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

Re: [FHCNET] Re: nFS

Expand Messages
  • singhals
    I seem to be fixated on fair these days. I ll stipulate that. I ll even stipulate that life isn t fair. Still, it s not fair to expect the victim to undo
    Message 1 of 49 , Feb 13 8:11 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I seem to be fixated on "fair" these days. I'll stipulate
      that. I'll even stipulate that life isn't fair.

      Still, it's not fair to expect the victim to undo the perp's
      mess.

      Then again requiring something more than a mindless click to
      combine records might not hurt anyone but the perps ...

      On a calmer note (g), it has been clear all along that the
      developers (or possibly idea-men) failed to accept the fact
      that different people have wildly varying research styles
      which are perfectly valid.

      [easy example of what's going on: most offices in the US
      file papers with the most recent on top. As a result, most
      US-based genealogy mail-lists encourage you to put your
      response at the top of the message. If you don't remember
      what came before, you keep reading; if you do remember,
      you're done. ONE list however insists that it's fatally
      confusing to have the answer before the question, so they
      insist on the response being at the end of the message. Both
      valid methods, but each scorned by the other.]

      So if one nFS user likes keeping his Smyth, Smythe, Smith,
      and Smithe data separate, he's going to have cow when
      someone combines them; likewise, if one user wants them
      combined for easy ID, that user will have a conniption when
      someone UNcombines them. They can't both be happy, but
      they'll sure both be busy trying to keep things "their" way.

      Cheryl

      regivens1032 wrote:
      >
      >
      > Yes, anyone can separate out records. Look in the person's combined
      > records for records that show two different sets of parents, or possibly
      > the correct spouse but incorrect parents or the other way around.
      > Separate out of the parents and the 3 g-grandmother's folders all
      > records that you can and then if those other messed up records are in
      > the combined records for these people. If so send a case into Feedback
      > so the engineers can help you. Having just finished a CSM in support of
      > nFS and the other products of the Church I can assure you that they will
      > help you get this cleaned up.
      > Bob
      > Be sure to send in the names of the folders, the Person Identifiers of
      > the people in question. Also explain clearly what the correct pedigree
      > should look like if it was correct so the missionaries know what they
      > are trying to get as an end result.
      >
      > --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>, Jan
      > Ashford <jan@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Joan,
      > > I would look at your 3g-grandmother and see if there is a record or two
      > > in with her's that need to be separated out.
      > > Jan
      > >
      > > On 02/12/2011 07:36 PM, Joan Raney wrote:
      > > >
      > > > My 3-g-grandmother's family is so messed up. It was okay about a year
      > > > ago but now her parents have been merged with 3 or 4 different
      > > > couples. I'm not the submitter so I can't fix it. I separated some of
      > > > them out but now it's such a mess. Even though I separated the wrong
      > > > couples out, they are still listed as my 3-g-grandmother's parents so
      > > > I'm no better now than before.
      > > >
      > > > Joan in NC
    • Paul Walworth
      ________________________________ I find getting use to the KD s and how and where to find them in time to be of service to a active call. It is much nicer to
      Message 49 of 49 , Feb 14 1:11 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        ________________________________
        I find getting use to the KD's and how and where to find them in time to be of
        service to a active call. It is much nicer to be able to look as things come to
        you either by searching or skyping your team and getting added help to be of
        service to the partons and helping them in having a good experience help with
        this work.



        --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Paul Walworth <pdgjw1936@...> wrote:
        > I agree I am working as a CSM and one of the people on my shift was telling me

        > she didn't think she needed a program either. That is until I told her about
        > all the uses they do have and the benefits they provide. So she is having
        >after
        >
        > thoughts about whether she needs a software program.
        __________________________________________________________

        I am most grateful to have been allowed to serve as a FSSM, (a FamilySearch
        Support Missionary) which Paul Walworth refers to as a CSM. One of the most
        important things which we learned was our answers should cite from and refer to
        information in the knowledge documents and that we should attach KDs (Knowledge
        Documents). When we follow this counsel, we then speak for the FH department.
        When missionaries do not refer to and quote KD information, their opinions are
        often misleading, incorrect and they are not following their training.

        The topic in this response would best be answered by citing KD:105366 "Using the
        new FamilySearch instead of personal genealogy software on your own computer."
        It explains some advantages to using nFS BUT then it spells out in some detail a
        list of disadvantages when member's use only nFS.

        Bottom line found in the Knowledge Document - members should use personal
        software programs such as PAF. That KD also links to a citation about the
        purpose of the new.FamilySearch program.

        Terry Mason
        Clermont, FL







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