nFS & merged data

Please explain how this person's birth can possibly span so many years. (This looks suspiciously like Ancestral File's automatic matches that created impossible merges.) Also, clicking on combined records displays nothing. The screen pops up, but just searches. No results.


Zerubbabel Hoyt (-) Completed Living Large record warning

*
* Summary
* Details
* LDS Ordinances
* Time Line
* Map
* Parents and Siblings
* Spouses and Children
* Possible Duplicates


Close
Help
Common Questions

* Teach me more about navigating and searching for information.
* Teach me more about adding information about individuals and families.
* Teach me more about editing, deleting, and disputing information.
* Teach me more about resolving possible matches.
* What can I do on the Me and My Ancestors page?
* How do I read this pedigree?
* What are Individual Details, and what can I do here?
* More questions

Overviews and guides

For additional help, visit the Help Center.
Person identifier: KN7W-YR1
Changed by:
Name:
Zerubbabel Hoyt

* Zerubbabel Hoyt
* Deacon Z. Hoyt
* Deacon Zerubbabel Hoyt
* Deacon Zerubbabell Hoyt
* Hoyt
* Jerubabel Hoyt
* Living
* Z. Hoyt
* Zarubabbel Hayt
* Zarubabbel Hoyt
* Zerbubbabel Hoyt
* Zerrubabel Hoyt
* Zerrubabel Hoyt Deacon
* Zerrubabell Hoyt
* Zerrubabell Hoyt Deacon
* Zerrubbabel Hoyt
* Zeruabel Hoyt
* Zerubabbel Hoyt
* Zerubabbel--- Hayt==Hoyt
* Zerubabel (Zerubbabell) Hoyt
* Zerubabel Hait/Hoyt
* Zerubabel Hoyt
* Zerubabel Hoyt (Hait)
* Zerubabel Hoyt or Hayt
* Zerubabell Hoyt\Deacon
* Zerubable Hoyt
* Zerubbabel (Deacon) Hoyt Deacon
* Zerubbabel Dea Hoyt
* Zerubbabel Hait (Height\Hoyt)(Hoight)
* Zerubbabel Hayt
* Zerubbabel Hoyt Dea.
* Zerubbabel Hoyt Deacon
* Zerubbabell Hoyt
* Zerubbabell Hoyt (Deacon)
* Zerubbabell Hoyt ;Deacon
* Zerubbabell Hoyt Deacon
* Zerubbabell Hoyt Deacon?
* Zerubbable Hoyt
* Zerubbable--- Hoyt
* Zerubbaell Hoyt
* Zerubbebel Hoyt
* Zerubbubel Hoyt
* Zerubebel Haight
* Zerubebel Hoyt
* Zerubebel OR Zerubabel Hoyt
* Zerubele Hoyt
* Zerubelel Hoyt
* Zerubille Hoyt
* Zeubbabel Hoyt

Add another name
JeffreyThorley1 (29 April 2008)
Gender:
Male

Add another gender

Birth:
FROM 1624 TO 1653

* FROM 1624 TO 1653
* 1636 about 1636 ,,Connecticut,USA
* 1637 about 1637 of Watertown, Middlesex, Mass
* 1637 1637 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass
* 1637 1637 Off, Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut
* 1637 1637 ,,Connecticut
* 1637 1637
* 1638 about 1638 of Watertown, Middlesex, Mass
* 1639 about 1639 Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut
* 1639 about 1639 of Watertown, Middlesex, MA
* 1639 about 1639 of Watertown, Litchfield, CT
* 1639 1639 Watertown, Middlesex, Mass
* 1640 about 1640 Stamford, CT, USA
* 1640 about 1640 ,,, Massachusetts, United States
* 1640 about 1640
* 1640 1640 ,,Connecticut
* 1641 about 1641 , Massachusetts
* 1641 about 1641 Watertown, MIDDLESEX, MASS
* 1641 about 1641 of Connecticut
* 1641 about 1641
* 1641 1641 Watertown,Middlesex,Mass
* 1643 about 1643 of Watertown, Middlesex, Ma
* 1644 about 1644 Watertown, Middlesex, Connecticut, USA
* 1645 1645 Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut
* 1646 about 1646
* 1647 about 1647 ,, Mass.
* 1649 about 1649 Norwalk, Fairfield,, Connecticut
* 1649 about 1649 Dorcester, Suff, Mass.
* 1650 before 1650 <Stamford,New Haven Co.,Connecticut>
* 1650 about 1650 Of Windsor, Berkshire, Massachusetts
* 1650 about 1650 Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut
* 1650 about 1650 Windsor, Hartford, CT
* 1650 about 1650 Norwalk,, Connecticut, USA
* 1650 about 1650
* 1650 about 1650 of Norwalk,Connecticut,USA
* 1650 1650 Norwalk,Fairfield,Conneticut
* 1650 1650 Windsor, Hartford, Conn.
* 1650/1654 Norwalk, Fairfield,, Connecticut
* 1650 1650 Mass
* 1650/1654 WINDSOR CT.
* FROM 1650 TO 1654 Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut
* FROM 1650 TO 1654
* 1650 1650
* Abt 1650/1654 Norwalk,, Connecticut
* 1650 1650 Norwalk, Fairfirld, Connecticut
* Abt 1650/1654
* 1650 1650 Norwalk,Fairfirld,Connecticut
* 1651 about 1651
* 1652 about 1652 Windsor or Norwalk, Connecticut
* 1652 about 1652 Norwalk,Fairfield,CT
* 1652 about 1652
* 1652 about 1652 Norwalk,, Connecticut, USA
* 1652 about 1652 Norwalk,, Connecticut
* 1652 about 1652 of Norwalk, Connecticut
* 1652 about 1652 Dorchester,, MA Bay Colony
* 1652 about 1652 <Norwalk,, Ct>
* 1652 about 1652 Norwalk,,Connecticut,USA
* 1652 about 1652 Norwalk, New Canaan Parish, CT
* 1652 1652 of Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut
* 1652 1652 Windsor, Hartford, Conn.
* 1652 1652 Norwalk,, Conn
* 1652 1652
* 1652 April 1652 Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut
* 1652 April 1652 Norwalk, CN
* 1653 about 1653 Norwalk, Fairfield Co, Connecticut
* 1653 1653 Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA
* 1653 1653
* 1654 1654 <Norwalk, Fairfield, Ct>
* 1660 about 1660 Stamford, Fairfield, CT, U.S.A.
* 1660 about 1660
* 1664 1664
* 1701 about 1701 Usa
* Norwalk, Fairfield Co, Ct
* Windsor,, Ct
* [Date and place not provided]
* Norwalk CT

Add another birth

Christening:
Norwalk, Fairfield Co, Ct

* Norwalk, Fairfield Co, Ct

Add another christening

Death:
FROM 1676 TO 1716

* FROM 1676 TO 1716
* 1696 before 1696 of Connecticut
* 1722/1728
* 1727 about 1727 Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut
* 1727 about 1727
* 1727 about 1727 Norwalk,,Connecticut,USA
* 1727 1727 Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut
* 1727/1738 Norwalk,Fairfield,CT
* FROM 1727 TO 1728 Ct.
* 1727 1727
* FROM 1727 TO 1738
* 1727/1738
* Abt 1727/1728
* 1727 1727 Norwalk, Fairield, Connecticut
* 1727/1738 NORWALK CT.
* 1727 1727 Norwalk,Fairfirld,Connecticut
* 1727/1738 Norwalk
* 1727 1727 Norwalk,, Ct
* 1727/1738 Norwalk,, Connecticut
* 1727 1727 Norwalk, Fairield, Connecticut, USA
* 1728 about 1728
* 1728 1728 Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut
* 1730 about 1730
* 1732 1732
* 1735/1738 Norwalk, Fairfield, CT
* 1738 before 1738 Norwalk, New Canaan Parish, CT
* 1738 1738 Norwalk, Fairfield Co, CT
* 1738 1738
* 1738 January 1738 Norwalk, Fairfield Co., CT
* 1738 about 25 January 1738 Norwalk, Clapboard Hill, Connecticut, USA
* 1738 25 January 1738 Norwalk, Fairfield, Conn
* 1739 1739 Norwalk, Fairfield Co., Connecticut
* 1739 25 January 1739 Norwalk, Fairfield Co, Ct
* [Date and place not provided]
* UNKNOWN
* [Date and place not provided]
* Deceased

Add another death

Burial:
1727 Norwalk,Fairfield,,Connecticut

* 1727 1727 Norwalk,Fairfield,,Connecticut
* 1727 1727
* Norwalk, Fairfield, Connecticut
* Norwalk, Fairield, Connecticut
* Norwalk, Fairield, Connecticut, USA
* Norwalk, Clapboard Hill, Connecticut, USA

Add another burial

You are right that there are problems with some of the data in newFamilySearch. The goal for nFS is to provide a way to clean up these problems. The project managers are aware of these problems. Like you have mentioned many of these problems go back to the Ancestral File merging process. There will be methods available to clean up this data provided. The highest priority right now is to get all of the Church on one system for submitting and clearing new names for the temple. Cleaning up the data with many duplicates and wrongly merged information is a priority to but until we are given those tools it is best to work on new research and wait for the tools to be provided to clean up the old problems. There are some individuals with so many submissions for an individual that you can not work on those names at this time. The tools are coming and we will be allowed to fix the problems, but we need to wait a little longer.

Thanks. That makes more sense. It seems that much of my irritation with nFS is centered around my Colonial American ancestors. Since they have more than a handful of descendants, they were submitted many times by various individuals under the old rules. Then AF worked its magic and . . .

It would be beneficial if the word got out that this is still a project, rather than treating it like a completed program. Maybe a message posted *after* login to update the users on what they're working on . . . or not. Something would be better than nothing.

There is a way to find out about some of these problem areas in nFS. Go to http://www.familysearch.org and click on the "Help" tab, then select "Product Support". Type in your questions there and you should be able to get some answers. You might need to try wording your questions several different ways in order to get the answer to the question you are asking.

Here is a link that addresses folders with to many submissions:
https://help.familysearch.org/HelpCente ... 2023126265

From the above link click on "Handling records that are to large to combine"

Just to clarify, my LDS heritage started with my parents. There are multiple non-LDS genealogists on one side of my family. Therefore, they don't have access to nFS. I am unaware of other possible LDS connections.

GarysTurn wrote:There is a way to find out about some of these problem areas in nFS. Go to www.familysearch.org and click on the "Help" tab, then select "Product Support". Type in your questions there and you should be able to get some answers. You might need to try wording your questions several different ways in order to get the answer to the question you are asking.

Here is a link that addresses folders with to many submissions:
https://help.familysearch.org/HelpCenter/main.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=cunderstandingwhyfamilysearchnotcombinehtml&sliceId=&dialogID=23122665&stateId=1%200%2023126265

From the above link click on "Handling records that are to large to combine"

My more recent nFS bug reports resulted in no response beyond the autogenerated message stating that a query has been received. When I looked at my feedback queue, everything was closed with no reply. I reopened several problems and got back a reply that everything was sent to the programmers.

scion wrote:I reopened several problems and got back a reply that everything was sent to the programmers.

The programmers are dealing with dozens of issues right now as quickly as they can.

In the meantime, as GarysTurn has said, there are ways to get information to help work around many of the challenges in using nFS right now. And, most importantly, it still is possible to clear names for the temple, which is the primary purpose of nFS.

Closing reported bugs with neither acknowledgement, feedback, or change makes it look like nothing is happening. How are users supposed to know what is going on?

scion wrote:Closing reported bugs with neither acknowledgement, feedback, or change makes it look like nothing is happening. How are users supposed to know what is going on?

Any organization makes a decision as to how much it will keep its users informed. When an organization decides not to provide acknowledgement or feedback, the users will not know what is going on. And as you point out, when a user does not see any change, it does look like nothing is happening.

This is not always the case, of course, even though it appears to be. But, an organization that takes this approach runs the risk of letting users feel that their input is not valued or considered, and does leave them wondering.

I take two different approaches to this situation.

If I feel that the organization does not care, and I choose not to expend a lot of effort, or feel that the effort will be wasted, I simply stop providing feedback.

If I feel that the cause is worth my time, or if I really wish or need to use the software in question, I will continue to provide the best and most accurate input I can, regardless of whether that feedback is recognized or not.

The one thing I always remember, and it took me a long time to be able to do this, is that the organization is not required to report to me and that I will have no influence on their decision whether or not to keep me in the loop. That decision is totally up to the organization.

Although it frustrates me when I feel passionate about certain things, I have learned to live with the concept that there are some things I cannot control, as much as I wish I could.

It took me a long time to get to that point, though. And I am not quite all the way there sometimes.

Good for some circumstances, but in preparing templework, the only workaround is to completely ignore the system and type in what I want to print. This defeats the purpose of preventing duplication. However, that is where I am now. My "official" response when others ask me about nFS is to refer them to others who sing its praises.

scion wrote:Good for some circumstances, but in preparing templework, the only workaround is to completely ignore the system and type in what I want to print. This defeats the purpose of preventing duplication. However, that is where I am now. My "official" response when others ask me about nFS is to refer them to others who sing its praises.

There is no reason to re-type anything into nFS unless a person isn't already listed in nFS. Simply combine any records and if the work has been done then you don't need to worry about it. If it hasn't been done then make any edits to the information you believe are necessary to correct the information. The edits you make will be the ones that show up on your printouts and screen. Dispute information you feel is incorrect but this information won't be deleted.

nFS keeps all the information in the same file (or folder). So we aren't going to delete information that is incorrect in nFS. That isn't the purpose of nFS. This is probably the hardest thing to understand about nFS but it is something that those of us who have studied history understand. BAD INFORMATION IS GOOD INFORMATION.

That information is out there and will never disappear. Many people will come to nFS assuming information they have is correct and when they search for an ancestor they will use that information. To avoid duplication every error that has ever been committed will remain a part of the nFS so those people will find the right person using the wrong information. This is how nFS was designed. It was meant to be wrong. So let the mistakes stay, dispute them and over time the data will be corrected by the sheer number of people who are pushing the correct information to the top.

What you would like printed should be what appears on your summary screen. Go to your Summary Screen, and choose what information you want to be shown by clicking on the arrow next to the information such as birth and select the one you want to print or show on your records. If it isn't there then go to the Details screen and add the new information.

I hope this helps. Just remember that it's important not to get confused by the sheer amount of incorrect information because it is meant to be there.

Historians are crazy!!!!

Edward Lalone wrote:BAD INFORMATION IS GOOD INFORMATION.

Historians are crazy!!!!

I might rephrase that to say that bad information is useful information, and I will leave it to the historians to agree or disagree with their state of mental being. [grin]

I agree with the concept, as hard as it is to grasp, that there is some advantage to having all of the information gathered into one big pot to parse and sort and contest and discuss and process.

I have a challenge when information that is not correct leads to unnecessary work being done in the temple. I see this happening quite frequently. So my challenge, as a user of nFS, is to sort out what is correct and what it not, and that is a difficult task.

So much work has been done on my family that the program cannot support a combination of all of the information for some lines. Rightly or wrongly, when the end of the four-generation program was announced, several dozen relatives added all of their less-researched (to put it nicely) information into the mix. It is now very difficult to sort it all out without a super cray processor and a web site that does not quite yet have the power to support it.

Nevertheless, I am appreciate of the system and am doing my best to work within it. I am glad I do not have to go through the floppy diskette system at the Family History Center to clear a name for the temple.

But, in our family, I have some success using nFS because I am considered to be computer literate. And I have a difficult time with it, because there is so much conflicting information to wade through. My wonderful wife, on the other hand, has no clue where to even start, and nFS is not yet friendly enough or intuitive enough for her to figure it out.

I think this is the challenge that most members are facing who are trying to use the system. I still am learning how to get nFS to display what I ask it to display, instead of everything it thinks I want it to display.

But that is a problem with most computer programs anyway, because the programmer and I usually do not think alike.