Thursday, August 5, 2010

August 2010 New FamilySearch Tree

FamilySearch updates its new FamilySearch tree (NFS) around the middle of each calendar quarter and the time is approaching for the next update. Documents released by FamilySearch indicate several changes in the upcoming release.

Disputes

The oft criticized Dispute feature continues its slow death. (Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attach especially negative connotations to the feature name itself because of a statement they attribute to Christ.) The previous NFS release introduced the Discuss feature. According to FamilySearch:

The dispute feature is being removed from the system. As a first phase, you can no longer add a new dispute. You can still see disputes that were previously entered. Eventually, all of the disputes in the system, including their notes, will be moved to the discussion boards.

While you can not add new disputes, you can still edit or delete your own existing disputes.

Expanded International Support

NFS automatically Romanizes non-Latin names Russian and Italian join the English, German, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean language editions of the new FamilySearch tree.

Templates allow the entry of names and personal information for different languages and cultures. In addition to the templates for standard, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Cyrillic, and Latin, the new release adds templates for Mongolian and Asian (Thai and Cambodian).

Tutorials Overview

Seven tutorials replace the current 10 overviews:

Preparing for Public Release

Not mentioned in the FamilySearch release statement, a change in illustrations was obviously a step towards release of NFS to the general public. FamilySearch replaced an image of the Salt Lake Temple with a generic photograph of an ancestral family.

Old NFS Illustration  New NFS Illustration

4 comments:

  1. I kind of liked the idea of a place to enter disputes. Can't they just change the name of it to "Credibility comments" or "Authenticity Challenge"? I think we can all agree undocumented and even documented trees contain mistakes and wrong assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm certainly glad to see the Dispute feature phased out, but I hope it wasn't because of 3 Nephi 11:28-30. Those verses refer specifically to disputes done in a spirit of contention and anger. A dispute can certainly be carried out calmly and with mutual respect. Changing the name to Discussion doesn't prevent people from contending in anger. I'm sure discussions done in a contentious and angry manner are as much of the devil as similar disputations.

    Personally I have never encountered a dispute on new FamilySearch that I felt was contentious or done in anger. My main objection to the Dispute was that it locked up the disputed item so no one could change it until the dispute was removed. This was especially a problem when the disputer couldn't be reached because the contact information was out of date or the disputer simply wouldn't respond.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm sure "dispute" in this passage referred to the manner of baptism, and how it was to be done. It has nothing to do with disputing a genealogy issue.

    Regarding doctrine, Paul was very adament about Christians speakng the same things. He sid, "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Corinthians 1:10)

    He wasn't speaking of a church, but the entire Body of Christ. We are to preach the Gospel of Jesus, and not divide the Body of Christ with different doctrines. In the name of Jesus Christ." AMEN.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like the Discussion feature much better than the dispute. You can actually leave detailed information about the issue. Too many people were using the dispute instead of taking the time to go into the combined records and unlink the ones that were wrong. It it time-consuming, but satisfying - even if my corrections only help a small portion of the incorrect work.

    ReplyDelete