Hi Kathy, Since all dates in the IGI are valid dates, it doesn't matter which date you use.
My rule of thumb: If I know for a fact they were alive when they had their ordinances done, I look for those dates that would be during their life. If I don't know for sure, I pick the earliest date from the results given. If there isn't a location, I go to the next earliest with a date / location. I don't concern myself with the multiple dates. I have a 3rd great grandfather who had 54 entries in the IGI. I know for a fact he was alive when the ordinances were done. I pick dates from Nauvoo where I know he had his ordinances done. Then, if I obtain dates from family sources that I know are accurate - I replace my dates with the family dates. Glen ----- Original Message ----- From: "BobnKathyWilles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 1:51 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Prototype Legacy IGI Search > Can someone please advise what would be the best way to process multiple > ordinances done. I have several ancestors that have had an ordinance done > up to 6 times at different times and locations. Do I just pick one date and > location and then add the other dates/times to notes? > > Kathy > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Star > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Prototype Legacy IGI Search > > Even if this feature weren't to be improved, in my opinion it is great as it > saves so much time. I don't have a large file like some of you. Only around > 5000 people, so far, but even so haven't scratched the surface in getting > the ordinances for my people and it was such a chore getting one at a time. > I entered a "search all" after my initial testing yesterday and it is almost > through with it today so it will more than likely complete tomorrow or the > next. Of course I changed the settings to limit it to 150 people and exact > spelling. Will then deal with the 0 returns later. > > > > Also of course like anything you get from anywhere or anyone then have to > prove it to my own satisfaction but at least further than I was.... Right? > > > > Once again I think it is great. Thanks a million for this addition. I have > been a member of Legacy family since version 1 and of course think it is the > one and only even though still keep PAF around just for sentimental reasons > as it was my first one. > > > > Star > > > > -------Original Message------- > > > > From: [email protected] > > Date: 02/21/05 21:12:48 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Prototype Legacy IGI Search > > > > Clifford, > > > > > My question is whether we should hold off applying this prototype to our > > > entire databases until it is improved and indeed ready for primetime? > > > > ----------------------------- > > As Ken stated: > > > > "Hi Legacy Users, > > Sherry mentioned that this feature is not quite ready for prime time. That > > statement was correct in that it was not supposed to have been released with > > the last build. That was my mistake and now that it's slipped out we won't > > take it away from you. It sounds like some of you are pretty happy by my > > slip :) > > > > The IGI Search feature is safe to use and we have had a couple hundred > > people using it for the last couple months so it's pretty good as is but > > it's going to get even better . We would consider the current release of the > > IGI Search feature a version 1.0 release. There are just so many things I > > still want to add to it! It's very functional at this point but it's going > > to get a lot better over time as we continue to improve things and add new > > features to it. Because it snuck out the door before we were officially > > ready we didn't have the help written for it yet. Dave will be adding this > > soon. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Ken McGinnis" > > -----------------------------I have been using this feature since 26 Oct > > 2004. It works flawlessly. I haven't had any problems using it. > > > > My thoughs on the information I am obtaining from this list: > > > > 1.) It is only as accurate as the person transcribing the information or > > submitting the information for temple work. > > > > 2.) I accept the ordinance work as true dates. > > > > 3.) I add missing birth, marriage, death, & burial dates to my database. I > > don't consider the dates as accurate until I have an image of the original > > document to prove that date. (This is my philosophy with any Internet site > > or for that matter Family data. Who knows where they obtained their > > information unless they have the orig. documents. At which time I scan > > them - have laptop & scanner - will travel) > > > > 4.) It is a good starting point for missing information. Why do the work > > from scratch when you can obtain clues from someone elses research. > > > > > The system needs: > > > 1) a simpler way of identifying which of the IGIs actually have primary > > > sources, and the details of those that do not. I believe that currently > > the > > > only "source" identified is the generic "International Genealogical Index > > > (R) v5" (Am I wrong on this?) In sourcing one aims to specify enough > > detail > > > so that future researchers can go back and easily review the actual > > sources > > > for verification of relevance and accuracy. > > > > If you know it came from the IGI, you can go back and search there again. > > It isn't like you have to travel thousands of miles to do so. I think if > > you want more sure items, you would have to travel to Salt Lake City, Utah > > to view the original documents. The folks at Millenium are awesome for even > > including this feature. > > > > > As others have mentioned it also needs: > > > 2) a method of easily deleting all of those "possible" matches that don't > > > match at all. > > > > This is already built into the IGI search utility under "Options." I can > > delete all results, a filtered list, or individual search results. How much > > easier do you want it. The only thing easier would be to think about > > deleting an item and it is gone.<hehe> Neural implants aren't on the market > > yet.<hehe> > > > > Glen > > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > > > To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ > > > > To unsubscribe please visit: > > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/2005 > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.3.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005 > > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ > > To unsubscribe please visit: > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ > > To unsubscribe please visit: > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
