My initial delight in discovering this new ACOM resource has been somewhat diminished with the discovery of more than a few missing entries, at least some of whom are co-interred and already linked in the FAG database to entries that do appear in the ACOM index search.

Something is amiss in the ACOM/FAG indexing process. Hopefully its reliability will improve with time.

"Something is amiss in the ACOM/FAG indexing process."

Something is always amiss with any Acom indexing process. Poor concept coupled with poor execution is the underlying cause.


"Hopefully its reliability will improve with time."

Yeah, once they dump a new database they are highly committed to fixing any errors as quickly as possible. Right?

"Yeah, once they dump a new database they are highly committed to fixing any errors as quickly as possible. Right?"

Yes, that's my opinion with "as quickly as possible" being the salient caveat. Since I haven't seen any recent additions to the originally presented list, perhaps ACOM has recognized an indexing flaw and will be correcting it.

I guess my sarcasm was too subtle.

Being a long time user, how can you assert that Acom has any such commitment to fixing errors in databases? Now if you mean in programming, then perhaps, though may around here would say no to that as well. They left census errors with missing data and data mis-arranged for *years*, and which only got cleaned up to some degree by switching to Family Search's images. And a lot of that falls in the "programming" department as to mis-arrangements (poorly executed navigation schemes).

Plus you should also have seen how they like to dump just part of a database, tout that, and then continue to drib and drab more in over time so that they can tout it as "updated". They must figure why dump it all and only get one marketing hype out of it when it can be broken up and get multiple hypes.

"I guess my sarcasm was too subtle."

No...just too tedious.

You seem to be confusing the view of a static index captured by Ancestry at some point in the past with the dynamic database that is Findagrave itself. The former can never be as "reliable" as the latter, if by reliable you mean equal.

"You seem to be confusing the view of a static index captured by Ancestry at some point in the past with the dynamic database that is Findagrave itself."

Not confusing it at all. What's obviously needed is an advancement in ACOM's capability to extract/present the product of a dynamic (good word BTW) database such as Find A Grave. My guess is that would be programming child's play when the need is perceived.

Awaiting that capability, more frequent "static" extractions (which, of course, is done by a program extraction) could and should be effected.

"My guess is that would be programming child's play when the need is perceived."


Actually it wouldn't be. To do that, FAG would basically have to allow/enable Acom to mirror changes on a real time basis, i.e. link the FAG and Acom database indexes directly as with a non-stop backup process.

So all they can do is to take snapshots, and with an index of *millions* of entries that isn't done quickly, so I imagine there will always be a noticeable lag.

But your original point focused on errors, i.e. missing entries, and which presumably were not just missing because they were just added to FAG but yet to be reflected at Acom.

"To do that, FAG would basically have to allow/enable Acom to mirror changes on a real time basis, i.e. link the FAG and Acom database indexes directly as with a non-stop backup process."

Of course they would...and where there's a will, there's a way. They've obviously already crossed a first threshold.

"But your original point focused on errors, i.e. missing entries, and which presumably were not just missing because they were just added to FAG but yet to be reflected at Acom."

Just goin' with the flow.

"But your original point focused on errors, i.e. missing entries, and which presumably ..."

Yeah, a lot of presuming. Without specific examples to support the claim, this thread is nothing more than a discussion of the unknown.