New Family Search, MLS, & Adoption

Discussions around Genealogy technology.
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central California

New Family Search, MLS, & Adoption

Postby daryl1 » Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:59 pm

There are really only two possibilities for how New FamilySearch sets the parent link View Relationships for living members:

  1. The membership database connection sets the relationship to "biological" because it has no more specific information.
  2. The membership database connection doesn't supply a relationship, and New FamilySearch assumes it is biological, because that's the best assumption given no specific information.
In either case, the effect on New FamilySearch will be the same, and a clerk will be unable to do anything about it until both the membership database and MLS are enhanced to store and update this information.

Or do easy fix and leave MLS database alone.

Ok, easy fix would be to allow living parents to correct and edit the relationship over at New Family Search. Currently Members nor Clerks can make corrections because the contributor is LDS Church Membership Records. Please fix the Bug in New Family Search :rolleyes:

Who has the authority to make the easy fix happen :confused:

Can we bring this to someones attention for help soon?
Members have been patient for a few years now.

User avatar
Community Administrator
Posts: 14635
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:23 pm

Mr. Techno wrote:There are ...

I know you're patiently trying to get your question addressed, but unfortunately this subforum is essentially dormant. You can't depend on anyone from FamilySearch seeing your question here. That's why we suggested in the other thread that you post your concern in the FamilySearch forum. I would think that the Data Questions area of that forum is the place to start.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central California

Postby daryl1 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:29 pm

Thanks for the help.

I agree with your understanding. That is why I quoted some of yours with some ideas of mine.

Thanks for the heads up. I go to the other form. :)
I thought this was a patch to it.

Return to “Family History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest