canard78 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Last year the church announced an improved search function so people could safely search for church content while staying on the church website and being able to click through to approved/official church sites for material and content. In the latest conference this message was again emphasised... the internet is not always a reliable information source. Last year results from josephsmithpapers.org would appear in the LDS.org search listings. I can remember linking Bill Reel through to an LDS.org search for "polyandrous marriages" where the top result linked through to this page. It was quietly reassuring to know that the church's increasing openness meant that in a small corner of their official content, even polyandry was addressed and that members could find answers to it by searching on LDS.org (the "safe" way to search for gospel answers). Has this recently changed? Or am I using the search function wrong? Now, when I search for "polyandrous marriages" I don't get anything (just a bunch of stuff that's not relevant). If I click on the 'More' option, it gives the "Sites" option. In a search for "food storage" the "Sites" option gives a providentliving.org result. I don't get the JSP.org option even in "Sites" for Polyandrous marriages. All that's offered is a link saying Vote Yes on Proposition 8 to preserve the divine institution of marriage linking through to preservingmarriage.org. How ironic... a search for information on (possibly) divinely instituted unconventional form of marriage links me through to a campain against a (supposedly) non-divine form of marriage. So anyway... am I just using the search function incorrectly or does JSP.org no longer count as a "safe" website for LDS.org searches? If not, any idea why not? Is this a step backward in the church's open information era or simply an innocuous admin change.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I just used "Polyandrous" without "marriages" and got the page you linked. Perhaps the search function is a little too literal?
canard78 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 I just used "Polyandrous" without "marriages" and got the page you linked. Perhaps the search function is a little too literal? You mean you go a result linking to this page: http://josephsmithpapers.org/doc/introduction-to-journals-volume-2 I've just tried "polyandrous" only and couldn't see it anywhere. Which 'sub-section' was the link to JSP.org? Thanks,
cinepro Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I just used "Polyandrous" without "marriages" and got the page you linked. Perhaps the search function is a little too literal? I'm not seeing it. That being said, I generally find the search function to get worse and worse every time they "improve" it. The results seem to be more of "this is what we wish you were looking for", not "here's where you can probably find what you were actually looking for". And if the Joseph Smith Papers are removed from the search results, I imagine it's because 99.99% of the people who searched on LDS.org for stuff were not interested in results from the project.
cinepro Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) On an unrelated note, we used to have a family in our ward with the last name "Andrus". It would have been awesome if they had named a daughter "Paulie" or "Polly". Or even better, "Paul" with middle name "Edward". Then it wouldn't be until decades later when he's called as a GA that he stands in conference and we get to hear from "Paul E. Andrus". Edited October 21, 2014 by cinepro 1
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I was already in the josephsmithpapers website when I did the search, that's probably why. As far as the general church website search function goes... I defer to the esteemed Arthur C. Clarke. "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." 2
canard78 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 I've been taught by a good mother to assume the best of people, so I'll try to apply your quote in this instance Kevin. It would be a shame if a decision had been made to remove JSP.org from the results. It made it so much more credible to use as a source with "chapel Mormon" friends.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Even if it was a conscious decision, perhaps the directors at Church Headquarters (The bureaucrats or the brethren, we cannot know) decided the general search page would be better geared towards the basics, and more specialized searches for the websites that host that information. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men...
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) The fact that something doesn't pop up on an electronic search is a very silly tenuous reason for concluding that it is not approved. Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 The fact that something doesn't pop up on an electronic search is a very silly tenuous reason for concluding that it is not approved. It is not paranoia if they are really out to get you. Just remember that!
Calm Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 The Church's search function hasn't been working as well for me in narrowing down stuff for several months. It was when they added the large amount of associated websites to the list. Perhaps it got too massive to function effectively at this point. Hopefully they will develop better tech soon. 1
KevinG Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 The Church's search function hasn't been working as well for me in narrowing down stuff for several months. It was when they added the large amount of associated websites to the list. Perhaps it got too massive to function effectively at this point. Hopefully they will develop better tech soon.A volunteer organization, run by missionaries and a few underpaid accountants and IT professionals, with 14,000,000 members. Hope springs eternal.
omni Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 The fact that something doesn't pop up on an electronic search is a very silly tenuous reason for concluding that it is not approved.Correct, however if that same "something" doesn't appear in any official Church manuals, magazines, or GC talks is it still tenuous to conclude it's not approved?PS - Welcome back Canard!
Tacenda Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Correct, however if that same "something" doesn't appear in any official Church manuals, magazines, or GC talks is it still tenuous to conclude it's not approved?PS - Welcome back Canard!Very true Omni, I'll second that "welcome" to Canard. Kevin and Canard did you plan this?? Now we need our long lost friend CA Steinman to step up to the plate, on World Series night.
Calm Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 A volunteer organization, run by missionaries and a few underpaid accountants and IT professionals, with 14,000,000 members. Hope springs eternal.My nephew is in charge of the tech side of lds.org, so I am very demanding.
Calm Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Very true Omni, I'll second that "welcome" to Canard. Kevin and Canard did you plan this?? Now we need our long lost friend CA Steinman to step up to the plate, on World Series night. Don't forget Dr. Streuss....
tonie Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 "polygamy joseph smith" on lds.org search showed a link to josephsmithpapers
The Nehor Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 My nephew is in charge of the tech side of lds.org, so I am very demanding.I hope pay has improved. I remembered the church wanted some contract work done in my area and I looked into the project. They were paying roughly half of what I would make doing similar work elsewhere. I asked if I could write the difference off against my tithing. They did not appear amused. 1
canard78 Posted October 22, 2014 Author Posted October 22, 2014 "polygamy joseph smith" on lds.org search showed a link to josephsmithpapersThanks, you're right:https://www.lds.org/search?q=%22polygamy+joseph+smith%22〈=eng&domains=sitesIt's only the "Joseph Smith" element that is making it work as it seems to be returning the result based on the title of the page instead of the the contet on the page. The link simply goes through to the home page of JSP.orgBut at least the site is still linked to. I'll take this as an indication that it's the algorithm they're playing with rather than anything else. Hopefully the search function will improve over time. Thanks for the welcome all
KevinG Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) My nephew is in charge of the tech side of lds.org, so I am very demanding.As they say around here. Bless his heart!That is not an easy task. Edited October 22, 2014 by KevinG
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Correct, however if that same "something" doesn't appear in any official Church manuals, magazines, or GC talks is it still tenuous to conclude it's not approved? The Joseph Smith Papers is a project of the Church History Department, which is under the supervision of the Church Historian and Recorder, a General Authority position. It thus seems axiomatic to me that the Joseph Smith Papers has not just the approval but the imprimatur of the Church as an institution. Maybe it's because I'm steeped in things pertaining to the Church due to my livelihood, and as such have covered the Joseph Smith Papers Project extensively. But it strikes me as bordering on the absurd to even raise the notion that the Joseph Smith Papers Project has somehow fallen out of favor with and lost the approval of the Church.
cinepro Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 The Joseph Smith Papers is a project of the Church History Department, which is under the supervision of the Church Historian and Recorder, a General Authority position. It thus seems axiomatic to me that the Joseph Smith Papers has not just the approval but the imprimatur of the Church as an institution. Maybe it's because I'm steeped in things pertaining to the Church due to my livelihood, and as such have covered the Joseph Smith Papers Project extensively. But it strikes me as bordering on the absurd to even raise the notion that the Joseph Smith Papers Project has somehow fallen out of favor with and lost the approval of the Church. I think the issue is whether or not the findings of the Joseph Smith Papers project could be considered "approved". There's a lot there of great historical interest, but if there is an issue that might apply to doctrine, I'm not so sure.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) I think the issue is whether or not the findings of the Joseph Smith Papers project could be considered "approved". There's a lot there of great historical interest, but if there is an issue that might apply to doctrine, I'm not so sure.From the very beginning, the nature and scope of the project was made clear and well publicized. From the website: The Joseph Smith Papers Project is an effort to gather together all extant Joseph Smith documents and to publish complete and accurate transcripts of those documents with both textual and contextual annotation. All such documents will be published electronically on this website, and a large number of the documents will also be published in print. The print and electronic publications constitute an essential resource for scholars and students of the life and work of Joseph Smith, early Mormon history, and nineteenth-century American religion. For the first time, all of Joseph Smith’s known surviving papers, which include many of the foundational documents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, will be easily accessible in one place. ... The Joseph Smith Papers Project is a comprehensive edition, meaning it will include all known and available documents meeting the project’s criteria as Joseph Smith documents. While selective editions may exclude some documents because they are of less interest or importance, comprehensive editions such as this one make no such exclusions. All Joseph Smith documents, even routine ones such as certificates, will be published on this website, and many documents will be published in print volumes. It is expected that roughly two dozen print volumes will be published, at a rate of about two per year.Because the Joseph Smith Papers Project meets the requisite scholarly and documentary editing criteria, it has earned an endorsement by the National Archives’ National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). To ensure accuracy of the texts, project editors undertake three independent levels of text verification for each manuscript, including a final verification against the original.The project is staffed by scholars, archivists, and editors employed by the Church History Library of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah. The publisher of the project’s print and web publications is The Church Historian’s Press, an imprint of the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Emphasis mine) Given the above, I believe it is simply not rational to raise a question at this point about whether the project or any portion thereof is somehow not "approved." What is that supposed to mean? Is there even the slightest indication that the Latter-day Saints are discouraged from going to the web site and exploring it at will? From purchasing any of the letterpress volumes already published and for sale at Deseret Book? What evidence can you show, other than paranoia about search engine hits, that the project is suddenly off-limits to rank-and-file Church members? You don't even have to register to go on the site. And now, the Church is supposedly doing something sinister because somebody couldn't find something as readily as he wanted to with an Internet search? Give me a proverbial break! Edited October 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
bluebell Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 I haven't read the whole thread yet so maybe someone else has already said this, but lds.org still links to the joseph smith papers. I was looking up William Law this morning on it and it provided a link to the papers-i think it was one of the first options it presented me.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) I haven't read the whole thread yet so maybe someone else has already said this, but lds.org still links to the joseph smith papers. I was looking up William Law this morning on it and it provided a link to the papers-i think it was one of the first options it presented me.Oops. I guess somebody didn't get the memo that ordinary Church members aren't supposed to look at it anymore because it's supposedly note considered "safe reading material." Although I should wonder why not, given the newly posted essays on the Gospel Topics section of lds.org. Edited October 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts