I'm also very unhappy about the way that sources from extracted records show in NFS. Basically the sources just plain old don't show up. Instead of being able to see a film number as in the IGI, it just says LDS temple records. If they ever take down the online IGI, it will be a huge loss. Paula On Thursday, March 26, 2009, at 12:53PM, "Jill N. Crandell" <jncrandell@broadweave.net> wrote: >The New FamilySearch staff has openly admitted that the current source >function is not good. They are actively working on improving that portion of >the program, so I (and many others) am electing not to enter sources until >the "new and improved" sourcing is available. It causes far less >frustration! :-) Maybe that isn't what they would like us to do, but the >current system is difficult enough that I don't have time to mess with it. I >would say it is important to give feedback and then be patient for >programming changes. > > > >Jill Crandell

The sources are there but well hidden in the mumble jargon in notes (to find them - in the nFS - switch the screen from pedigree to family group. Scroll past the family and that's where you find all notes, much of them repetition. David Samuelsen Paula Goodfellow wrote: > I'm also very unhappy about the way that sources from extracted records show in NFS. Basically the sources just plain old don't show up. Instead of being able to see a film number as in the IGI, it just says LDS temple records. If they ever take down the online IGI, it will be a huge loss. Paula > On Thursday, March 26, 2009, at 12:53PM, "Jill N. Crandell" <jncrandell@broadweave.net> wrote: >> The New FamilySearch staff has openly admitted that the current source >> function is not good. They are actively working on improving that portion of >> the program, so I (and many others) am electing not to enter sources until >> the "new and improved" sourcing is available. It causes far less >> frustration! :-) Maybe that isn't what they would like us to do, but the >> current system is difficult enough that I don't have time to mess with it. I >> would say it is important to give feedback and then be patient for >> programming changes. >> >> >> >> Jill Crandell > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Paula wrote: If they ever take down the online IGI, it will be a huge loss. Paula, I agree with this thought. However, let me tell you what I was told recently about the IGI by FamilySearch folks. The IGI as we know it will no longer be available, but they realize the research value of the extracted entries from the IGI. There will be a source of some kind made available from the extracted data--I don't know what it will be called or what it will look like. So, they will be taking down the online IGI at some point, but the data that we all want to keep and use for research will still be available to us. Since everything seems to go to Labs first, I'd watch for it there. However, I have no idea "when" this will happen. Jill Crandell

Just another point of view regarding Sources... I try to put in basic information in the Source fields and that does not take me a lot of time. I pick a drop down for "Type of Source, Source Detail, & Media Type". I put any specifics in the "Comment" box. I also plan to instruct my upcoming Family History Class to put in sources because I feel that they need to form the habit of documentation. Nancy Scott Cincinnati, Ohio -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paula Goodfellow Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 04:37 PM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] entering sources I'm also very unhappy about the way that sources from extracted records show in NFS. Basically the sources just plain old don't show up. Instead of being able to see a film number as in the IGI, it just says LDS temple records. If they ever take down the online IGI, it will be a huge loss. Paula On Thursday, March 26, 2009, at 12:53PM, "Jill N. Crandell" <jncrandell@broadweave.net> wrote: >The New FamilySearch staff has openly admitted that the current source >function is not good. They are actively working on improving that portion of >the program, so I (and many others) am electing not to enter sources until >the "new and improved" sourcing is available. It causes far less >frustration! :-) Maybe that isn't what they would like us to do, but the >current system is difficult enough that I don't have time to mess with it. I >would say it is important to give feedback and then be patient for >programming changes. > > > >Jill Crandell Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message