newFamilySearch Version .92 out 3 March 2008

The new version of nFS V.92 is now out. When you go to the Pedigree with Details view you will now see a new Tab called "Summary". In this summary area you can select the correct names, dates, and places to be the default information that will show in all the pedigree and familiy views. Once selected by one person this default will then display for everyone. In V.91 the default information was based on a sort of all the different versions in the folder. This is a great improvement and will prevent a lot of errors in combining. The old summary view was located in the Details section but did not have the option to select the correct data. In the old version you could enter another opinion and it would elevate a name in the sort for you but not for everyone else.

There are also now more possible matches shown in the "Possible Matches" area, but be careful many of those shown now are not good matches, they are now rated with stars as to how close of a match they are.

You can now navagate the combined records pages more easily. You no longer need to go through the combined records one page at a time, there are more options to go to different pages.

Now when you choose a different set of parents, they stay in your pedigree from session to session, before this update they would revert back to the top parents in a sort when you logged off.

There is now a limit of 1000 names for a GEDCOM file submission and you must certify that you have checked in nFS to make sure you are only submitting new names and not duplicates.

If you are interested in seeing some screenshots in a slide show of the new functions go to:

newFamilyHistory Consultant Page

Nice to have latest version released

but I encountered several major problems, plus the chilling call from Florida.

In case of at least Orlando Temple district, the members who entered NEW information before March 3rd are finding their entries corrupted so bad. They can't edit them. It is as if somebody hacked in and scrambled the database like a egg beater gone mad.

Another problem - that will be in a separate message:(

9 Morgan, Ohio, United States - that is a serious problem when I want only Morgan County, NOT Morgan townships.

Has to force "-, Morgan, Ohio, United States" to make it clear that it is a county, with town/township/village/city NOT known.

The other one - nonconforming place names.

Norfolkshire is not correct place name of County of Norfolk, England, yet nFS insists on it. The correct place name is simply Norfolk - for England. The cataloguer of Family History Library Catalog objected to this very incorrect place name.
http://www.abcounties.co.uk/counties/list.htm give correct names of the counties.

and my biggest peeve? non-recognizance of cemetery names outside of Utah! This is a double-standard that is not acceptable.

I have been asked to compile long lists of cemetery names associated with specific city/town/village and not associated to be included in place standardization but I have no way of knowing who to contact to turn the lists to.

I have heard rumor about cemetery names being allowed in place-names. I would hope we would not go down that road. If cemetery names are allowed for burial . . . Why not hospitals for birth or death? What about churches for marriages? What about nursing homes for death? Oh yes, some are born at home with a midwife so addresses too! And what about those that got married in their backyard or a park, should addresses be valid too? Okay, so I am being a little facetious!

Thomas_Lerman wrote:I have heard rumor about cemetery names being allowed in place-names. I would hope we would not go down that road. If cemetery names are allowed for burial . . . Why not hospitals for birth or death? What about churches for marriages? What about nursing homes for death? Oh yes, some are born at home with a midwife so addresses too! And what about those that got married in their backyard or a park, should addresses be valid too? Okay, so I am being a little facetious!

You got it right about cemetery names - it is already recognized and accepted in Utah alone. Can't have double standard when it comes to not allowing it out of state so I got the go ahead to compile lists of cemeteries associated with specific localities.

Can you fathom trying to find the name of cemetery in pages and pages of notes? (check out John Young entry in newFamily Search - last time I counted, at least 30 pages of notes and in one of the pages had the name of cemetery.

There is a limit to certain localities - allowed: name of specific cemetery & name of parish church (it is already in IGI so can't rule them out).

But European localities pose a bigger problem - what do you do with 16 places named Berg in Bayern alone? The only way to identify correct Berg is the use of bezirkamt names. In Bayern Bezirkants are like counties in United States. This is also shown in FHLC, too. Baden and Wuerttemberg use "Oberamt", again a county level designation, too. The rest of Germany use "Kreis" as county designation.

The other tricky problem - When does it cease to be Preussen and be Germany? It would be 22 March 1871 but for the sake of clairty, the change date is end of 1872 per already established standard for Temple submissions.

What's worse? 1918 changeover and again 1947 changeover. Should the dates correspond to the time of the soverignity? Posen is a good example. It underwent 9 different changes since 1815.

What I did with my folks in Britten, Germany - I follow Preussen until 1872, then change to Germany. Saarland is not used until 1947. Saarland was an independent nation 1947 to 1957.
Thus...
Britten, Merzig, Rheinland, Preussen, to 1872
Britten, Merzig, Rheinland, Germany, to 1947, French protectorate notwithstanding
Britten, Merzig, Saarland, to 1 Jan 1957
Britten, Merzig, Saarland, Germany, to present

now back to cemeteries - Salt Lake City alone has 15 cemeteries in all using Salt Lake City as the local address...
That is...
1. Fort Douglas Military
2. Mount Olivet
3. Mount Calvary Catholic
4. Salt Lake City
5. Congregational Montefiore
6. Congregational B'Nai Israel
7. Congregational Sharey Tzedick
8. Kimball-Whitney Family
9. Brigham Young Pioneer Memorial
10. Pioneer Cemetery (at This is the Place Park)
11. Larkin Sunset Gardens
12. Wasatch Lawn (I checkedwith them)
13. Huffaker Family
14. Elysian Burial Garden
15. Salt Lake Mausoleum

Sandy alone has 3 cemeteries - Sandy City, Larkin Sunset Lawn and Crescent City. South Jordan has 2 now - South Jordan and Wasatch Lawn South.

Buffalo New York has the worst of all - at least 10 major cemeteries right next to each other with each has own records.

I personally find it extremely easy to find a cemetery name within my sources for burial. The only "notes" that I use are the "comments" within my source citations.

I have a national database that shows 37 cemeteries in Salt Lake county, 21 in Utah county, etc. I did not want to spend too much time on this. Both counties have over 100 churches each. Salt Lake county has 19 hospitals and Utah county has 8.

In case I was not clear, I personally do not like the idea of opening Pandora's box by allowing cemeteries. I do realize that they are in the IGI, but people have also put in churches, hospitals, and many other things. This does not mean, to me, that everything should be allowed.

Thomas_Lerman wrote:I personally do not like the idea of opening Pandora's box by allowing cemeteries.

What if we were to create a new field to hold that information? Or at least a specific note tag so it would be easy to find?

If something like that was done, I think I would personally prefer a new field AND the change to PAF (with other changes). I believe every repository for primary source citations on burials is the cemetery itself. I have almost completely moved away from notes as I found most every note had a source whether it was an e-mail, personal conversation, book, film, or whatever.

RussellHltn wrote:What if we were to create a new field to hold that information? Or at least a specific note tag so it would be easy to find?

Fat chance of that happening. I prefer the name of cemetery in PLAIN VIEW. Not hidden in notes. If you have seen the onerous notes in the newFamilySearch, you don't want it hidden away. I have many family members with as muchas 500 merged records - so the notes are OUT of question.

Thomas_Lerman wrote:If something like that was done, I think I would personally prefer a new field AND the change to PAF (with other changes). I believe every repository for primary source citations on burials is the cemetery itself. I have almost completely moved away from notes as I found most every note had a source whether it was an e-mail, personal conversation, book, film, or whatever.

Tried that approach long time ago and it didn't pan out well (when printing books, the notes are too much.) What is "Burial" box for?

I was compiling the list for Oregon tonight, one tiny town has 4 sizable cemeteries. Anyway since the decision has already been made to include Utah's cemeteries in place names long before the current version, it is pretty much casted in stone.

The church names (usually Catholic or Protestant) are found in European areas. Ireland - they used "Civil" in place names in the IGI.

Hospital - I draw the line on this. This belongs in notes. From the announcements I had concerning PAF, there won't be any changes.

Thomas_Lerman wrote:I personally find it extremely easy to find a cemetery name within my sources for burial. The only "notes" that I use are the "comments" within my source citations.

I have a national database that shows 37 cemeteries in Salt Lake county, 21 in Utah county, etc. I did not want to spend too much time on this. Both counties have over 100 churches each. Salt Lake county has 19 hospitals and Utah county has 8.

Actually there are 39 in Salt Lake County, 31 in Utah County.

I didn't get to be Utah Tombstone Project coordinator for nothing. There are numerous cemeteries most have never heard of within their easy driving distance.

In my opinion, burial has two puposes, burial date and place-name (City, County, State, Country just like other place-names). This approach works very well for me. I pretty much have no notes, only sources. To me, hospital, cemetery, church, etc. all belong in the source citation.

It would be interesting to compare cemetery lists of what you have compared to what I have.

Thomas_Lerman wrote:In my opinion, burial has two puposes, burial date and place-name (City, County, State, Country just like other place-names). This approach works very well for me. I pretty much have no notes, only sources. To me, hospital, cemetery, church, etc. all belong in the source citation.

It would be interesting to compare cemetery lists of what you have compared to what I have.

for me - third purpose if cemetery name is known if the town has more than 1 cemetery / columbarium / mausoleum.

You're relying on the GNIS which is not complete. I report cemeteries as soon as I locate with GPS. State of Utah has more complete listing for Utah County.

Utah County not listed in GNIS:
American Fork Pioneer Memorial
Cedar Fort (active)
Colton
Fayette City
Highland (active)
Lindon (active)
Pleasant Grove Pioneer
Provo Bench
Spanish Fork Pioneer
Spring City
Tucker (Williams Family)

Chances that you missed Huffaker Family, Miners and Utah Veterans Memorial (which was mistaken placed in Utah County until last year when I pointed the exact location) because GNIS shows 39 and I shows 41. I said Sandy has 3 cemeteries, it should be FOUR - I forgot about Lake Hill.

To me, the cemetery name, like a hospital, belongs in the source citation. Very easily searched, contains address, telephone, inscription, etc.

Thomas_Lerman wrote:To me, the cemetery name, like a hospital, belongs in the source citation. Very easily searched, contains address, telephone, inscription, etc.

I disgree. Pint out the notes and give to somebody - you are out of luck. That person is not going to read the notes to find it. Evidently you haven't had experience in printing the books from the various programs as I have. The notes are very copious.

They are in my sources, not in notes. Yes, I have had experience with many of those things. However, we obviously have two different methods. Differences are not bad, just different and that is okay. For me, this is a personal thing to have consistency throughout the database.

I prefer listing the cemetery in the place name instead of notes or sources because it simplifies many things (among them notes and sources).

Salt Lake City Cemetery, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah
Mount Olivet Cemetery, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah
Riverview Cemetery, Tremonton, Box Elder, Utah

Alternately, I have incorporated the name of the city into the cemetery name.

Salt Lake City Cemetery, Salt Lake, Utah
Salt Lake City Mount Olivet Cemetery, Salt Lake, Utah
Tremonton Riverview Cemetery, Box Elder, Utah

But I prefer the first solution because it think it is clearer and more consistent especially in those cases where a person wasn't buried in a cemetery, or the location of the cemetery is not known.

El Dorado, Salt Lake, Utah

Thomas_Lerman wrote:I have heard rumor about cemetery names being allowed in place-names. I would hope we would not go down that road. If cemetery names are allowed for burial . . . Why not hospitals for birth or death? What about churches for marriages? What about nursing homes for death? Oh yes, some are born at home with a midwife so addresses too! And what about those that got married in their backyard or a park, should addresses be valid too? Okay, so I am being a little facetious!

Why allow cemeteries as a place and not the others? Because cemeteries don't usually get demolished and relocated like hospitals, houses, and nursing homes do.

Churches are also more permanent than hospitals are and can also be repositories for records.

For example, my wife has an ancestor whose birthplace is listed variously as:

Zofingen, Aargau, Switzerland
Staffelbach, Aargau, Switzerland
Schöftland, Aargau, Switzerland

It turns out (pending research to the contrary) that this person was born in Zofingen, but was christened in the Staffelbach church (parish/village/borough/hamlet) in the nearby town of Schöftland. Therefore I have listed their birthplace as

Zofingen, Aargau, Switzerland

and their christening place as

Staffelbach, Schöftland, Aargau, Switzerland

I think this is the least confusing way of presenting the information that also requires the least amount of notes and sources. Anyone wanting to verify the information can see concisely where they need to begin to verify the information.

Edit:
Of course, now that I can look at this in Google Maps, I think it might be more likely the church is in Schöftland instead of Staffelbach (the mother left Zofingen to give birth). So I might need to update the listing to

Schöftland,Staffelbach, Aargau, Switzerland

Now what was that point I was making about clarity and conciseness? :rolleyes:

I do not have an opinion either way, I can see both sides of the question about including cemeteries in the place name or in the sources or notes. In nFS the current method of showing notes and sources as just a big list of notes or sources would make showing them in the sources or notes not very effective. Most of the sources listed are just a bunch of automated data that means nothing anyway. I have submitted feedback to nFS recommending that the notes and sources need to be connected to the data they represent instead of just a list of all notes that are combined into the folder. You have no Idea which sources apply to which dates, names or places. Most folders contain several different birth dates, but all the notes and sources are listed together and are not linked to the dates they apply to, so they are not very useful. I am hoping that a future release will allow us to have notes and sources linked directly to a date or place name and if that were available a cemetery note could be linked directly to the burial place name. The other option is to allow non standard place names in the Burial place field so cemetery names can be included.

One of the issues that probably needs to be addressed is how the different program parse the place name. While city/county/state/country works fine in the United States, the 4-level setup doesn't always work world-wide.

Some programs, such as PAF Insight parse the place name from the right. It expects to see either the country (or the state) name there and doesn't really care about how many levels there are. I'm not sure how nFS does it, but with it's standardized place finder, I imagine that putting the cemetery name in the place name could mess things up.

It would be nice to put the cemetery name in because you can visit and see the headstone. Knowing what hospital someone was born or died in isn't very useful - that I know of. More important is what city/county to find the records.

jbh001 wrote:I prefer listing the cemetery in the place name instead of notes or sources because it simplifies many things (among them notes and sources).

Salt Lake City Cemetery, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah
Mount Olivet Cemetery, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah
Riverview Cemetery, Tremonton, Box Elder, Utah

Alternately, I have incorporated the name of the city into the cemetery name.

Salt Lake City Cemetery, Salt Lake, Utah
Salt Lake City Mount Olivet Cemetery, Salt Lake, Utah
Tremonton Riverview Cemetery, Box Elder, Utah

But I prefer the first solution because it think it is clearer and more consistent especially in those cases where a person wasn't buried in a cemetery, or the location of the cemetery is not known.

El Dorado, Salt Lake, Utah

the first group you listed is always my preference because it is most clear and to the point.

RussellHltn wrote:One of the issues that probably needs to be addressed is how the different program parse the place name. While city/county/state/country works fine in the United States, the 4-level setup doesn't' always work world-wide.

Some programs, such as PAF Insight parse the place name from the right. It expects to see either the country (or the state) name there and doesn't really care about how many levels there are. I'm not sure how nFS does it, but with it's standardized place finder, I image that putting the cemetery name in the place name could mess things up.

It would be nice to put the cemetery name in because you can visit and see the headstone. Knowing what hospital someone was born or died in isn't very useful - that I know of. More important is what city/county to find the records.

Do tell - about the 4-level place setup - but I have a major problem with Germany. So many places requiring 5-level place names. 16 "Berg" in Bavaria alone. That requires "Bezirkamt" names to identify specific Berg. "Bezirkamt" in Bavaria is equal to "County" in USA, Kreis in former Prussian provinces, Oberamt in Baden & Wuerttemberg.

That is why I asked for the place-standardizations to keep the places straight, and that includes cemeteries and obviously churches, too. (here's the problem - Cincinnati, Ohio has so many Catholic churches, don't ask me which one my cousins were christened in, they were in so many of them!):)

the nFS is structured to go from left to right, ruling out the cities if it is not known....
-, Salt Lake, Utah is the only way to resolve that problem. Morgan in Ohio - 9 are villages and one is a county. Guess which one my folks came from (am I suppose to simply allow Morgan, Ohio?)

I do wish that PAF resolved the place right to left as well. I do quite a few advanced focus/filters using the four place types (city, county, state, country) that works well for me in the USA and make it works pretty well for the motherlands my ancestry comes from (yes, I realize that may not work in all circumstances). However, I can see the right to left resolution would make it work better in other cases.