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

RE: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?

Expand Messages
  • sm99923
    Terry, The official FamilySearch approach to sorting out the combined temple ordinance data was outlined a year ago in the white paper Managing Ordinances in
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Terry,



      The official FamilySearch approach to sorting out the combined temple
      ordinance data was outlined a year ago in the white paper "Managing
      Ordinances in Family Tree"



      http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilySearch/FamilyTree/
      pdf/familyTreeOrdinancesWhitepaper.pdf



      ===Stewart



      From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      tmason1
      Sent: 08 July 2013 18:16
      To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?





      Leslie,

      Although I am first generation LDS I have many names which have been
      erroneously combined as you have described.

      The way that Family Tree is currently structured, the summary view setting
      in the new.FamilySearch database will be the presenting information in the
      Family Tree view.

      If there are multiple individuals hidden within the inner records of a
      person in nFS when the summary view is set that default will negate the data
      for the others. Before, although it was not always possible, often in nFS we
      could separate the inner others. Also Ancestor Split which was a feature of
      FamilyInsight software would do the separating even better.

      All of this ability to separate inner records has been turned off and now
      when one default person is chosen for the Family Tree database the others
      are just buried. New.FamilySearch database will be available as a read-only
      resource in the future but we are left at this time with the only option of
      having to enter the data for the inner person as if we were entering them
      for the first time. We will continue to be hampered from correcting some of
      this data until the new.FamilySeach database is separated from the Family
      Tree database.

      The draw back as of June 30, is that we have no way of linking the temple
      ordinances data to your entry of a replacement person. Patrons can no longer
      submit temple ordinance information through third party software anymore nor
      through using GEDCOM submissions. That is a good thing because only temple
      records should be the source of temple ordinances.

      I've tried to correct four (4) such problems identical to what you have
      described. I discovered that even though I remove the incorrect individual
      the temple ordinances from the incorrect person stick. So my 4th great
      grandfather who was born in Tennesse whose ordinances which were done in
      1989 have been replaced with the ordinances for someone born in Wales whose
      ordinances were done in 1892.

      Only support missionary Shanna Jones has responded to this issue by
      explaining that a temple ordinance database will be available to us in the
      future to resolve this problem. I've had nothing official about this even in
      the Get Satisfaction dialogues. This seems to be another case of running
      faster than we have strength or of stated in another way, of wanting
      resolution to our problem today with tools which will not be available until
      after September.

      I even sent a card with all the correct ordinances on it trying to get Data
      Quality Administration to correct incorrect ordinance dates. Their reply
      states:

      [Quote] You have asked us to correct information in new FamilySearch or
      Family Tree. Often, correcting information in new FamilySearch or Family
      Tree involves combining or separating records in new FamilySearch.
      Currently, combining and separating records in new FamilySearch causes the
      records in Family Tree to reset to what is in new FamilySearch. This has the
      potential to reverse any changes made to the records in Family Tree. In
      order to preserve the work that you and other patrons have done in Family
      Tree, we are currently not separating or combining records in new
      FamilySearch. Family Tree is continuously being improved to allow patrons to
      independently resolve data inaccuracies and issues in their family
      pedigrees. Part of this improvement will also involve better tools for
      FamilySearch to resolve data challenges patrons are not able to address
      themselves. We ask for your patience as we wait for these tools to be
      completed and become available to us. [End quote]

      So Leslie, the bottom line answer to your problem is but a temporary fix.
      Recreate your William. Then reserve for you to do his ordinances but keep
      that submission in your family file and do not process duplicating
      ordinances. Wait for the Temple Ordinance database to become available where
      you can then select to attach your William's ordinances to his data. This is
      but another reason for us to keep our data in our own personal computer
      software programs.

      Terry Mason
      Clermon, FL
      -------------------





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Len Ingermanson
      There have been a number of points brought up in this discussion. First, the quote that Terry mentioned is a general statement that is sent out concerning
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        There have been a number of points brought up in this discussion. First,
        the quote that Terry mentioned is a general statement that is sent out
        concerning requests by patrons to separate miscombined records. Currently,
        there are 2-3000 such cases that are on hold until a program is completed
        to separate records in such a manner that information is not lost and each
        individual is separated as intact as possible. So, Leslie, if you have not
        done so, yet, send in a request to separate the records, identifying the
        records of each separate individual by PID. Do not use the record number
        along the top of the Combined Records page, because, when you separate one
        individual all those numbers will change.
        Second, Venita suggested that there be a warning message that pops up when
        the Delete Person link is selected. The answer, there is a warning that is
        displayed. It states that all Couple Relationships and Parent-Child
        Relationships will be deleted, It says that there are Discussions, Possible
        Duplicates, Sources and Temple Ordinances that will also be affected.
        Then it says "It is recommended that you delete people only if you added a
        person by mistake or if the person never existed." Then it asks to enter a
        reason why you want to delete the person. However, how often do we read
        the warning? Good news! There is a way to restore the person, but you can
        only do this if you know the ID number of the person deleted. You CANNOT
        search for the person by name. If you do restore the person, all the
        information that was deleted will be restored. We had a missionary enter
        source information, photos, stories and all other vital information to
        substantiate the existence of an ancestor. This record was an IOUS and
        there are many other records that are also IOUS records for the same person
        that cannot be merged, at this time. Someone else came along and because
        they could not merge the records, deleted the record the missionary had
        meticulously worked on. The missionary was pretty upset, however, she knew
        the ID number and was able to restore the person along with all the extra
        information.
        Third, although Leslie did not delete the individual, but the delete the
        relationship, this has brought up an important issue. If there is anything
        that all of you who are FHC Directors, Consultants, etc can do, please
        teach people the difference between Delete Person and Delete Relationship.
        Delete person should only be used to delete a person you, as an individual,
        entered in error. Or you can prove that the person never existed. We have
        also been told that this does not include individuals who were enter with
        the wrong gender, IF temple ordinances have been completed. In this case,
        this person needs to be sent to Support with records showing the correct
        gender and asking that the gender be corrected. They should Not be deleted.
        I hope we can all learn and then turn around and instruct others how to use
        these functions correctly.

        Len Ingermanson


        On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, <stew999@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Terry,
        >
        > The official FamilySearch approach to sorting out the combined temple
        > ordinance data was outlined a year ago in the white paper "Managing
        > Ordinances in Family Tree"
        >
        >
        > http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilySearch/FamilyTree/
        > pdf/familyTreeOrdinancesWhitepaper.pdf
        >
        >
        > ===Stewart
        >
        > From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        > tmason1
        > Sent: 08 July 2013 18:16
        >
        > To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
        >
        > Leslie,
        >
        > Although I am first generation LDS I have many names which have been
        > erroneously combined as you have described.
        >
        > The way that Family Tree is currently structured, the summary view setting
        > in the new.FamilySearch database will be the presenting information in the
        > Family Tree view.
        >
        > If there are multiple individuals hidden within the inner records of a
        > person in nFS when the summary view is set that default will negate the
        > data
        > for the others. Before, although it was not always possible, often in nFS
        > we
        > could separate the inner others. Also Ancestor Split which was a feature of
        > FamilyInsight software would do the separating even better.
        >
        > All of this ability to separate inner records has been turned off and now
        > when one default person is chosen for the Family Tree database the others
        > are just buried. New.FamilySearch database will be available as a read-only
        > resource in the future but we are left at this time with the only option of
        > having to enter the data for the inner person as if we were entering them
        > for the first time. We will continue to be hampered from correcting some of
        > this data until the new.FamilySeach database is separated from the Family
        > Tree database.
        >
        > The draw back as of June 30, is that we have no way of linking the temple
        > ordinances data to your entry of a replacement person. Patrons can no
        > longer
        > submit temple ordinance information through third party software anymore
        > nor
        > through using GEDCOM submissions. That is a good thing because only temple
        > records should be the source of temple ordinances.
        >
        > I've tried to correct four (4) such problems identical to what you have
        > described. I discovered that even though I remove the incorrect individual
        > the temple ordinances from the incorrect person stick. So my 4th great
        > grandfather who was born in Tennesse whose ordinances which were done in
        > 1989 have been replaced with the ordinances for someone born in Wales whose
        > ordinances were done in 1892.
        >
        > Only support missionary Shanna Jones has responded to this issue by
        > explaining that a temple ordinance database will be available to us in the
        > future to resolve this problem. I've had nothing official about this even
        > in
        > the Get Satisfaction dialogues. This seems to be another case of running
        > faster than we have strength or of stated in another way, of wanting
        > resolution to our problem today with tools which will not be available
        > until
        > after September.
        >
        > I even sent a card with all the correct ordinances on it trying to get Data
        > Quality Administration to correct incorrect ordinance dates. Their reply
        > states:
        >
        > [Quote] You have asked us to correct information in new FamilySearch or
        > Family Tree. Often, correcting information in new FamilySearch or Family
        > Tree involves combining or separating records in new FamilySearch.
        > Currently, combining and separating records in new FamilySearch causes the
        > records in Family Tree to reset to what is in new FamilySearch. This has
        > the
        > potential to reverse any changes made to the records in Family Tree. In
        > order to preserve the work that you and other patrons have done in Family
        > Tree, we are currently not separating or combining records in new
        > FamilySearch. Family Tree is continuously being improved to allow patrons
        > to
        > independently resolve data inaccuracies and issues in their family
        > pedigrees. Part of this improvement will also involve better tools for
        > FamilySearch to resolve data challenges patrons are not able to address
        > themselves. We ask for your patience as we wait for these tools to be
        > completed and become available to us. [End quote]
        >
        > So Leslie, the bottom line answer to your problem is but a temporary fix.
        > Recreate your William. Then reserve for you to do his ordinances but keep
        > that submission in your family file and do not process duplicating
        > ordinances. Wait for the Temple Ordinance database to become available
        > where
        > you can then select to attach your William's ordinances to his data. This
        > is
        > but another reason for us to keep our data in our own personal computer
        > software programs.
        >
        > Terry Mason
        > Clermon, FL
        > -------------------
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • tmason1
        Stewart, Thank you for referring to the Managing Ordinances in Family Tree white paper. I did not know it existed. In that white paper it refers twice to
        Message 3 of 26 , Jul 8, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Stewart,

          Thank you for referring to the "Managing Ordinances in Family Tree" white paper. I did not know it existed.

          In that white paper it refers twice to another white paper titled "Dealing with Duplicate Records of People in Family Tree which can be found at https://help.familysearch.org/publishing/attachments/114120_ffamilyTreeDuplicatesWhitepaper.pdf

          The logic in the paper about duplicate records is flawed because it buries the "inner hidden persons" who have been incorrectly combined and requires the patron to recreate them.

          There has been some discussion that Family Tree will somehow identify and allow users to retrieve those inner hidden persons by identifying them as deleted persons.

          Are you aware of any progress on this feature? I hope it could work much like the Ancestor Split program that was developed by OhanaSoftware.

          Terry Mason
          Clermont FL

          --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, <stew999@...> wrote:
          >
          > Terry,
          >
          > The official FamilySearch approach to sorting out the combined temple ordinance data was outlined a year ago in the white paper "Managing Ordinances in Family Tree"
          >
          http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilySearch/FamilyTree/pdf/familyTreeOrdinancesWhitepaper.pdf
          >
          > ===Stewart
        • Allan Hale
          However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of Hijacking . The
          Message 4 of 26 , Jul 8, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of "Hijacking". The "other" person/persons that are combined in that record are now missing from those other pedigrees. They are buried in that Hijacked record. The proper way to correct those records is to separate the record into their separate parts. That way ordinances go with the proper record and original relationships are retained.

            Yes this will mess up the "corrected" record but it will bring back the original assertions. Now if those assertions are incorrect as to relationships, dates and places they can be corrected and sourced. When that record is still buried in the miss-combined record all that stuff is lost.

            Follow the instructions in "A record has information for more than one person (106612)"
            .
            Allan Hale


             


            ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
            If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
            addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
            when forwarding to several people at once.
            Be kind to our email friends.



            >________________________________
            > From: Len Ingermanson <len438@...>
            >To: fhcnet <FHCNET@yahoogroups.com>
            >Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 7:46 PM
            >Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
            >
            >
            >There have been a number of points brought up in this discussion.  First,
            >the quote that Terry mentioned is a general statement that is sent out
            >concerning requests by patrons to separate miscombined records.  Currently,
            >there are 2-3000 such cases that are on hold until a program is completed
            >to separate records in such a manner that information is not lost and each
            >individual is separated as intact as possible.  So, Leslie, if you have not
            >done so, yet, send in a request to separate the records, identifying the
            >records of each separate individual by PID.  Do not use the record number
            >along the top of the Combined Records page, because, when you separate one
            >individual all those numbers will change.
            >Second, Venita suggested that there be a warning message that pops up when
            >the Delete Person link is selected.  The answer, there is a warning that is
            >displayed.  It states that all Couple Relationships and Parent-Child
            >Relationships will be deleted, It says that there are Discussions, Possible
            >Duplicates, Sources and  Temple Ordinances that will also be affected.
            >Then it says "It is recommended that you delete people only if you added a
            >person by mistake or if the person never existed."  Then it asks to enter a
            >reason why you want to delete the person.  However, how often do we read
            >the warning?  Good news! There is a way to restore the person, but you can
            >only do this if you know the ID number of the person deleted.  You CANNOT
            >search for the person by name.  If you do restore the person, all the
            >information that was deleted will be restored.  We had a missionary enter
            >source information, photos, stories and all other vital information to
            >substantiate the existence of an ancestor.  This record was an IOUS and
            >there are many other records that are also IOUS records for the same person
            >that cannot be merged, at this time.  Someone else came along and because
            >they could not merge the records, deleted the record the missionary had
            >meticulously worked on.  The missionary was pretty upset, however, she knew
            >the ID number and was able to restore the person along with all the extra
            >information.
            >Third, although Leslie did not delete the individual, but the delete the
            >relationship, this has brought up an important issue.  If there is anything
            >that all of you who are FHC Directors, Consultants, etc can do, please
            >teach people the difference between Delete Person and Delete Relationship.
            >Delete person should only be used to delete a person you, as an individual,
            >entered in error.  Or you can prove that the person never existed.  We have
            >also been told that this does not include individuals who were enter with
            >the wrong gender, IF temple ordinances have been completed.  In this case,
            >this person needs to be sent to Support with records showing the correct
            >gender and asking that the gender be corrected.  They should Not be deleted.
            >I hope we can all learn and then turn around and instruct others how to use
            >these functions correctly.
            >
            >Len Ingermanson
            >
            >
            >On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, <stew999@...> wrote:
            >
            >> **
            >>
            >>
            >> Terry,
            >>
            >> The official FamilySearch approach to sorting out the combined temple
            >> ordinance data was outlined a year ago in the white paper "Managing
            >> Ordinances in Family Tree"
            >>
            >>
            >> http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilySearch/FamilyTree/
            >> pdf/familyTreeOrdinancesWhitepaper.pdf
            >>
            >>
            >> ===Stewart
            >>
            >> From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
            >> tmason1
            >> Sent: 08 July 2013 18:16
            >>
            >> To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
            >> Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
            >>
            >> Leslie,
            >>
            >> Although I am first generation LDS I have many names which have been
            >> erroneously combined as you have described.
            >>
            >> The way that Family Tree is currently structured, the summary view setting
            >> in the new.FamilySearch database will be the presenting information in the
            >> Family Tree view.
            >>
            >> If there are multiple individuals hidden within the inner records of a
            >> person in nFS when the summary view is set that default will negate the
            >> data
            >> for the others. Before, although it was not always possible, often in nFS
            >> we
            >> could separate the inner others. Also Ancestor Split which was a feature of
            >> FamilyInsight software would do the separating even better.
            >>
            >> All of this ability to separate inner records has been turned off and now
            >> when one default person is chosen for the Family Tree database the others
            >> are just buried. New.FamilySearch database will be available as a read-only
            >> resource in the future but we are left at this time with the only option of
            >> having to enter the data for the inner person as if we were entering them
            >> for the first time. We will continue to be hampered from correcting some of
            >> this data until the new.FamilySeach database is separated from the Family
            >> Tree database.
            >>
            >> The draw back as of June 30, is that we have no way of linking the temple
            >> ordinances data to your entry of a replacement person. Patrons can no
            >> longer
            >> submit temple ordinance information through third party software anymore
            >> nor
            >> through using GEDCOM submissions. That is a good thing because only temple
            >> records should be the source of temple ordinances.
            >>
            >> I've tried to correct four (4) such problems identical to what you have
            >> described. I discovered that even though I remove the incorrect individual
            >> the temple ordinances from the incorrect person stick. So my 4th great
            >> grandfather who was born in Tennesse whose ordinances which were done in
            >> 1989 have been replaced with the ordinances for someone born in Wales whose
            >> ordinances were done in 1892.
            >>
            >> Only support missionary Shanna Jones has responded to this issue by
            >> explaining that a temple ordinance database will be available to us in the
            >> future to resolve this problem. I've had nothing official about this even
            >> in
            >> the Get Satisfaction dialogues. This seems to be another case of running
            >> faster than we have strength or of stated in another way, of wanting
            >> resolution to our problem today with tools which will not be available
            >> until
            >> after September.
            >>
            >> I even sent a card with all the correct ordinances on it trying to get Data
            >> Quality Administration to correct incorrect ordinance dates. Their reply
            >> states:
            >>
            >> [Quote] You have asked us to correct information in new FamilySearch or
            >> Family Tree. Often, correcting information in new FamilySearch or Family
            >> Tree involves combining or separating records in new FamilySearch.
            >> Currently, combining and separating records in new FamilySearch causes the
            >> records in Family Tree to reset to what is in new FamilySearch. This has
            >> the
            >> potential to reverse any changes made to the records in Family Tree. In
            >> order to preserve the work that you and other patrons have done in Family
            >> Tree, we are currently not separating or combining records in new
            >> FamilySearch. Family Tree is continuously being improved to allow patrons
            >> to
            >> independently resolve data inaccuracies and issues in their family
            >> pedigrees. Part of this improvement will also involve better tools for
            >> FamilySearch to resolve data challenges patrons are not able to address
            >> themselves. We ask for your patience as we wait for these tools to be
            >> completed and become available to us. [End quote]
            >>
            >> So Leslie, the bottom line answer to your problem is but a temporary fix.
            >> Recreate your William. Then reserve for you to do his ordinances but keep
            >> that submission in your family file and do not process duplicating
            >> ordinances. Wait for the Temple Ordinance database to become available
            >> where
            >> you can then select to attach your William's ordinances to his data. This
            >> is
            >> but another reason for us to keep our data in our own personal computer
            >> software programs.
            >>
            >> Terry Mason
            >> Clermon, FL
            >> -------------------
            >>
            >> [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
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Allan Hale
            Thank you Terry. That is exactly my point!!   ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~ If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email addresses before you send it on and use
            Message 5 of 26 , Jul 8, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you Terry. That is exactly my point!!


               


              ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
              If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
              addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
              when forwarding to several people at once.
              Be kind to our email friends.



              >________________________________
              > From: tmason1 <tmason1@...>
              >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
              >Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 11:07 PM
              >Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
              >
              >
              >

              >Stewart,
              >
              >Thank you for referring to the "Managing Ordinances in Family Tree" white paper. I did not know it existed.
              >
              >In that white paper it refers twice to another white paper titled "Dealing with Duplicate Records of People in Family Tree which can be found at https://help.familysearch.org/publishing/attachments/114120_ffamilyTreeDuplicatesWhitepaper.pdf
              >
              >The logic in the paper about duplicate records is flawed because it buries the "inner hidden persons" who have been incorrectly combined and requires the patron to recreate them.
              >
              >There has been some discussion that Family Tree will somehow identify and allow users to retrieve those inner hidden persons by identifying them as deleted persons.
              >
              >Are you aware of any progress on this feature? I hope it could work much like the Ancestor Split program that was developed by OhanaSoftware.
              >
              >Terry Mason
              >Clermont FL
              >
              >--- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, <stew999@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> Terry,
              >>
              >> The official FamilySearch approach to sorting out the combined temple ordinance data was outlined a year ago in the white paper "Managing Ordinances in Family Tree"
              >>
              >http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilySearch/FamilyTree/pdf/familyTreeOrdinancesWhitepaper.pdf
              >>
              >> ===Stewart
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • jbohai
              Some cases of conflated identity are much older than new.FamilySearch. Anyone submitting a name where details were borrowed from someone with the same name
              Message 6 of 26 , Jul 9, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Some cases of conflated identity are much older than new.FamilySearch. Anyone submitting a name where details were borrowed from someone with the same name created a hijacked record. I have one case that's a century old. It wasn't until the IGI went online that most of us had any way to check on the mistakes that had been made.

                --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Allan Hale <fatherhale@...> wrote:
                >
                > However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of "Hijacking". The "other" person/persons that are combined in that record are now missing from those other pedigrees. They are buried in that Hijacked record. The proper way to correct those records is to separate the record into their separate parts. That way ordinances go with the proper record and original relationships are retained.
                >
                > Yes this will mess up the "corrected" record but it will bring back the original assertions. Now if those assertions are incorrect as to relationships, dates and places they can be corrected and sourced. When that record is still buried in the miss-combined record all that stuff is lost.
                >
                > Follow the instructions in "A record has information for more than one person (106612)"
                > .
                > Allan Hale
                >
                >
                >  
                >
                >
                > ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
                > If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
                > addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
                > when forwarding to several people at once.
                > Be kind to our email friends.
                >
                >
                >
                > >________________________________
                > > From: Len Ingermanson <len438@...>
                > >To: fhcnet <FHCNET@yahoogroups.com>
                > >Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 7:46 PM
                > >Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                > >
                > >
                > >There have been a number of points brought up in this discussion.  First,
                > >the quote that Terry mentioned is a general statement that is sent out
                > >concerning requests by patrons to separate miscombined records.  Currently,
                > >there are 2-3000 such cases that are on hold until a program is completed
                > >to separate records in such a manner that information is not lost and each
                > >individual is separated as intact as possible.  So, Leslie, if you have not
                > >done so, yet, send in a request to separate the records, identifying the
                > >records of each separate individual by PID.  Do not use the record number
                > >along the top of the Combined Records page, because, when you separate one
                > >individual all those numbers will change.
                > >Second, Venita suggested that there be a warning message that pops up when
                > >the Delete Person link is selected.  The answer, there is a warning that is
                > >displayed.  It states that all Couple Relationships and Parent-Child
                > >Relationships will be deleted, It says that there are Discussions, Possible
                > >Duplicates, Sources and  Temple Ordinances that will also be affected.
                > >Then it says "It is recommended that you delete people only if you added a
                > >person by mistake or if the person never existed."  Then it asks to enter a
                > >reason why you want to delete the person.  However, how often do we read
                > >the warning?  Good news! There is a way to restore the person, but you can
                > >only do this if you know the ID number of the person deleted.  You CANNOT
                > >search for the person by name.  If you do restore the person, all the
                > >information that was deleted will be restored.  We had a missionary enter
                > >source information, photos, stories and all other vital information to
                > >substantiate the existence of an ancestor.  This record was an IOUS and
                > >there are many other records that are also IOUS records for the same person
                > >that cannot be merged, at this time.  Someone else came along and because
                > >they could not merge the records, deleted the record the missionary had
                > >meticulously worked on.  The missionary was pretty upset, however, she knew
                > >the ID number and was able to restore the person along with all the extra
                > >information.
                > >Third, although Leslie did not delete the individual, but the delete the
                > >relationship, this has brought up an important issue.  If there is anything
                > >that all of you who are FHC Directors, Consultants, etc can do, please
                > >teach people the difference between Delete Person and Delete Relationship.
                > >Delete person should only be used to delete a person you, as an individual,
                > >entered in error.  Or you can prove that the person never existed.  We have
                > >also been told that this does not include individuals who were enter with
                > >the wrong gender, IF temple ordinances have been completed.  In this case,
                > >this person needs to be sent to Support with records showing the correct
                > >gender and asking that the gender be corrected.  They should Not be deleted.
                > >I hope we can all learn and then turn around and instruct others how to use
                > >these functions correctly.
                > >
                > >Len Ingermanson
                > >
                > >
                > >On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, <stew999@...> wrote:
                > >
                > >> **
                > >>
                > >>
                > >> Terry,
                > >>
                > >> The official FamilySearch approach to sorting out the combined temple
                > >> ordinance data was outlined a year ago in the white paper "Managing
                > >> Ordinances in Family Tree"
                > >>
                > >>
                > >> http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilySearch/FamilyTree/
                > >> pdf/familyTreeOrdinancesWhitepaper.pdf
                > >>
                > >>
                > >> ===Stewart
                > >>
                > >> From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                > >> tmason1
                > >> Sent: 08 July 2013 18:16
                > >>
                > >> To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                > >> Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                > >>
                > >> Leslie,
                > >>
                > >> Although I am first generation LDS I have many names which have been
                > >> erroneously combined as you have described.
                > >>
                > >> The way that Family Tree is currently structured, the summary view setting
                > >> in the new.FamilySearch database will be the presenting information in the
                > >> Family Tree view.
                > >>
                > >> If there are multiple individuals hidden within the inner records of a
                > >> person in nFS when the summary view is set that default will negate the
                > >> data
                > >> for the others. Before, although it was not always possible, often in nFS
                > >> we
                > >> could separate the inner others. Also Ancestor Split which was a feature of
                > >> FamilyInsight software would do the separating even better.
                > >>
                > >> All of this ability to separate inner records has been turned off and now
                > >> when one default person is chosen for the Family Tree database the others
                > >> are just buried. New.FamilySearch database will be available as a read-only
                > >> resource in the future but we are left at this time with the only option of
                > >> having to enter the data for the inner person as if we were entering them
                > >> for the first time. We will continue to be hampered from correcting some of
                > >> this data until the new.FamilySeach database is separated from the Family
                > >> Tree database.
                > >>
                > >> The draw back as of June 30, is that we have no way of linking the temple
                > >> ordinances data to your entry of a replacement person. Patrons can no
                > >> longer
                > >> submit temple ordinance information through third party software anymore
                > >> nor
                > >> through using GEDCOM submissions. That is a good thing because only temple
                > >> records should be the source of temple ordinances.
                > >>
                > >> I've tried to correct four (4) such problems identical to what you have
                > >> described. I discovered that even though I remove the incorrect individual
                > >> the temple ordinances from the incorrect person stick. So my 4th great
                > >> grandfather who was born in Tennesse whose ordinances which were done in
                > >> 1989 have been replaced with the ordinances for someone born in Wales whose
                > >> ordinances were done in 1892.
                > >>
                > >> Only support missionary Shanna Jones has responded to this issue by
                > >> explaining that a temple ordinance database will be available to us in the
                > >> future to resolve this problem. I've had nothing official about this even
                > >> in
                > >> the Get Satisfaction dialogues. This seems to be another case of running
                > >> faster than we have strength or of stated in another way, of wanting
                > >> resolution to our problem today with tools which will not be available
                > >> until
                > >> after September.
                > >>
                > >> I even sent a card with all the correct ordinances on it trying to get Data
                > >> Quality Administration to correct incorrect ordinance dates. Their reply
                > >> states:
                > >>
                > >> [Quote] You have asked us to correct information in new FamilySearch or
                > >> Family Tree. Often, correcting information in new FamilySearch or Family
                > >> Tree involves combining or separating records in new FamilySearch.
                > >> Currently, combining and separating records in new FamilySearch causes the
                > >> records in Family Tree to reset to what is in new FamilySearch. This has
                > >> the
                > >> potential to reverse any changes made to the records in Family Tree. In
                > >> order to preserve the work that you and other patrons have done in Family
                > >> Tree, we are currently not separating or combining records in new
                > >> FamilySearch. Family Tree is continuously being improved to allow patrons
                > >> to
                > >> independently resolve data inaccuracies and issues in their family
                > >> pedigrees. Part of this improvement will also involve better tools for
                > >> FamilySearch to resolve data challenges patrons are not able to address
                > >> themselves. We ask for your patience as we wait for these tools to be
                > >> completed and become available to us. [End quote]
                > >>
                > >> So Leslie, the bottom line answer to your problem is but a temporary fix.
                > >> Recreate your William. Then reserve for you to do his ordinances but keep
                > >> that submission in your family file and do not process duplicating
                > >> ordinances. Wait for the Temple Ordinance database to become available
                > >> where
                > >> you can then select to attach your William's ordinances to his data. This
                > >> is
                > >> but another reason for us to keep our data in our own personal computer
                > >> software programs.
                > >>
                > >> Terry Mason
                > >> Clermon, FL
                > >> -------------------
                > >>
                > >> [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
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Marian Johnson
                A related White Paper - This Doesn t Look Like My Ancestor can be found here:
                Message 7 of 26 , Jul 9, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  A related White Paper - "This Doesn't Look Like My Ancestor" can be found here: http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilySearch/FamilyTree/pdf/familyTreeNotMyAncestorWhitepaper.pdf


                  --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, "tmason1" <tmason1@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Stewart,
                  >
                  > Thank you for referring to the "Managing Ordinances in Family Tree" white paper. I did not know it existed.
                  >
                  > In that white paper it refers twice to another white paper titled "Dealing with Duplicate Records of People in Family Tree which can be found at https://help.familysearch.org/publishing/attachments/114120_ffamilyTreeDuplicatesWhitepaper.pdf
                  >
                  > The logic in the paper about duplicate records is flawed because it buries the "inner hidden persons" who have been incorrectly combined and requires the patron to recreate them.
                  >
                  > There has been some discussion that Family Tree will somehow identify and allow users to retrieve those inner hidden persons by identifying them as deleted persons.
                  >
                  > Are you aware of any progress on this feature? I hope it could work much like the Ancestor Split program that was developed by OhanaSoftware.
                  >
                  > Terry Mason
                  > Clermont FL
                  >
                  > --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, <stew999@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Terry,
                  > >
                  > > The official FamilySearch approach to sorting out the combined temple ordinance data was outlined a year ago in the white paper "Managing Ordinances in Family Tree"
                  > >
                  > http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilySearch/FamilyTree/pdf/familyTreeOrdinancesWhitepaper.pdf
                  > >
                  > > ===Stewart
                  >
                • Robert Givens
                  Allen - Unfortunately the instructions for separating records (106612) are no longer operable. The problem is you as a patron can not separate records and
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jul 9, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Allen - Unfortunately the instructions for separating records (106612) are no longer operable. The problem is you as a patron can not separate records and Tier 3 won't do it either (except in rare cases) as to do that often undoes all the work patrons have done in Tree to clean up their families. It actually undoes the unlinking and relinking that people have done in Tree.

                    The best thing to do at this point is to use nFS - combined records to identify who the messed up person best represents and that identity in Tree. Make versions of the other miscombined people and put them in Tree if you can figure out who they really are. It you can and they already exist just don't worry.

                    Tools for Tree are being developed to help us with this problem. One will all you as a patron to see ordinances and locate a "missing" ordinance that was done for your ancestor. The other (and the crux of the issue in point) will allow Tier 3 to connect those missing ordinances to the right people. Just be patient.

                    There is a time and place for everything and right now is the time to build the correct pedigrees. Until that mess is resolved, trying to connect missing ordinances to people can't really be done accurately.

                    A lot of the problems right now with this issue is that the way this problem is being handled is no longer correctly detailed in the knowledge base. Things change so fast that the knowledge base can't keep up with everything.

                    Bob Givens

                    --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Allan Hale <fatherhale@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of "Hijacking". The "other" person/persons that are combined in that record are now missing from those other pedigrees. They are buried in that Hijacked record. The proper way to correct those records is to separate the record into their separate parts. That way ordinances go with the proper record and original relationships are retained.
                    >
                    > Yes this will mess up the "corrected" record but it will bring back the original assertions. Now if those assertions are incorrect as to relationships, dates and places they can be corrected and sourced. When that record is still buried in the miss-combined record all that stuff is lost.
                    >
                    > Follow the instructions in "A record has information for more than one person (106612)"
                    > .
                    > Allan Hale
                  • tmason1
                    I view the premise of Knowledge Document 106612 as a backward step. Over and over I have tried to apply the principle outlined in this document. I have
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jul 9, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I view the premise of Knowledge Document 106612 as a backward step.

                      Over and over I have tried to apply the principle outlined in this document.

                      I have struggled with defining the problem of an inner hidden person well enough in words that a support missionary understands the problem. The Amdoc program which they use does not allow for hypertext message which can include screen shot images. A picture is worth a thousand words.

                      Then I find that the lack of clarification skills in the missionary creates another layer of problems.

                      Then IF and when the missionary tries to refer my case on to Data Quality Administration, the missionary often will reword my case presentation and in their private messages to DQ you can find that they make mistakes.

                      Finally when Data Quality get the case in about half the instances they wind up misinterpreting the problem.

                      There is no feedback method in the flow of providing quality responses to the Data Quality department. In other words, they do not have the time, enough information or maybe the skills to understand the problem and provide the correct solution. Their job positions them to have an attitude which sometimes causes them to second guess the patron's decision instead of providing the requested service.

                      The process outlined in KD:106612 seems flawed to me because it takes away my agency to make a decision and to correct the misinformation myself. My action should be governed by research, citing source documentation and use of the discussion feature. Knowledge document 106612 returns the department to the level of an agency which controls the results.

                      In Allan Packer's devotional presentation at RootTech 2013, he indicated that in 1976, a pivotal decision was made that the family history department was not responsible for providing the ordinances for our family members. From that point, it has been emphasized that we, the members, must verify the accurancy of our records and that we are responsible to take our family names to the temple. It was at that point in 1976 that the decision was made that the department was to be devoted to serving the needs of members in this responsibilty instead of overseering the process.

                      To me, to put the Data Quality Administration in charge of separating the inner hidden persons buried within the PID number in new.FamilySearch is not in harmony with Elder Packer's instruction.

                      Bottom line: In Family Tree there must be a means where once the patron has identified an inner hidden person, that the program will allow the user (not DQ) to retrieve those inner hidden persons and link them to entries in the temple ordinance database.

                      Terry Mason
                      Clermont FL

                      --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Allan Hale <fatherhale@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of "Hijacking". The "other" person/persons that are combined in that record are now missing from those other pedigrees. They are buried in that Hijacked record. The proper way to correct those records is to separate the record into their separate parts. That way ordinances go with the proper record and original relationships are retained.
                      >
                      > Yes this will mess up the "corrected" record but it will bring back the original assertions. Now if those assertions are incorrect as to relationships, dates and places they can be corrected and sourced. When that record is still buried in the miss-combined record all that stuff is lost.
                      >
                      > Follow the instructions in "A record has information for more than one person (106612)"
                      >
                      > Allan Hale
                    • Shanna Jones
                      From Using the FamilySearch Family Tree: A Reference Guide (29 May 2013) You may need to fix wrong information that was created when the wrong records were
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jul 9, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From "Using the FamilySearch Family Tree: A Reference Guide (29 May 2013)

                        You may need to fix wrong information that was created when the wrong
                        records were incorrectly combined in new.familysearch.org.

                        Family Tree brings over only some of the data from new.FamilySearch.org. For
                        example,

                        * In new.familysearch.org, a person's record can have multiple
                        versions of the name. One version is selected as the correct one on the
                        Summary tab. When the information is transferred, Family Tree uses the
                        version that is selected on the person's Summary tab as the main name. The
                        variations appear as alternate names.
                        * In new.familysearch.org can have multiple versions of a person's
                        birth, christening, death, and burial information. Family Tree has only one
                        version. When the information is transferred, Family Tree keeps the version
                        that is selected on the person's Summary tab. The variations do not come
                        over.

                        In new.FamilySearch.org, when records are combined or separated, the
                        information on the Summary tab can change. As a result, the wrong
                        information may be transferred to Family Tree.

                        When you find incorrect information in Family Tree, do the following:

                        * Correct the incorrect information in Family Tree. If you need to
                        view the details of the record, go to new.FamilySearch.org, and display the
                        combined record.
                        * In Family Tree, check the possible duplicates, and merge duplicate
                        persons.
                        * Indicate persons who are "not a match" to prevent the records from
                        being merged incorrectly in the future.

                        -----

                        Don't worry about splitting ancestors. They do want people to create a
                        duplicate and move the incorrect relationships over to that person. They are
                        working on a tool that will allow us to request ordinances be moved from one
                        person to another (results in a support case). They are aware that
                        duplication rates may increase for a time until they have the
                        temple-moving-case-creator tool available.



                        Think of the community of users without knowledge of ordinance implications.
                        Just fix the relationships, reserve if you must, until the new tool is
                        available and then this problem will be alleviated.



                        Hang in there!

                        Shanna





                        From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                        tmason1
                        Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:32 AM
                        To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?





                        I view the premise of Knowledge Document 106612 as a backward step.

                        Over and over I have tried to apply the principle outlined in this document.

                        I have struggled with defining the problem of an inner hidden person well
                        enough in words that a support missionary understands the problem. The Amdoc
                        program which they use does not allow for hypertext message which can
                        include screen shot images. A picture is worth a thousand words.

                        Then I find that the lack of clarification skills in the missionary creates
                        another layer of problems.

                        Then IF and when the missionary tries to refer my case on to Data Quality
                        Administration, the missionary often will reword my case presentation and in
                        their private messages to DQ you can find that they make mistakes.

                        Finally when Data Quality get the case in about half the instances they wind
                        up misinterpreting the problem.

                        There is no feedback method in the flow of providing quality responses to
                        the Data Quality department. In other words, they do not have the time,
                        enough information or maybe the skills to understand the problem and provide
                        the correct solution. Their job positions them to have an attitude which
                        sometimes causes them to second guess the patron's decision instead of
                        providing the requested service.

                        The process outlined in KD:106612 seems flawed to me because it takes away
                        my agency to make a decision and to correct the misinformation myself. My
                        action should be governed by research, citing source documentation and use
                        of the discussion feature. Knowledge document 106612 returns the department
                        to the level of an agency which controls the results.

                        In Allan Packer's devotional presentation at RootTech 2013, he indicated
                        that in 1976, a pivotal decision was made that the family history department
                        was not responsible for providing the ordinances for our family members.
                        From that point, it has been emphasized that we, the members, must verify
                        the accurancy of our records and that we are responsible to take our family
                        names to the temple. It was at that point in 1976 that the decision was made
                        that the department was to be devoted to serving the needs of members in
                        this responsibilty instead of overseering the process.

                        To me, to put the Data Quality Administration in charge of separating the
                        inner hidden persons buried within the PID number in new.FamilySearch is not
                        in harmony with Elder Packer's instruction.

                        Bottom line: In Family Tree there must be a means where once the patron has
                        identified an inner hidden person, that the program will allow the user (not
                        DQ) to retrieve those inner hidden persons and link them to entries in the
                        temple ordinance database.

                        Terry Mason
                        Clermont FL

                        --- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com> , Allan Hale
                        <fatherhale@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the
                        record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of
                        "Hijacking". The "other" person/persons that are combined in that record are
                        now missing from those other pedigrees. They are buried in that Hijacked
                        record. The proper way to correct those records is to separate the record
                        into their separate parts. That way ordinances go with the proper record and
                        original relationships are retained.
                        >
                        > Yes this will mess up the "corrected" record but it will bring back the
                        original assertions. Now if those assertions are incorrect as to
                        relationships, dates and places they can be corrected and sourced. When that
                        record is still buried in the miss-combined record all that stuff is lost.
                        >
                        > Follow the instructions in "A record has information for more than one
                        person (106612)"
                        >
                        > Allan Hale





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Allan Hale
                        Bob I beg to differ. They have a backlog of cases of over 2200 waiting for a tool. However, the solution is to attempt to make the ordinances look correct. I
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jul 9, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bob

                          I beg to differ. They have a backlog of cases of over 2200 waiting for a tool. However, the solution is to attempt to make the ordinances look correct. I have not seen the tool but this is what they are telling us. I believe that the more cases we send them with separating the records as the solution the more likely they are to solve it that way. The problem is that they are getting heat from those who "fix" the record by trimming off the offending parents/spouse/children. This leaves a hole in the other pedigree/pedigrees that is not of that patrons interest as it is not their family. When the record is separated the other pedigree are maintained (they may have incorrect information but that can be corrected by that family when ever they are ready to research it. IF the record is left buried in the "fixed" one then that work (research/ordinances/whatever) is lost. I believe that this is just plain wrong. Politically correct but still wrong!!

                          Allan Hale


                           


                          ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
                          If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
                          addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
                          when forwarding to several people at once.
                          Be kind to our email friends.



                          >________________________________
                          > From: Robert Givens <regivens1120@...>
                          >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                          >Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:02 AM
                          >Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                          >
                          >
                          >

                          >Allen - Unfortunately the instructions for separating records (106612) are no longer operable. The problem is you as a patron can not separate records and Tier 3 won't do it either (except in rare cases) as to do that often undoes all the work patrons have done in Tree to clean up their families. It actually undoes the unlinking and relinking that people have done in Tree.
                          >
                          >The best thing to do at this point is to use nFS - combined records to identify who the messed up person best represents and that identity in Tree. Make versions of the other miscombined people and put them in Tree if you can figure out who they really are. It you can and they already exist just don't worry.
                          >
                          >Tools for Tree are being developed to help us with this problem. One will all you as a patron to see ordinances and locate a "missing" ordinance that was done for your ancestor. The other (and the crux of the issue in point) will allow Tier 3 to connect those missing ordinances to the right people. Just be patient.
                          >
                          >There is a time and place for everything and right now is the time to build the correct pedigrees. Until that mess is resolved, trying to connect missing ordinances to people can't really be done accurately.
                          >
                          >A lot of the problems right now with this issue is that the way this problem is being handled is no longer correctly detailed in the knowledge base. Things change so fast that the knowledge base can't keep up with everything.
                          >
                          >Bob Givens
                          >
                          >--- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Allan Hale <fatherhale@...> wrote:
                          >>
                          >> However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of "Hijacking". The "other" person/persons that are combined in that record are now missing from those other pedigrees. They are buried in that Hijacked record. The proper way to correct those records is to separate the record into their separate parts. That way ordinances go with the proper record and original relationships are retained.
                          >>
                          >> Yes this will mess up the "corrected" record but it will bring back the original assertions. Now if those assertions are incorrect as to relationships, dates and places they can be corrected and sourced. When that record is still buried in the miss-combined record all that stuff is lost.
                          >>
                          >> Follow the instructions in "A record has information for more than one person (106612)"
                          >> .
                          >> Allan Hale
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Allan Hale
                          Terry I agree. The fact that we the people should be able to separate the several people in the record is absolutely vital to the validity of this database. We
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jul 9, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Terry

                            I agree. The fact that we the people should be able to separate the several people in the record is absolutely vital to the validity of this database. We are the ones who are doing the research! We had the ability with Ancestor Split from Ohanasoftware. This tool in the hands of an experienced user can solve the problem as I have done it many times. However, it became Politically Incorrect when our correction ruined a persons Hijacked record and he had to redo his corrections. The department is bowing to the hijackers rather than fixing the problem.

                            I use both 106612 and 111642 to package my case. My latest case was sent back to me with the PC comments and I sent it right back stating that I had already done their work for them and all they had to do was to forward it to DQ. However, I did discover that there were three cases created (probably by me because my memory is failing me) and I had to fix that. I will in the future suffer the wrath of my leadership and create my own cases and dispatch them.

                            We have NOT been told to stop sending in these kinds of cases so I will dig harder and keep sending my own work. I believe in the squeaky wheel affect. The more we prove our point the quicker we will get if fixed. I hope that the tool coming form engineering looks like Ancestral Split as that is a very well thought out tool and I have used it frequently to fix this very problem.

                            I and another missionary wrote white papers on this and they are different but relative. I have attached mine for review. Or maybe I did it before. Don't remember.


                             Allan Hale



                            ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
                            If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
                            addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
                            when forwarding to several people at once.
                            Be kind to our email friends.



                            >________________________________
                            > From: tmason1 <tmason1@...>
                            >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                            >Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:32 AM
                            >Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                            >
                            >
                            >

                            >I view the premise of Knowledge Document 106612 as a backward step.
                            >
                            >Over and over I have tried to apply the principle outlined in this document.
                            >
                            >I have struggled with defining the problem of an inner hidden person well enough in words that a support missionary understands the problem. The Amdoc program which they use does not allow for hypertext message which can include screen shot images. A picture is worth a thousand words.
                            >
                            >Then I find that the lack of clarification skills in the missionary creates another layer of problems.
                            >
                            >Then IF and when the missionary tries to refer my case on to Data Quality Administration, the missionary often will reword my case presentation and in their private messages to DQ you can find that they make mistakes.
                            >
                            >Finally when Data Quality get the case in about half the instances they wind up misinterpreting the problem.
                            >
                            >There is no feedback method in the flow of providing quality responses to the Data Quality department. In other words, they do not have the time, enough information or maybe the skills to understand the problem and provide the correct solution. Their job positions them to have an attitude which sometimes causes them to second guess the patron's decision instead of providing the requested service.
                            >
                            >The process outlined in KD:106612 seems flawed to me because it takes away my agency to make a decision and to correct the misinformation myself. My action should be governed by research, citing source documentation and use of the discussion feature. Knowledge document 106612 returns the department to the level of an agency which controls the results.
                            >
                            >In Allan Packer's devotional presentation at RootTech 2013, he indicated that in 1976, a pivotal decision was made that the family history department was not responsible for providing the ordinances for our family members. From that point, it has been emphasized that we, the members, must verify the accurancy of our records and that we are responsible to take our family names to the temple. It was at that point in 1976 that the decision was made that the department was to be devoted to serving the needs of members in this responsibilty instead of overseering the process.
                            >
                            >To me, to put the Data Quality Administration in charge of separating the inner hidden persons buried within the PID number in new.FamilySearch is not in harmony with Elder Packer's instruction.
                            >
                            >Bottom line: In Family Tree there must be a means where once the patron has identified an inner hidden person, that the program will allow the user (not DQ) to retrieve those inner hidden persons and link them to entries in the temple ordinance database.
                            >
                            >Terry Mason
                            >Clermont FL
                            >
                            >--- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com, Allan Hale <fatherhale@...> wrote:
                            >>
                            >> However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of "Hijacking". The "other" person/persons that are combined in that record are now missing from those other pedigrees. They are buried in that Hijacked record. The proper way to correct those records is to separate the record into their separate parts. That way ordinances go with the proper record and original relationships are retained.
                            >>
                            >> Yes this will mess up the "corrected" record but it will bring back the original assertions. Now if those assertions are incorrect as to relationships, dates and places they can be corrected and sourced. When that record is still buried in the miss-combined record all that stuff is lost.
                            >>
                            >> Follow the instructions in "A record has information for more than one person (106612)"
                            >>
                            >> Allan Hale
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Allan Hale
                            Shauna I believe that the following is a prevalent view in Family Tree about multiple persons represented in one record.  Creating a record for the buried
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jul 9, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Shauna

                              I believe that the following is a prevalent view in Family Tree about multiple persons represented in one record.  Creating a record for the buried record will require me much time and effort that I do not have as my record requires time that I already do not have. Why should I work on some one else's record.

                              People are selfish. Look at the many people who just click the green arrows in the pedigree and send them to the temple without further research. How many persons are pressured by their leadership to find a record to take to the temple and do not have the proper time to research and submit a name.

                              This list is riddled with people commenting about these problems all the time.

                              If we are going to fix it why no fix it correctly

                              Allan Hale


                               


                              ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
                              If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
                              addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
                              when forwarding to several people at once.
                              Be kind to our email friends.



                              >________________________________
                              > From: Shanna Jones <shannasjones@...>
                              >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                              >Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:55 AM
                              >Subject: RE: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                              >
                              >
                              >

                              >From "Using the FamilySearch Family Tree: A Reference Guide (29 May 2013)
                              >
                              >You may need to fix wrong information that was created when the wrong
                              >records were incorrectly combined in new.familysearch.org.
                              >
                              >Family Tree brings over only some of the data from new.FamilySearch.org. For
                              >example,
                              >
                              >* In new.familysearch.org, a person's record can have multiple
                              >versions of the name. One version is selected as the correct one on the
                              >Summary tab. When the information is transferred, Family Tree uses the
                              >version that is selected on the person's Summary tab as the main name. The
                              >variations appear as alternate names.
                              >* In new.familysearch.org can have multiple versions of a person's
                              >birth, christening, death, and burial information. Family Tree has only one
                              >version. When the information is transferred, Family Tree keeps the version
                              >that is selected on the person's Summary tab. The variations do not come
                              >over.
                              >
                              >In new.FamilySearch.org, when records are combined or separated, the
                              >information on the Summary tab can change. As a result, the wrong
                              >information may be transferred to Family Tree.
                              >
                              >When you find incorrect information in Family Tree, do the following:
                              >
                              >* Correct the incorrect information in Family Tree. If you need to
                              >view the details of the record, go to new.FamilySearch.org, and display the
                              >combined record.
                              >* In Family Tree, check the possible duplicates, and merge duplicate
                              >persons.
                              >* Indicate persons who are "not a match" to prevent the records from
                              >being merged incorrectly in the future.
                              >
                              >-----
                              >
                              >Don't worry about splitting ancestors. They do want people to create a
                              >duplicate and move the incorrect relationships over to that person. They are
                              >working on a tool that will allow us to request ordinances be moved from one
                              >person to another (results in a support case). They are aware that
                              >duplication rates may increase for a time until they have the
                              >temple-moving-case-creator tool available.
                              >
                              >Think of the community of users without knowledge of ordinance implications.
                              >Just fix the relationships, reserve if you must, until the new tool is
                              >available and then this problem will be alleviated.
                              >
                              >Hang in there!
                              >
                              >Shanna
                              >
                              >From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                              >tmason1
                              >Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:32 AM
                              >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                              >Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                              >
                              >I view the premise of Knowledge Document 106612 as a backward step.
                              >
                              >Over and over I have tried to apply the principle outlined in this document.
                              >
                              >I have struggled with defining the problem of an inner hidden person well
                              >enough in words that a support missionary understands the problem. The Amdoc
                              >program which they use does not allow for hypertext message which can
                              >include screen shot images. A picture is worth a thousand words.
                              >
                              >Then I find that the lack of clarification skills in the missionary creates
                              >another layer of problems.
                              >
                              >Then IF and when the missionary tries to refer my case on to Data Quality
                              >Administration, the missionary often will reword my case presentation and in
                              >their private messages to DQ you can find that they make mistakes.
                              >
                              >Finally when Data Quality get the case in about half the instances they wind
                              >up misinterpreting the problem.
                              >
                              >There is no feedback method in the flow of providing quality responses to
                              >the Data Quality department. In other words, they do not have the time,
                              >enough information or maybe the skills to understand the problem and provide
                              >the correct solution. Their job positions them to have an attitude which
                              >sometimes causes them to second guess the patron's decision instead of
                              >providing the requested service.
                              >
                              >The process outlined in KD:106612 seems flawed to me because it takes away
                              >my agency to make a decision and to correct the misinformation myself. My
                              >action should be governed by research, citing source documentation and use
                              >of the discussion feature. Knowledge document 106612 returns the department
                              >to the level of an agency which controls the results.
                              >
                              >In Allan Packer's devotional presentation at RootTech 2013, he indicated
                              >that in 1976, a pivotal decision was made that the family history department
                              >was not responsible for providing the ordinances for our family members.
                              >From that point, it has been emphasized that we, the members, must verify
                              >the accurancy of our records and that we are responsible to take our family
                              >names to the temple. It was at that point in 1976 that the decision was made
                              >that the department was to be devoted to serving the needs of members in
                              >this responsibilty instead of overseering the process.
                              >
                              >To me, to put the Data Quality Administration in charge of separating the
                              >inner hidden persons buried within the PID number in new.FamilySearch is not
                              >in harmony with Elder Packer's instruction.
                              >
                              >Bottom line: In Family Tree there must be a means where once the patron has
                              >identified an inner hidden person, that the program will allow the user (not
                              >DQ) to retrieve those inner hidden persons and link them to entries in the
                              >temple ordinance database.
                              >
                              >Terry Mason
                              >Clermont FL
                              >
                              >--- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com> , Allan Hale
                              ><fatherhale@...> wrote:
                              >>
                              >> However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the
                              >record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of
                              >"Hijacking". The "other" person/persons that are combined in that record are
                              >now missing from those other pedigrees. They are buried in that Hijacked
                              >record. The proper way to correct those records is to separate the record
                              >into their separate parts. That way ordinances go with the proper record and
                              >original relationships are retained.
                              >>
                              >> Yes this will mess up the "corrected" record but it will bring back the
                              >original assertions. Now if those assertions are incorrect as to
                              >relationships, dates and places they can be corrected and sourced. When that
                              >record is still buried in the miss-combined record all that stuff is lost.
                              >>
                              >> Follow the instructions in "A record has information for more than one
                              >person (106612)"
                              >>
                              >> Allan Hale
                              >
                              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • sm99923
                              Allan et al, I fear that you and a few others are brewing up a storm that will go nowhere . . . my interpretation of what is set out in the White Paper
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jul 10, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Allan et al,



                                I fear that you and a few others are brewing up a storm that will go nowhere . . . my interpretation of what is set out in the White Paper published a year ago is as follows:



                                · In FT we will not have any facility to separate ill-combined individuals.



                                · It is asked of us in FT to delete all invalid relationships – correct name, date and place data – add in sources for our data and merge any suitable duplicates. This effectively “re-defines” any individual – forget the combined history.
                                Personally, I mark such individuals (where I have deleted relationships) with the Watch feature – ensures that if anyone else takes a contrary view and does any further changes I will be notified and we can start communications about the issue.



                                · Following a suitable period for us to do this (although it is not stated in those terms) – the full list of temple data assigned to our individual will be provided together with the temple qualifying data – we can then inspect this and decide which are not applicable to our redefined individual – I expect that those that do apply to our individual (and there may be multiples due to previous valid combinations in nFS or valid merges in FT) will be subject to the previously stated church policy of using the earliest dated ordinance whether or not it was progressed by ourselves – I would expect the discarded non-matching ordinances together with their qualifying information to be released back into FT to facilitate their discovery and linking to better matched individuals (although I have not seen this stated in those terms).



                                This, in my view, is the best way forward and avoids any on-going arguments about the validity of combinations (and the validity of any un-combining).



                                Once again, in my view, continuing to do battle to restore features that were designed for nFS is a lost cause and I would not expect any result from FamilySearch . . . as they say . . . we all need to “get with the programme” and “stop hitting your head against the wall”.



                                ===Stewart













                                From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Allan Hale
                                Sent: 10 July 2013 07:04
                                To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?





                                Shauna

                                I believe that the following is a prevalent view in Family Tree about multiple persons represented in one record. Creating a record for the buried record will require me much time and effort that I do not have as my record requires time that I already do not have. Why should I work on some one else's record.

                                People are selfish. Look at the many people who just click the green arrows in the pedigree and send them to the temple without further research. How many persons are pressured by their leadership to find a record to take to the temple and do not have the proper time to research and submit a name.

                                This list is riddled with people commenting about these problems all the time.

                                If we are going to fix it why no fix it correctly

                                Allan Hale



                                ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
                                If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
                                addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
                                when forwarding to several people at once.
                                Be kind to our email friends.

                                >________________________________
                                > From: Shanna Jones <shannasjones@... <mailto:shannasjones%40msn.com> >
                                >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>
                                >Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:55 AM
                                >Subject: RE: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >From "Using the FamilySearch Family Tree: A Reference Guide (29 May 2013)
                                >
                                >You may need to fix wrong information that was created when the wrong
                                >records were incorrectly combined in new.familysearch.org.
                                >
                                >Family Tree brings over only some of the data from new.FamilySearch.org. For
                                >example,
                                >
                                >* In new.familysearch.org, a person's record can have multiple
                                >versions of the name. One version is selected as the correct one on the
                                >Summary tab. When the information is transferred, Family Tree uses the
                                >version that is selected on the person's Summary tab as the main name. The
                                >variations appear as alternate names.
                                >* In new.familysearch.org can have multiple versions of a person's
                                >birth, christening, death, and burial information. Family Tree has only one
                                >version. When the information is transferred, Family Tree keeps the version
                                >that is selected on the person's Summary tab. The variations do not come
                                >over.
                                >
                                >In new.FamilySearch.org, when records are combined or separated, the
                                >information on the Summary tab can change. As a result, the wrong
                                >information may be transferred to Family Tree.
                                >
                                >When you find incorrect information in Family Tree, do the following:
                                >
                                >* Correct the incorrect information in Family Tree. If you need to
                                >view the details of the record, go to new.FamilySearch.org, and display the
                                >combined record.
                                >* In Family Tree, check the possible duplicates, and merge duplicate
                                >persons.
                                >* Indicate persons who are "not a match" to prevent the records from
                                >being merged incorrectly in the future.
                                >
                                >-----
                                >
                                >Don't worry about splitting ancestors. They do want people to create a
                                >duplicate and move the incorrect relationships over to that person. They are
                                >working on a tool that will allow us to request ordinances be moved from one
                                >person to another (results in a support case). They are aware that
                                >duplication rates may increase for a time until they have the
                                >temple-moving-case-creator tool available.
                                >
                                >Think of the community of users without knowledge of ordinance implications.
                                >Just fix the relationships, reserve if you must, until the new tool is
                                >available and then this problem will be alleviated.
                                >
                                >Hang in there!
                                >
                                >Shanna
                                >
                                >From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
                                >tmason1
                                >Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:32 AM
                                >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>
                                >Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                                >
                                >I view the premise of Knowledge Document 106612 as a backward step.
                                >
                                >Over and over I have tried to apply the principle outlined in this document.
                                >
                                >I have struggled with defining the problem of an inner hidden person well
                                >enough in words that a support missionary understands the problem. The Amdoc
                                >program which they use does not allow for hypertext message which can
                                >include screen shot images. A picture is worth a thousand words.
                                >
                                >Then I find that the lack of clarification skills in the missionary creates
                                >another layer of problems.
                                >
                                >Then IF and when the missionary tries to refer my case on to Data Quality
                                >Administration, the missionary often will reword my case presentation and in
                                >their private messages to DQ you can find that they make mistakes.
                                >
                                >Finally when Data Quality get the case in about half the instances they wind
                                >up misinterpreting the problem.
                                >
                                >There is no feedback method in the flow of providing quality responses to
                                >the Data Quality department. In other words, they do not have the time,
                                >enough information or maybe the skills to understand the problem and provide
                                >the correct solution. Their job positions them to have an attitude which
                                >sometimes causes them to second guess the patron's decision instead of
                                >providing the requested service.
                                >
                                >The process outlined in KD:106612 seems flawed to me because it takes away
                                >my agency to make a decision and to correct the misinformation myself. My
                                >action should be governed by research, citing source documentation and use
                                >of the discussion feature. Knowledge document 106612 returns the department
                                >to the level of an agency which controls the results.
                                >
                                >In Allan Packer's devotional presentation at RootTech 2013, he indicated
                                >that in 1976, a pivotal decision was made that the family history department
                                >was not responsible for providing the ordinances for our family members.
                                >From that point, it has been emphasized that we, the members, must verify
                                >the accurancy of our records and that we are responsible to take our family
                                >names to the temple. It was at that point in 1976 that the decision was made
                                >that the department was to be devoted to serving the needs of members in
                                >this responsibilty instead of overseering the process.
                                >
                                >To me, to put the Data Quality Administration in charge of separating the
                                >inner hidden persons buried within the PID number in new.FamilySearch is not
                                >in harmony with Elder Packer's instruction.
                                >
                                >Bottom line: In Family Tree there must be a means where once the patron has
                                >identified an inner hidden person, that the program will allow the user (not
                                >DQ) to retrieve those inner hidden persons and link them to entries in the
                                >temple ordinance database.
                                >
                                >Terry Mason
                                >Clermont FL
                                >
                                >--- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com> , Allan Hale
                                ><fatherhale@...> wrote:
                                >>
                                >> However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the
                                >record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of
                                >"Hijacking". The "other" person/persons that are combined in that record are
                                >now missing from those other pedigrees. They are buried in that Hijacked
                                >record. The proper way to correct those records is to separate the record
                                >into their separate parts. That way ordinances go with the proper record and
                                >original relationships are retained.
                                >>
                                >> Yes this will mess up the "corrected" record but it will bring back the
                                >original assertions. Now if those assertions are incorrect as to
                                >relationships, dates and places they can be corrected and sourced. When that
                                >record is still buried in the miss-combined record all that stuff is lost.
                                >>
                                >> Follow the instructions in "A record has information for more than one
                                >person (106612)"
                                >>
                                >> Allan Hale
                                >
                                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >

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





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Allan Hale
                                Stewart What about that person who is combined in your record that you just cut off his parents/spouse/children? Your person is redefined but the person
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jul 10, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Stewart

                                  What about that person who is combined in your record that you just cut off his parents/spouse/children? Your person is "redefined" but the person hidden in the combined record is now gone!! What about him?

                                  That is my point. If I am told to shut up and bear it I will but there is going to be a lot of duplicated work done because of it.

                                  Allan


                                   


                                  ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
                                  If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
                                  addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
                                  when forwarding to several people at once.
                                  Be kind to our email friends.



                                  >________________________________
                                  > From: "stew999@..." <stew999@...>
                                  >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                  >Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:50 AM
                                  >Subject: RE: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >

                                  >Allan et al,
                                  >
                                  >I fear that you and a few others are brewing up a storm that will go nowhere . . . my interpretation of what is set out in the White Paper published a year ago is as follows:
                                  >
                                  >· In FT we will not have any facility to separate ill-combined individuals.
                                  >
                                  >· It is asked of us in FT to delete all invalid relationships – correct name, date and place data – add in sources for our data and merge any suitable duplicates. This effectively “re-defines” any individual – forget the combined history.
                                  >Personally, I mark such individuals (where I have deleted relationships) with the Watch feature – ensures that if anyone else takes a contrary view and does any further changes I will be notified and we can start communications about the issue.
                                  >
                                  >· Following a suitable period for us to do this (although it is not stated in those terms) – the full list of temple data assigned to our individual will be provided together with the temple qualifying data – we can then inspect this and decide which are not applicable to our redefined individual – I expect that those that do apply to our individual (and there may be multiples due to previous valid combinations in nFS or valid merges in FT) will be subject to the previously stated church policy of using the earliest dated ordinance whether or not it was progressed by ourselves – I would expect the discarded non-matching ordinances together with their qualifying information to be released back into FT to facilitate their discovery and linking to better matched individuals (although I have not seen this stated in those terms).
                                  >
                                  >This, in my view, is the best way forward and avoids any on-going arguments about the validity of combinations (and the validity of any un-combining).
                                  >
                                  >Once again, in my view, continuing to do battle to restore features that were designed for nFS is a lost cause and I would not expect any result from FamilySearch . . . as they say . . . we all need to “get with the programme” and “stop hitting your head against the wall”.
                                  >
                                  >===Stewart
                                  >
                                  >From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Allan Hale
                                  >Sent: 10 July 2013 07:04
                                  >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                  >Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                                  >
                                  >Shauna
                                  >
                                  >I believe that the following is a prevalent view in Family Tree about multiple persons represented in one record. Creating a record for the buried record will require me much time and effort that I do not have as my record requires time that I already do not have. Why should I work on some one else's record.
                                  >
                                  >People are selfish. Look at the many people who just click the green arrows in the pedigree and send them to the temple without further research. How many persons are pressured by their leadership to find a record to take to the temple and do not have the proper time to research and submit a name.
                                  >
                                  >This list is riddled with people commenting about these problems all the time.
                                  >
                                  >If we are going to fix it why no fix it correctly
                                  >
                                  >Allan Hale
                                  >
                                  >~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
                                  >If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
                                  >addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
                                  >when forwarding to several people at once.
                                  >Be kind to our email friends.
                                  >
                                  >>________________________________
                                  >> From: Shanna Jones <shannasjones@... <mailto:shannasjones%40msn.com> >
                                  >>To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>
                                  >>Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:55 AM
                                  >>Subject: RE: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>From "Using the FamilySearch Family Tree: A Reference Guide (29 May 2013)
                                  >>
                                  >>You may need to fix wrong information that was created when the wrong
                                  >>records were incorrectly combined in new.familysearch.org.
                                  >>
                                  >>Family Tree brings over only some of the data from new.FamilySearch.org. For
                                  >>example,
                                  >>
                                  >>* In new.familysearch.org, a person's record can have multiple
                                  >>versions of the name. One version is selected as the correct one on the
                                  >>Summary tab. When the information is transferred, Family Tree uses the
                                  >>version that is selected on the person's Summary tab as the main name. The
                                  >>variations appear as alternate names.
                                  >>* In new.familysearch.org can have multiple versions of a person's
                                  >>birth, christening, death, and burial information. Family Tree has only one
                                  >>version. When the information is transferred, Family Tree keeps the version
                                  >>that is selected on the person's Summary tab. The variations do not come
                                  >>over.
                                  >>
                                  >>In new.FamilySearch.org, when records are combined or separated, the
                                  >>information on the Summary tab can change. As a result, the wrong
                                  >>information may be transferred to Family Tree.
                                  >>
                                  >>When you find incorrect information in Family Tree, do the following:
                                  >>
                                  >>* Correct the incorrect information in Family Tree. If you need to
                                  >>view the details of the record, go to new.FamilySearch.org, and display the
                                  >>combined record.
                                  >>* In Family Tree, check the possible duplicates, and merge duplicate
                                  >>persons.
                                  >>* Indicate persons who are "not a match" to prevent the records from
                                  >>being merged incorrectly in the future.
                                  >>
                                  >>-----
                                  >>
                                  >>Don't worry about splitting ancestors. They do want people to create a
                                  >>duplicate and move the incorrect relationships over to that person. They are
                                  >>working on a tool that will allow us to request ordinances be moved from one
                                  >>person to another (results in a support case). They are aware that
                                  >>duplication rates may increase for a time until they have the
                                  >>temple-moving-case-creator tool available.
                                  >>
                                  >>Think of the community of users without knowledge of ordinance implications.
                                  >>Just fix the relationships, reserve if you must, until the new tool is
                                  >>available and then this problem will be alleviated.
                                  >>
                                  >>Hang in there!
                                  >>
                                  >>Shanna
                                  >>
                                  >>From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
                                  >>tmason1
                                  >>Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:32 AM
                                  >>To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>
                                  >>Subject: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                                  >>
                                  >>I view the premise of Knowledge Document 106612 as a backward step.
                                  >>
                                  >>Over and over I have tried to apply the principle outlined in this document.
                                  >>
                                  >>I have struggled with defining the problem of an inner hidden person well
                                  >>enough in words that a support missionary understands the problem. The Amdoc
                                  >>program which they use does not allow for hypertext message which can
                                  >>include screen shot images. A picture is worth a thousand words.
                                  >>
                                  >>Then I find that the lack of clarification skills in the missionary creates
                                  >>another layer of problems.
                                  >>
                                  >>Then IF and when the missionary tries to refer my case on to Data Quality
                                  >>Administration, the missionary often will reword my case presentation and in
                                  >>their private messages to DQ you can find that they make mistakes.
                                  >>
                                  >>Finally when Data Quality get the case in about half the instances they wind
                                  >>up misinterpreting the problem.
                                  >>
                                  >>There is no feedback method in the flow of providing quality responses to
                                  >>the Data Quality department. In other words, they do not have the time,
                                  >>enough information or maybe the skills to understand the problem and provide
                                  >>the correct solution. Their job positions them to have an attitude which
                                  >>sometimes causes them to second guess the patron's decision instead of
                                  >>providing the requested service.
                                  >>
                                  >>The process outlined in KD:106612 seems flawed to me because it takes away
                                  >>my agency to make a decision and to correct the misinformation myself. My
                                  >>action should be governed by research, citing source documentation and use
                                  >>of the discussion feature. Knowledge document 106612 returns the department
                                  >>to the level of an agency which controls the results.
                                  >>
                                  >>In Allan Packer's devotional presentation at RootTech 2013, he indicated
                                  >>that in 1976, a pivotal decision was made that the family history department
                                  >>was not responsible for providing the ordinances for our family members.
                                  >>From that point, it has been emphasized that we, the members, must verify
                                  >>the accurancy of our records and that we are responsible to take our family
                                  >>names to the temple. It was at that point in 1976 that the decision was made
                                  >>that the department was to be devoted to serving the needs of members in
                                  >>this responsibilty instead of overseering the process.
                                  >>
                                  >>To me, to put the Data Quality Administration in charge of separating the
                                  >>inner hidden persons buried within the PID number in new.FamilySearch is not
                                  >>in harmony with Elder Packer's instruction.
                                  >>
                                  >>Bottom line: In Family Tree there must be a means where once the patron has
                                  >>identified an inner hidden person, that the program will allow the user (not
                                  >>DQ) to retrieve those inner hidden persons and link them to entries in the
                                  >>temple ordinance database.
                                  >>
                                  >>Terry Mason
                                  >>Clermont FL
                                  >>
                                  >>--- In FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com> , Allan Hale
                                  >><fatherhale@...> wrote:
                                  >>>
                                  >>> However, when more than one person is combined and then you trim the
                                  >>record to look like you want it to look like that is the definition of
                                  >>"Hijacking". The "other" person/persons that are combined in that record are
                                  >>now missing from those other pedigrees. They are buried in that Hijacked
                                  >>record. The proper way to correct those records is to separate the record
                                  >>into their separate parts. That way ordinances go with the proper record and
                                  >>original relationships are retained.
                                  >>>
                                  >>> Yes this will mess up the "corrected" record but it will bring back the
                                  >>original assertions. Now if those assertions are incorrect as to
                                  >>relationships, dates and places they can be corrected and sourced. When that
                                  >>record is still buried in the miss-combined record all that stuff is lost.
                                  >>>
                                  >>> Follow the instructions in "A record has information for more than one
                                  >>person (106612)"
                                  >>>
                                  >>> Allan Hale
                                  >>
                                  >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • sm99923
                                  Allan, I do understand your view. This is a problem that has no tidy solution. If the whole world is actively engaged in FT and swiftly spotting these
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Jul 10, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Allan,



                                    I do understand your view.



                                    This is a problem that has no tidy solution. If the whole world is actively engaged in FT and swiftly spotting these situations we are likely to end up with an amount of duplicated submitted work.



                                    In some respects I wish that was the case but it seems that there is in reality only a small percentage of church members actively engaged in straightening out their FT. This will minimise any submitted duplicates until the identified non-applicable temple work is disengaged from any identified invalid combined record – enabling its discovery by other parties and avoiding duplicated submissions.



                                    I still think this is a cleaner solution than continuing with an un-combine feature that only works in nFS that itself could be used incorrectly requiring a cycle of further corrective combining/merging that would stretch the patience and technical ability of the vast majority of normal FT users. Additionally, one needs to think about how long such a continued nFS feature would be needed – for ever?. . . I am sure this is unthinkable.



                                    The FT solution may not be perfect but, in my view, it seems the least complex and does not rely on active access and updating of nFS and a continuing link between nFS and FT.



                                    ===Stewart











                                    From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Allan Hale
                                    Sent: 10 July 2013 18:34
                                    To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?





                                    Stewart

                                    What about that person who is combined in your record that you just cut off his parents/spouse/children? Your person is "redefined" but the person hidden in the combined record is now gone!! What about him?

                                    That is my point. If I am told to shut up and bear it I will but there is going to be a lot of duplicated work done because of it.

                                    Allan



                                    ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
                                    If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
                                    addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
                                    when forwarding to several people at once.
                                    Be kind to our email friends.

                                    >________________________________
                                    > From: "stew999@... <mailto:stew999%40gmail.com> " <stew999@... <mailto:stew999%40gmail.com> >
                                    >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>
                                    >Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:50 AM
                                    >Subject: RE: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >Allan et al,
                                    >
                                    >I fear that you and a few others are brewing up a storm that will go nowhere . . . my interpretation of what is set out in the White Paper published a year ago is as follows:
                                    >
                                    >· In FT we will not have any facility to separate ill-combined individuals.
                                    >
                                    >· It is asked of us in FT to delete all invalid relationships – correct name, date and place data – add in sources for our data and merge any suitable duplicates. This effectively “re-defines” any individual – forget the combined history.
                                    >Personally, I mark such individuals (where I have deleted relationships) with the Watch feature – ensures that if anyone else takes a contrary view and does any further changes I will be notified and we can start communications about the issue.
                                    >
                                    >· Following a suitable period for us to do this (although it is not stated in those terms) – the full list of temple data assigned to our individual will be provided together with the temple qualifying data – we can then inspect this and decide which are not applicable to our redefined individual – I expect that those that do apply to our individual (and there may be multiples due to previous valid combinations in nFS or valid merges in FT) will be subject to the previously stated church policy of using the earliest dated ordinance whether or not it was progressed by ourselves – I would expect the discarded non-matching ordinances together with their qualifying information to be released back into FT to facilitate their discovery and linking to better matched individuals (although I have not seen this stated in those terms).
                                    >
                                    >This, in my view, is the best way forward and avoids any on-going arguments about the validity of combinations (and the validity of any un-combining).
                                    >
                                    >Once again, in my view, continuing to do battle to restore features that were designed for nFS is a lost cause and I would not expect any result from FamilySearch . . . as they say . . . we all need to “get with the programme” and “stop hitting your head against the wall”.
                                    >
                                    >===Stewart





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Allan Hale
                                    Stewart Doing this way it will get cleaned up after a while. And you are right about the small percentage for members working in the system. That is why they
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Jul 10, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Stewart

                                      Doing this way it will get cleaned up after a while. And you are right about the small percentage for members working in the system. That is why they "Engagement Team" added the photos and stories links hoping to bring more people. It has worked and the traffic in WWS more than doubled for a while and the traffic has tapered off. Do not know what the stats are now.

                                      This is a way to clean up the pedigree but I still think that there will be holes. However, it will have passed the Family History committee and there are 2 of the Q of 12 on it so it is getting high attention. Keeping nfs around for a couple more years would not be so bad unless they devise a way to show the make up of those IOUS records. They say that they exploded many of them and that should go a long way to fix this problem too. I guess I am too much of a purist. Since the Committee approves it I will accept it too. But I did not want to quit with out a fight. I will bow to higher authority.

                                      Maybe they will buy Ancestor Split from Ohana and modify it to work it out. Problem is that it interfaces with nfs. Worked well in the hands of an experienced user.

                                      Allan


                                       


                                      ~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
                                      If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
                                      addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
                                      when forwarding to several people at once.
                                      Be kind to our email friends.



                                      >________________________________
                                      > From: "stew999@..." <stew999@...>
                                      >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                      >Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:01 PM
                                      >Subject: RE: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >

                                      >Allan,
                                      >
                                      >I do understand your view.
                                      >
                                      >This is a problem that has no tidy solution. If the whole world is actively engaged in FT and swiftly spotting these situations we are likely to end up with an amount of duplicated submitted work.
                                      >
                                      >In some respects I wish that was the case but it seems that there is in reality only a small percentage of church members actively engaged in straightening out their FT. This will minimise any submitted duplicates until the identified non-applicable temple work is disengaged from any identified invalid combined record – enabling its discovery by other parties and avoiding duplicated submissions.
                                      >
                                      >I still think this is a cleaner solution than continuing with an un-combine feature that only works in nFS that itself could be used incorrectly requiring a cycle of further corrective combining/merging that would stretch the patience and technical ability of the vast majority of normal FT users. Additionally, one needs to think about how long such a continued nFS feature would be needed – for ever?. . . I am sure this is unthinkable.
                                      >
                                      >The FT solution may not be perfect but, in my view, it seems the least complex and does not rely on active access and updating of nFS and a continuing link between nFS and FT.
                                      >
                                      >===Stewart
                                      >
                                      >From: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FHCNET@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Allan Hale
                                      >Sent: 10 July 2013 18:34
                                      >To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com
                                      >Subject: Re: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                                      >
                                      >Stewart
                                      >
                                      >What about that person who is combined in your record that you just cut off his parents/spouse/children? Your person is "redefined" but the person hidden in the combined record is now gone!! What about him?
                                      >
                                      >That is my point. If I am told to shut up and bear it I will but there is going to be a lot of duplicated work done because of it.
                                      >
                                      >Allan
                                      >
                                      >~~~~~~~REMEMBER!~~~~~~~~
                                      >If you forward this, PLEASE REMOVE all email
                                      >addresses before you send it on and use the BCC area
                                      >when forwarding to several people at once.
                                      >Be kind to our email friends.
                                      >
                                      >>________________________________
                                      >> From: "stew999@... <mailto:stew999%40gmail.com> " <stew999@... <mailto:stew999%40gmail.com> >
                                      >>To: FHCNET@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FHCNET%40yahoogroups.com>
                                      >>Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:50 AM
                                      >>Subject: RE: [FHCNET] Re: temple ordinances again?
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >>Allan et al,
                                      >>
                                      >>I fear that you and a few others are brewing up a storm that will go nowhere . . . my interpretation of what is set out in the White Paper published a year ago is as follows:
                                      >>
                                      >>· In FT we will not have any facility to separate ill-combined individuals.
                                      >>
                                      >>· It is asked of us in FT to delete all invalid relationships – correct name, date and place data – add in sources for our data and merge any suitable duplicates. This effectively “re-defines” any individual – forget the combined history.
                                      >>Personally, I mark such individuals (where I have deleted relationships) with the Watch feature – ensures that if anyone else takes a contrary view and does any further changes I will be notified and we can start communications about the issue.
                                      >>
                                      >>· Following a suitable period for us to do this (although it is not stated in those terms) – the full list of temple data assigned to our individual will be provided together with the temple qualifying data – we can then inspect this and decide which are not applicable to our redefined individual – I expect that those that do apply to our individual (and there may be multiples due to previous valid combinations in nFS or valid merges in FT) will be subject to the previously stated church policy of using the earliest dated ordinance whether or not it was progressed by ourselves – I would expect the discarded non-matching ordinances together with their qualifying information to be released back into FT to facilitate their discovery and linking to better matched individuals (although I have not seen this stated in those terms).
                                      >>
                                      >>This, in my view, is the best way forward and avoids any on-going arguments about the validity of combinations (and the validity of any un-combining).
                                      >>
                                      >>Once again, in my view, continuing to do battle to restore features that were designed for nFS is a lost cause and I would not expect any result from FamilySearch . . . as they say . . . we all need to “get with the programme” and “stop hitting your head against the wall”.
                                      >>
                                      >>===Stewart
                                      >
                                      >[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.