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

Re: Training for FH center staff and Family History Consultants

Expand Messages
  • kathryngz
    Could I add a caution? I would be very, very careful about encouraging others (especially youth) to use a 3rd-party program to find names for temple work, just
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Could I add a caution? I would be very, very careful about encouraging
      others (especially youth) to use a 3rd-party program to find names for temple
      work, just as I would be extremely careful about assuming that any name I
      found in Family Tree was ready for temple work, even if the ordinances appear
      not to have been done. Like many of you, I've found quite a few duplicates
      that Family Tree doesn't recognize as duplicates.

      For example, many English parish registers were extracted and the names
      submitted to the temple. A christening extraction will have the name of the
      child, the christening date and location (sometimes the birth date), and the
      parents' names only--no other information is usually given, not even the
      mother's maiden name.

      Later, that same child's marriage record is likely to have been extracted,
      but because it lists the spouse and not the parents, and has little or no
      birth information, Family Tree usually doesn't realize it's the same person.
      A researcher is only likely to make this connection if they've been
      careful and thorough in their research.

      I've also found people that were clearly entered as a result of careless
      research: for example, children born before parents, or couples with children
      born when the parents are close to 100 years old.

      A 3rd-party program could work as a finding aid, but every name should be
      carefully verified before being cleared for ordinances.

      My 2 cents :)

      Kathryn



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Paul Walworth
      The 3rd party software does provide a way to double check so that should not be a problem I keep hearing about. If FamilyTree has a problem then that needs to
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        The 3rd party software does provide a way to double check so that should not be a problem I keep hearing about. If FamilyTree has a problem then that needs to be corrected as new.familysearch.org will not be much use very soon.  

        I do not expect that duplications will all go away until such problems are corrected. No matter what system is used there will still be this problem as even vital records are many times wrong even as much as 10 years.  Just with in my family they use an S or not and I have found in new.familysearch.org the same person many times over.


        It pays to use caution all the time but if we stop doing the work because we feel that that persons records are already done a lot will never get done.  My own father's recorders had to be done again even after I brought the dates and temple the work had been done.  These were taken straight from new.familysearch.org and printed out to show them to the records desk.  Because our Temple could not find those records I had to do them again.  I am not complaining as that was a very wonderful experience even with knowing his work was already completed. 

        Thanks
        Paul


        ________________________________



         
        Could I add a caution? I would be very, very careful about encouraging
        others (especially youth) to use a 3rd-party program to find names for temple
        work, just as I would be extremely careful about assuming that any name I
        found in Family Tree was ready for temple work, even if the ordinances appear
        not to have been done. Like many of you, I've found quite a few duplicates
        that Family Tree doesn't recognize as duplicates.

        For example, many English parish registers were extracted and the names
        submitted to the temple. A christening extraction will have the name of the
        child, the christening date and location (sometimes the birth date), and the
        parents' names only--no other information is usually given, not even the
        mother's maiden name.

        Later, that same child's marriage record is likely to have been extracted,
        but because it lists the spouse and not the parents, and has little or no
        birth information, Family Tree usually doesn't realize it's the same person.
        A researcher is only likely to make this connection if they've been
        careful and thorough in their research.

        I've also found people that were clearly entered as a result of careless
        research: for example, children born before parents, or couples with children
        born when the parents are close to 100 years old.

        A 3rd-party program could work as a finding aid, but every name should be
        carefully verified before being cleared for ordinances.

        My 2 cents :)

        Kathryn



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • kathryngz
        Paul, I think maybe my original email wasn t as clear as it could have been, and I apologize. I ll try to clarify. You mentioned 3rd party software provides a
        Message 3 of 24 , Mar 11, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Paul,

          I think maybe my original email wasn't as clear as it could have been, and
          I apologize. I'll try to clarify.

          You mentioned 3rd party software provides a way to double-check potential
          duplicates, but that's my very point...based on my experience, neither 3rd
          party software nor Family Tree catches *many* of the duplicates. While I
          expect we'll see improvement over time, we also shouldn't expect a computer
          program to catch every duplicate (and I speak from programming
          experience--the search algorithms used by these programs are incredibly complex and
          honestly it's amazing they do so well!)

          I ran across another example just today. My mom had stumbled upon duplicate
          records for our British ancestor, Gilbert Ernest Bright, in old
          FamilySearch (she had the old printouts from the version before nFS!) However, when I
          brought up one record in FT this morning and clicked the Duplicates link,
          no duplicates came up. Well, when I went back to Search and just searched
          on the name (which thankfully is quite unique), the duplicate came right up
          and I was able to combine the records.

          Why didn't it come up when I clicked the Duplicate link? I don't know for
          sure, but the differences were that one record had a birth date and the
          other had a christening date (they were in the same parish and within days of
          each other, though the parish name was written slightly differently in each
          record); and on one record the father's first name was listed as Edmond
          when it should have been Edward. But everything else was the same and we know
          they are the same person.

          Again, this is not an unusual experience. I frequently find duplicates that
          the system doesn't realize are duplicates.

          I also didn't mean to imply we should stop doing work because of the chance
          of duplicates; rather, when our 3rd party program finds names that
          apparently need temple work, we shouldn't accept that at face value--and we should
          caution others against doing so. Instead, we should do reasonable research
          and even a bit of manual checking for duplicates. It's a small investment
          that can save a lot of time doing duplicate ordinances (which keeps those
          who really need these ordinances from receiving them).

          Kathryn

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • James W Anderson
          There was a problem probably around the 830pm MDT time window last night with the main FamilySearch site and its search function, would not bring anything up
          Message 4 of 24 , Mar 11, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            There was a problem probably around the 830pm MDT time window last night with the main FamilySearch site and its search function, would not bring anything up and threw an error message regarding the server for the records database, so it's possible they were working on FT searching also and had to take that down in order to work on both.

            So it may be that the Tree, in part, was not able to access what it needed while they did the work.
             



            ________________________________
            From: "kgrant100@..." <kgrant100@...>
            To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:27 AM
            Subject: [FHCNET] Re: Training for FH center staff and Family History Consultants


             
            Paul,

            I think maybe my original email wasn't as clear as it could have been, and
            I apologize. I'll try to clarify.

            You mentioned 3rd party software provides a way to double-check potential
            duplicates, but that's my very point...based on my experience, neither 3rd
            party software nor Family Tree catches *many* of the duplicates. While I
            expect we'll see improvement over time, we also shouldn't expect a computer
            program to catch every duplicate (and I speak from programming
            experience--the search algorithms used by these programs are incredibly complex and
            honestly it's amazing they do so well!)

            I ran across another example just today. My mom had stumbled upon duplicate
            records for our British ancestor, Gilbert Ernest Bright, in old
            FamilySearch (she had the old printouts from the version before nFS!) However, when I
            brought up one record in FT this morning and clicked the Duplicates link,
            no duplicates came up. Well, when I went back to Search and just searched
            on the name (which thankfully is quite unique), the duplicate came right up
            and I was able to combine the records.

            Why didn't it come up when I clicked the Duplicate link? I don't know for
            sure, but the differences were that one record had a birth date and the
            other had a christening date (they were in the same parish and within days of
            each other, though the parish name was written slightly differently in each
            record); and on one record the father's first name was listed as Edmond
            when it should have been Edward. But everything else was the same and we know
            they are the same person.

            Again, this is not an unusual experience. I frequently find duplicates that
            the system doesn't realize are duplicates.

            I also didn't mean to imply we should stop doing work because of the chance
            of duplicates; rather, when our 3rd party program finds names that
            apparently need temple work, we shouldn't accept that at face value--and we should
            caution others against doing so. Instead, we should do reasonable research
            and even a bit of manual checking for duplicates. It's a small investment
            that can save a lot of time doing duplicate ordinances (which keeps those
            who really need these ordinances from receiving them).

            Kathryn

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Paul Walworth
            Kathryn, I agree and also believe for many 3rd party programs may be the only way many will be able to find family names to take to the temple. Thanks Paul
            Message 5 of 24 , Mar 11, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Kathryn,

              I agree and also believe for many 3rd party programs may be the only way many will be able to find family names to take to the temple.

              Thanks
              Paul




              ________________________________
              From: "kgrant100@..." <kgrant100@...>
              To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:27 AM
              Subject: [FHCNET] Re: Training for FH center staff and Family History Consultants


               
              Paul,

              I think maybe my original email wasn't as clear as it could have been, and
              I apologize. I'll try to clarify.

              You mentioned 3rd party software provides a way to double-check potential
              duplicates, but that's my very point...based on my experience, neither 3rd
              party software nor Family Tree catches *many* of the duplicates. While I
              expect we'll see improvement over time, we also shouldn't expect a computer
              program to catch every duplicate (and I speak from programming
              experience--the search algorithms used by these programs are incredibly complex and
              honestly it's amazing they do so well!)

              I ran across another example just today. My mom had stumbled upon duplicate
              records for our British ancestor, Gilbert Ernest Bright, in old
              FamilySearch (she had the old printouts from the version before nFS!) However, when I
              brought up one record in FT this morning and clicked the Duplicates link,
              no duplicates came up. Well, when I went back to Search and just searched
              on the name (which thankfully is quite unique), the duplicate came right up
              and I was able to combine the records.

              Why didn't it come up when I clicked the Duplicate link? I don't know for
              sure, but the differences were that one record had a birth date and the
              other had a christening date (they were in the same parish and within days of
              each other, though the parish name was written slightly differently in each
              record); and on one record the father's first name was listed as Edmond
              when it should have been Edward. But everything else was the same and we know
              they are the same person.

              Again, this is not an unusual experience. I frequently find duplicates that
              the system doesn't realize are duplicates.

              I also didn't mean to imply we should stop doing work because of the chance
              of duplicates; rather, when our 3rd party program finds names that
              apparently need temple work, we shouldn't accept that at face value--and we should
              caution others against doing so. Instead, we should do reasonable research
              and even a bit of manual checking for duplicates. It's a small investment
              that can save a lot of time doing duplicate ordinances (which keeps those
              who really need these ordinances from receiving them).

              Kathryn

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Venita
              In my experience, the best way to find missing ordinances in FT is to check each of my ancestral families, one family at a time, making additions and
              Message 6 of 24 , Mar 11, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                In my experience, the best way to find missing ordinances in FT is to check each of my ancestral families, one family at a time, making additions and corrections, and looking for duplicates along the way. If there are still missing ordinances I can add the names to my temple file. I do it the old fashioned way - two windows open on my desktop, one for FS/FT and the other for my personal data. It works for me!

                Venita

                On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:27 AM, kgrant100@... wrote:

                > Paul,
                >
                > I think maybe my original email wasn't as clear as it could have been, and
                > I apologize. I'll try to clarify.
                >
                > You mentioned 3rd party software provides a way to double-check potential
                > duplicates, but that's my very point...based on my experience, neither 3rd
                > party software nor Family Tree catches *many* of the duplicates. While I
                > expect we'll see improvement over time, we also shouldn't expect a computer
                > program to catch every duplicate (and I speak from programming
                > experience--the search algorithms used by these programs are incredibly complex and
                > honestly it's amazing they do so well!)
                >
                > I ran across another example just today. My mom had stumbled upon duplicate
                > records for our British ancestor, Gilbert Ernest Bright, in old
                > FamilySearch (she had the old printouts from the version before nFS!) However, when I
                > brought up one record in FT this morning and clicked the Duplicates link,
                > no duplicates came up. Well, when I went back to Search and just searched
                > on the name (which thankfully is quite unique), the duplicate came right up
                > and I was able to combine the records.
                >
                > Why didn't it come up when I clicked the Duplicate link? I don't know for
                > sure, but the differences were that one record had a birth date and the
                > other had a christening date (they were in the same parish and within days of
                > each other, though the parish name was written slightly differently in each
                > record); and on one record the father's first name was listed as Edmond
                > when it should have been Edward. But everything else was the same and we know
                > they are the same person.
                >
                > Again, this is not an unusual experience. I frequently find duplicates that
                > the system doesn't realize are duplicates.
                >
                > I also didn't mean to imply we should stop doing work because of the chance
                > of duplicates; rather, when our 3rd party program finds names that
                > apparently need temple work, we shouldn't accept that at face value--and we should
                > caution others against doing so. Instead, we should do reasonable research
                > and even a bit of manual checking for duplicates. It's a small investment
                > that can save a lot of time doing duplicate ordinances (which keeps those
                > who really need these ordinances from receiving them).
                >
                > Kathryn
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • maxine nelson
                I went through all that when FS came out, and again when more centers were opened. I was hoping there was an easier way to do it. ... maxine nelson
                Message 7 of 24 , Mar 11, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  I went through all that when FS came out, and again when more centers were opened. I was hoping there was an easier way to do it.

                  On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Venita wrote:

                  > In my experience, the best way to find missing ordinances in FT is to check each of my ancestral families, one family at a time, making additions and corrections, and looking for duplicates along the way. If there are still missing ordinances I can add the names to my temple file. I do it the old fashioned way - two windows open on my desktop, one for FS/FT and the other for my personal data. It works for me!
                  >
                  > Venita


                  >
                  >

                  maxine nelson
                  mmnelson@...






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • DL Melville
                  Does anyone still use Custom Reports in their Records Managements software to identify ordinance work that still needs to be completed?  Does any use in
                  Message 8 of 24 , Mar 11, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Does anyone still use "Custom Reports" in their Records Managements software to identify ordinance work that still needs to be completed?  Does any use "in progress" or "reserved" in their personal data so that by using "Custom Reports" they can follow up on work that gets completed by others or by temple assignments?  Does anyone still use "sub ddmmmyyyy" in their personal data for names they submit for temple work - and "reconcile" their list with the Temple tab in Family Tree?  just wondering?  Seems like this is still a viable way to manage temple work.
                     
                    your thoughts
                    DL Melville

                    From: maxine nelson <mmnelson@...>
                    To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:16 PM
                    Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Training for FH center staff and Family History Consultants

                     
                    I went through all that when FS came out, and again when more centers were opened. I was hoping there was an easier way to do it.

                    On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Venita wrote:

                    > In my experience, the best way to find missing ordinances in FT is to check each of my ancestral families, one family at a time, making additions and corrections, and looking for duplicates along the way. If there are still missing ordinances I can add the names to my temple file. I do it the old fashioned way - two windows open on my desktop, one for FS/FT and the other for my personal data. It works for me!
                    >
                    > Venita

                    >
                    >

                    maxine nelson
                    mailto:mmnelson%40st-tel.net

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Paul Walworth
                    Kathryn, Yes, the same for NFS for some of my lines nothing would show but once I had added more information they would be there.  I would think that if I
                    Message 9 of 24 , Mar 12, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Kathryn,

                      Yes, the same for NFS for some of my lines nothing would show but once I had added more information they would be there.  I would think that if I just typed in the name it would give me more choices but this is not the case.  Using familysearch.org as well as other sites that provide more records has been a great help in not only filling in the holes but making it easier to find those family members and at times correcting the mistakes.   

                      Using FamilyTree has been so much better as I did have one man who NFS had given him 3 parents and 5 wives and removing the wrong parents and wives was much easier, but I also found I had to disconnect them in my genealogy program then in FamilyTree.  At least this seemed to work for me. 

                      I found that limited information has caused some of those errors and I am one who has made the wrong assumption at times.  Even when the persons name is long and unusual there are persons with the same name, close locations and even at times dates, that are different people.  So yes all need to check and double check.  I have even found people who in NFS were born, married and died on the same date having up to 10+ children, I call them mosquitoes.

                      I have also found people that are in NFS because of extraction that have been there for many years but due to not enough information.  I am happy they seem to have stopped having some of their temple work completed as this has also added duplications to the system.

                      Thanks for your post

                      Paul




                      ________________________________
                      From: "kgrant100@..." <kgrant100@...>
                      To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:42 AM
                      Subject: [FHCNET] Re: Training for FH center staff and Family History Consultants


                       
                      Thanks for letting us know about the system glitches. As it happens, though, I was searching for duplicates in the morning, not at night at the time you mentioned. And as I mentioned, it's a *frequent* occurrence.

                      It happened again just last night with a different name for a different reason. I had carefully searched for Henrietta Wells born in Essex, England, in 1844, but no likely matches came up. But I had a feeling she was in the system. Following a hunch (prompting :) ), I found and proved her marriage, then searched again. There she was, in FT linked to her husband with no birth information. I'm sure that's why FT didn't realize she was already in the system.

                      I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, criticize FT (or anyone at all!), or recommend we make research onerous for new researchers. Rather, I'm trying to be realistic and accurate, and encourage us to teach new researchers to do the same. I hope my sincere meaning is coming across.

                      On my mission, my mission president used to ask us to evaluate our actions by imagining what the consequences would be if many people were doing those actions, not just us. So imagine many, many members throughout the church being told, erroneously, that they they could accept at face value FT or their 3rd party program telling them names are ready when in fact the work has already been done. The work would be slowed down rather than hastened.

                      Hope these thoughts are helpful--

                      Kathryn

                      Sent from my HTC Evo on the Now Network from Sprint!

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




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