IGI and AFN with nFS

Discussions around Genealogy technology.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20781
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

IGI and AFN with nFS

Postby russellhltn » Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:16 pm

teknaught wrote:Ward consultants should be ready to especially assist those persons who have a large number of names already prepared via TempleReady to not delay getting them to the temple and printed.


Only if those names have been adequately checked against the current IGI. TempleReady data hasn't been updated since Jan 2000, so it's data is over 700 temple-years out of date. Much of the driving force behind nFS is the high rate of duplicate work and has been expressed by President Hinckley in one of his conference addresses.

Even if you're an only member, you'll be surprised at what you'll find. I'm an only member myself. But once I go back a few generations, I find the work has already been done though name extraction. I've also seen that I have a cousin unknown to me that's been submitting names of my ancestors. At minimum I'd do some spot checks on those names just to see.


teknaught wrote: One sister has over 22,000 names, and even with the recommended (100 name) upload into nFS, she would have a real problem trying to confirm and verify any that will be found to be in the system already.


Be not impressed with quantity. And do not be distracted about the amount of time it will take to properly check those names. The whole problem is the amount of time it takes to do the work for one name. If you do a rough guess at 2 hours of volunteer time to do a name and 5 minutes to check a name, you'll have a break-even point in effort at a little over 4% of duplicate work. The number I've heard (but unsubstantiated) is it takes 17 volunteer-hours to do one name. That's probably including the temple workers and maybe even travel time. If you use that figure and spend 10 minutes a name, then the break-even point is less then 1%. And unless those names come from China or somewhere where there are few members and low immigration rates, I'd be surprised if percentage of work done was that low.

Besides, those names need to be properly entered into nFS anyway, so there's really no lost time in doing the checking. As you enter and combine the information, it will be clear who needs what work. As you combine IGI records into your family tree, you'll see what work has already been done.

An important point we need to remember, is that nFS is NOT a blank system needing our submissions. Right from the start, it's got membership records, IGI, Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File. If you've done any work for your family, it's in there already. What needed is to organize the information already there and then add to it. The recommendations I've seen is to only upload one family at a time once you've confirmed that they are not already in the system. Otherwise you'll be making MORE work for yourself in combining your submitted records with those that already exist in the system.

I'd also urge people to be very, very careful about combining names. The current system makes it very easy to combine, and difficult to uncombine people who have lots of records. The developers are aware of the situation and addressing it, but In other lists I'm seeing the frustration level grow to the point that people are starting to give up.

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

IGI

Postby garysturn » Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:51 pm

RussellHltn wrote:Only if those names have been adequately checked against the current IGI. TempleReady data hasn't been updated since Jan 2007, so it's data is over 700 temple-years out of date. Much of the driving force behind nFS is the high rate of duplicate work and has been expressed by President Hinckley in one of his conference addresses.


I am sure you mean that Temple Ready has not been updated since the year 2000 not 2007.

Also the current IGI has not been updated with any ordinances cleared in newFamilySearch.

The current IGI has also not been updated with any ordinances completed in newFamilySearch Temples.

newFamilySearch is the only place all completed Temple ordinances are contained.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

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

Postby garysturn » Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:07 pm

teknaught wrote:Ward consultants should be ready to especially assist those persons who have a large number of names already prepared via TempleReady to not delay getting them to the temple and printed. One sister has over 22,000 names, and even with the recommended (100 name) upload into nFS, she would have a real problem trying to confirm and verify any that will be found to be in the system already. Those with fewer names shouldn't have too much trouble.


Does this sister have over 22,000 names already cleared through Temple Ready or does she just have 22,000 names in her database? I would not recommend clearing any more names using Temple Ready once you have been notified that your Temple is being converted.

It has been my experience that most people with that many names have obtained most of those names by downloading them from the IGI, Ancestral File, or Pedigree Resource file. If that is the case, all of those names are already in newFamilySearch.

When we as Family HIstory Consultants help people, we need to help people identify names that have been downloaded from Ancestrial File, they will usually have an Ancestrial File number. newFamilySearch will not accept any names containing Ancestrial File numbers because those names are already in the system. Any attempt to upload a file containing names from Ancestrial File or Pedigree Resource File will cause the entire batch to be rejected.

If people have downloaded a name from Ancestrial File and have added more information and sources to that name and they want to submit that name, they will have to remove the Ancestial File number and any sources quoting the Ancestrial File or Pedigree Resource File.

Unless more information has been added to a name downloaded from any Church database there is no reason to resubmit those names. All that needs to be submitted is new research beyond those names downloaded from the Church databases.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20781
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:55 pm

GarysTurn wrote:I am sure you mean that Temple Ready has not been updated since the year 2000 not 2007.


OOPS! Yes, that was a typo. I've corrected my orginal post.

User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

Postby thedqs » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:39 pm

GarysTurn wrote:When we as Family HIstory Consultants help people, we need to help people identify names that have been downloaded from Ancestrial File, they will usually have an Ancestrial File number. newFamilySearch will not accept any names containing Ancestrial File numbers because those names are already in the system. Any attempt to upload a file containing names from Ancestrial File or Pedigree Resource File will cause the entire batch to be rejected.

If people have downloaded a name from Ancestrial File and have added more information and sources to that name and they want to submit that name, they will have to remove the Ancestial File number and any sources quoting the Ancestrial File or Pedigree Resource File.

Unless more information has been added to a name downloaded from any Church database there is no reason to resubmit those names. All that needs to be submitted is new research beyond those names downloaded from the Church databases.


Wouldn't it be better to have a comparision of the AF information and then the uploaded info and just see if there is a difference. Might be better than rejecting the entire package.
- David

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

GEDCOM rejections

Postby garysturn » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:00 am

thedqs wrote:Wouldn't it be better to have a comparision of the AF information and then the uploaded info and just see if there is a difference. Might be better than rejecting the entire package.


I have not attempted to upload a flile containing AF records so I do not know for sure how this is handled. Below is the only information I could find in nFS about the policy. Since it states that users will be notified why their file was rejected, I assume the entire batch will be rejected. Desktop software is being developed by third party partners to compare and sync data from our own database with nFS, differences can be updated through that software when it is available. For now uploading GEDCOM's is being reserved for adding new information.

Restrictions on GEDCOM Files
The new FamilySearch will no longer accept GEDCOM files that have been directly downloaded from Ancestral File, Pedigree Resource File, and the International Genealogical Index. This will help reduce duplication. Users will be notified why their file was rejected.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

rmrichesjr
Community Moderators
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dundee, Oregon

Can we keep this thread on the original topic?

Postby rmrichesjr » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:10 am

May I make a request? I had hoped this thread would stay specific to discussion of where and when NFS has gone live. Could discussion of other topics related to nFS be done in separate threads?

Thanks.

User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

Postby thedqs » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:53 am

Posts have been relocated to another thread in answer to the request by rmrichesjr.
- David


Return to “Family History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest