Information about ordinance proxies

mkmurray · #11

Mikerowaved wrote:People can use the "Reputation" link to leave an anonymous message about why they liked or disliked a particular post.

Because of my rights here on the forum, I can confirm by looking at the logs that this was a reputation "zing." The comment left was short and sweet, but does have merit. In my own words...being critical just for the sake of being critical helps no one. Constructive criticism would be the civilized way of submitting feedback.

While I would admit your feedback has a lot of clout and is helpful, your posts do seem to find a way to end on a sour note. This could alienate those you are trying to reach.

If you have further concerns about this situation, please feel free to contact me via private means and we can discuss this further. We've let this side issue take over the thread. Let's try to get back to the subject at hand.

scion-p40 · #12

Fair enough. Two people didn't like *how* I pointed out problems with nFS. Back to the issues which have yet to be addressed:

1) When will ongoing extractions be compared to existing completed temple work in nFS? This double standard of what is expected by the rank-and-file members v what is done by the church has not been answered. And, just to throw in a monkey wrench, at one point I lived in an area where many nonmembers submitted their names for temple work. These new processes omit them completely because when nFS becomes available to non members they still won't see ordinance data. (That's my understanding of the plan.)

2) Standardizing names to places that don't match the century does *not* make research easier and is a data integrity problem.

The software has been altering places for several years now.

3) Dropping, changing, or otherwise altering names does not help the people get linked, either. I don't recall which Michael I posted about in April--there are a number of them in my files.

This is a newer problem for me.

4) The huge number of false positive search results due to the lack of the searcher's ability to prioritize and limit searches will result in continued duplications. (This was brought up recently by McGuire on another thread.)

Each of these problems that is part of nFS contributes to creating more duplications, not minimizing them.