![]() ![]() Please Do NOT upload a GEDCOM File in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'. Here is what I always proffer to the Users/Patrons that reference the "Uploading" of GEDCOM Files in the "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'. I don't carry a cell phone so it's most likely you'll need to leave a message.įormer owner of Genealogy Online ()įormer owner of The National Queries Forumįormer instructor and speaker for the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI), and others GEDCOM EDITOR OPEN SOURCE FREEFeel free to contact me there or by email. You probably have access to my phone number. That or totally rethink the public tree and concentrate on your databases. My immediate recommendation would be that you put a hold on the merging of private GEDCOM files until the problems can be better sorted out. I really want to see FamilySearch and the public tree become successful, and I want to do my part in that. Of course, I spend time on only a small number of families key to my research, but the work put into simple maintenance is outweighing the benefits. Additionally, I've seen up to as many as four unrelated families merged into one. But these need to be tended to right away, otherwise the whole shebang quickly goes to pot and becomes useless. William Meredith Scarborough 1690-1735 GZDK-BSBĬolonel Edmund Scarborough 1692-1753 GZD2-HTH I can't spent all day every day of the week dealing with this monster.Ĭol Charles Scarburgh I 1643-1702 LBH7-KCYĪccomack, Virginia, British Colonial AmericaĬhildren of Elizabeth Bennett and Col Charles Scarburgh I (19)Ĭapt. But imagune this happening on several occasions to dozens of profiles. So I did the best I could today to identify the dupes and simply remove them, not the desirable the method. I generally like to merge duped records, but there have been so many lately - even just for the Bennett families I'm researching - that it's becoming increasingly time-consuming. For example, here's just one of the recent submissions after such a merge. Checking to see whether the inclusion will create duplicate entries should be an easy matter to resolve, as would the issue of causing multiple linkages. If there are no sources, the record should probably be discounted. I have very few recommendations for correcting this problem but it would boil down to better quality controls, especially of source data. Unfortunately, they're generally of very poor quality. But the GEDCOM is only as good as the research that has gone into producing it. I understand the reason you would want such a tool available to your users. Of course, I'm seeing only a small portions of those and the vast majority has zero sources, only the "GEDCOM data" stamp, which is very annoying. Indeed, I've been told by some users here that your system sometimes accepts as little as 30%. I mention this only to demonstrate that I understand the problems with parsing and converting GEDCOM files. It was licensed by the Polish National Library in about 1995. I wrote a GEDCOM parser, one of several developed in the community that ended up being named GEDView. (Support does not understand the sentiment.) This is the best way to get the word out. Besides, too many researchers have forgotten about google and my server no longer gets the hits as it once did (3 million a week in its heyday). I rebranded it twenty years ago, now using it mostly for personal research as well as a support for some of the projects I administer at .īut that's not the point. Indeed, I have been developing my own tree on a server I started in 1994, the former, bought by RootsWeb in 2000 and now owned by. Of course, that's a terrible thing to say to someone who is seriously trying to make contributions. I've been told by support more than once to go and start my own tree elsewhere. This unfettered capability serious jeopardizes the integrity of your public tree. I have spent many hours, even over the last three days, cleaning up records because of this - duplicate profiles and thoughtless and unsupported links. ![]() But based on correspondences I've had with several other users, it appears that it's pasted by your system in the automatic GEDCOM merging with the public tree. You understand, of course, that that is not a good reason for inclusion of information, particularly if the GEDCOM file and the information in it is not specified. I have long considered that to be a red flag. I'd been noticing for a while the phrase "GEDCOM data" as "reason" for including information. They suggested I post it here, which really doesn't seem to be the appropriate place. I had sent this concern to the support department. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |