who has reserved someone for ordinances will be migrated over to nFS?
      > >
      > > That feature has saved me (really actually saved others) a great deal of
      > trouble in the Mesa FHC where I serve. It was always a bit fun to see the
      > reaction of others when they see who has reserved a relative of theirs, even
      > if it themselves!
      > >
      > > Thelmer Smith
      > > Tempe, Arizona
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > Another similar question, In Labs, Family Tree you are able to add a
      > "unofficial" ordinance date if you have proof the work was done.
      > I don't see that ability in the new Family Tree view in the latest .99
      > release of newFamilySearch.
      >
      > Anyone know if this is there and I just missed it, or if it is not
      > there, will it be added in the future.
      >
      > This is a mute question as long as Labs Family Tree is running, but I'm
      > sure that at some time in the future it will be closed.
      >
      > --
      > Ronald Sudweeks
      > rsudweeks@... <rsudweeks%40comcast.net>
      >
      > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
      > database 4697 (20091217) __________
      >
      > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
      >
      > http://www.eset.com
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Sue Maxwell
      Ron, what is the new limit on combining?
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 21, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron, what is the new limit on combining?

        Ron Tanner wrote:
        > Adding patron contributed ordinances only exists in Family Tree on labs. We
        > have plans to eventually get that into nFS, but have no date when this will
        > happen. Most people were using this to cover large ancestors that they could
        > not combine. The limit on combining has been increased and patrons should
        > try to combine them now and avoid using patron contributed ordinances unless
        > necessary.
        >
        > Thanks,
        > Ron
        >
        >
      • Ronfamilysearch
        150. In our next release in a few months it will go to 250. Thanks, Ron Sent from my iPhone ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 27, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          150. In our next release in a few months it will go to 250.

          Thanks,
          Ron

          Sent from my iPhone

          On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Sue Maxwell <smaxwl@...> wrote:

          > Ron, what is the new limit on combining?
          >
          > Ron Tanner wrote:
          > > Adding patron contributed ordinances only exists in Family Tree on
          > labs. We
          > > have plans to eventually get that into nFS, but have no date when
          > this will
          > > happen. Most people were using this to cover large ancestors that
          > they could
          > > not combine. The limit on combining has been increased and patrons
          > should
          > > try to combine them now and avoid using patron contributed
          > ordinances unless
          > > necessary.
          > >
          > > Thanks,
          > > Ron
          > >
          > >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mark E. Gower
          The current limit on combined records is 250 as of December 2009 Release. I understand that the IOUS problem has now abated to a manageable level. Mark E.
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 27, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            The current limit on combined records is 250 as of December 2009 Release. I understand that the IOUS problem has now abated to a manageable level.

            Mark E. Gower
            Mesa, Arizona, USA
          • James W Anderson
            The biggest of these they have found has 8,000 assertions on it for just the one name, if you count all the children, etc., for that same person the total
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 27, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              The biggest of these they have found has 8,000 assertions on it for just the one name, if you count all the children, etc., for that same person the total number of files associated with that one is 76,000.

              And they have a category of these they call 'black holes'.  Those almost no one outside of the teams building nFS has ever seen, those are the entries that seem to collect everything that even comes close to matching, and that one is still to be fully dealt with more than likely.
               

              --- On Wed, 1/27/10, Mark E. Gower <famlymanusa@...> wrote:

              From: Mark E. Gower <famlymanusa@...>
              Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Hmm
              To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
              Cc: "Ronfamilysearch" <ronfamilysearch@...>
              Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 3:21 PM







               









              The current limit on combined records is 250 as of December 2009 Release. I understand that the IOUS problem has now abated to a manageable level.



              Mark E. Gower

              Mesa, Arizona, USA























              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Sue Maxwell
              Couldn t nFS employees or volunteers be given the rights to delete out the duplicates that came in from PRF s for example? Seems to me that would make a huge
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 28, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Couldn't nFS employees or volunteers be given the rights to delete out
                the duplicates that came in from PRF's for example? Seems to me that
                would make a huge difference.
                SueM

                James W Anderson wrote:
                >
                >
                > The biggest of these they have found has 8,000 assertions on it for
                > just the one name, if you count all the children, etc., for that same
                > person the total number of files associated with that one is 76,000.
                >
                > And they have a category of these they call 'black holes'. Those
                > almost no one outside of the teams building nFS has ever seen, those
                > are the entries that seem to collect everything that even comes close
                > to matching, and that one is still to be fully dealt with more than
                > likely.
                >
                >
                > --- On Wed, 1/27/10, Mark E. Gower <famlymanusa@...
                > <mailto:famlymanusa%40cox.net>> wrote:
                >
                > _,___


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