Best Of

@Bill Kaczmarek

I just noticed that when adding a relationship type there is an option to add a date. I wonder if a date has been added in the example you reference? If so, I would agree that this is the event date that should show on the Time Line.

After writing the above, I decided to test this out myself and was disappointed to find the fact that a child is marked in a step relationship and that the relationship did not begin until twenty years after the child's birth made no difference at all.

In my example, in spite of marking a "child" born in 1930 as "Step" (instead of "Biological") and that that relationship didn't occur until 1950, the 1930 event for the birth of a "child" still remained on the Time Line, instead of an expected placing in 1950 for having a "stepchild".

I would agree the Time Line is currently presenting a totally misleading picture and that the issue needs to be addressed in order to present an accurate recording of the facts.

As it stands now, the Timeline lists births of children when they happen. This is so with StepChildren too, listed as "children". And when a future marriage will later make a person a step-child, they are still listed on Timeline as Birth of a "son" or "daughter" , even though Step-son or Step-daughter would be accurate. Or more accurate yet, would be Future Step-Son or Future Step-Daughter.

Here's an example:

I was just corresponding with a relative in Poland who pointed to something that might be improved.  Have a look at https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/timeline/G4DF-9V7 which is the timeline for Mikolaj Kador.   

It shows "birth of a daughter", which is confusing, for Marianna Wroblewski.  

Marianna is born at that time, that's true, but she is a future step-daughter, rather than a daughter.   "step-daughter" is less confusing.  "future" may be too much to ask for ;-)   

@Alan E. Brown comments show why the dual entry system that FamilySearch uses in Family Tree for dates and place names is so important and is such a powerful feature. It also points out the importance of understanding how to correctly use place name standardization. This is what allows you to enter the correct historical name and link it to the best available standard even if that standard is not historically correct. For example, you can still enter "Union, Salt Lake, Utah Territory, United States" as the place name and link it to the less specific and less accurate standard of "Union, Salt Lake, Utah, United States."

However, in this particular situation I see that FamilySearch's places team does structure the area you are discussing to show the historical periods you would like to see. For example, Gottrupel is entered as:

• Gottrupel, Flensburg, Slesvig, Denmark for Unknown to 1866
• Gottrupel, Flensburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Prussia, Germany for 1866 to 1946
• Gottrupel, Flensburg, Schleswig-Holstein ,Germany for 1946 to today.

(Wikipedia states: But in the Second Schleswig War (1864), Prussia and Austria won and the territory was absorbed into Prussia in 1867. FamilySearch does not include place names that existed for less than five years and sometimes is forced to use approximate dates.)

While it will take decades to complete the millions of new entries needed to complete the Places Database, if there are a handful or so places in Holstein and Schleswig where your ancestors are from, the places authority team is pretty good about fixing places that users need. Go ahead and request your specific places and they should be able to get those improved even if they don't have enough personnel to complete the entire province.

Out of curiosity, I looked in George Washington's Tree View (Portrait) and expanded his ancestors back 8 generations. He has about 111 6th great-grandparents in the tree. That doesn't include possible alternative parents. If you don't know who your nearest common ancestors were at the time you saw this relationship (PIDs or names), it would be a mammoth task to find out what happened.