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

Death date = "After [year]"

Expand Messages
  • Venita Roylance
    Hi All, In the last couple of days I ve been working on some of my English ancestral families who lived in the early 16th century. In one family I found that
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,

      In the last couple of days I've been working on some of my English ancestral families who lived in the early 16th century. In one family I found that the submitter had apparently found his information about the children in a will left by the father. All of the children's birth years had been estimated, and where there wasn't specific burial information for a child, the death was recorded as "After 1562," the death year of the father. New FS shows that year as the death year, ignoring the "after" qualifier, indicating that the children all died the same year. They didn't, of course, but that's not the biggest concern. The three youngest children were under the age of eight when their father died. The computer labels them as not needing individual ordinances, even though the youngest child has a husband and a marriage date!

      This data had been submitted to AncestralFile by a good researcher. At the time that was an acceptible way to record a death date - at least you knew the individual was living at that particular time. Since nFS seems to ignore the qualifiers (before, after, about, of, etc., etc.,), it's not so much now. One may not notice the problem, unless they see all the children together, and compare the death dates of the father and the children. There are no notes or sources to indicate that the children's dates were based on information in the father's will. It's my best guess, based on my own research experience. I haven't found the same family in old FS, but the contributer info in nFS says it came from AF. I wish nFS would include the qualifiers! I'm sure they were they in the original submission.

      I can't remove what someone else has submitted, and a dispute won't change the qualification. My best chance is to submit another death date and choose it in the Summary view. I can at least say that the married daughter died after her marriage date. The other dates would just be pulled out of the air, and who knows? Maybe the other two did die before the age of eight.

      Happy 2010!!

      Venita
    • singhals
      ... Some of PAF s reports do that too. It s annoying and misleading. And, being as how I seem to be grumpy this week, I ll quit there. ;) Cheryl
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Venita Roylance wrote:


        > In the last couple of days I've been working on some of my English ancestral families who lived in the early 16th century. In one family I found that the submitter had apparently found his information about the children in a will left by the father. All of the children's birth years had been estimated, and where there wasn't specific burial information for a child, the death was recorded as "After 1562," the death year of the father. New FS shows that year as the death year, ignoring the "after" qualifier, indicating that the children all died the same year. They didn't, of course, but that's not the biggest concern. The three youngest children were under the age of eight when their father died. The computer labels them as not needing individual ordinances, even though the youngest child has a husband and a marriage date!

        Some of PAF's reports do that too. It's annoying and
        misleading.

        And, being as how I seem to be grumpy this week, I'll quit
        there. ;)

        Cheryl
      • tmason1
        Excellent observation Venita. Have you submitted this in new FamilySearch in the Help Center as a does not work enhancement request? Terry Mason
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Excellent observation Venita.

          Have you submitted this in new FamilySearch in the Help Center as a does not work enhancement request?

          Terry Mason

          --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Venita Roylance <venitar@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi All,
          >
          > In the last couple of days I've been working on some of my English ancestral families who lived in the early 16th century. In one family I found that the submitter had apparently found his information about the children in a will left by the father. All of the children's birth years had been estimated, and where there wasn't specific burial information for a child, the death was recorded as "After 1562," the death year of the father. New FS shows that year as the death year, ignoring the "after" qualifier, indicating that the children all died the same year. They didn't, of course, but that's not the biggest concern. The three youngest children were under the age of eight when their father died. The computer labels them as not needing individual ordinances, even though the youngest child has a husband and a marriage date!
          >
          > This data had been submitted to AncestralFile by a good researcher. At the time that was an acceptible way to record a death date - at least you knew the individual was living at that particular time. Since nFS seems to ignore the qualifiers (before, after, about, of, etc., etc.,), it's not so much now. One may not notice the problem, unless they see all the children together, and compare the death dates of the father and the children. There are no notes or sources to indicate that the children's dates were based on information in the father's will. It's my best guess, based on my own research experience. I haven't found the same family in old FS, but the contributer info in nFS says it came from AF. I wish nFS would include the qualifiers! I'm sure they were they in the original submission.
          >
          > I can't remove what someone else has submitted, and a dispute won't change the qualification. My best chance is to submit another death date and choose it in the Summary view. I can at least say that the married daughter died after her marriage date. The other dates would just be pulled out of the air, and who knows? Maybe the other two did die before the age of eight.
          >
          > Happy 2010!!
          >
          > Venita
        • Venita Roylance
          Yes, Terry, I have submitted it, but I haven t heard back yet - holidays and all... Venita ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, Terry, I have submitted it, but I haven't heard back yet - holidays and all...

            Venita


            On Jan 2, 2010, at 8:47 AM, tmason1 wrote:

            > Excellent observation Venita.
            >
            > Have you submitted this in new FamilySearch in the Help Center as a does not work enhancement request?
            >
            > Terry Mason
            >
            > --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Venita Roylance <venitar@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi All,
            > >
            > > In the last couple of days I've been working on some of my English ancestral families who lived in the early 16th century. In one family I found that the submitter had apparently found his information about the children in a will left by the father. All of the children's birth years had been estimated, and where there wasn't specific burial information for a child, the death was recorded as "After 1562," the death year of the father. New FS shows that year as the death year, ignoring the "after" qualifier, indicating that the children all died the same year. They didn't, of course, but that's not the biggest concern. The three youngest children were under the age of eight when their father died. The computer labels them as not needing individual ordinances, even though the youngest child has a husband and a marriage date!
            > >
            > > This data had been submitted to AncestralFile by a good researcher. At the time that was an acceptible way to record a death date - at least you knew the individual was living at that particular time. Since nFS seems to ignore the qualifiers (before, after, about, of, etc., etc.,), it's not so much now. One may not notice the problem, unless they see all the children together, and compare the death dates of the father and the children. There are no notes or sources to indicate that the children's dates were based on information in the father's will. It's my best guess, based on my own research experience. I haven't found the same family in old FS, but the contributer info in nFS says it came from AF. I wish nFS would include the qualifiers! I'm sure they were they in the original submission.
            > >
            > > I can't remove what someone else has submitted, and a dispute won't change the qualification. My best chance is to submit another death date and choose it in the Summary view. I can at least say that the married daughter died after her marriage date. The other dates would just be pulled out of the air, and who knows? Maybe the other two did die before the age of eight.
            > >
            > > Happy 2010!!
            > >
            > > Venita
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Deborah and Alan Glenn
            When I beta tested nFs originally I was concerned that the programmers didn t seem to be in touch with genealogical nuances. We like to have hard data for
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 2, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              When I beta tested nFs originally I was concerned that the programmers didn't seem to be "in touch" with genealogical nuances. We like to have hard data for everything, but it isn't always possible. I recognized the need to go forward and hoped that it would come, so I hope they carefully examine your concern. For research and documentation purposes before, after, about and other such tags are helpful to determine which way to go in research. Another problem was standardized place names. they are great except when the place i.e. a city or township is in one county until the boundaries are changed and then is in another county. The records for the time period the city was in the first county will be in the at counties' collection.
              Anyway, I am grateful for all who continually try to help the work go along.
              Deborah Glenn

              To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
              From: tmason1@...
              Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:47:21 +0000
              Subject: [FHCNET] Re: Death date = "After [year]"




























              Excellent observation Venita.



              Have you submitted this in new FamilySearch in the Help Center as a does not work enhancement request?



              Terry Mason



              --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Venita Roylance <venitar@...> wrote:

              >

              > Hi All,

              >

              > In the last couple of days I've been working on some of my English ancestral families who lived in the early 16th century. In one family I found that the submitter had apparently found his information about the children in a will left by the father. All of the children's birth years had been estimated, and where there wasn't specific burial information for a child, the death was recorded as "After 1562," the death year of the father. New FS shows that year as the death year, ignoring the "after" qualifier, indicating that the children all died the same year. They didn't, of course, but that's not the biggest concern. The three youngest children were under the age of eight when their father died. The computer labels them as not needing individual ordinances, even though the youngest child has a husband and a marriage date!

              >

              > This data had been submitted to AncestralFile by a good researcher. At the time that was an acceptible way to record a death date - at least you knew the individual was living at that particular time. Since nFS seems to ignore the qualifiers (before, after, about, of, etc., etc.,), it's not so much now. One may not notice the problem, unless they see all the children together, and compare the death dates of the father and the children. There are no notes or sources to indicate that the children's dates were based on information in the father's will. It's my best guess, based on my own research experience. I haven't found the same family in old FS, but the contributer info in nFS says it came from AF. I wish nFS would include the qualifiers! I'm sure they were they in the original submission.

              >

              > I can't remove what someone else has submitted, and a dispute won't change the qualification. My best chance is to submit another death date and choose it in the Summary view. I can at least say that the married daughter died after her marriage date. The other dates would just be pulled out of the air, and who knows? Maybe the other two did die before the age of eight.

              >

              > Happy 2010!!

              >

              > Venita



















              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • clschmalz
              Remember that nFS is not really intended to be a genealogical research tool. Rather its primary objective is to provide a master record of temple ordinances
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 3, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Remember that nFS is not really intended to be a genealogical research tool. Rather its primary objective is to provide a master record of temple ordinances and prevent duplication of the ordinances.

                To that end the software engineers have done a great job in creating a tool that performs complex operations on what is one of the largest databases in the world. Their prime directive was not to develop the ultimate genealogical software though.

                Charlie Schmalz

                --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Deborah and Alan Glenn <dglenn_data@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > When I beta tested nFs originally I was concerned that the programmers didn't seem to be "in touch" with genealogical nuances. We like to have hard data for everything, but it isn't always possible. I recognized the need to go forward and hoped that it would come, so I hope they carefully examine your concern. For research and documentation purposes before, after, about and other such tags are helpful to determine which way to go in research. Another problem was standardized place names. they are great except when the place i.e. a city or township is in one county until the boundaries are changed and then is in another county. The records for the time period the city was in the first county will be in the at counties' collection.
                > Anyway, I am grateful for all who continually try to help the work go along.
                > Deborah Glenn
                >
                > To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                > From: tmason1@...
                > Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:47:21 +0000
                > Subject: [FHCNET] Re: Death date = "After [year]"
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Excellent observation Venita.
                >
                >
                >
                > Have you submitted this in new FamilySearch in the Help Center as a does not work enhancement request?
                >
                >
                >
                > Terry Mason
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Venita Roylance <venitar@> wrote:
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Hi All,
                >
                > >
                >
                > > In the last couple of days I've been working on some of my English ancestral families who lived in the early 16th century. In one family I found that the submitter had apparently found his information about the children in a will left by the father. All of the children's birth years had been estimated, and where there wasn't specific burial information for a child, the death was recorded as "After 1562," the death year of the father. New FS shows that year as the death year, ignoring the "after" qualifier, indicating that the children all died the same year. They didn't, of course, but that's not the biggest concern. The three youngest children were under the age of eight when their father died. The computer labels them as not needing individual ordinances, even though the youngest child has a husband and a marriage date!
                >
                > >
                >
                > > This data had been submitted to AncestralFile by a good researcher. At the time that was an acceptible way to record a death date - at least you knew the individual was living at that particular time. Since nFS seems to ignore the qualifiers (before, after, about, of, etc., etc.,), it's not so much now. One may not notice the problem, unless they see all the children together, and compare the death dates of the father and the children. There are no notes or sources to indicate that the children's dates were based on information in the father's will. It's my best guess, based on my own research experience. I haven't found the same family in old FS, but the contributer info in nFS says it came from AF. I wish nFS would include the qualifiers! I'm sure they were they in the original submission.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > I can't remove what someone else has submitted, and a dispute won't change the qualification. My best chance is to submit another death date and choose it in the Summary view. I can at least say that the married daughter died after her marriage date. The other dates would just be pulled out of the air, and who knows? Maybe the other two did die before the age of eight.
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Happy 2010!!
                >
                > >
                >
                > > Venita
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • singhals
                Thing is, when I see on nFS that you ve submitted a marriage date of 1864 and a death date of 9 January 1864, It implies to nearly anyone looking at it that
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 3, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thing is, when I see on nFS that you've submitted a marriage
                  date of 1864 and a death date of 9 January 1864, It implies
                  to nearly anyone looking at it that the marriage occurred
                  between 1 Jan 1864 and 9 January 1864.

                  However, over here in Terry's submission, I find married Dec
                  1863, died 9 Jan 1864.

                  So, the marriage occurred between 1 and 31 December, not
                  between 1 and 9 January.

                  A third party looking at that record is going to need an
                  awful lot of independent data to be able to tell if these
                  are the same couple -- or not. Easier to say NOT and re-do
                  the work, causing needless duplication.

                  Which is what nFS was intended to eliminate.

                  What was that Perry Como song about going 'round and 'round?

                  Cheryl

                  Deborah and Alan Glenn wrote:

                  > When I beta tested nFs originally I was concerned that the programmers didn't seem to be "in touch" with genealogical nuances. We like to have hard data for everything, but it isn't always possible. I recognized the need to go forward and hoped that it would come, so I hope they carefully examine your concern. For research and documentation purposes before, after, about and other such tags are helpful to determine which way to go in research. Another problem was standardized place names. they are great except when the place i.e. a city or township is in one county until the boundaries are changed and then is in another county. The records for the time period the city was in the first county will be in the at counties' collection.
                  > Anyway, I am grateful for all who continually try to help the work go along.
                  > Deborah Glenn
                  >
                  > To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                  > From: tmason1@...
                  > Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:47:21 +0000
                  > Subject: [FHCNET] Re: Death date = "After [year]"

                  >
                  > Excellent observation Venita.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Have you submitted this in new FamilySearch in the Help Center as a does not work enhancement request?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Terry Mason
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Venita Roylance <venitar@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>Hi All,
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>In the last couple of days I've been working on some of my English ancestral families who lived in the early 16th century. In one family I found that the submitter had apparently found his information about the children in a will left by the father. All of the children's birth years had been estimated, and where there wasn't specific burial information for a child, the death was recorded as "After 1562," the death year of the father. New FS shows that year as the death year, ignoring the "after" qualifier, indicating that the children all died the same year. They didn't, of course, but that's not the biggest concern. The three youngest children were under the age of eight when their father died. The computer labels them as not needing individual ordinances, even though the youngest child has a husband and a marriage date!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>This data had been submitted to AncestralFile by a good researcher. At the time that was an acceptible way to record a death date - at least you knew the individual was living at that particular time. Since nFS seems to ignore the qualifiers (before, after, about, of, etc., etc.,), it's not so much now. One may not notice the problem, unless they see all the children together, and compare the death dates of the father and the children. There are no notes or sources to indicate that the children's dates were based on information in the father's will. It's my best guess, based on my own research experience. I haven't found the same family in old FS, but the contributer info in nFS says it came from AF. I wish nFS would include the qualifiers! I'm sure they were they in the original submission.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>I can't remove what someone else has submitted, and a dispute won't change the qualification. My best chance is to submit another death date and choose it in the Summary view. I can at least say that the married daughter died after her marriage date. The other dates would just be pulled out of the air, and who knows? Maybe the other two did die before the age of eight.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>Happy 2010!!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>Venita
                • Venita Roylance
                  ... Venita
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 4, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Here is the feedback I received from Support. It looks like I may not be the first person to contact them with such a concern:

                    > Dear Patron,
                    > Thank you for contacting FamilySearch. Your case has been forwarded to the proper department for review. They will contact you at a later date. The backlog for this type of problems is long, please allow a few weeks for them to be able to reply to you. We appreciate your efforts in your family search project and wish you success.
                    >
                    > Sincerely,
                    > FamilySearch
                    > support@...

                    Venita


                    On Jan 2, 2010, at 9:35 AM, Venita Roylance wrote:

                    > Yes, Terry, I have submitted it, but I haven't heard back yet - holidays and all...
                    >
                    > Venita
                    >
                    >
                    > On Jan 2, 2010, at 8:47 AM, tmason1 wrote:
                    >
                    >> Excellent observation Venita.
                    >>
                    >> Have you submitted this in new FamilySearch in the Help Center as a does not work enhancement request?
                    >>
                    >> Terry Mason
                    >>
                    >> --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Venita Roylance <venitar@...> wrote:
                    >>>
                    >>> Hi All,
                    >>>
                    >>> In the last couple of days I've been working on some of my English ancestral families who lived in the early 16th century. In one family I found that the submitter had apparently found his information about the children in a will left by the father. All of the children's birth years had been estimated, and where there wasn't specific burial information for a child, the death was recorded as "After 1562," the death year of the father. New FS shows that year as the death year, ignoring the "after" qualifier, indicating that the children all died the same year. They didn't, of course, but that's not the biggest concern. The three youngest children were under the age of eight when their father died. The computer labels them as not needing individual ordinances, even though the youngest child has a husband and a marriage date!
                    >>>
                    >>> This data had been submitted to AncestralFile by a good researcher. At the time that was an acceptible way to record a death date - at least you knew the individual was living at that particular time. Since nFS seems to ignore the qualifiers (before, after, about, of, etc., etc.,), it's not so much now. One may not notice the problem, unless they see all the children together, and compare the death dates of the father and the children. There are no notes or sources to indicate that the children's dates were based on information in the father's will. It's my best guess, based on my own research experience. I haven't found the same family in old FS, but the contributer info in nFS says it came from AF. I wish nFS would include the qualifiers! I'm sure they were they in the original submission.
                    >>>
                    >>> I can't remove what someone else has submitted, and a dispute won't change the qualification. My best chance is to submit another death date and choose it in the Summary view. I can at least say that the married daughter died after her marriage date. The other dates would just be pulled out of the air, and who knows? Maybe the other two did die before the age of eight.
                    >>>
                    >>> Happy 2010!!
                    >>>
                    >>> Venita
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > List owner: ileenjohnson@...
                    > Unsubscribe: FHCNET-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subscribe: Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FHCNET
                    > or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.