The combined record would be too large - WHAT?

Apparently lots of people are getting this error since the updates made during the shut-down at the end of June: "The following records could not be combined for the these reasons: The combined record would be too large"

Whoever thought up that one needs to be fired. Dump all the old, abandoned databases into one pile, mess it up real well, make the members sort it out, but only let them combine records if Grandpa Jones is in there less than 89 times.

Wasn't the whole point of this mess to reduce duplication (Even internal estimates are showing that duplication is currently at 30% in NFS)? And now someone sets an arbitrary number of individuals that can be combined, and we're not allowed to go over that? Do you realize the implications? This dooms NFS to the same fate as all the other dead LDS databases. I guess I'll just have to wait 10 years for this system to die a sad, hopeless death, and see what someone comes up with as "the next big thing that's going to eliminate duplication and save genealogy forever", like I did with the Ancestral File, Pedigree Resource File, TempleReady, IGI, etc... The track record for LDS databases is pretty bad. Nobody's changed their thinking enough to fix it. They just apply the same theories to the data using new coding languages.

Come on people. Geesh.

I have had the same error message several times. I am hopping this is just a temporary solution while they address the problems they are having from large files. I have some ancestors I can not even view without long delays because of the large numbers of names in the folders. This same problem of large numbers of records in folders is what has slowed the rollout of the system to more Temple districts. Maybe we need to give them a little time to work out these problems. I am sure it is one of their highest priorities. I am also sure they would like feedback if someone has some suggestions that thy feel will be helpful. There is a system in place inside the nFS help center to submit feedback to the programmers.

Or maybe you could patiently wait for the fix while you contemplate the fact that no one is perfect.

This is a temporary measure. The limits will be raised or removed after we complete necessary data reorganization.

lfalin wrote:Or maybe you could patiently wait for the fix while you contemplate the fact that no one is perfect.

BradJackman and Scion have some very valid concerns, both with the NFS software and how us moderators approach the concerns of other users on this forum. This thread has kicked up much discussion between us moderators and hopefully there will be some good change out of all of this.

As for a "fix" to NFS, I don't think much attention would have been given to this issue if were not for this thread...

mkmurray wrote:BradJackman and Scion have some very valid concerns, both with the NFS software and how us moderators approach the concerns of other users on this forum. This thread has kicked up much discussion between us moderators and hopefully there will be some good change out of all of this.

As for a "fix" to NFS, I don't think much attention would have been given to this issue if were not for this thread...

However, I should caution all (including us moderators) to have patience and be civil with each other (including us moderators).

I agree that the concern is valid, calling for people to be fired seemed a bit extreme though.

lfalin wrote:I agree that the concern is valid, calling for people to be fired seemed a bit extreme though.

Yes...that is one of quite a few comments from everyone here that prompted me to ask everyone to be more civil.

I apologize for my harsh words, it just seems like:

a) Everyone is turning a blind eye to issues that will severely damage the genealogical integrity of the Church's new system, believing that every element of NFS is infallible and inspired by God.
b) Nobody is willing to take a hard look at what really needs to be done to fix it
c) Users are being slammed by moderators and "NFS is infallible" supporters when problems are being raised.

I have to deal with the implications of every NFS update, every day, all day. Every change of technique, every lack of function, every IOUS and every false "take me to the temple" button requires me to address these issues over, and over, and over.

Calling for firing was too harsh. I didn't mean it. I do, however, wish NFS people would take a serious look at major overhauls, instead of little bandaids like "The combined record would be too large." Even "raising the limit" as Godon Clarke suggested, is absurd. If you can't combine every single duplicate, the whole plan is flawed.

I work with professional genealogists all day long. Every one of them has great suggestions for improvement, but nobody is listening. It's incredibly frustrating.

If this was a piece of commercial software, I'd just move to a competitor, but you're dealing with a product that will be mandatory for use by millions of users, and will be used to judge the Church's level of authenticity in the genealogical field. If NFS fails, people don't just lose their programming jobs - millions of volunteer hours will be lost, millions of Church members will suffer, temple duplication will increase, and the work of the Lord will be hindered.

I see serious problems, and I think I have a unique perspective. If I don't speak up, and get someone to take notice, I'm as much at fault as the programmers who don't understand real genealogy.

So, I'm sorry for coming off uncivil, but it's righteous indignation. I want NFS to succeed so everyone can benefit, but people need to change their way of thinking, and I don't see anyone asking questions, only defending problems.

I understand your frustrations. Moderators are just ordinary people just like you, we are not Church employees or programers and we have no more access to the inside than any other member. I have submitted a lot of feedback to nFS over the past year. Much of the feedback is about the very issues you are describing. It does seem like no one is listening sometimes but I know that is not true. I have spoken with some of the programers in person and they are aware of the issues you bring up and they are working on solutions. There are a lot of genealogy people involved in refining this system, not just programmers. The developers want to hear your solutions and they do listen. Go to nFS help center or FamilySearch labs and submit your feedback.

BradJackman wrote:I apologize for my harsh words, it just seems like:

a) Everyone is turning a blind eye to issues that will severely damage the genealogical integrity of the Church's new system, believing that every element of NFS is infallible and inspired by God.
b) Nobody is willing to take a hard look at what really needs to be done to fix it
c) Users are being slammed by moderators and "NFS is infallible" supporters when problems are being raised.

You are new here aren't you

As much as we (I include myself) would like this forum to be a place to spec church software, that is only a small part of what goes on here, and not the primary purpose of this forum.

The church is, and has struggled with how to include people like you into their design process. This forum is a major step toward getting feedback on their software, and including the community in the development process. It is major progress that you can post your thoughts to a forum like this and have people like Gary'sTurn see what you think.

This problem is not unique to nFS. Jump over to the clerks' forum if you want to see MLS' warts. LUWS gets hashed here pretty regularly as well.

BradJackman wrote: I have to deal with the implications of every NFS update, every day, all day. Every change of technique, every lack of function, every IOUS and every false "take me to the temple" button requires me to address these issues over, and over, and over.

Calling for firing was too harsh. I didn't mean it. I do, however, wish NFS people would take a serious look at major overhauls, instead of little bandaids like "The combined record would be too large." Even "raising the limit" as Godon Clarke suggested, is absurd. If you can't combine every single duplicate, the whole plan is flawed.

I work with professional genealogists all day long. Every one of them has great suggestions for improvement, but nobody is listening. It's incredibly frustrating.

If this was a piece of commercial software, I'd just move to a competitor, but you're dealing with a product that will be mandatory for use by millions of users, and will be used to judge the Church's level of authenticity in the genealogical field. If NFS fails, people don't just lose their programming jobs - millions of volunteer hours will be lost, millions of Church members will suffer, temple duplication will increase, and the work of the Lord will be hindered.

I see serious problems, and I think I have a unique perspective. If I don't speak up, and get someone to take notice, I'm as much at fault as the programmers who don't understand real genealogy.

So, I'm sorry for coming off uncivil, but it's righteous indignation. I want NFS to succeed so everyone can benefit, but people need to change their way of thinking, and I don't see anyone asking questions, only defending problems.

My issue is that you come across very combative. You spend a lot of time detailing how nFS makes your life miserable, but little time on how to make it better. You talk of suggestions and fixes, but the only one I see in your posts is 'Raising the size limit is a bandaid'. Your tone is a bit more productive on the place naming thread.

So, start naming suggestions. Start dialog about how nFS should work. Go comment on the versioning discussion at: http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=353&page=3

You should also jump onto the familysearch wiki at: wiki.familysearch.org, and the forum that matches.

I think we just caught you on a bad day, and got the brunt of your frustration. Now let's get to work!

The Earl

The Earl wrote:You are new here aren't you

Maybe on this forum, but I've been actively involved in both NFS betas, giving constructive feedback there, and the FamilyInsight beta, I have supplied dozens of suggestions on the feedback sections of NFS, life browser, standard finder, etc., participate in the familysearch wiki, write a blog concerning improving NFS, post comments to blogs about possible fixes, read and respond in several forums like this one, personally discuss issues with NFS employees, and have written a directly solicited letter from the head of FamilySearch detailing in over 8 pages suggestions for improvements from me and over 20 of my colleagues in the genealogical field. I found this forum after over a year of fighting for improvements and having people ignore it, so I apologize for my combative tone, but it has been a battle.

So yes, I do feel like I am doing my part to make issues known, spending hours and hours of my own time every week to detail problems and suggest fixes. My mounting frustration is that the response is always a variation of "We don't think your issue is important" or "You must be doing something wrong, NFS doesn't have problems" (except for Gordon's recent admission that they shouldn't limit merges). So maybe the issue isn't that I'm too new and my irritations are fresh, but that I've been figting for improvements for too long, and my migrane is becoming permanent. The only thing that keeps me going is that out of the 100+ suggestions I've made, 1 actually has been considered.

If you think that re-detailing in this forum every suggestion I have made will make someone take notice, I would be happy to. If so, I just hope there's no character limit to these posts:)

I am wondering if you are the same person that has a blog titled Shoebox Genealogy. If you are, I have read all your comments there and have your blog in my reader.

BradJackman wrote:Maybe on this forum, but I've been actively involved in both NFS betas, giving constructive feedback there, and the FamilyInsight beta, I have supplied dozens of suggestions on the feedback sections of NFS, life browser, standard finder, etc., participate in the familysearch wiki, write a blog concerning improving NFS, post comments to blogs about possible fixes, read and respond in several forums like this one, personally discuss issues with NFS employees, and have written a directly solicited letter from the head of FamilySearch detailing in over 8 pages suggestions for improvements from me and over 20 of my colleagues in the genealogical field. I found this forum after over a year of fighting for improvements and having people ignore it, so I apologize for my combative tone, but it has been a battle.

So yes, I do feel like I am doing my part to make issues known, spending hours and hours of my own time every week to detail problems and suggest fixes. My mounting frustration is that the response is always a variation of "We don't think your issue is important" or "You must be doing something wrong, NFS doesn't have problems" (except for Gordon's recent admission that they shouldn't limit merges). So maybe the issue isn't that I'm too new and my irritations are fresh, but that I've been figting for improvements for too long, and my migrane is becoming permanent. The only thing that keeps me going is that out of the 100+ suggestions I've made, 1 actually has been considered.

If you think that re-detailing in this forum every suggestion I have made will make someone take notice, I would be happy to. If so, I just hope there's no character limit to these posts:)

Brad, I applaud (and envy) your enthusiasm for genealogy work and understand some of your frustration. As someone who's been on the programming side, let me just say your suggestions are NOT going unnoticed. I don't think anyone is claiming the current release of NFS is "glorified and perfected" in its current state, however, adding features in a major program is sometimes akin to trying to turn a battleship in open water. It takes a LOT of planning, time, and room to do it.

I guess I'm asking for a little patience and tolerance for the programmers and developers. I'm sure the skipper of the battleship is currently sorting out and prioritizing the many course changes suggested. Some minor ones will be easy to implement, while others will require major rewrites and MUCH testing. Yes, the waiting period for end users is a painful, but unfortunately, necessary part of the development process.

BradJackman wrote:Maybe on this forum, but I've been actively involved in both NFS betas, giving constructive feedback there, and the FamilyInsight beta, I have supplied dozens of suggestions on the feedback sections of NFS, life browser, standard finder, etc., participate in the familysearch wiki, write a blog concerning improving NFS, post comments to blogs about possible fixes, read and respond in several forums like this one, personally discuss issues with NFS employees, and have written a directly solicited letter from the head of FamilySearch detailing in over 8 pages suggestions for improvements from me and over 20 of my colleagues in the genealogical field. I found this forum after over a year of fighting for improvements and having people ignore it, so I apologize for my combative tone, but it has been a battle.

Welcome to the fight. I think you may have lumped some of us into the wrong crowd based on our 'Moderator' titles, and our reaction to your tone, and less of your content.

BradJackman wrote: So yes, I do feel like I am doing my part to make issues known, spending hours and hours of my own time every week to detail problems and suggest fixes. My mounting frustration is that the response is always a variation of "We don't think your issue is important" or "You must be doing something wrong, NFS doesn't have problems" (except for Gordon's recent admission that they shouldn't limit merges). So maybe the issue isn't that I'm too new and my irritations are fresh, but that I've been figting for improvements for too long, and my migrane is becoming permanent. The only thing that keeps me going is that out of the 100+ suggestions I've made, 1 actually has been considered.

If you think that re-detailing in this forum every suggestion I have made will make someone take notice, I would be happy to. If so, I just hope there's no character limit to these posts:)

I read the blog Gary mentioned. If it is not yours, you probably know whose it is. I don't think you should re-post all of that information here. You might want to start a thread that points to it.

This sort of highlights some of the problems I have seen with the church integrating feedback like yours. There are lots of conversations like this occurring all over the place, on blogs, in FHCs, privately etc. None or few of these conversations include a truly critical mass of smart people that can properly trade-off and make actionable requests. They also have no records, no audit trail, and so, no accountability. Your letter is a perfect example. You send a letter with a number of suggestions. You have no recourse, or visibility into what becomes of your suggestions. You are not included in discussions about feasibility, development cost, developer ability etc. You don't even know if those conversations happened. Even if your requests get implemented, you might not recognize the implementation, or why certain tradeoffs were made. Nor would you have the opportunity to defend or critique partial fixes.

This is really the crux of your concerns. This is what I focus on in this forum. nFS is broken, but there is no process to 'fix' it and include you. Help me (us?) get a process in place!

Brad,

I would be very interested to hear what you think of versioning for genealogy.
http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=353&page=3

If you want to discuss it further, let me know. I think I have already dragged this thread off topic to much already.

The Earl

The Earl wrote:If you want to discuss it further, ...

Perhaps this discussion should shift to a different thread with a different title. If it does, please include a link. [grin]

But, I understand the frustration in post #1.

Something that would be helpful for me would be to know what effect, if any, these comments have in what I would graciously call the "improvement and change" process. For example:

Are these comments read?
Are these comments considered in any serious sort of way?

Is it worth the time to post here at the forum with the hope that comments will be used to contribute to positive improvements in whatever it is we are commenting about? [with apologies to my 7th grade English teacher]

Or is it better to count time spent here as merely entertainment (or venting, which is, of course, discouraged)?

Are there any words of encouragement that might convince us that we should stay and be involved?

As anyone brave enough considers responding to these questions, I would suggest honesty, evidence (if available), and as much forthrightness and detail as you are allowed without losing your job.

From my vantage point, I could write a book about my experiences over the last four years with the MLS rollout in North America. I never will, because I care too much about the Church and the faithful folks who I have come to believe are doing the best they can with the limited resources they have.

But if I did, it would be a good, thick, entertaining book. And I would have to change all of the names.

So, is it worth the effort to participate here?

I started a new thread to discuss your ideas about Combining and Uncombining in the Tree Cleaning sub forum.

Lets hear your Ideas on how the Combining and Uncombining functions could be improved.

The new thread is here.

lajackson wrote:Perhaps this discussion should shift to a different thread with a different title. If it does, please include a link. [grin]

I'll bite:
http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1558

I don't know if my nFS feedback is going anywhere. Roughly half of my feedback has caused nFS to freeze, which also froze Netscape so I ended up having to completely turn off my computer. This is the only website I use that has this problem repeatedly--and I've only been on nFS since Sunday, 6 July 2008.

Sometimes when I log in the screen is blank. nFS "cheerleaders" have already told me to use nFS when it is less busy. Given that I am gainfully employed and have a full household, the time available to devote to nFS is minimal. However, even being online at midnight Pacific Time does not decrease these problems. If nFS cannot handle part of the US, what will happen when the world is online?

I'm using XP on a computer that is only 1 year old.

scion wrote:I don't know if my nFS feedback is going anywhere. Roughly half of my feedback has caused nFS to freeze, which also froze Netscape so I ended up having to completely turn off my computer. This is the only website I use that has this problem repeatedly--and I've only been on nFS since Sunday, 6 July 2008.

Sometimes when I log in the screen is blank. nFS "cheerleaders" have already told me to use nFS when it is less busy. Given that I am gainfully employed and have a full household, the time available to devote to nFS is minimal. However, even being online at midnight Pacific Time does not decrease these problems. If nFS cannot handle part of the US, what will happen when the world is online?

I'm using XP on a computer that is only 1 year old.

I do not experience this problem of nFS freezing up. I use Internet Explorer. Perhaps the problem is related to nFS and Netscape. Have you tried Internet Explorer with nFS and had the same problems?

I will not use IE. It has too many security problems.

scion wrote:I will not use IE. It has too many security problems.

This should probably be a new topic, but I'll leave that up to the moderators.

Maybe IE6 had some issues, but with IE7 with Windows Vista and/OR WinXPSP3, the security provided is as good as or better than any other provider out there.

Rule of thumb: The operating system or application that is the most popular and is overwhelmingly used by businesses will be the one targetted with malicious attacks. This will always be the case. If Linux suddenly overcame 95% of the market, I guarantee you that nearly all malicious software would be created to target Linux.

To further illustrate my point, check this article:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

If you want to be perfectly safe, run Linux or something else unpopular that no one cares to write malicious software for.

Brad O.

scion wrote:I will not use IE. It has too many security problems.

FYI:

IE 8 will finally adhere to the standards (both security and HTML & Javascript standards).

mkmurray wrote:FYI:

IE 8 will finally adhere to the standards (both security and HTML & Javascript standards).

As a developer, I am anxiously awaiting that. Unfortunately, we will still have IE6 and IE7 installations to deal with for years to come.

Mikerowaved wrote:As someone who's been on the programming side, let me just say your suggestions are NOT going unnoticed. I don't think anyone is claiming the current release of NFS is "glorified and perfected" in its current state, however, adding features in a major program is sometimes akin to trying to turn a battleship in open water. It takes a LOT of planning, time, and room to do it.

I am incredibly pleased that someone from programming (assuming that you are programming for NFS) is watching these threads. I don't envy your job. We have a proprietary lineage-linked genealogy program that we use where I work to manage the original research for thousands of clients, and after 15 years we're still making improvements weekly. I know that NFS will be a work-in-progress for some time.

As far as the "glorified and perfected" database, you and I know it's got problems, but that's the way the church membership is seeing it. Everyone I talk to has a completely different understanding of what it will do (I live in SLC, most people don't have access to it yet), but EVERYONE is under the impression that this is the holy grail of genealogy, and it will solve ALL the problems. I'm currently assisting our ward Family History Consultant in a genealogy class, and he just can't stop talking about how "glorified and perfected" the new system is. It's a little unnerving.

As far as the battleship analogy, I understand that too. A lot of what I hear from employees at NFS is that there's lots of beaurocracy involved in making changes, and they're too tightly managed to make any real changes without a lot of red tape. All of the major kinks will be worked out of the system, I suppose, and I like where it's eventually headed with evidence and source images. I could also deal with a long and drawn out beta program, and even a limited pilot program in one or two temple districts that lasts for a couple years. I'd be okay with submitting thousands of concerns and waiting a year for them to get implemented.

What I'm terribly worried about is sending the battleship into war while it's still faced backwards. Before we get it turned around, it very likely could be sunk.

There's not enough training, not enough caution, and not enough people who care about sources and authenticity for this to become what it needs to become. Tying online temple submission into NFS at this point is a mess. THAT is my main concern - Duplicated and erroneous temple work and research. Have family tree, pedigree viewer, life browser and record search all up and running perfectly before you take away the ability of members to check names through TempleReady. It's WAY, WAY, WAY too early in the development of the program (even if it is 5+ years old) to implement online temple submissions. Too many bugs, too many problems, too many concerns, too many errors, too much duplication, too many false-positives.

But, like a battleship headed into the port at 20 knots, there doesn't seem to be a way to stop it, and I feel a terrible collision is imminent.

BradJackman wrote:I am incredibly pleased that someone from programming (assuming that you are programming for NFS) is watching these threads...

Unforuntately, I think you have misunderstood Mikerowaved. He does not work on the NFS project, nor does he work for the Church at all. His profile mentions that he is a "Retired Engineer."

BradJackman wrote:I am incredibly pleased that someone from programming (assuming that you are programming for NFS) is watching these threads.

Just to clarify, I'm not on the programming staff for the Church. I'm just expressing my feelings from past experiences in helping to write major programs. However, I'm told that NFS developers DO monitor these forums and pick up on the many ideas presented, so please feel free to continue to constructively suggest improvements.

Mike

mkmurray wrote:Unforuntately, I think you have misunderstood Mikerowaved. He does not work on the NFS project, nor does he work for the Church at all. His profile mentions that he is a "Retired Engineer."

Aww shucks, one can hope, right? Either way, my concerns about the system still stand. There are far too many serious problems for it to be released right now, but I doubt anyone's going to be able to stop the roll-out at this point.

Have you cleared or tried to clear a name in newFamilySearch. Before the nFS system prints the ordinance request it does go through the same process as the old Temple Ready does and the nFS database it is searching contains all completed ordinances which the old Temple Ready does not contain. So even if people select names without doing all the combining, when they get ready to print the ordinance request they are presented with possible matches in the new Temple Ready process. In these possible matches screens the ordinance dates are shown in the comparison screens. There are safeguards in place.

GarysTurn wrote:So even if people select names without doing all the combining, when they get ready to print the ordinance request they are presented with possible matches in the new Temple Ready process. In these possible matches screens the ordinance dates are shown in the comparison screens. There are safeguards in place.

This did not happen for me. When I went to print an ordinance request, I was presented with the same possible matches as I was earlier, with the same lack of information, and had to make the same uninformed decisions as to whether or not the names matched. It was not pretty. And I was not able to find any ordinance information to compare.

I ran the situation by the help desk and the response was to use my best judgment and do the best I could with the information I had. In other words, they did not know what to do. They were surprised that ordinance information was not coming up, duplicated that the information was missing (and should have been there), and took an action to look into it.

GarysTurn wrote:I do not experience this problem of nFS freezing up. I use Internet Explorer. Perhaps the problem is related to nFS and Netscape. Have you tried Internet Explorer with nFS and had the same problems?

scion wrote:I will not use IE. It has too many security problems.

Mozilla Firefox worked very well for me in the Spring 2007 beta. Unless Firefox is what was meant by "Netscape", that might be worth a try.

Also, some apparent browser hangs can be caused by packet loss over the network. Run a ping for at least 20 packets to a popular site that replies to ping packets and see if you're losing more than 5% or so. If so, I would recommend bugging your ISP about it, especially if browser hangs affect any other sites you use.

mkmurray wrote:As for a "fix" to NFS, I don't think much attention would have been given to this issue if were not for this thread...

It is nice to think so, but I am aware of other sources that indicate that the "combining" issue has been being worked on for well over a year. In a different thread someone stated that one individual had been combined with his father and grandfather. These kinds of combinations tended to create "magnets" (my term) where everyone in the database eventually auto-merged down to 11 individuals (or so). The 80-90 limit on combining individuals is a band-aid fix to prevent that from happening while they work out a better solution to the "mega-merge" problem.

In the mean time, I do the best I can with the resources I have to work with.

Almost three years later and this problem still exists...

I can't really take this software seriously while this problem exists.

I just hit this snag recently too. I walked through the 80 pages for one name and then got this same message. I did the "Polish circle"(tm) twice and then gave up. I also see "combined" names of lots of people who are related, but not the same person. How do we uncombine those obviously wrong decisions, so the right/correct data is presented?

I've also seen records (my direct line) where one person is "Ready" to be sealed to another person's spouse, across generations. How do we "Unready" those obviously mistaken situations?

You may have noticed that this forum is very quiet. You'll probably have a better chance of getting your questions answered over in the FamilySearch Forums.

pritchet1 wrote:I just hit this snag recently too. I walked through the 80 pages for one name and then got this same message. I did the "Polish circle"(tm) twice and then gave up. I also see "combined" names of lots of people who are related, but not the same person. How do we uncombine those obviously wrong decisions, so the right/correct data is presented?

I've also seen records (my direct line) where one person is "Ready" to be sealed to another person's spouse, across generations. How do we "Unready" those obviously mistaken situations?

Most cases of confused relationships I have found in my tree have been caused by incorrect combining (automatic or otherwise, I don't know) of different real people into one combined record. In my opinion, the best solution is to very carefully separate the records. I used a lot of paper, tape, and colored pen to be sure I would separate the records correctly. Here's how I did the split-ups I have done:

First, I printed screenshots of the combined records page. It would be nice if the page would print (to multiple paper pages) from a browser, but that was not working when I tried it. Second, I cut the edges and taped them together so that I had a large map-like sheet of paper. Third, I scanned the left-hand column for names of parents, names of spouses, dates, and such to get an idea of which two real people were involved. (If you have reliable sources to help with that, that's even better.) Fourth, I chose a different color for each real person and marked the left-hand column with the respective colors. Fifth, I marked the cells in the body of the table with the matching color. Sixth, I marked the header cell of each column with (hopefully) one color based on the colors in the cells in the body of the table. Finally, after a double-check of the details, I went back to nFS and marked the columns (making sure they hadn't changed or moved around) and did the split. Then, I checked the records to make sure the split had been done correctly.

In one case, I had a single component record, one with no identified contributor, that had conflicting information. For that record, I sent a request for help on nFS, and the support person took care of that one component record so I could split up the rest.