Changes Planned for the LDS Church's FamilySearch.org

An article in the Deseret Morning News in Salt Lake City describes many changes beginning next year for the very popular FamilySearch.org web site. A complete overhaul of the church's site should allow those who have no experience researching family history to be able to "do something meaningful without having to learn anything prior," according to Steve W. Anderson, online marketing manager for the church's Family History department.

New online tools will allow novices to log on and - with a few mouse clicks - pull up their family tree, with details about ancestors, of any faith or none, that are part of the database. "You'll be able to attach images or photos to it, or something like a timeline of events. It will have all kind of things to make it a much richer resource."

Users will have their own login, allowing them to add information about living people to their family tree if they so choose, though that information will not be available for others to view in order to maintain privacy. Anderson said there is some concern about the accuracy of allowing people to simply add information, but "if someone disagrees with your account of it, there will be an opportunity to put additional information or opinion there."

In addition to the redesigned Web site, the church is pushing forward with a digitizing project that will eventually allow the images of such information as census records, birth, death, marriage, tax, and land records - now contained on its 2.4 million rolls of microfilm - to not only be placed online, but to be indexed in order to allow nearly instant access.

While not mentioned in the newspaper article, I have to wonder what this means for the future of Personal Ancestral File (PAF), the Windows and Macintosh genealogy programs which are also produced by the church's Family History department. The newspaper article states, "New online tools will allow novices to log on and - with a few mouse clicks - pull up their family tree, with details about ancestors, of any faith or none, that are part of the database." Doesn't that sound like a replacement for a genealogy program?

Indeed, PAF hasn't had any significant new updates in years. Reading between the lines of the newspaper article, it would seem that the Church's Family History department is focusing on an online replacement for PAF. That's not to say that PAF will be dropped, only that it might never get updated again with modern features.

In my opinion, that makes sense. The expenses of maintaining two competitive genealogy programs is probably prohibitive. As the world goes more and more to high-speed, "always on, everywhere" Internet connections, the advantages of building that functionality into FamilySearch.org may someday make freestanding software, such as Personal Ancestral File, look obsolete.

You can read the complete article in the Deseret Morning News at http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194998,00.html.

Comments

[Hans]

Your speculation about PAF and the upcoming web service fits with the rumors that I have heard.

[Edmund Maul]

The LDS have sucumbed to dumming down, just like our school systems.

By the way, I started genealogy in 1977, big mistake. I try to talk anyone venturing into thoughts of genealogy-forget it! Big waste of time. So I have over 7,00 people in a database, so I am editing for publication a 556page book on my family history, BIG MISTAKE! Most of the family I had to contact were anything but helpful, and most I surely wouldn't have as friends.
The time I wasted on genealogy could have been used to make money. Instead I wasted money on research that could have bought a good stock.

[Ima Gumby]

First, it's 'dumbing' down, not 'dumming' down.

Second, I'm sorry that it took you almost 30 years to figure out that you were working on a project that no one else cared about. Might I suggest that you spend your time researching as a professional genealogist? That way you could still do research, but get paid for it as well.

[J. Watkins]

What are they going to do, for instance, when there are two people
named as someone's wife and one is definitely wrong?

[Lorenzo]

I think that online access is OK, and the project of digitizing records makes sense also. What is worrisome is that, as a professional genealogy librarian, I see people every day who make the wrong decsions about rersearch. Having somethign just handed to you - and not knowing what logical steps to take to verify inforamtion - could lead to a disaster as far as people picking the "wrong relative".
Even if the films are indexed to allow instant access - what do you do about the ones in the foreign languages, if you don't speak that language?. Not to be nit picky, but several times I have found an important clue where the recorder wrote right into the gutter of the page, sideways. What about indexing that? BTW, I know a person from the local FHC where I volunteer whose son is working on this project, and I have passed along my concerns.

[Maureen Chicoine]

Part of the fun I have had in "collecting dead relatives" is learning new things about geography, history, transportation, daily lives of people,etc. While it is good to make websites like familysearch.org more "user friendly" and I look forward to more information on it I am unsure that people who just collect information ready packaged are getting a good deal. Even if none of my family are interested I have benefited by the learning I have received from exploring my own and friend's family trees I have done.

[Ted Mudge]

However you spell it, the end result of this over simplification of the science of genealogy, to "do something meaningful without having to learn anything prior," is that it will make it more difficult for researchers to separate fact from fiction. Instead of encouraging people to suck up and regurgitate huge amounts of names and dates, a la the rootsweb.com WorldConnect monstrosity, the church should focus on teaching how to conduct solid research and come to valid conclusions.

[Bee Ingalls]

When the person whose genealogy program I was using received a lucrative government contract, he quiting updating, supporting, etc. his genealogy program which was a good one. Since I thought PAF would always be there, we spent 3 weeks re-entering the info (no GEDCOM). Where does that leave me? Another couple of months of re-entering over 40 years of data in another genealogy program? Can I trust GEDCOM to transfer all my data?

[Gordon Banks]

The problem of a sophisticated way of representing genealogy data needs to be addressed. GEDCOM is hopelessly inadequate for the amount of data most serious researchers keep. A more comprehensive standard is needed. Otherwise, those of use using sophisticated programs may have real problems when the program we use goes defunct, and almost certainly all of them will eventually.

[soccermom]

My wish for FamilySearch.org is that everyone would be able to choose to search ONLY record information and not have all the submitted/sealed family trees included in search results. It takes so long to wade through all the chaff and get to actual record indexes.

Amen to making GEDCOM files better and more inclusive. Researchers are really stuck when a company stops supporting a genealogy program. I used Roots and then Ultimate Family Tree, which I loved. When support for the product ended, I switched to The Master Genealogist, which works fine, but is so tedious to use. There are way too many screens to go through to enter information. My data imported from UFT without problems. I'm now trying to move from TMG to RootsMagic3. The problem I'm having is that the exported GEDCOM file doesn't consistently import my sources correctly from TMG. I have a choice of sticking with TMG, which is really, really, user un-friendly, or redoing all of my sources, which would take months. I've posted on the RootsMagic forum, and had responses, but no solution to this GEDCOM source problem.

I don't want to use an online genealogy program.

[Lou Pero]

The comments so far seem to involve two points: making things simpler and people who don't want to spend years learning to do research. Or maybe this is all one point, making things simpler.

I started doing genealogy in 1958. Computers were something you read about in science fiction. Research was mostly done by actual paper and pen letters. It could be pretty frustrating as you waited months for officials to reply, or years for relatives who never replied.

Research itself is no sure thing. The farther back you go, the more you have to relay on "circumstantial evidence." Being able to look at the microfilmed records online will allow us all to see for ourselves what is in the records. We can do this now by ordering the microfilm, but I think more people are going to look at the actual film than do now. Overall, it should help accuracy, I don't see how having the actual microfilm available online will lead to more problems.

As I get older, I realize that if a change is contemplated in anything, people immediately assume the worst. But I think it is a lot easier to add details to genealogy research now than it was in 1958, and to me that is a positive thing, not something to bemoan.

[Rod]

Genealogy, like religion, can have more than one "correct" system for different people. Exclusivity is irrational; we should not have to choose between online and offline, and probably will not have to make that choice. I'm very grateful for all the help the LDS has already given to my other genealogy efforts.

[Robin M]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) has given us so much: microfilming vital and important records all over the world...the well-stocked Family History Library (FHL) in Salt Lake City...the local Family History Centers (FHCs) around the globe with inexpensive microfilm rentals...Personal Ancestral File program...International Genealogical Index...1881 British census index, 1880 US and Canada census indexes...FamilySearch.org's online access to indexed records (which, I too, wish were separated from user-submitted records)...FHL online catalog.... It's impressive and almost all due to volunteers microfilming, indexing, etc.

At the Federation of Genealogical Societies' conference last month in Boston, I learned about the LDS indexing project from the FamilySearchIndexing.org project coordinators at the exhibit hall. The idea is that volunteers take small batches of records and transcribe them into an indexing software program. (Each batch may take 15-20 minutes, depending on your typing skills.) The records come from 2.4 million rolls of microfilm already in the LDS vaults. Each record is transcribed twice and compared by a third person, who will handle any information that does not agree. Then the final index is created, a scan of the original microfilmed page is attached, and all that is uploaded to a web site---with free access to everyone. Sounds like a fabulous idea to me. I signed up to be a volunteer on the spot. You can too at www.familysearchindexing.org.

I, too, am leary of user-submitted data---especially without sources to check---but I have a wait-and-see attitude for the web site update. If it teaches people to be interested in doing genealogy and how to research, that's a good thing. Me, I can't wait to see the indexing project online!

[Jay]

I am fairly sure that I just found a census record at Ancestry.com that was phonetically spelled by the census taker and then mis-read and therefore very hard to find. The correct spelling of Schopf versus Shopf by the census taker and then Shapf by the record reader. There will always be errors in records AND in there interpretation. Even the most careful researcher will make mistakes, especially if they do not find multiple records for the same person and same event.

[Will Posey]

This proposed allowing changing and adding to online data seems risky to me. Suppose some prankster posted a photo of a monkey with the identifying tag of my nephew's name; would I then be a monkey's uncle?

[pjj]

I was a tester for the new familysearch, about a year ago. I haven't been involved lately, so don't know exactly what changes have been made since then. The focus group I was in overwhelmingly asked that the church keep supporting PAF. No one there wanted to keep their information totally on the internet. We also all said that we were very frustrated with the way that the IGI had been changed-- you could still find all the entries, but it was impossible to search by batch, which I do all the time, to avoid those patron submissions. A good feature was that you can now see who submitted information to the IGI, and sometimes even get their email address. Also, when information is changed, it's not totally deleted. You can leave notes, or alternate parents, etc. The new search engine was much, much improved. When I finished with the program, the match and merge feature for the trees was still very bad, and I imagine that's why they're still working on it a year later.

[Leonard J. McCown]

Personally, I don't feel the LDS Church will replace PAF with an online program. Remember the purpose is for the members of their church. Not all of their members will have Internet access. Maybe in another 50 years or so the world will be wired and this could be then.

[ssw]

The digitalization project sounds great in theory...

I was told by the local FHL that they are going to simply scan the microfilm. If the microfilm was originally filmed out of focus or the exposure level was too dark or too light, we're out of luck because that's what we'll get online.

Does anyone know if this is actually the case?

[Bart Hansen]

I, too, was messed up by my first genealogy program (Sierra's Generations Family Tree) being made an orphan and then obsolete by Windows XP. I changed to PAF thinking it would be supported longer than others. We'll see about that. However, I do appreciate all the work done by the LDS. Their digitization project sounds great.

[Barbara McGee]

I worked for over 13 years as an extraction director. This new idea has a good chance of working if good readers will each take part. Ten to Fifteen minutes a day is do-able for good readers. Let's give it a chance. Barb