Search for content in message boards

SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Replies: 69

Re: SURVEY - What facts do you feel comfortable merging from Public Member Trees?

Posted: 19 Feb 2013 12:23PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 19 Feb 2013 12:28PM GMT
At this point most who are reading this thread are asking, "how does this relate to the initial question posed?"

The question was asked: "So how, in FTM, should we handle the "LINKING" of information found in the public tree to people in our FTM tree? "

My answer was in: 17 Feb 2013 12:38PM

I also talked about using the source quality field.

Rich was not 100% happy with that answer so he ask:
"I'd still would like to see another way to separate out potential leads vs confident sources."

One solution to that is the "STATUS" value of a Child=>Family connection.

Silverfox notes that he adds custom facts: "Link to Children", et el

I'm not 100% sure what this accomplishes. But one example he gave was "Link to Parents: John Doe named parents James & Sarah (Smith) Doe in death cert"

The GEDCOM standard says: Use the source_citation EVENt subtag noting death and a role subtag of "Parent"

So special/custom facts are not needed if FTM used what was created in the GEDCOM.

Yes the GEDCOM and FTM are two separate things but if you implement the underlying functions of GEDCOM then you would not need the custom facts.

That is my point!!!! Most software does not implement many of the low level little used subtags. But very often they implement something without thinking that it may have already been solved. Again this is my point!!
SubjectAuthorDate Posted
silverfox3280 19 Feb 2013 3:10PM GMT 
RCanfield1962 20 Feb 2013 2:00AM GMT 
kj_norway 19 Feb 2013 5:31PM GMT 
silverfox3280 19 Feb 2013 5:53PM GMT 
kj_norway 19 Feb 2013 6:46PM GMT 
kj_norway 19 Feb 2013 7:23PM GMT 
kj_norway 19 Feb 2013 8:59PM GMT 
RCanfield1962 19 Feb 2013 11:29PM GMT 
kj_norway 18 Feb 2013 7:02PM GMT 
per page

Find a board about a specific topic