RootsTech 2014

Mocavo

Some people eat, sleep and chew gum, I do genealogy and write...

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Heir is a direct descendant of this child

The statement in this blog post actually appeared as a note in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree programs new Notes section. Unfortunately, comments and notes such as this are not uncommon.

Here are some more gems gleaned from Family Tree's new Notes Section. I have not changed any of these from the originals:

Dead

Children known (put in by unknown)

Hazel a Sirring Tanner genealogy book MARRIED HENRY MARTIN TANNER 25 JAN 1877

1830

From Ancestral File (TM), data as of 2 January 1996.

Line in Record @I138@ (RIN 35) from GEDCOM file not recognized: PLAC Nauvoo Illinois NV 

Line in Record @I138@ (RIN 35) from GEDCOM file not recognized: PLAC Idaho Falls ID IF

GEDCOM line 8422 not recognizable or too long: () 2 GIVN Julia Ann GEDCOM line 8423 not recognizable or too long: () 2 SURN SHEPHERD

Invalid baptism temple code: LIVE. Invalid baptism temple code: LIVE. Invalid baptism temple code: LIVE. Invalid baptism temple code: LIVE.

Note
24 (d)

Note
1746

I think you get the idea of what we are now up against. 

4 comments:

  1. "up against"? Well, more server loading. And 'notes' was supposed also to include such sources as were added to n.FS since the Family Tree program can not recognize them as sources and transmogrify into the source boxes (which are user-centered rather than part of a one-tree source database).

    At least it's not as destructive as something identified only as "FamilySearch" adding myriad impossible relatives, silly items as "birth names" and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see this often when I cleaned up my lines in it. Some of notes refer to what? Some listed Jr or Sr as Title of Nobility, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Those notes probably meant something to whoever submitted that person to FamilySearch Family Tree.

    I am pretty sure I may still have some notes in my database that are too criptic and others might not understand them. I run on to notes of my own occassionally that even I don.t understand and have to figure out what they mean and rewrite them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I plea guilty! I’m sorry! Can I get excused for ignorance and temporary insanity, not to mention carelessness?

    Those notes are mine. May I explain? Years ago my very first genealogy program was PAF for Mac. A great feature was GEDCOM imports. To get a basic structure going, I did import files from Ancestral File. I noticed that the import feature didn’t always work perfectly and I would get strange additions to the Notes section similar to “Line in Record @I138@ (RIN 35) from GEDCOM file not recognized: PLAC Nauvoo Illinois NV.” I told myself I would have to get those things deleted one day. But I was busy.

    I would write little comments to myself in the notes section, such as “dead” or “has more children”.

    Then PAF for Mac was discontinued. I switched to Reunion. I exported a GEDCOM from PAF to Reunion. I noted that all my sources in PAF came across into Reunion’s note section as “!Source something or other.” Again I told myself I would have to clean that up someday.

    Then New Family Search came along. In many situations, it was far easier to upload a GEDCOM then merge than to enter by hand all my correct information. Who ever looked at the sources in New Family Search? They were a mess. I never realized my Reunion Notes were going to New Family Search as part of the GEDCOM.

    Then six months ago or so I got an e-mail from Family Search saying they were preparing to migrate source from NFS to Family Tree and did I want sources I had entered transferred over. Of course I said “yes.” Who wouldn’t? I had spent a fair amount of time putting real sources into NFS.

    And now I see random notes that Ancestral File GEDCOMs put into my PAF for Mac database twenty years ago. I’m sitting here telling myself I need to get in and clean those up someday soon.

    ReplyDelete