Monday, June 16, 2008

TempleReady Online (New FamilySearch) article mentions Ancestry Insider

Michael De Groote, writer for the Mormon Times section of the Deseret News, contacted me last week while he wrote a story about the rollout of New FamilySearch. Groote's story was published online yesterday. The title of the article? "Rolling out TempleReady Online."

Illustration from the article, 'Rolling out TempleReady online'.

Groote also spoke with Paul Nauta, FamilySearch public affairs manager. Nauta mentions some confusion over the term, "New FamilySearch." Remember when we first heard about "Common Pedigree?" Remember when we were told that the name was being changed to "new FamilySearch" with a lowercase "n"? Recently I've noticed FamilySearch Labs using the term "Family Tree". From Nauta's comments, it seems this name change is, indeed, occurring.

According to Groote,

The new process [being rolled out] is temporarily being called "TempleReady Online" after the more complicated, older "TempleReady" desktop computer program. ... But there has been some confusion. Because FamilySearch, the LDS Church's genealogy brand, is working on several projects, some people have mistakenly thought the rollout of TempleReady Online is the totality of the "new FamilySearch."

TempleReady Online and FamilySearch Family Tree are only two pieces of the new website that will eventually replace the old FamilySearch.org. Groote quotes Nauta as saying,

New FamilySearch is going to be a wiki, a new search engine, an indexing program which allows us to index records worldwide and an online family tree—where people will actually be able to add, manage and share their family history online in real time, kind of like a desktop program but without all the bells and jingles. Those are all different features and benefits that are coming under what we call the new vision of FamilySearch.

TempleReady Online is just a function of Family Tree. Family Tree is described as an alternative to PAF, not a replacement. "People will still be able to use PAF if they wish to do so," said Nauta.

Regarding the rollout, Nauta revealed no new information. "I think the Wasatch Front is going to be the last." Groote closes the article with his mention of the Ancestry Insider:

Although FamilySearch has no official list or published schedule of the rollout, an un-official map at the Ancestry Insider blog keeps track of TempleReady Online's implementation.

Thank you, Michael. It is an honor to be mentioned.

2 comments:

  1. Let's be honest here. The old TempleReady is not "more difficult" than nFS.

    Under the old system, if I wanted to submit 100 names I located in English parish research, I would quickly enter the information into PAF, source it properly, run it through PAF Insight, and then take my PAF file to the Family History Center and run TempleReady. Viola!

    Under the new system - enter all of your information during research into PAF or some other program, or write it down. Then manually enter all of the information into NFS. Then search for duplicates and combine all the duplicates. Then go through each individual and family and select them all. Then print out the barcoded submission sheet.

    Anyone who has used both systems will recognize that merely entering the data in NFS will take at least twice as long, and is more complicated than PAF's simple data entry setup. Combining individuals will take significantly longer than using PAF insight, and is much more complicated.

    Not only is the NFS more time consuming, but it IS more complicated.

    The two things they have that ARE advantages - there's no drive to the FHC, and it's possible that more duplicates would be found with the NFS than if someone was SOLELY using TempleReady.

    It was a nice try, I'll give them that, but they're promoting the wrong things. NFS being less complicated is just plain wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Shoe,

    You've got it right. You've just reversed the X and Y variables of your algebraic equation. Don't worry, it happens. Let me correct your message for you. Corrections are shown [in brackets]. Otherwise, here's your message with the meaning fixed.

    Under the [new] system, if I wanted to submit 100 names I located in English parish research, I would quickly enter the information into PAF, source it properly, run it through [Family Insight], and then [I'm done! I don't need to] take my PAF file to the Family History Center and [I don't need to] run TempleReady. Viola!

    Under the [old] system - write down all of your information during research. Then manually enter all of the information into [PAF]. Then search for duplicates [with PAF Insight] and combine all the duplicate [ordinances]. Then go through each individual and family [either in PAF or TempleReady] and select them all. Then print out the barcoded submission sheet [and be done? Don't count on it. Then export a GEDCOM file or PAF file to take to the Family History Center (FHC). Then find a computer at the FHC that is working AND has TempleReady installed. If it is having problems connecting to the network, drag out the CD-ROM set. Then AGAIN select all the individuals and families. Then AGAIN search for duplicates. Then check all the warnings, correcting place names to match the standard used by TempleReady. Then since you are submitting 100 names, you're awfully close to the bug in TempleReady that locks up the computer in the middle of long submissions. Then divide the file into two and start all over again with TempleReady. Then repeat all the TempleReady steps above. Then save several copies of the submission file because you know that if you're not using a floppy drive with a dirty write head, the read head at the temple certainly will be. Then save a copy of the file to a flash drive. Then pick carefully what time and which temple you go to because some of the workers are quite comfortable using flash drives and some are not. Then implement an inventory system to track who you've given ordinance cards to. Then track them to see that they get the ordinances done. Then manually enter the completed ordinance information into your PAF file. Cello!! Yes the strings are a lot longer than you remembered on your viola!]

    [Any convert to the Church who is a casual genealogist] who has used both systems will recognize that [the old way] will take at least [3 or 4 times] as long, and is more complicated than [NFS]'s simple data entry setup. Combining [PAF, IIGI and TempleReady] will take significantly longer [to learn or use] than using [NFS], and is much more complicated.

    [Let me repeat that.] Not only is the [old way] more time consuming, but it IS more complicated.

    ----

    That was fun! Mr. Box, did I convince you of anything? I didn't think so. We'll just have to agree then, that we're in disagreement when it comes to old way vs. new way. Let's talk again some time.

    ReplyDelete