newFamilySearch Version .92 out 3 March 2008

Discussions around Genealogy technology.
User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

newFamilySearch Version .92 out 3 March 2008

Postby garysturn » Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:54 pm

The new version of nFS V.92 is now out. When you go to the Pedigree with Details view you will now see a new Tab called "Summary". In this summary area you can select the correct names, dates, and places to be the default information that will show in all the pedigree and familiy views. Once selected by one person this default will then display for everyone. In V.91 the default information was based on a sort of all the different versions in the folder. This is a great improvement and will prevent a lot of errors in combining. The old summary view was located in the Details section but did not have the option to select the correct data. In the old version you could enter another opinion and it would elevate a name in the sort for you but not for everyone else.

There are also now more possible matches shown in the "Possible Matches" area, but be careful many of those shown now are not good matches, they are now rated with stars as to how close of a match they are.

You can now navagate the combined records pages more easily. You no longer need to go through the combined records one page at a time, there are more options to go to different pages.

Now when you choose a different set of parents, they stay in your pedigree from session to session, before this update they would revert back to the top parents in a sort when you logged off.

There is now a limit of 1000 names for a GEDCOM file submission and you must certify that you have checked in nFS to make sure you are only submitting new names and not duplicates.

If you are interested in seeing some screenshots in a slide show of the new functions go to:

newFamilyHistory Consultant Page
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

dsammy-p40
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Problems cropping up

Postby dsammy-p40 » Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:10 am

Nice to have latest version released

but I encountered several major problems, plus the chilling call from Florida.

In case of at least Orlando Temple district, the members who entered NEW information before March 3rd are finding their entries corrupted so bad. They can't edit them. It is as if somebody hacked in and scrambled the database like a egg beater gone mad.

Another problem - that will be in a separate message:(

dsammy-p40
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:18 pm

non-conforming Place names

Postby dsammy-p40 » Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:21 am

9 Morgan, Ohio, United States - that is a serious problem when I want only Morgan County, NOT Morgan townships.

Has to force "-, Morgan, Ohio, United States" to make it clear that it is a county, with town/township/village/city NOT known.

The other one - nonconforming place names.

Norfolkshire is not correct place name of County of Norfolk, England, yet nFS insists on it. The correct place name is simply Norfolk - for England. The cataloguer of Family History Library Catalog objected to this very incorrect place name.
http://www.abcounties.co.uk/counties/list.htm give correct names of the counties.

and my biggest peeve? non-recognizance of cemetery names outside of Utah! This is a double-standard that is not acceptable.

I have been asked to compile long lists of cemetery names associated with specific city/town/village and not associated to be included in place standardization but I have no way of knowing who to contact to turn the lists to.

Thomas_Lerman
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:54 am

Postby Thomas_Lerman » Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:50 pm

I have heard rumor about cemetery names being allowed in place-names. I would hope we would not go down that road. If cemetery names are allowed for burial . . . Why not hospitals for birth or death? What about churches for marriages? What about nursing homes for death? Oh yes, some are born at home with a midwife so addresses too! And what about those that got married in their backyard or a park, should addresses be valid too? Okay, so I am being a little facetious!

dsammy-p40
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Postby dsammy-p40 » Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:56 pm

Thomas_Lerman wrote:I have heard rumor about cemetery names being allowed in place-names. I would hope we would not go down that road. If cemetery names are allowed for burial . . . Why not hospitals for birth or death? What about churches for marriages? What about nursing homes for death? Oh yes, some are born at home with a midwife so addresses too! And what about those that got married in their backyard or a park, should addresses be valid too? Okay, so I am being a little facetious!


You got it right about cemetery names - it is already recognized and accepted in Utah alone. Can't have double standard when it comes to not allowing it out of state so I got the go ahead to compile lists of cemeteries associated with specific localities.

Can you fathom trying to find the name of cemetery in pages and pages of notes? (check out John Young entry in newFamily Search - last time I counted, at least 30 pages of notes and in one of the pages had the name of cemetery.

There is a limit to certain localities - allowed: name of specific cemetery & name of parish church (it is already in IGI so can't rule them out).

But European localities pose a bigger problem - what do you do with 16 places named Berg in Bayern alone? The only way to identify correct Berg is the use of bezirkamt names. In Bayern Bezirkants are like counties in United States. This is also shown in FHLC, too. Baden and Wuerttemberg use "Oberamt", again a county level designation, too. The rest of Germany use "Kreis" as county designation.

The other tricky problem - When does it cease to be Preussen and be Germany? It would be 22 March 1871 but for the sake of clairty, the change date is end of 1872 per already established standard for Temple submissions.

What's worse? 1918 changeover and again 1947 changeover. Should the dates correspond to the time of the soverignity? Posen is a good example. It underwent 9 different changes since 1815.

What I did with my folks in Britten, Germany - I follow Preussen until 1872, then change to Germany. Saarland is not used until 1947. Saarland was an independent nation 1947 to 1957.
Thus...
Britten, Merzig, Rheinland, Preussen, to 1872
Britten, Merzig, Rheinland, Germany, to 1947, French protectorate notwithstanding
Britten, Merzig, Saarland, to 1 Jan 1957
Britten, Merzig, Saarland, Germany, to present

now back to cemeteries - Salt Lake City alone has 15 cemeteries in all using Salt Lake City as the local address...
That is...
1. Fort Douglas Military
2. Mount Olivet
3. Mount Calvary Catholic
4. Salt Lake City
5. Congregational Montefiore
6. Congregational B'Nai Israel
7. Congregational Sharey Tzedick
8. Kimball-Whitney Family
9. Brigham Young Pioneer Memorial
10. Pioneer Cemetery (at This is the Place Park)
11. Larkin Sunset Gardens
12. Wasatch Lawn (I checkedwith them)
13. Huffaker Family
14. Elysian Burial Garden
15. Salt Lake Mausoleum

Sandy alone has 3 cemeteries - Sandy City, Larkin Sunset Lawn and Crescent City. South Jordan has 2 now - South Jordan and Wasatch Lawn South.

Buffalo New York has the worst of all - at least 10 major cemeteries right next to each other with each has own records.

Thomas_Lerman
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:54 am

Postby Thomas_Lerman » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:40 am

I personally find it extremely easy to find a cemetery name within my sources for burial. The only "notes" that I use are the "comments" within my source citations.

I have a national database that shows 37 cemeteries in Salt Lake county, 21 in Utah county, etc. I did not want to spend too much time on this. Both counties have over 100 churches each. Salt Lake county has 19 hospitals and Utah county has 8.

In case I was not clear, I personally do not like the idea of opening Pandora's box by allowing cemeteries. I do realize that they are in the IGI, but people have also put in churches, hospitals, and many other things. This does not mean, to me, that everything should be allowed.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20750
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:45 am

Thomas_Lerman wrote:I personally do not like the idea of opening Pandora's box by allowing cemeteries.


What if we were to create a new field to hold that information? Or at least a specific note tag so it would be easy to find?

Thomas_Lerman
Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:54 am

Postby Thomas_Lerman » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:54 am

If something like that was done, I think I would personally prefer a new field AND the change to PAF (with other changes). I believe every repository for primary source citations on burials is the cemetery itself. I have almost completely moved away from notes as I found most every note had a source whether it was an e-mail, personal conversation, book, film, or whatever.

dsammy-p40
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Cemetery name

Postby dsammy-p40 » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:14 am

RussellHltn wrote:What if we were to create a new field to hold that information? Or at least a specific note tag so it would be easy to find?


Fat chance of that happening. I prefer the name of cemetery in PLAIN VIEW. Not hidden in notes. If you have seen the onerous notes in the newFamilySearch, you don't want it hidden away. I have many family members with as muchas 500 merged records - so the notes are OUT of question.

dsammy-p40
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Postby dsammy-p40 » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:19 am

Thomas_Lerman wrote:If something like that was done, I think I would personally prefer a new field AND the change to PAF (with other changes). I believe every repository for primary source citations on burials is the cemetery itself. I have almost completely moved away from notes as I found most every note had a source whether it was an e-mail, personal conversation, book, film, or whatever.


Tried that approach long time ago and it didn't pan out well (when printing books, the notes are too much.) What is "Burial" box for?

I was compiling the list for Oregon tonight, one tiny town has 4 sizable cemeteries. Anyway since the decision has already been made to include Utah's cemeteries in place names long before the current version, it is pretty much casted in stone.

The church names (usually Catholic or Protestant) are found in European areas. Ireland - they used "Civil" in place names in the IGI.

Hospital - I draw the line on this. This belongs in notes. From the announcements I had concerning PAF, there won't be any changes.


Return to “Family History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest