PAF-5-USERS-L Archives

Archiver > PAF-5-USERS > 2007-06 > 1183145612


From: "jburns" <>
Subject: Re: [PAF-5] PAF Upgrading Question or Why PAF?
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:33:32 -0700
References: <839440.39217.qm@web53702.mail.re2.yahoo.com><46841A21.5090507@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <46841A21.5090507@comcast.net>


Richard thank you very much for the detailed critique. I think I will get
PAF Companion. Does anyone know if it will work with Microsoft Vista? I
don't see Vista listed as being compatible. I guess you just download it
from the LDS site.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Halliday" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: [PAF-5] PAF Upgrading Question or Why PAF?


Why PAF?

Executive Summary: For those of you who are LDS; use PAF. The languages
contained in PAF versions 4 & 5 cover approximately 95% of the
membership for those cultural groups where computers have come into
common use. PAF is relatively stable and bug free. PAF Companion adds a
number of additional reports some of which utilize color. PAF Insight
adds a very good capability for searching the IGI and transferring
selected information directly into PAF. TempleReady works directly from
the PAF database and this is the preferred mode of operation. New
FamilySearch specifically states that it does not replace PAF.

I have been using PAF since version 2. I have participated in beta
testing of each one of the PAF versions, one version of Ancestral Quest,
FamilySearch, New FamilySearch, Temple Ready, PAF Companion and some
other genealogical software. I have used other programs for a time, but
have always returned to PAF. Some of the reasons are described below.

While TempleReady will accept a GEDCOM file from any genealogical
database PAF links directly to it. This is the preferred mode of
operation. In part this is because it allows a Submitted statement to be
added to all of the ordinance fields in the current submission. This
prevents accidental re-submissions.

PAF has a number of programs that complement it and extend its
usefulness. Three of them are: PAF Companion, PAF Pal and PAF Insight.
PAF Companion prints additional reports. PAF Insight can compare all of
the individuals in a database PAF databases to identify and eliminate
duplicates, co-ordinate two databases, search the IGI using a powerful
search and compare algorithm, repair pointer problems that PAF does not
repair and soon will look up counties missing from place entries.

PAF Companion contains significantly more types of reports than does
PAF. Some of us prefer the layout of some of those reports. Some of the
reports allow the use of color to distinguish gender, line or generation.

PAF Pal can expand the standard US state or UK county abbreviations.
Conversely, it can abbreviate them. It can add or remove USA. I find
these features particularly useful when I temporarily want to “squeeze”
place names to fit a display. It can remove the Submitted statement in
ordinance fields. It can remove or replace the password in PAF (should
you use one and subsequently forget what it is). It can also modify the
PAF program in two ways. It can add three sites to the Search pull-down
menu: Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com and RootsWeb.com. It can add the
display of pictures of parents to the spouse and parents in the Family
View. It can modify Family Vies to show a bullet instead of an arrow
when the spouse of the child is entered, but there are no children. I
like and use all of these capabilities.

PAF Insight could be the best thing that has happened to the LDS
genealogical community since PAF was introduced. Currently, the features
that I find most helpful are all built around a very powerful search and
compare algorithm. The compare algorithm uses many factors to compare
individuals and produce a probability of match. This can be used within
a single database to find duplicates, between two PAF databases to
synchronize the work of different researchers or to search the IGI. An
extensive set of features (i.e. similarity of names, geographical
nearness and chronological proximity, etc.) are used to calculate a
probability of match. All of the “possible matches” are then listed in
order of probability of match. Information can than be selectively
transferred from the matching entry into the PAF database without
copying or retyping. PAF Insight also automatically checks a PAF
database for faulty pointers and “repairs” those problems. This has
proved to be vastly superior to manually searching the IGI and then
manually entering the appropriate data. Also when searching the IGI it
never forgets to check the World Miscellaneous section. Sometime this
year we should see a new version of PAF Insight that will check a PAF
database for readiness to work with the New FamilySearch.

PAF Insight has now been released with as a French language version.
Several other language versions are in preparation. When I enquired why
the French version was released first I was told that the French
translator finished first.

As a worker in several Family History Centers and being more
knowledgeable about PAF then most of the other workers I frequently get
the job of helping patrons who have data in older versions of PAF or are
using other genealogical data bases. Based upon this experience and
helping with beta testing Ancestral Quest I offer the following
observations.

Family Tree Maker currently appears to be the most successful commercial
genealogical database. Its success is, I believe, based upon heavy
promotion and a never ending stream of “improvements”. I never recommend
its use for a number of reasons. First: its version of a GEDCOM file is
bases upon a pre-release GEDCOM file definition. They implemented a file
transfer configuration based upon the GEDCOM pre-release version 5.2.
When GEDCOM version 5 was finally released (version 5.5) it contained
deletions, changes and additions not found in version 5.2. Consequently,
FTM’s initial GEDCOM file version is not compatible with the industry
standard. Subsequently, they have added the capability to generate a
standard GEDCOM file, but it is not easy to do.

Second: I believe that FTM is more buggy. Once when I made that comment
on-line one of the readers, who had been a beta tester of FTM, replied
and confirmed my observation. He stated that during beta test of a new
FTM version he reported bugs that were not related to the new features.
The company replied and directed him to confine his testing to the new
features as they were not then interested in correcting any other problems.

Third: FTM has some fields that are unique. Those fields are not
specific to any event but can be used as the user desires. When a GEDCOM
file is created those fields are included, but since they do not
correspond to fields in any other program they pose an insoluble problem
when that file is imported into any genealogical database except FTM.

Forth: Before every holiday season FTM bombards all of its registered
users with advertising trying to sell the new version.

Fifth: Although FTM can produce more different reports than PAF, PAF
Companion now provides a similar capability.

Sixth: I have not found FTM to be particularly easy to use.

Should someone still want to use another genealogical database then
either Ancestral Quest or Legacy offer very good alternatives. Ancestral
Quest appeals to me personally and I used it for a few years. It uses
the same database structure as PAF and contains some additional features
that I liked. For example, it has a field that allows one to rate each
source citation for quality. This is a single digit number. I soon
became aware that some kinds of sources (e.g. death records and
obituaries) cannot be rated by a single number because they contain
information of different quality. In this case the time, place and cause
of death are very reliable, but the individuals birth date & place and
spouses names are hearsay.

As to the production of a new version of PAF, I do not have any special
knowledge of the plans or intentions of the Family History
Department.can modify PAF to enhance its usefulness. In a conversation
with the late Steve Cannon, who was then the head of PAF development, I
was told that the languages covered by PAF 4 and PAF 5 covered
approximately 95% of the LDS population for those groups where the use
of computers has become common. This reinforced my hope and even
expectation that a version 6 of PAF would be produced that used the PAF
5 UNICODE database, combined all of the current languages, had all of
the features of PAF 5 and fixed a few of the remaining bugs.

Summary: PAF does the job well, it is relatively stable and bug free, it
has a very good source citation capability, it has a powerful Custom
Reports capability, it mates well with TempleReady, the ancillary
programs supply most of additional features that I would like to have
and I know how to use it so I will continue to do so. (I do wish that
“they” would fix the bug in the source citation that, after prolonged
use, prevents the addition of new citations.)

B.H. Kemp wrote:
> I am using 5.2.18 and have been using PAF for several years.
>
> I have unsuccessfully searched the archives for this list regarding
> messages about why PAF will not be upgrading.
>
> There were also messages about how it would become "web based software",
> (or something to that effect)
>
> A friend loaned me his FTM CD to install and try (2005 verson). He has
> upgraded to the 2007 version. I did import via gedcom my PAF data,
> thusfar haven't had much time to spend trying it out.
>
> Would appreciate input on what the future is for PAF before I spend hours
> learning a new program. I know some folks use more than one program, but
> that seems a bit tedious to me.
>
> Betsy Kemp
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
> Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: