21st century syncing of PAF / FamilySearch / IGI

With the upgrading of FamilySearch.org in progress, I could understand there being a hold back on PAF - although you'd think it would be better to work on them simultaniously - although I hope that's the only reason. PAF 5.2 has been around for a LONG time now, and as the creators of GEDCOM who have influenced the entire genealogical software industry, we should be leading the way. PAF's multimedia capabilities are limited and the websites it creates are reminisent of DOS days. To look at the capabilities and syncing of Family Tree Maker and Ancestry.com puts us to shame, so I'd like to know if the new, long-awaited features of the new FamilySearch site will have all that's been anticipated - and whether PAF will be upgraded in order to become more synced, not only with the site, but with multimedia, the web, and the 21st century generally.

With TempleReady about to be on FamilySearch.org, I'm expecting to be able to process a submission either by accessing a previously created GEDCOM (from any package that accomodates ordinance data/fields), or by accessing the PAF database directly (as with the TempleReady software), and preferably other packages, placing the contents of the database on view on FamilySearch, ready for selection, editing etc., and then going through the normal submission process of checking against the IGI and updating the database or creating a GEDCOM as appropriate. Another option would be to have the option to select and submit directly from PAF (without the use of a GEDCOM), and again check against the IGI online. With any option, the user would finally need to be viewing the site in order to actually make the submission over the Internet to whichever temple they choose.

As for PAF's capabilities - especially multimedia, web, syncing, searching, indexing - I'd like to know if there are going to be any drastic improvements in the near future. To look at things in perspective: at the moment, it's still not possible to identify one parent as biological and the other as adoptive; there's an option to add an image to a marriage record but no way to view it; and without the use of an add-in, it's not possible to view images of anyone other than the person in the primary position in Family View. We still can't open more than 1 database and transfer from one to another without the use of a GEDCOM. These are just a few examples of the limitations, which are so frustrating when I know that the Church could and should be leading the way. I think it was when PAF 4.x was released that it was said that it was no longer just a genealogical program, but a Book of Remembrance. Such now frequently include video and URLs, and with the age of multimedia and the Internet that we are now in, and the growth and improvement of Church sites (and expansion of genealogy online), surely the time is long overdue for PAF to be brought up to date. A simple example would be the ability to view FamilySearch.org from within PAF, check against the IGI (or other indexes) and update your database(s) etc.

As part of the upgrading of FamilySearch.org, I'd like to know how the structure of the IGI will be affected. As far as I know, on the existing site recent submissions have been dealt with differently in order to try to reduce duplication and to keep families together in the original family unit structure in which they were submitted (just as if viewing the Pedigree Resource File), rather than viewing each child individually with the parents. It's my understanding that there is an aim to 'reunite' siblings on the IGI, and if so, I'd like to know how this will be undertaken. And will any kind of record, link, or even some form of merge be performed for any duplications?

If anyone can shed any light on any of these points then that'd be great! :rolleyes:

The bottom line question here is what is the best use of church funds to meet it's goal? Developing PAF to become the leading free program probably isn't one of them as there are currently other (arguably better) programs being offered for free. Yes, the church has lead the ways in those areas in the past because there was a need that wasn't being fulfilled. The church will continue to lead in areas where it can best further the work. As you may be aware, the church has backed out of continuing to develop GEDCOM because continued development was no longer fulfilling the chuch's goals. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about the future of PAF.

I have heard from several reliable sources that PAF will be updated. It makes no since to do those updates until they are sure what the final structure of NewFamilySearch is going to be. After that is finished then the most needed updates to PAF to make it Sync with NewFamilySeach will be done.

It is my understanding that PAF will not be updated but instead things will be moved to the web with a possible desktop client. I think that what we will see in the future is more third party software, which in my opinion is a good thing.

That is what the church seems to be trying to sponser, they provide the data and a simple and 3rd party developers provide the complex interface and more advance functions.

mulhollandj wrote:It is my understanding that PAF will not be updated but instead things will be moved to the web with a possible desktop client.

That's been my impression as well, but when I've expressed the opinion that the new FamilySearch replaces PAF I've been told that's not true. All I gotta say is given the final end goal, the old data model of fragments of genealogy stored on individual hard drives is a horrid data model. That was just a stop gap to get things rolling until the Internet could be developed. To me the future is a single on-line collaborative system.

I also agree that the future will be internet collabreation which a central source. What I understand is that PAF (or its replacement) will sync with the new FamilySearch, making updates and getting updates from others, and that your personal tree will be stored on the computer, while the global tree and data will be stored at the new family search.

thedqs wrote:What I understand is that PAF (or its replacement) will sync with the new FamilySearch, making updates and getting updates from others, and that your personal tree will be stored on the computer, while the global tree and data will be stored at the new family search.

Possible, but then that creates a whole bunch of issues in syncing. With the world moving to full-time Internet connections, that's just not the best route. Keep in mind that just because it's on FS, doesn't necessarily mean it's public. Also if your "work in progress" is on a central site, it can tell you about any possible matches it finds between other published and unpublished works.

I just can't throw out the lowest denominator in my thinking (those that still use dial-up) but I can see that it would be best to have a central server where everyone has their little piece and a gaint tree comes together with the server making matches and offering the user to accept its matches.
That is a feature I really want to see. I took over the family history from my mom and she hadn't worked on it for awhile and off of the FamilySearch there are tons of new links that would be great just to import a branch instead of entering the data, semi-manually.

thedqs wrote:I just can't throw out the lowest denominator in my thinking (those that still use dial-up)

I understand that. There will be a need for something to do local data entry and then sync. But if that's our goal, then that's penalizing those with broadband which is ever growing. In other words, we need to accommodate the lowest common denominator, but it shouldn't dictate the structure given the current environment.

If someone wants to do everything online, I think new FamilySearch will be all they will need to use. For others, PAF will be updated to do some type of sync routine. I am sure 3rd party Family History Software companies will want to have the ability for their software to sync with new FamilySearch as well.

Ok that is the best way since I know some people only have internet access which they use at internet cafes while some don't have internet at all but they can take their GEDCOM to the FHL and sync it usings the "syncing" PAF. Anyway I am wondering what is going to happen to the FHL once you can do everything at home? (TempleReady, Microfilm Research, etc)

thedqs wrote:Anyway I am wondering what is going to happen to the FHL once you can do everything at home? (TempleReady, Microfilm Research, etc)

FHL or FHC? In a word: training.

Back in my stake in Washington we had the Family History Library. But up here in Utah we have Family History Centers.

I wonder if the church will release some self-teach training videos/materials onto the FamilySearch site...

Yes, your right on track. I know that currently the at the Ward level there should be Family History Consultants in each ward that has access to online training resources that they can then go out and share as they work together with others in a one on one setting helping teach and train them on the various tools and resources (PAF, familysearch, etc.) of the Church.

The Church already offers online training in Family History. When Family History Consultants and Priesthood leaders register with the Church they receive a User account and Password to the training sites. I have gone through most of the online lessons myself. Family History Consultants also receive E-Mails on a regular basis with other training and links to BYU training sites which are also available free online. I have created a Web page with links to many of these sites and to listings of past Family History Consultants E-Mails for our Consultants to use to keep up with training. It is at http://newfamilyhistory.googlepages.com if anyone is interested in online training.

new FamilySearch will also include Research Forums which will contain a Knowledge base where people can find training and answers to many research questions. There will also be people online available to help in the Forums. I am signed up as a Beta Tester for the Forums and get E-Mail updates about the coming forums testing. The beta testing for the Forums has not started yet. They have requested that we submit reviews of online research sources to be included in the Knowlege base.

We will always need an option to have genealogy stored and accessed locally on our personal computers. The simple example for me would be when I'm out in the middle of nowhere, checking out a graveyard and need to pull something up in PAF to see where the information I'm gathering does or doesn't fit in. Not all research can be done on the Internet unfortunately, and Internet is not always readily or cheaply available everywhere that research may take you.

The flip side though is that there absolutely has to be an "Internet version" available in some manner (web being the preferred choice of course) to truly get the degree of collaboration that is needed.

With those two needs stated, then a need to sync between the two is also obvious. So a complete solution has to include a web solution, and offline solution, and a way to sync between the two.

On a different note, is there any particular reason why the Church hasn't opened up the source of PAF to the public? Obviously having the church continue to do work on PAF would be a good thing (in my eyes anyway), perhaps they're worried about the code forking if they open it up? A guess what I would like as a minimum would be a way to view the code and submit changes that if approved by the Church, would be included in the "main" version.

gblack wrote:We will always need an option to have genealogy stored and accessed locally on our personal computers. The simple example for me would be when I'm out in the middle of nowhere, checking out a graveyard and need to pull something up in PAF to see where the information I'm gathering does or doesn't fit in.

I'll agree with that. However, I see your example as an argument for a version that runs on PDAs or maybe even on cell phones (WAP?). Cell phone access is available in some very remote areas.

RussellHltn wrote:I'll agree with that. However, I see your example as an argument for a version that runs on PDAs or maybe even on cell phones (WAP?). Cell phone access is available in some very remote areas.

The computer is a more common denominator though, and me personally, I wouldn't drag one of those, I'd take a laptop so I've got plenty of storage space both for all the files I need to drag with me (I've got my own miniature vault over here I need to digitize...) and also for all the photos I take (sometimes because there isn't a good copier available, other times because I'm photographing cemeteries)

gblack wrote:The computer is a more common denominator though, and me personally, I wouldn't drag one of those, I'd take a laptop so I've got plenty of storage space both for all the files I need to drag with me (I've got my own miniature vault over here I need to digitize...) and also for all the photos I take (sometimes because there isn't a good copier available, other times because I'm photographing cemeteries)

I agree. I think there are many people who take their laptops around while they are visiting various genealogical sites. I think there will be plenty of reasons and plenty of people that still like to do their work offline.

The current form of FamilySearch will be a web based program with and API for client programs so that you can still use PAF, Legacy, Gramps, or whatever else you use and it will just synchronize together. That way you can take your laptop, PDA, smart-phone/iphone, etc to the cemetery, update your info and then sync it with the world.

Just a couple of quick comments/observations I've had as I've read this thread:

1. we should never forget the typical end-user. As power users sometimes we have a stigma of build it just for people that are on broadband/Best Set-up . . . etc.. . . . If you build it they will come. yes this is true to a point, but there are still meeting houses on this earth that have limited to no electricity an offline client is a necessary reality.

2. Syncing - Syncing allows for the best of both worlds. My biggest concern with syncing is: accuracy. I don't know how many times things with my palm got messed up and ended up making a complete set of duplicates of every contact & calander appointment. My point is that I hope that this syncing is an area that he church is paying alot of attention to. I sure hope that they iron out the best possible way to do this so that there are not major problems with syncing. . . .

I recall a "tech talk" type of meeting in Pleasanton a year ago in which I suggested a wiki-model for attaching info to names put up on the web in a big family tree. I said that with trepidation and full knowledge that we're at the mercy of people making mistakes with the data, leading us on wild goose chases.

But I'm now remembering that there was an effort by an individual in Salt Lake City a few years ago to purposely create "random families and individuals" and upload them to databases under the guise of "making people do their research" and not just "take it from the net". From other stories about this guy, my impression was that he was trying to ruin the LDS church's desire to put up a good resource for family searchers everywhere. (Similar to dumping salt into a well to spoil it.)

How does this this connected database avoid small or large scale "data-spoiling"? It's a well known tactic to provide enough "false noise" to discourage the use of one's senses to seek out a reliable solution.

We see stories right now of someone rooting around in Ebay, putting up fake auctions based upon other people's accounts (and good seller ratings). Ebay's (and the sellers) credibility has decreased rather quickly.

Do we put in a "reliability flag" on submissions? How do we determine that someone is "untrustworthy"? If we put in links to documents scanned in, wouldn't we fall for photoshop-ed documents?

Comments?


Justin

jmasters wrote:But I'm now remembering that there was an effort by an individual in Salt Lake City a few years ago to purposely create "random families and individuals" and upload them to databases under the guise of "making people do their research" and not just "take it from the net".

I've not heard that. I did hear of a guy who manufactured false genealogies to attract people to his page to sell advertising. I don't think he went as far as creating false sources.

Frankly I think a more troubling problem is when two people agree that someone is the same ancestor but have different beliefs about the details. Once we resolve that in a way to keep both parties happy, dealing with mischief should be trivial.

jmasters wrote:I recall a "tech talk" type of meeting in Pleasanton a year ago in which I suggested a wiki-model for attaching info to names put up on the web in a big family tree. I said that with trepidation and full knowledge that we're at the mercy of people making mistakes with the data, leading us on wild goose chases.

Well we already know that despite best efforts there will be mistakes, so I think we do best by just accepting there will be error and planning that into the model. I think the important part about people putting data up is the ability to preserve >their< data just as they put it up because there opinion, just like all the others out there, will need to be heard. I also think it's very important that conflicting data be preserved (regardless of the degree of conflict, sometimes "minor" differences in data are enough to help you discover there are two or more people with very similar characteristics that you're trying to treat as the same person). Even when you're dealing with identical data, if there are multiple sources, the sources should be preserved. Studying these duplications/conflicts/sources/etc can help those who care to find the real sources. For those who are "less detailed" in their research (either intentionally or unintentionally) I don't think false data is going to make much difference. For those who are detailed, the false data isn't going to make much difference either because they're going to see through it.

With the work the Church is currently involved in to put a tremendous amount of source documents within easy reach of all of us, I think it's going to be much easier to verify data (even for the novices) than it has been in the past.

As for creating false "source" documents, I don't think that's going to be a large concern either - just consider the tremendous amount of time needed to be able to do that on any scale... Also consider that the data will conflict with other source documents (which we all come across normally anyway which leaves any source document under a certain amount of suspicion), and if it's duplicating any easily obtainable source document it's going to be easy to spot it as a fake.

I don't think we have much to worry about from false data. I view the big challenge as being able to display all of the available information, conflicting or not, in a way that meets the needs of every researcher out there - particularly those coordinating their research with others (I coordinate research in my family - it's a headache keeping everyone's changes in sync, I'm hoping the new website will make a lot of this far easier).


BTW - just as an example of how confusing things can get sometimes, a few years ago I ran into someone who showed different parents for one of my (a few greats) grandmothers. I challenged their information in a kind and polite manner hoping they would point me to some sources or what not so I could figure out why they saw it differently. The info I had was based on my Dad's research and I had some source documents and felt that what I had was fairly solid. Unfortunately the person never responded back to me, but I'm a stickler for accuracy anyway so I pursued it. Come to find out I've got two women with the same name born in the same place (and grew up and died in the same place) with just a few years between their ages. Even once I had verified there were actually two it looked to be impossible to sort out which had actually married my (a few greats) grandfather. A few years later while doing some on site research at a genealogical society, a researcher over in another area suddenly poked his head up and said "Aren't you looking for Blacks?" when I replied I was he told me he'd stumbled on an obit he thought I might be interested in - turned out to be an obit for this grandfather of mine that showed that his wife was still living when he died. Of the two women I had identified, one had died prior to my grandfather, the other after, so from that I had my answer.

Under new FamilySearch all individuals with the same name and dates will be linked together, and even though the term merged is used to combine all the information, each persons submission information will be kept seperately. You will be able to edit, delete, or update information you send in, but all you can do with other peoples submissions is attach comments or disagreements to their data. The version with the best sources will be the main person displayed in the public view of the person. All other persons submissions will be available to look at and review but not in the main pedigree, they will be listed as additional contribuitors. I am not sure how the Sources will be ranked as to which Sources are the best but I understand their will be some type of source ranking. You will have the option in your preferences to have all of your submissions displayed if you don't want the highest priority submissions listed when you go online. If someone were to submit bogus information, it would soon be downgraded in the system as people dispute it.

This is not a true Wiki but in some ways is better than a true Wiki. Here is a link to the Introduction to new FamilySearch which was given to the Beta2 testers. It explains a lot of how things work. This link came from rzamor1's blog.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... sguide.pdf

GarysTurn wrote:Under new FamilySearch all individuals with the same name and dates will be linked together,

Which raises the question, how close is "close enough" to make them the same person? It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find two people with the same name living in the same town in about the right year. When it comes to people, never say "that can't happen".

RussellHltn wrote:Which raises the question, how close is "close enough" to make them the same person? It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find two people with the same name living in the same town in about the right year. When it comes to people, never say "that can't happen".

That is always possible, new FamilySearch brings all the possible matches together, it does not do the merge of these individuals. Decendents working on the lines make the decision whether the matches are the same person. And if someone is wrongly marked as a match, that merge can be unmerged at a later point if it is determined to not be correct. This is a great improvement over Ancestral File which merged the names and they became one record, now merges just become contributors to the record.

The best thing we can do to get ready for new FamilySearch is to clean up our data and get our sources entered under sources. (many people have their sources in the notes)

GarysTurn wrote:new FamilySearch brings all the possible matches together, it does not do the merge of these individuals.

OK, that's good to hear.

RussellHltn wrote:OK, that's good to hear.

Letting the users do the combining of duplicates is undoubtedly the right thing to do, but it has a downside: there's going to be a whole lot of combining to do. In the current beta, many of my ancestors had several duplicated parents and/or several duplicated spouses. Many of the families have _many_ duplicated children, 93 children in one family I happened to look at. Getting that cleaned up is going to take quite a bit of work. I hope most people will be careful when doing that.

The issue of combining vs. separating different contributions is one area where, at least from what I have seen, it appears there is some potential for different researchers to disagree and cause each other difficulties by repeatedly changing the database back and forth. I hope people will be reasonable and civil about such situations. I wonder if there are plans for FamilySearch support to mediate or defuse such situations if they arise.

Lest the above give a false impression I am negative about the new FamilySearch, I have to say I am _V_E_R_Y_ excited to see it happening. I hope it is able to go live soon. It's going to be beyond Marvelous!

GarysTurn wrote:That is always possible, new FamilySearch brings all the possible matches together, it does not do the merge of these individuals. Decendents working on the lines make the decision whether the matches are the same person. And if someone is wrongly marked as a match, that merge can be unmerged at a later point if it is determined to not be correct. This is a great improvement over Ancestral File which merged the names and they became one record, now merges just become contributors to the record.

The best thing we can do to get ready for new FamilySearch is to clean up our data and get our sources entered under sources. (many people have their sources in the notes)

This is wonderful news! Being able to merge and unmerge online like that will be a great help to researchers. I am also happy to hear about the focus on sources. Good researchers always quote reliable sources and to have the best data shown first based on sources and their rankings is perfect.

rmrichesjr wrote: The issue of combining vs. separating different contributions is one area where, at least from what I have seen, it appears there is some potential for different researchers to disagree and cause each other difficulties by repeatedly changing the database back and forth. I hope people will be reasonable and civil about such situations. I wonder if there are plans for FamilySearch support to mediate or defuse such situations if they arise.

I don't know what's planned, but I think there needs to be "defaults" that are displayed, and then personal preferences everyone can set up to override defaults. For example, Say there are 3 possibilities for the father of person A. The system (using whatever method) marks possibility 1 as the default. User X selects a preference of possibility 2, so whenever they view it, possibility 2 pops up as their "personal default". User Y disagrees and selects possibility 3, so when they view their tree, possibility 3 always pops up as the "personal default" for User Y.

gblack wrote:I don't know what's planned, but I think there needs to be "defaults" that are displayed, and then personal preferences everyone can set up to override defaults. For example, Say there are 3 possibilities for the father of person A. The system (using whatever method) marks possibility 1 as the default. User X selects a preference of possibility 2, so whenever they view it, possibility 2 pops up as their "personal default". User Y disagrees and selects possibility 3, so when they view their tree, possibility 3 always pops up as the "personal default" for User Y.

This capability appears to be there, at least in the current beta system. It basically is required in order to handle cases of children from multiple marriages. Let's say somebody follows a line on the pedigree back to the prophet Jacob from Genesis. Somebody who is (mostly) descended from one or more sons of Leah would want her displayed on the pedigree, while somebody who is (mostly) descended from one or more sons of Rachel would want her displayed on the pedigree. From what I can see, that capability seems to be there and appears to be working.

rmrichesjr wrote:This capability appears to be there, at least in the current beta system. It basically is required in order to handle cases of children from multiple marriages. Let's say somebody follows a line on the pedigree back to the prophet Jacob from Genesis. Somebody who is (mostly) descended from one or more sons of Leah would want her displayed on the pedigree, while somebody who is (mostly) descended from one or more sons of Rachel would want her displayed on the pedigree. From what I can see, that capability seems to be there and appears to be working.

Your example would display properly because the children are listed as children of Jacob and Rachel. And children of Jacob and Leah would show them as the parents. The problem comes when you don't know who the mother is and the children are listed under both mothers, then which is listed as the default.

In your beta test try entering the same child under two different sets of parents, and then go to that childs record and see which display, and see if there is an option to choose which set of parents are displayed as the default. Then you would need someone else to choose the other set of parents and see if they display for them all the time when they log in.

You are right that if you are going from a child to the parents, the child's connection to the mother can take care of deciding which of Jacob's wives to show. I was going to propose a test, but I think I just disproved my own case. I went to my favorite record for Jacob, PID 5K4C-VT7 in 'pedigree with details' mode, selected Leah as the spouse to view, moved Isaac to the main position, then moved Jacob back to the main position. Now, it shows Rachel as the spouse. Hmmm... I think I should file that as an issue. It's going to be a pain if the system always reverts to the "other" wife rather than making my selection sticky.