It appears that the greatest need right now on the wiki is for GEDCOM Review. I am very new, but am a careful researcher and have worked on projects like this in the past. I am volunteering my services as a GEDCOM reviewer. Let me know when and where to start.
Hello, I responded in private email. --sq 23:57, 29 September 2012 (EDT)
GEDCOM upload from Jan 2012 (living people) [19 December 2012]
A GEDCOM was uploaded (and subsequent information added) from this user back in Jan 2012. I cannot find a page they've submitted that contains any vital information and I suspect many may still be living. The user has not responded to requests to add additional info to pages or delete those that are living. Is it possible to delete their tree? --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:34, 19 December 2012 (EST)
Volunteering [22 January 2014]
I am willing to help with GEDCOM reviews. Please contact me if this is an area which needs the help.--Khaentlahn 07:20, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
Is there a place to read about what skills are necessary for GEDCOM review? I am wondering if I have what it takes to become an admin to review my own uploads. About how long does it take to review a GEDCOM and email the member if necessary? --janiejac 14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, First read over WeRelate:GEDCOM_review. This is basically the protocol for checking gedcoms. If you would like to help out, I would have you check gedcom upload on particular days. On the first few days, I would explain why certain gedcoms were acceptable and not. After we have encountered the most common problems, I would have you look over the gedcoms first and email me with your analysis. After you're comfortable, you would do it on your own. Depending on the day, doing gedcoms takes 15 mins to 30 mins. You would do as many as you feel comfortable doing on any one day. Heather and Jennifer and I would welcome your help. The more people help out the lesser the load. It also means if someone is out for a few days, the gedcoms are still uploaded. I look forward to hearing from you. Let me know and welcome to the team. --sq 05:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Janie, I just want to add one thing to what Solveig has said. You mentioned "I am wondering if I have what it takes to become an admin to review my own uploads". Are you considering joining GEDCOM review solely to review your own files and speed up imports? In that case, I would probably caution against it. Optimally, volunteers would be reviewing other users' GEDCOM files. If that is what you intended (to help out in general), then.. it would be great to have your help :-) --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes the motivation for the question was to be able to review my own uploads. But once I learn how it is done and how much time it will take to do, then possibly I could do it for others also. If you could teach other users to do this, wouldn't it help relieve the load from the current reviewers? Is there a concern that users would let bad info be uploaded? One of the reasons I like to upload even small gedcoms to WeRelate is that this program catches my errors. But I do understand the need for caution and don't know how much time I would be willing to put into this. It looks like it would take a good bit of time/effort on your part just to train me; so perhaps this isn't the best use of our time. --janiejac 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Family Matches [5 September 2013]
I'm just following up on an issue with a recent GEDCOM. After the file was uploaded, Amelia noticed a number of duplicate family pages in recent edits. Since the file is already imported, I can't determine the cause exactly, but I suspect the Family Matches were inaccurately marked as "Not a match". We may want to add a quick check before uploading GEDCOM's that the Family Matches weren't willfully marked "not a match" in haste. --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:47, 5 September 2013 (EDT)
Gedcom for User:Run4fun [12 November 2013]
Hi Dallan or SQ, since there have been recent problems (Letters, Numbers and Special Characters in the name field) with two Gedcoms for User:Run4Fun, I took a look into a recent Gedcom and inadvertently "claimed it". Jennifer (JBS66) suggested I leave a message here so one of you could complete the approval process. I didn't see anything similar to the two previous Gencoms.
Jim:)--Delijim 14:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a place to report poor quality GEDCOMs? [27 December 2013]
I've been helping out on the duplicates page recently and just spent the last 4 hours untangling some very messed up records that were added by this user in Jan 2012 (info copied from Ancestry.com public trees, and apparently quite indiscriminately). I enjoyed the puzzle-solving, so that's okay, but it makes me concerned about the quality of the rest of the GEDCOM. I noticed that Jennifer (JBS66) had asked this user to review and clean up duplicates the day after the GEDCOM was uploaded, but I can't tell if anything was done.
What is the appropriate action to take? If the GEDCOM is deleted, we lose the work I just did. Even if you keep the records I touched, there are related ones (which might or might not be accurate) that I did not touch.
BTW, in case someone wants to delete most of the GEDCOM, this is what I fixed:
volunteering [4 July 2014]
Hi - I'm happy to help out where do I start? Particularly Australian, but very familiar with the UK.--Wongers 12:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Offer to help [24 December 2015]
I notice that things move slowly here, but maybe waiting a week for admin review might put some people off adding data. If you would like another hand I am available to help.Rmg 09:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
my first couple of review attempts [1 aug 2016]
hi all, i am in contact with the first two people whose gedcoms i review.
the first person is Dutch (like me) and the upload is only 30 people or so.
the second person is Danish, and the gedcom review is at http://www.werelate.org/gedcom/index.php?gedcomId=12054
there are a lot of issues with this second gedcom, but specifically with places. i see a place like Søllested which seems to not exist although Wikipedia knows about the place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8llested
so now i am backing out on this second gedcom, not knowing what to do next.
do let me know if this is the right place to post this message. thx Ron woepwoep 04:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi and welcome to the team. It's wonderful that you want to help out. It is truly appreciated. There are a few things you need to know.
You will notice on the Gedcom review page that the upload date appears at the far left. After the date, you will see the status of the gedcom. When a gedcom is uploaded, it immediately goes into "user review." Most people don't clean their data, and we eventually delete the gedcom. If a user cleans their data, they can then submit the gedcom for upload into the database.
"User review" will then change to "Needs admin review." That where we come in. We do not review files until they say "Needs admin review." Then we follow the instruction at GEDCOM_review and use the Gedcom_upload_messages where appropriate. Mostly we approve gedcoms with 50% or more of the person in the file have one date and place and all the couples have both spouses or, a marriage date, or one or more children. I like to exclude couples that are marked "living." If the gedcom passes muster, we upload it. If not, we leave a message on the user's talk page explaining why it was rejected and then we "Return to User Review."
Generally, if a gedcom is going to be rejected, it is rejected because there is not enough data, i.e. most people in the file do not have one event and place or there are too many errors.
Thanks again for helping out. --sq 23:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Re: Most people don't clean their data, and we eventually delete the gedcom. [6 December 2016]
It seems that we are losing a lot of potentially good data and users at this stage. Sample message Imported without user review indicates that occasionally an admin will step in to help new users with this 2nd task. I think it would be beneficial to everyone if this was done more often. We would get cleaner data with more sources, and new users would have a better experience. I have tried it on a couple of files waiting in the queue with mixed results. I purposefully chose some small files with few problems.
So - I have 3 questions:
Thank you, --cos1776 14:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Committee Roll Call & Update [22 November 2016]
Hello - I am in the process of updating the information on the status of our admin structure and maintenance committees. The members of this committee are currently listed as:
Please respond here to let us know that you are still active on this committee and whether or not you wish to continue in this capacity. Also, if there are additional users on the committee not listed, please let us know.
To help us quantify the work that is being done, please include a brief list of the tasks that you perform most frequently and an estimate of the average amount of time per month that you currently spend on these tasks.
Notification of proposed change in procedure [16 December 2016]
The Overview Committee would like to increase data quality and compliance and decrease the amount of time spent on page maintenance, therefore the following change in the GEDCOM review procedure is proposed:
Ex. Two files were recently imported
that should have undergone more cleanup and matching in the review program. The first one generated pages like Person:Sarah Roop (6), which contains dubious links to family pages, citations to Ancestry trees and several unmatched places and sources. The second one came in with very few sources, and now the contributor has followed it up with another file that is similar.
We are wasting too many volunteer hours on cleaning up messes after import, hours that could be significantly decreased by this one simple change. All members of this team should know how to fix formatting and match places and sources in the review program. Please just ask if you don't. You can either do the clean up yourself as a service to the contributor, or better yet, contact the contributor and teach them how to do it for themselves. It doesn't matter who does the work as long as it gets done before import!
As for sources, for now, the minimum goal is one source citation per person page with a little flexibility. This is a pretty low standard, but we want to encourage learning and not scare off people who have taken the time to upload their data. Use your best judgement for this, but do not hesitate to return files with a request for added sources if there are too few. And please, reach out to new contributors. A little encouragement from a seasoned user can make a big difference in success and retention rates.
We have a great opportunity to make this site better by this one small change in procedure. If you have any reasons why this change should not be enacted, please respond below a.s.a.p. If all are in agreement or no response is posted by 31 Dec 2016, please consider this change effective on 1 Jan 2017.