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

Re: [FHCNET] Combining/Separating was Class title

Expand Messages
  • singhals
    I m on board. The entire process has always tended to not-discourage error; putting it on the computer only expanded the horizons of not-discourage . As I
    Message 1 of 30 , Oct 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm on board. The entire process has always tended to
      not-discourage error; putting it on the computer only
      expanded the horizons of "not-discourage". As I keep
      whining on another newsgroup, any system flexible enough to
      cover more than 1 legitimate "exception" is too flexible.

      Cheryl


      Venita Roylance wrote:
      > Hi Len,
      >
      > I'm with you. What you said in item 5 rings a loud bell with me. You said:
      >
      >> …One thing that I have noticed, as I do combining, it is hard to determine if you have the correct individuals when you are looking at marriage extraction records. This is due to the fact that marriage information is not shown when comparing individuals. I have to note the PID numbers for the two records and then back out of the combining process and look at the individuals separately to note marriage dates and any other information to see if they are the same individuals. If I can determine that they are the same, then I return to combine them. This can be a slow process.
      >
      >
      > It has been my recent experience that this very problem is one of the reasons my Danish family records were mis-combined. In sorting out my particular mess, I have separated every record but one, individually, from a person's combined records, then re-combined the correct ones only after checking the marriage information on each one. You may not know that when you have the records side by side in nFS, you can click on a name in each one and the individual information for each record appears at the bottom of the window. You can then compare all of the data in the two records by clicking the buttons in the left columns.
      >
      > In item 7 you also reminded us that:
      >
      >> ...the module for combining states that if the records you are looking at appear to be the same, even though there are
      >> differences in the information presented, you should go ahead and combine the records. This may lead to people combining records that should not be combined.
      >
      > Exactly!! Combining records is not for wimps. One has to be willing to carefully evaluate the data and compare it with the data in one's personal file before combining anything in nFS. We can be flexible about name spellings, incomplete dates and/or place names, "best guesses" when they make sense, etc., but we also need to not assume that all the men named Peter Olsen, born in Denmark in 1780 (for example) are the same person. Unfortunately, some computer programs do assume that all the men named Peter Olsen who were born in Denmark in 1780 are the same person. If one relies only on the computer's opinion, mistakes are frequently the result.
      >
      > Keep up the good work!
      >
      > Venita
      >
      >
      >
      > On Sep 6, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Len Ingermanson wrote:
      >
      >> I thought I would respond to this thread from the information I received
      >> from my mission in the Family History Library. There are a couple to things
      >> that has created some of the issues.
      >> 1. When developed and data bases were put into the program, Ancestral File
      >> and Pedigree Resource File were included. As most know these two databases
      >> contained numerous errors and because the information was submitted years
      >> ago, in some if not most cases, we cannot correct that information. Unless
      >> we were the submitter or we can claim the legacy for those submission.
      >> 2. I spoke to the family search folks recently about why they used
      >> Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File, given the multiple errors. They
      >> responded by saying they were aware of this problem and had many discussions
      >> about using these files. The main reason for using these files was that
      >> they were the only data bases that were pedigree based and linked families
      >> together. The hope was that people would be able to make corrections and
      >> fix the errors, or at least document the correct information.
      >> 3. If any temple work was accomplished for individuals with the incorrect
      >> information, you cannot correct it as it became a temple record. However,
      >> with proper documentation, you might be able to correct it. But that
      >> depends a lot on who you talk to in support. I have a person in my family
      >> tree who was extracted as the wrong sex and temple work was completed.
      >> Support said they would leave the incorrect information in the data base,
      >> just in case someone else resubmitted the name again. I redid the work for
      >> the correct gender.
      >> 4. When the program was released, there was a part of the program written
      >> to attempt to combine records of individuals who appeared to be the same.
      >> Unfortunately, this led to combining people who should not have been
      >> combined. I watch one record in my wife's line being combined with many
      >> other records that were not the same person. In the span of about an hour,
      >> the total of combined records went from about 700 records to almost 800
      >> records. The software engineers had to fix that one. I believe that this
      >> part of the program has been fixed and the program does not do any automatic
      >> combining.
      >> 5. Unfortunately, there are still people who believe they have the correct
      >> information about their families, which is incorrect. Because of this
      >> belief, they will combine records, thinking they have the correct
      >> information. One thing that I have noticed, as I do combining, it is hard
      >> to determine if you have the correct individuals when you are looking at
      >> marriage extraction records. This is due to the fact that marriage
      >> information is not shown when comparing individuals. I have to note the PID
      >> numbers for the two records and then back out of the combining process and
      >> look at the individuals separately to note marriage dates and any other
      >> information to see if they are the same individuals. If I can determine
      >> that they are the same, then I return to combine them. This can be a slow
      >> process.
      >> 6. As far as the third-party software is concerned, I have not had any
      >> difficulty determining if records are for the same individuals, except for
      >> marriage extraction, as noted above. I use Ancestral Quest, and it provides
      >> a dual screen for the possible duplicates that is very similar to what you
      >> would see in the program itself.
      >> 7. Recently, I was looking at the training modules for nFS on the
      >> consultant website and noticed that the module for combining states that if
      >> the records you are looking at appear to the same, even though there are
      >> differences in the information presented, you should go ahead and combine
      >> the records. This may lead to people combining records that should not be
      >> combined.
      >> These are just some of my observations. If you notice some records that
      >> keep getting combined and uncombined, you could put a "Watch" on them so you
      >> are notified when changes are made to specific individuals.
      >>
      >> Len Ingermanson
      >>
      >>
      >> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Dan Taysom<taysomd@...> wrote:
      >>
      >>> **
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> Ahh, but you are assuming that the eyes are connected to the brain and that
      >>> the person decides to use a little bit of brain power to think about what
      >>> they are about to do. Many (most?) people do make the effort to understand
      >>> what they are doing and what the effects will be.
      >>>
      >>> Unfortunately, there are also some people who approach it from the
      >>> perspective that 'since the [infinately smarter than me] computer suggested
      >>> these 2 people might be the same, then they must be, and I will combine
      >>> them
      >>> without looking at the details'. Sometimes these types of people are
      >>> willing to be educated when they are found, however some won't.
      >>>
      >>> On the otherhand I haven't met anything that can match a computer in making
      >>> massive changes to data when told to do so by a user/programmer. Having
      >>> done a bit of programming, I can guarantee it is easy to write a program
      >>> that on the face of it will really make life better, only to find out
      >>> during
      >>> de-bugging that if run as written it would really mess things up.
      >>>
      >>> So, I guess I'm suggesting that it is mostly a people problem at some level
      >>> whether it be the 'I don't care' user or the programmer with a not quite
      >>> completely debugged program. I would personally tilt towards the 'I don't
      >>> care user' as the main problem, but could be convinced otherwise.
      >>>
      >>> :-)
      >>>
      >>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Venita Roylance<venitar@...> wrote:
      >>>
      >>>> Hi Dan,
      >>>>
      >>>> You are right! There have been plenty of bad combinations from the
      >>>> beginning. Like you, I have been using the program since the beta
      >>> versions,
      >>>> long before it was released to anyone. (I needed to learn how to use it
      >>> so
      >>>> I could teach it to other missionaries like myself.) I don't remember
      >>>> exactly when I cleaned up the line I'm referring to, but it was before
      >>> the
      >>>> program was released in the Utah temple districts. I have 'dropped in' on
      >>>> it from time to time since then, but did not see the mess I'm seeing now.
      >>>> There was an occasional re-combination of one or two records, but not
      >>>> effecting every individual, and not as many really odd records as there
      >>> is
      >>>> now. Surely human eyes and a human brain would not make the combinations
      >>>> that I'm trying to sort out.
      >>>>
      >>>> Thanks for your $0.02!
      >>>>
      >>>> Venita
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Dan Taysom wrote:
      >>>>
      >>>>> I'm not throwing eggs, but in my experience the phenominum of bungled
      >>>> (bad)
      >>>>> combinations vastly pre-dates the third party software being able to do
      >>>>> these things.
      >>>>>
      >>>>> I don't know when you received access to nFS, but I was able to use it
      >>>> long
      >>>>> before it was turned on for the majority of folks and before the 3rd
      >>>> party
      >>>>> software was able to make any changes and I can guarantee you that
      >>> there
      >>>>> were a lot of really badly combined records back then. So I would say
      >>>> that
      >>>>> it is more of a people problem (inattention to detail) which may or may
      >>>> not
      >>>>> be compounded by software regardless of whether software is involved or
      >>>>> not. It seemed that as each new group of people gained access to nFS,
      >>>> some
      >>>>> of the problem records got recombined all over again after they were
      >>>>> separated& cleaned up.
      >>>>>
      >>>>> Some records seem to be magnets for getting messed up over& over again
      >>> I
      >>>>> think in large part because they have similarities to each other so
      >>> that
      >>>> if
      >>>>> a person is not looking closely, they may get combined again, and
      >>> again.
      >>>>>
      >>>>> just my $0.02
      >>>>>
      >>>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Venita Roylance<venitar@...>
      >>> wrote:
      >>>>>
      >>>>>> I may have eggs thrown at my house for even suggesting such a thing,
      >>>> but
      >>>>>> here goes. Does anyone else think that part of the cause of the
      >>> problem
      >>>> of
      >>>>>> the many records which have been combined in error may be the result
      >>> of
      >>>>>> "third party software" users who use their third party software to
      >>>> combine
      >>>>>> records rather than looking directly at the possible duplicate
      >>> records
      >>>> in
      >>>>>> nFS? Before the third party, interactive with nFS, software came out,
      >>> I
      >>>> had
      >>>>>> checked all of my Danish ancestral families' records and had them
      >>>> cleaned
      >>>>>> up. Just this past week I have been working with them again and found
      >>>> every
      >>>>>> single individual's records munged with other records - records of
      >>>> people
      >>>>>> with different names, people with the same name, people from a
      >>>> different
      >>>>>> part of Denmark, people born in another decade, people married in a
      >>>>>> different place, people from a different Scandinavian country, etc.
      >>>> etc.
      >>>>>> Somehow, the records were combined in error since the last time I
      >>>> looked at
      >>>>>> them.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> I hate to think that a living person looked at the data on two
      >>>> completely
      >>>>>> different records with human eyes and a human brain and saw how
      >>>> different
      >>>>>> they were, yet still said to themselves, "Yep, this is the same guy,"
      >>>> and
      >>>>>> combined them! It looks like computer errors to me. I've already
      >>> spent
      >>>>>> three days working on the parents and grandparents of just one
      >>> family,
      >>>> and I
      >>>>>> haven't started on their children yet. Some of the combinations have
      >>>> been
      >>>>>> re-sorted into five or more different individuals, some with the same
      >>>> names,
      >>>>>> some with different names. There are many people in Denmark who have
      >>>> the
      >>>>>> same names, and who have even married spouses with the same names,
      >>> and
      >>>> may
      >>>>>> have even lived in the same parish. That's exactly the reason that
      >>> very
      >>>>>> close scrutiny needs to be used before combining possible duplicates.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> To quote one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Pogo the
      >>> Possum:
      >>>>>> "We have met the enemy and he is us."
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> Venita
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> On Sep 3, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Rebecca Christensen wrote:
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>> It appears there was a glitch with Sue's message.
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> It's not the combining that is time-consuming. It is the separating
      >>>> that
      >>>>>> has taken way more time. Combining takes minutes in comparison to the
      >>>> hours
      >>>>>> it takes cleaning up records that have been combined erroneously. You
      >>>> would
      >>>>>> think people would know that William, James, Richard, and John are
      >>>> different
      >>>>>> people and not combine them (over and over again). A little thought
      >>> on
      >>>> the
      >>>>>> part of the combiners would go a long way. It's really frustrating to
      >>>>>> separate and clean up the records time and time again.
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> Rebecca Christensen
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> --- On Fri, 9/2/11, Sue Barnsley<sbarnsley@...> wrote:
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> From: Sue Barnsley<sbarnsley@...>
      >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Class title
      >>>>>>> To: "FHCNET@yahoogroups.com"<FHCNET@yahoogroups.com>
      >>>>>>> Date: Friday, September 2, 2011, 9:40 PM
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> When this program is released to the non member community, are we
      >>>>>> expecting them to waste countless hours combining as well?
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> Sent from Toro my iPhone
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> ------------------------------------
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>> or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroupsYahoo! Groups
      >>> Links
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>> --
      >>>>> Dan Taysom
      >>>>> taysomd@...
      >>>>>
      >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> ------------------------------------
      >>>>
      >>>> or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroupsYahoo! Groups Links
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>
      >>> --
      >>> Dan Taysom
      >>> taysomd@...
    • Jan Ashford
      I have combined lots of extracted marriage records without having to back out. Click on the individual s name in each record. A window for each will show at
      Message 2 of 30 , Oct 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I have combined lots of extracted marriage records without having to
        back out.

        Click on the individual's name in each record. A window for each will
        show at the bottom of the page. In those details windows, click on
        spouses and it will show you familiar screens that can be be compared.

        Jan

        On 10/01/2011 11:59 AM, singhals wrote:
        > I'm on board. The entire process has always tended to
        > not-discourage error; putting it on the computer only
        > expanded the horizons of "not-discourage". As I keep
        > whining on another newsgroup, any system flexible enough to
        > cover more than 1 legitimate "exception" is too flexible.
        >
        > Cheryl
        >
        >
        > Venita Roylance wrote:
        >> Hi Len,
        >>
        >> I'm with you. What you said in item 5 rings a loud bell with me. You said:
        >>
        >>> …One thing that I have noticed, as I do combining, it is hard to determine if you have the correct individuals when you are looking at marriage extraction records. This is due to the fact that marriage information is not shown when comparing individuals. I have to note the PID numbers for the two records and then back out of the combining process and look at the individuals separately to note marriage dates and any other information to see if they are the same individuals. If I can determine that they are the same, then I return to combine them. This can be a slow process.
        >>
        >> It has been my recent experience that this very problem is one of the reasons my Danish family records were mis-combined. In sorting out my particular mess, I have separated every record but one, individually, from a person's combined records, then re-combined the correct ones only after checking the marriage information on each one. You may not know that when you have the records side by side in nFS, you can click on a name in each one and the individual information for each record appears at the bottom of the window. You can then compare all of the data in the two records by clicking the buttons in the left columns.
        >>
        >> In item 7 you also reminded us that:
        >>
        >>> ...the module for combining states that if the records you are looking at appear to be the same, even though there are
        >>> differences in the information presented, you should go ahead and combine the records. This may lead to people combining records that should not be combined.
        >> Exactly!! Combining records is not for wimps. One has to be willing to carefully evaluate the data and compare it with the data in one's personal file before combining anything in nFS. We can be flexible about name spellings, incomplete dates and/or place names, "best guesses" when they make sense, etc., but we also need to not assume that all the men named Peter Olsen, born in Denmark in 1780 (for example) are the same person. Unfortunately, some computer programs do assume that all the men named Peter Olsen who were born in Denmark in 1780 are the same person. If one relies only on the computer's opinion, mistakes are frequently the result.
        >>
        >> Keep up the good work!
        >>
        >> Venita
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> On Sep 6, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Len Ingermanson wrote:
        >>
        >>> I thought I would respond to this thread from the information I received
        >>> from my mission in the Family History Library. There are a couple to things
        >>> that has created some of the issues.
        >>> 1. When developed and data bases were put into the program, Ancestral File
        >>> and Pedigree Resource File were included. As most know these two databases
        >>> contained numerous errors and because the information was submitted years
        >>> ago, in some if not most cases, we cannot correct that information. Unless
        >>> we were the submitter or we can claim the legacy for those submission.
        >>> 2. I spoke to the family search folks recently about why they used
        >>> Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File, given the multiple errors. They
        >>> responded by saying they were aware of this problem and had many discussions
        >>> about using these files. The main reason for using these files was that
        >>> they were the only data bases that were pedigree based and linked families
        >>> together. The hope was that people would be able to make corrections and
        >>> fix the errors, or at least document the correct information.
        >>> 3. If any temple work was accomplished for individuals with the incorrect
        >>> information, you cannot correct it as it became a temple record. However,
        >>> with proper documentation, you might be able to correct it. But that
        >>> depends a lot on who you talk to in support. I have a person in my family
        >>> tree who was extracted as the wrong sex and temple work was completed.
        >>> Support said they would leave the incorrect information in the data base,
        >>> just in case someone else resubmitted the name again. I redid the work for
        >>> the correct gender.
        >>> 4. When the program was released, there was a part of the program written
        >>> to attempt to combine records of individuals who appeared to be the same.
        >>> Unfortunately, this led to combining people who should not have been
        >>> combined. I watch one record in my wife's line being combined with many
        >>> other records that were not the same person. In the span of about an hour,
        >>> the total of combined records went from about 700 records to almost 800
        >>> records. The software engineers had to fix that one. I believe that this
        >>> part of the program has been fixed and the program does not do any automatic
        >>> combining.
        >>> 5. Unfortunately, there are still people who believe they have the correct
        >>> information about their families, which is incorrect. Because of this
        >>> belief, they will combine records, thinking they have the correct
        >>> information. One thing that I have noticed, as I do combining, it is hard
        >>> to determine if you have the correct individuals when you are looking at
        >>> marriage extraction records. This is due to the fact that marriage
        >>> information is not shown when comparing individuals. I have to note the PID
        >>> numbers for the two records and then back out of the combining process and
        >>> look at the individuals separately to note marriage dates and any other
        >>> information to see if they are the same individuals. If I can determine
        >>> that they are the same, then I return to combine them. This can be a slow
        >>> process.
        >>> 6. As far as the third-party software is concerned, I have not had any
        >>> difficulty determining if records are for the same individuals, except for
        >>> marriage extraction, as noted above. I use Ancestral Quest, and it provides
        >>> a dual screen for the possible duplicates that is very similar to what you
        >>> would see in the program itself.
        >>> 7. Recently, I was looking at the training modules for nFS on the
        >>> consultant website and noticed that the module for combining states that if
        >>> the records you are looking at appear to the same, even though there are
        >>> differences in the information presented, you should go ahead and combine
        >>> the records. This may lead to people combining records that should not be
        >>> combined.
        >>> These are just some of my observations. If you notice some records that
        >>> keep getting combined and uncombined, you could put a "Watch" on them so you
        >>> are notified when changes are made to specific individuals.
        >>>
        >>> Len Ingermanson
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Dan Taysom<taysomd@...> wrote:
        >>>
        >>>> **
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> Ahh, but you are assuming that the eyes are connected to the brain and that
        >>>> the person decides to use a little bit of brain power to think about what
        >>>> they are about to do. Many (most?) people do make the effort to understand
        >>>> what they are doing and what the effects will be.
        >>>>
        >>>> Unfortunately, there are also some people who approach it from the
        >>>> perspective that 'since the [infinately smarter than me] computer suggested
        >>>> these 2 people might be the same, then they must be, and I will combine
        >>>> them
        >>>> without looking at the details'. Sometimes these types of people are
        >>>> willing to be educated when they are found, however some won't.
        >>>>
        >>>> On the otherhand I haven't met anything that can match a computer in making
        >>>> massive changes to data when told to do so by a user/programmer. Having
        >>>> done a bit of programming, I can guarantee it is easy to write a program
        >>>> that on the face of it will really make life better, only to find out
        >>>> during
        >>>> de-bugging that if run as written it would really mess things up.
        >>>>
        >>>> So, I guess I'm suggesting that it is mostly a people problem at some level
        >>>> whether it be the 'I don't care' user or the programmer with a not quite
        >>>> completely debugged program. I would personally tilt towards the 'I don't
        >>>> care user' as the main problem, but could be convinced otherwise.
        >>>>
        >>>> :-)
        >>>>
        >>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Venita Roylance<venitar@...> wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>> Hi Dan,
        >>>>>
        >>>>> You are right! There have been plenty of bad combinations from the
        >>>>> beginning. Like you, I have been using the program since the beta
        >>>> versions,
        >>>>> long before it was released to anyone. (I needed to learn how to use it
        >>>> so
        >>>>> I could teach it to other missionaries like myself.) I don't remember
        >>>>> exactly when I cleaned up the line I'm referring to, but it was before
        >>>> the
        >>>>> program was released in the Utah temple districts. I have 'dropped in' on
        >>>>> it from time to time since then, but did not see the mess I'm seeing now.
        >>>>> There was an occasional re-combination of one or two records, but not
        >>>>> effecting every individual, and not as many really odd records as there
        >>>> is
        >>>>> now. Surely human eyes and a human brain would not make the combinations
        >>>>> that I'm trying to sort out.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Thanks for your $0.02!
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Venita
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Dan Taysom wrote:
        >>>>>
        >>>>>> I'm not throwing eggs, but in my experience the phenominum of bungled
        >>>>> (bad)
        >>>>>> combinations vastly pre-dates the third party software being able to do
        >>>>>> these things.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> I don't know when you received access to nFS, but I was able to use it
        >>>>> long
        >>>>>> before it was turned on for the majority of folks and before the 3rd
        >>>>> party
        >>>>>> software was able to make any changes and I can guarantee you that
        >>>> there
        >>>>>> were a lot of really badly combined records back then. So I would say
        >>>>> that
        >>>>>> it is more of a people problem (inattention to detail) which may or may
        >>>>> not
        >>>>>> be compounded by software regardless of whether software is involved or
        >>>>>> not. It seemed that as each new group of people gained access to nFS,
        >>>>> some
        >>>>>> of the problem records got recombined all over again after they were
        >>>>>> separated& cleaned up.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Some records seem to be magnets for getting messed up over& over again
        >>>> I
        >>>>>> think in large part because they have similarities to each other so
        >>>> that
        >>>>> if
        >>>>>> a person is not looking closely, they may get combined again, and
        >>>> again.
        >>>>>> just my $0.02
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Venita Roylance<venitar@...>
        >>>> wrote:
        >>>>>>> I may have eggs thrown at my house for even suggesting such a thing,
        >>>>> but
        >>>>>>> here goes. Does anyone else think that part of the cause of the
        >>>> problem
        >>>>> of
        >>>>>>> the many records which have been combined in error may be the result
        >>>> of
        >>>>>>> "third party software" users who use their third party software to
        >>>>> combine
        >>>>>>> records rather than looking directly at the possible duplicate
        >>>> records
        >>>>> in
        >>>>>>> nFS? Before the third party, interactive with nFS, software came out,
        >>>> I
        >>>>> had
        >>>>>>> checked all of my Danish ancestral families' records and had them
        >>>>> cleaned
        >>>>>>> up. Just this past week I have been working with them again and found
        >>>>> every
        >>>>>>> single individual's records munged with other records - records of
        >>>>> people
        >>>>>>> with different names, people with the same name, people from a
        >>>>> different
        >>>>>>> part of Denmark, people born in another decade, people married in a
        >>>>>>> different place, people from a different Scandinavian country, etc.
        >>>>> etc.
        >>>>>>> Somehow, the records were combined in error since the last time I
        >>>>> looked at
        >>>>>>> them.
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> I hate to think that a living person looked at the data on two
        >>>>> completely
        >>>>>>> different records with human eyes and a human brain and saw how
        >>>>> different
        >>>>>>> they were, yet still said to themselves, "Yep, this is the same guy,"
        >>>>> and
        >>>>>>> combined them! It looks like computer errors to me. I've already
        >>>> spent
        >>>>>>> three days working on the parents and grandparents of just one
        >>>> family,
        >>>>> and I
        >>>>>>> haven't started on their children yet. Some of the combinations have
        >>>>> been
        >>>>>>> re-sorted into five or more different individuals, some with the same
        >>>>> names,
        >>>>>>> some with different names. There are many people in Denmark who have
        >>>>> the
        >>>>>>> same names, and who have even married spouses with the same names,
        >>>> and
        >>>>> may
        >>>>>>> have even lived in the same parish. That's exactly the reason that
        >>>> very
        >>>>>>> close scrutiny needs to be used before combining possible duplicates.
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> To quote one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Pogo the
        >>>> Possum:
        >>>>>>> "We have met the enemy and he is us."
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> Venita
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Rebecca Christensen wrote:
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> It appears there was a glitch with Sue's message.
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> It's not the combining that is time-consuming. It is the separating
        >>>>> that
        >>>>>>> has taken way more time. Combining takes minutes in comparison to the
        >>>>> hours
        >>>>>>> it takes cleaning up records that have been combined erroneously. You
        >>>>> would
        >>>>>>> think people would know that William, James, Richard, and John are
        >>>>> different
        >>>>>>> people and not combine them (over and over again). A little thought
        >>>> on
        >>>>> the
        >>>>>>> part of the combiners would go a long way. It's really frustrating to
        >>>>>>> separate and clean up the records time and time again.
        >>>>>>>> Rebecca Christensen
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> --- On Fri, 9/2/11, Sue Barnsley<sbarnsley@...> wrote:
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> From: Sue Barnsley<sbarnsley@...>
        >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Class title
        >>>>>>>> To: "FHCNET@yahoogroups.com"<FHCNET@yahoogroups.com>
        >>>>>>>> Date: Friday, September 2, 2011, 9:40 PM
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> When this program is released to the non member community, are we
        >>>>>>> expecting them to waste countless hours combining as well?
        >>>>>>>> Sent from Toro my iPhone
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> ------------------------------------
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroupsYahoo! Groups
        >>>> Links
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>> --
        >>>>>> Dan Taysom
        >>>>>> taysomd@...
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> ------------------------------------
        >>>>>
        >>>>> or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroupsYahoo! Groups Links
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>> --
        >>>> Dan Taysom
        >>>> taysomd@...
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroupsYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • Margaret Wirtz
        Go to website https://help.familysearch.org/kb/videos/en/index.html. This will take you to Video Demonstrations. I viewed some of these, and they are very
        Message 3 of 30 , Oct 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Go to website https://help.familysearch.org/kb/videos/en/index.html. This
          will take you to Video Demonstrations.
          I viewed some of these, and they are very helpful.
          Towards bottom of listing is "Combining Duplicate Records". I printed out
          the 13 page handout dated February 2011, "How Combining Records Affects Your
          Family Line".
          I was not aware of some of the ways to view information, using the two
          records side-by-side.
          I hope this helps, especially with a handout to follow.

          Margaret


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Jan Ashford" <jan@...>
          To: <FHCNET@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 7:32 PM
          Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Combining/Separating was Class title


          >I have combined lots of extracted marriage records without having to
          > back out.
          >
          > Click on the individual's name in each record. A window for each will
          > show at the bottom of the page. In those details windows, click on
          > spouses and it will show you familiar screens that can be be compared.
          >
          > Jan
          >
          > On 10/01/2011 11:59 AM, singhals wrote:
          >> I'm on board. The entire process has always tended to
          >> not-discourage error; putting it on the computer only
          >> expanded the horizons of "not-discourage". As I keep
          >> whining on another newsgroup, any system flexible enough to
          >> cover more than 1 legitimate "exception" is too flexible.
          >>
          >> Cheryl
          >>
          >>
          >> Venita Roylance wrote:
          >>> Hi Len,
          >>>
          >>> I'm with you. What you said in item 5 rings a loud bell with me. You
          >>> said:
          >>>
          >>>> …One thing that I have noticed, as I do combining, it is hard to
          >>>> determine if you have the correct individuals when you are looking at
          >>>> marriage extraction records. This is due to the fact that marriage
          >>>> information is not shown when comparing individuals. I have to note
          >>>> the PID numbers for the two records and then back out of the combining
          >>>> process and look at the individuals separately to note marriage dates
          >>>> and any other information to see if they are the same individuals. If
          >>>> I can determine that they are the same, then I return to combine them.
          >>>> This can be a slow process.
          >>>
          >>> It has been my recent experience that this very problem is one of the
          >>> reasons my Danish family records were mis-combined. In sorting out my
          >>> particular mess, I have separated every record but one, individually,
          >>> from a person's combined records, then re-combined the correct ones only
          >>> after checking the marriage information on each one. You may not know
          >>> that when you have the records side by side in nFS, you can click on a
          >>> name in each one and the individual information for each record appears
          >>> at the bottom of the window. You can then compare all of the data in
          >>> the two records by clicking the buttons in the left columns.
          >>>
          >>> In item 7 you also reminded us that:
          >>>
          >>>> ...the module for combining states that if the records you are looking
          >>>> at appear to be the same, even though there are
          >>>> differences in the information presented, you should go ahead and
          >>>> combine the records. This may lead to people combining records that
          >>>> should not be combined.
          >>> Exactly!! Combining records is not for wimps. One has to be willing to
          >>> carefully evaluate the data and compare it with the data in one's
          >>> personal file before combining anything in nFS. We can be flexible
          >>> about name spellings, incomplete dates and/or place names, "best
          >>> guesses" when they make sense, etc., but we also need to not assume that
          >>> all the men named Peter Olsen, born in Denmark in 1780 (for example) are
          >>> the same person. Unfortunately, some computer programs do assume that
          >>> all the men named Peter Olsen who were born in Denmark in 1780 are the
          >>> same person. If one relies only on the computer's opinion, mistakes are
          >>> frequently the result.
          >>>
          >>> Keep up the good work!
          >>>
          >>> Venita
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> On Sep 6, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Len Ingermanson wrote:
          >>>
          >>>> I thought I would respond to this thread from the information I
          >>>> received
          >>>> from my mission in the Family History Library. There are a couple to
          >>>> things
          >>>> that has created some of the issues.
          >>>> 1. When developed and data bases were put into the program, Ancestral
          >>>> File
          >>>> and Pedigree Resource File were included. As most know these two
          >>>> databases
          >>>> contained numerous errors and because the information was submitted
          >>>> years
          >>>> ago, in some if not most cases, we cannot correct that information.
          >>>> Unless
          >>>> we were the submitter or we can claim the legacy for those submission.
          >>>> 2. I spoke to the family search folks recently about why they used
          >>>> Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File, given the multiple errors.
          >>>> They
          >>>> responded by saying they were aware of this problem and had many
          >>>> discussions
          >>>> about using these files. The main reason for using these files was
          >>>> that
          >>>> they were the only data bases that were pedigree based and linked
          >>>> families
          >>>> together. The hope was that people would be able to make corrections
          >>>> and
          >>>> fix the errors, or at least document the correct information.
          >>>> 3. If any temple work was accomplished for individuals with the
          >>>> incorrect
          >>>> information, you cannot correct it as it became a temple record.
          >>>> However,
          >>>> with proper documentation, you might be able to correct it. But that
          >>>> depends a lot on who you talk to in support. I have a person in my
          >>>> family
          >>>> tree who was extracted as the wrong sex and temple work was completed.
          >>>> Support said they would leave the incorrect information in the data
          >>>> base,
          >>>> just in case someone else resubmitted the name again. I redid the work
          >>>> for
          >>>> the correct gender.
          >>>> 4. When the program was released, there was a part of the program
          >>>> written
          >>>> to attempt to combine records of individuals who appeared to be the
          >>>> same.
          >>>> Unfortunately, this led to combining people who should not have been
          >>>> combined. I watch one record in my wife's line being combined with
          >>>> many
          >>>> other records that were not the same person. In the span of about an
          >>>> hour,
          >>>> the total of combined records went from about 700 records to almost 800
          >>>> records. The software engineers had to fix that one. I believe that
          >>>> this
          >>>> part of the program has been fixed and the program does not do any
          >>>> automatic
          >>>> combining.
          >>>> 5. Unfortunately, there are still people who believe they have the
          >>>> correct
          >>>> information about their families, which is incorrect. Because of this
          >>>> belief, they will combine records, thinking they have the correct
          >>>> information. One thing that I have noticed, as I do combining, it is
          >>>> hard
          >>>> to determine if you have the correct individuals when you are looking
          >>>> at
          >>>> marriage extraction records. This is due to the fact that marriage
          >>>> information is not shown when comparing individuals. I have to note
          >>>> the PID
          >>>> numbers for the two records and then back out of the combining process
          >>>> and
          >>>> look at the individuals separately to note marriage dates and any other
          >>>> information to see if they are the same individuals. If I can
          >>>> determine
          >>>> that they are the same, then I return to combine them. This can be a
          >>>> slow
          >>>> process.
          >>>> 6. As far as the third-party software is concerned, I have not had any
          >>>> difficulty determining if records are for the same individuals, except
          >>>> for
          >>>> marriage extraction, as noted above. I use Ancestral Quest, and it
          >>>> provides
          >>>> a dual screen for the possible duplicates that is very similar to what
          >>>> you
          >>>> would see in the program itself.
          >>>> 7. Recently, I was looking at the training modules for nFS on the
          >>>> consultant website and noticed that the module for combining states
          >>>> that if
          >>>> the records you are looking at appear to the same, even though there
          >>>> are
          >>>> differences in the information presented, you should go ahead and
          >>>> combine
          >>>> the records. This may lead to people combining records that should not
          >>>> be
          >>>> combined.
          >>>> These are just some of my observations. If you notice some records
          >>>> that
          >>>> keep getting combined and uncombined, you could put a "Watch" on them
          >>>> so you
          >>>> are notified when changes are made to specific individuals.
          >>>>
          >>>> Len Ingermanson
          >>>>
          >>>>
          >>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Dan Taysom<taysomd@...> wrote:
          >>>>
          >>>>> **
          >>>>>
          >>>>>
          >>>>> Ahh, but you are assuming that the eyes are connected to the brain and
          >>>>> that
          >>>>> the person decides to use a little bit of brain power to think about
          >>>>> what
          >>>>> they are about to do. Many (most?) people do make the effort to
          >>>>> understand
          >>>>> what they are doing and what the effects will be.
          >>>>>
          >>>>> Unfortunately, there are also some people who approach it from the
          >>>>> perspective that 'since the [infinately smarter than me] computer
          >>>>> suggested
          >>>>> these 2 people might be the same, then they must be, and I will
          >>>>> combine
          >>>>> them
          >>>>> without looking at the details'. Sometimes these types of people are
          >>>>> willing to be educated when they are found, however some won't.
          >>>>>
          >>>>> On the otherhand I haven't met anything that can match a computer in
          >>>>> making
          >>>>> massive changes to data when told to do so by a user/programmer.
          >>>>> Having
          >>>>> done a bit of programming, I can guarantee it is easy to write a
          >>>>> program
          >>>>> that on the face of it will really make life better, only to find out
          >>>>> during
          >>>>> de-bugging that if run as written it would really mess things up.
          >>>>>
          >>>>> So, I guess I'm suggesting that it is mostly a people problem at some
          >>>>> level
          >>>>> whether it be the 'I don't care' user or the programmer with a not
          >>>>> quite
          >>>>> completely debugged program. I would personally tilt towards the 'I
          >>>>> don't
          >>>>> care user' as the main problem, but could be convinced otherwise.
          >>>>>
          >>>>> :-)
          >>>>>
          >>>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Venita Roylance<venitar@...>
          >>>>> wrote:
          >>>>>
          >>>>>> Hi Dan,
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> You are right! There have been plenty of bad combinations from the
          >>>>>> beginning. Like you, I have been using the program since the beta
          >>>>> versions,
          >>>>>> long before it was released to anyone. (I needed to learn how to use
          >>>>>> it
          >>>>> so
          >>>>>> I could teach it to other missionaries like myself.) I don't remember
          >>>>>> exactly when I cleaned up the line I'm referring to, but it was
          >>>>>> before
          >>>>> the
          >>>>>> program was released in the Utah temple districts. I have 'dropped
          >>>>>> in' on
          >>>>>> it from time to time since then, but did not see the mess I'm seeing
          >>>>>> now.
          >>>>>> There was an occasional re-combination of one or two records, but not
          >>>>>> effecting every individual, and not as many really odd records as
          >>>>>> there
          >>>>> is
          >>>>>> now. Surely human eyes and a human brain would not make the
          >>>>>> combinations
          >>>>>> that I'm trying to sort out.
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> Thanks for your $0.02!
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> Venita
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Dan Taysom wrote:
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>> I'm not throwing eggs, but in my experience the phenominum of
          >>>>>>> bungled
          >>>>>> (bad)
          >>>>>>> combinations vastly pre-dates the third party software being able to
          >>>>>>> do
          >>>>>>> these things.
          >>>>>>>
          >>>>>>> I don't know when you received access to nFS, but I was able to use
          >>>>>>> it
          >>>>>> long
          >>>>>>> before it was turned on for the majority of folks and before the 3rd
          >>>>>> party
          >>>>>>> software was able to make any changes and I can guarantee you that
          >>>>> there
          >>>>>>> were a lot of really badly combined records back then. So I would
          >>>>>>> say
          >>>>>> that
          >>>>>>> it is more of a people problem (inattention to detail) which may or
          >>>>>>> may
          >>>>>> not
          >>>>>>> be compounded by software regardless of whether software is involved
          >>>>>>> or
          >>>>>>> not. It seemed that as each new group of people gained access to
          >>>>>>> nFS,
          >>>>>> some
          >>>>>>> of the problem records got recombined all over again after they were
          >>>>>>> separated& cleaned up.
          >>>>>>>
          >>>>>>> Some records seem to be magnets for getting messed up over& over
          >>>>>>> again
          >>>>> I
          >>>>>>> think in large part because they have similarities to each other so
          >>>>> that
          >>>>>> if
          >>>>>>> a person is not looking closely, they may get combined again, and
          >>>>> again.
          >>>>>>> just my $0.02
          >>>>>>>
          >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Venita Roylance<venitar@...>
          >>>>> wrote:
          >>>>>>>> I may have eggs thrown at my house for even suggesting such a
          >>>>>>>> thing,
          >>>>>> but
          >>>>>>>> here goes. Does anyone else think that part of the cause of the
          >>>>> problem
          >>>>>> of
          >>>>>>>> the many records which have been combined in error may be the
          >>>>>>>> result
          >>>>> of
          >>>>>>>> "third party software" users who use their third party software to
          >>>>>> combine
          >>>>>>>> records rather than looking directly at the possible duplicate
          >>>>> records
          >>>>>> in
          >>>>>>>> nFS? Before the third party, interactive with nFS, software came
          >>>>>>>> out,
          >>>>> I
          >>>>>> had
          >>>>>>>> checked all of my Danish ancestral families' records and had them
          >>>>>> cleaned
          >>>>>>>> up. Just this past week I have been working with them again and
          >>>>>>>> found
          >>>>>> every
          >>>>>>>> single individual's records munged with other records - records of
          >>>>>> people
          >>>>>>>> with different names, people with the same name, people from a
          >>>>>> different
          >>>>>>>> part of Denmark, people born in another decade, people married in a
          >>>>>>>> different place, people from a different Scandinavian country, etc.
          >>>>>> etc.
          >>>>>>>> Somehow, the records were combined in error since the last time I
          >>>>>> looked at
          >>>>>>>> them.
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>> I hate to think that a living person looked at the data on two
          >>>>>> completely
          >>>>>>>> different records with human eyes and a human brain and saw how
          >>>>>> different
          >>>>>>>> they were, yet still said to themselves, "Yep, this is the same
          >>>>>>>> guy,"
          >>>>>> and
          >>>>>>>> combined them! It looks like computer errors to me. I've already
          >>>>> spent
          >>>>>>>> three days working on the parents and grandparents of just one
          >>>>> family,
          >>>>>> and I
          >>>>>>>> haven't started on their children yet. Some of the combinations
          >>>>>>>> have
          >>>>>> been
          >>>>>>>> re-sorted into five or more different individuals, some with the
          >>>>>>>> same
          >>>>>> names,
          >>>>>>>> some with different names. There are many people in Denmark who
          >>>>>>>> have
          >>>>>> the
          >>>>>>>> same names, and who have even married spouses with the same names,
          >>>>> and
          >>>>>> may
          >>>>>>>> have even lived in the same parish. That's exactly the reason that
          >>>>> very
          >>>>>>>> close scrutiny needs to be used before combining possible
          >>>>>>>> duplicates.
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>> To quote one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Pogo the
          >>>>> Possum:
          >>>>>>>> "We have met the enemy and he is us."
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>> Venita
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2011, at 6:40 AM, Rebecca Christensen wrote:
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>> It appears there was a glitch with Sue's message.
          >>>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>> It's not the combining that is time-consuming. It is the
          >>>>>>>>> separating
          >>>>>> that
          >>>>>>>> has taken way more time. Combining takes minutes in comparison to
          >>>>>>>> the
          >>>>>> hours
          >>>>>>>> it takes cleaning up records that have been combined erroneously.
          >>>>>>>> You
          >>>>>> would
          >>>>>>>> think people would know that William, James, Richard, and John are
          >>>>>> different
          >>>>>>>> people and not combine them (over and over again). A little thought
          >>>>> on
          >>>>>> the
          >>>>>>>> part of the combiners would go a long way. It's really frustrating
          >>>>>>>> to
          >>>>>>>> separate and clean up the records time and time again.
          >>>>>>>>> Rebecca Christensen
          >>>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>> --- On Fri, 9/2/11, Sue Barnsley<sbarnsley@...> wrote:
          >>>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>> From: Sue Barnsley<sbarnsley@...>
          >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Class title
          >>>>>>>>> To: "FHCNET@yahoogroups.com"<FHCNET@yahoogroups.com>
          >>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, September 2, 2011, 9:40 PM
          >>>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>> When this program is released to the non member community, are we
          >>>>>>>> expecting them to waste countless hours combining as well?
          >>>>>>>>> Sent from Toro my iPhone
          >>>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>> or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroupsYahoo! Groups
          >>>>> Links
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>>
          >>>>>>> --
          >>>>>>> Dan Taysom
          >>>>>>> taysomd@...
          >>>>>>>
          >>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>>>>>>
          >>>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> ------------------------------------
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroupsYahoo! Groups
          >>>>>> Links
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>> --
          >>>>> Dan Taysom
          >>>>> taysomd@...
          >>
          >>
          >> ------------------------------------
          >>
          >> or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroupsYahoo! Groups Links
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > or send blank email to FHCNET-subscribe@yahoogroupsYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.