tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post5881210560841630622..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: Mailbox Monday: Future of the NFS TreeThe Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-7523096920314191292010-09-10T08:13:55.497-06:002010-09-10T08:13:55.497-06:00I'm with Suzie:
"If I have to index recor...I'm with Suzie:<br />"If I have to index records in order to get access to NFS, I will have to STOP being a FHC volunteer in order to find the waking hours to get it done." Hopefully the powers that be in SLC will understand this when they create their policy about access to digitized records.<br /><br />I also appreciate Geolover's comments about the extracted records in the IGI. I really have no use for one more online kludged-together family tree of questionable reliability. Where in all of this will the extracted IGI records land? How will we be able to easily identify and locate them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-89053490034588199712010-09-08T21:45:12.280-06:002010-09-08T21:45:12.280-06:00Dear Suzie,
Help Center Document ID 109601
LDS Ac...Dear Suzie,<br /><br />Help Center Document ID 109601<br />LDS Account and FamilySearch Account Problems<br /><br />"We are no longer creating volunteer accounts until the Public release of new FamilySearch. Volunteers can still help, but need to help patrons using the patron's account."<br /><br />You will NOT need to index in order to access the new FamilySearch Tree. Access to some historical record collections (now on RecordSearch or Beta) will require some sort of volunteer service. I don't know if family history center service will qualify or not. FamilySearch has to abide by the contracts it makes with record custodians for permission to photograph and digitize their records. I know managers inside FamilySearch are pushing to reward all types of service to whatever extent the contracts allow.<br /><br />As to the many different answers you've received: It appears help center documents on this issue were updated about 3 weeks ago. Hopefully since that time callers are getting consistent answers. Help line volunteers are trained to rely on these documents for answers, but don't always notice recent changes.<br /><br />I think document 100122 may still be a source of miscommunication:<br /><br />"How do community members register as volunteers for the new FamilySearch? ... Many family history centers have community volunteers who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These volunteers have been allowed to use the new FamilySearch Web site so that they can help the center’s patrons."<br /><br />The article goes on to explain how those that previously had accounts can update their accounts for the new login system. But the article never answers the opening question.<br /><br />Worse still is the Asia rollout website. The old policy is still stated at <a href="http://75.101.166.20/utahidaho/registering_volunteers.html" rel="nofollow">http://75.101.166.20/utahidaho/registering_volunteers.html</a> . "In family history centers staffed with volunteers who are not members of the Church, a process has been developed to register them on the new FamilySearch." The page goes on to give the old instructions.<br /><br />Hopefully, the right people at FamilySearch will read this and get these problems corrected.<br /><br />-- The InsiderThe Ancestry Insiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-72076640899228403512010-09-08T10:40:13.804-06:002010-09-08T10:40:13.804-06:00I am a 4 year (non church member) FHC volunteer. ...I am a 4 year (non church member) FHC volunteer. I have been told I AM eligible for access to NFS. I have been told I am NOT eligible for access to NFS. I have been told I can't register YET for NFS. I have been told I should have registered a long time ago for NFS and now it is too late. Everyone speaks with authority and KNOWS theirs is the RIGHT answer to my query.<br /><br />All I know is I spend about 60 hours a week being a GenWeb volunteer plus 8-10 hours a week as a FHC volunteer. The only real reason I even want access to NFS is to help our FHC users. If I have to index records in order to get access to NFS, I will have to STOP being a FHC volunteer in order to find the waking hours to get it done.<br /><br />FamilySearch needs to set a policy and then share it with their folks who answer the phone. There are enough of us non-members out here volunteering, that the policy and procedures should also be shared with FHC directors.Suzie Hendersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01144806041716992429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-55256520346227916572010-09-07T17:18:37.368-06:002010-09-07T17:18:37.368-06:00AI, thank you for elaboration about the present nF...AI, thank you for elaboration about the present nFS Tree concept of "merging" individuals.<br /><br />This is not "merging" as performed in desktop genealogical programs and in one brand of on-web tree software. In these, the "conclusion" is one name, one set of parents (with link to adoptive parents if any), linkage to however many actual individual spouses, and linkage to however many actual known children.<br /><br />What you describe is adding all the items from existing entries into one entry, including howevermany times the person's name (and versions) occur, howevermany sets of children went with each occurrence of the name, etc. This is not merging the facts relevant to the individual into one individual entry. This is adding all the entries into one entity that I will call a file, but perhaps its proper name presently is "conclusion."<br /><br />Since the IGI includes extracts from books, many of whose authors are long dead, I wonder what thinking went into the concept that only "the submitter" could alter an entry.<br /><br />While the present version of IGI, unlike the old microfiche version (which included the film and batch numbers by which one could eventually identify a submitter of, say, a family group sheet) has stripped away a method to identify most submitters, that information does exist. But not in the on-line version of IGI.<br /><br />Of course many post-1991 submissions were simply copied from the family group sheets and extracted genealogical material in earlier versions of IGI, which rather muddles the concept of "submitter."<br /><br />Even less scrutable is the material in IGI that was extracted from actual records (however accurately). I am aware of at least a few groups of church records that were partially extracted (omitting identification of baptismal sponsors, which always assists in identifying family groups), concerning families with whom I am familiar. It appears that each baptismal record would 'create' a new set of parents, as would any Family Group Sheet based on the same records.<br /><br />Making workable sense of this is an unenviable task.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-82801610829268154292010-09-06T08:54:36.341-06:002010-09-06T08:54:36.341-06:00I'm a 5-year FHC volunteer, and I've been ...I'm a 5-year FHC volunteer, and I've been told that FHC volunteers don't qualify for access to NFS, nor will they qualify for premiium access to digitized online films unless they volunteer for indexing. Thanks for asking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com