Another serious user bites the dust - no questions
My last email to "support":
Well, as I suspected, this message is not true. Already, he's back to creating dupe profiles. So far, I've recorded the following:
G8XN-F35 G8X1-4B2 G8XT-RW6 G8XP-WKT G8XL-Y2P G8XB-KWJ G8X1-FLT G8X1-8V2 G8X1-YRX G8FM-93T G8FM-9PW G8FM-HD9 G8X1-B75 G8FM-98X G8FM-XS8 G8FM-F2N G8FY-RYD
His wife Frances,
G8XN-6M7 G8XP-FPY G8XG-4MM G8XT-5L4 G8X1-CKQ G8X1-J8Q G8X1-NT7 G8X1-P31 G8X1-NK6 G8X1-B1T G8FM-WQ5 G8FM-MR7 G8X1-1HK G8FM-7GN G8FB-9W3
He has again deleted restored legitimate sources, notes and Life Sketches for both individuals as well as for their one proven son, Francis Coley, KJ4Q-81K. I'd also created a profile for another son mentioned in Robert's will, a person who has not yet been identified beyond his name William, G8XP-HB7.
This is intentional, deliberate, and hostile harassment, as well as an assault on the integrity of your system. But never mind that. FS has created nothing more than a parlor game, one that is obviously not intended to be taken seriously, and one that rewards only fools. And that's a shame.
I once worked with a group of researchers who had inherited a small but excellent collection of genealogy books (about 300-400). The daughter wanted them to go to a permanent home. I wanted to see them stay local (Humboldt County, CA) and went to the public library, which had (and probably still has) a paltry, old collection of books as well as lots of shelf space. The director looked up at me and said, "Academics do not take genealogy seriously" and passed. Thanks to my experience here, I now know better than ever how true that statement is considered here at FamilySearch, despite the fact I know physicists, linguists, historians, and other academics as well as professionals in a number of fields who do enjoy the pursuit of genealogy.
My interest at Family Search was only in maintaining my little corner of the genealogy universe. But I'm done. Like so many others before (and I've met several in my teaching and speaking engagements), I'm departing this farcical and immature world of public trees. It's useless and laughable. But watch what happens. The dirt farmer in Pennsylvania will again become the inheritor of a great Scottish lordship despite the fact that that man lived his entire life in Scotland and the dirt farmer died while still tending to his soil. Prudence Eldridge will once again become Indian Princess Snowflower, despite the fact that it's been proven that her mitochondrial DNA was European and that the real Toudl-Hkilig lived a hundred years earlier. Governor Richard Bennett of Virginia will again become the scion of the Earls of Tankerville despite that fact the Bennetts (of another family) didn't come into that title until hundreds of years later, in 1713 -- about a hundred years after Bennett's birth. Watch as my own Cooleys again become part of the fictional Dutch Cooleys despite the fact that the "connection" has long been discredited. (See http://bogusgenealogy.com/viewer.pl?2019-08-20-Cooley.html). And watch as Andries Hanson again becomes part of a fictional band of brothers and the sons of a Swedish princess, orphans shipped to a tiny island in New Sweden by Queen Christina! (And never mind that the Andries *real* brother was hunted down by Christina's representative in New Sweden for having dared to speak out against the government. All bogus, but who cares? No one wants to know the truth, just as long as a blank on their tree is filled out. All of this is done simply so that someone can prove to themselves that they are of the god-anointed blue-blood class. And, by leaving this endeavor I will no longer be attacked by FHC volunteers who claim to be doing God's work. (Yes, I have maintained the transcripts of those so-called conversations.)
In short, the mission here is poorly devised, poorly executed, and supported by a staff who is uncaring. Staffers who considers the person who is complaining is automatically at fault and who doesn't look into a claim until being pressed time and time again, and then responds that the issue has been taken care of despite the fact that that is obviously not true. (I used to manage support departments and requested that my staff do not reply with boilerplates.)
I've unfollowed the 500+ profiles I'd been interested in maintaining, including my mother who, the internet world at large supposes, was someone who she decidedly was not, all because of a ridiculous typo an LDS volunteer made while indexing, a typo that I have not been able to do anything about. If I have no control over at least that much than there's no point whatsoever.
In addition to that, FamilySearch ignore that greatest genealogical tool to have come along in generations: DNA data, particular that for the Y chromosome, which has cleared up a host of genealogical myths. Everytime I bring it up it's poo-pooed. Well, I do already have audiences for that. I was simply mistaken to think that FS and all who participate here would be interested in mythbusting.
I've gone to support a number of times only to have the whole thing thrown back into my face. As I mentioned, the following response presumes that I'm the guilty party and proves that the department lacks any respect for their clients. Yes, boilerplates sound professional and official but clearly says only one thing: Bugger off! They are the very thing that the boilerplate pretends to combat. But I suppose everyone is treated that way in the name of fairness. It's clear from whom they get their attitude.
Years of work here has been for naught. As suggested by support a number of times, I'll just keep my own lineage elsewhere -- something I've already done on my server for more than 25 years anyway, first with genealogy.org (bought by Rootsweb and now owned by Ancestry). In any event, I've collected tons of evidence on behavioral problems among the staff and clients of FamilySearch.org, evidence I intend to make good use of.
DNA Project Administrator, FTDNA and elsewhere
On 2021-09-14 14:35, FamilySearch Support wrote:
Dear Michael Cooley,
"Disagreements regarding facts pertaining to a deceased individual are likely to occur, and such disagreements should be set out in clear terms based on the facts and citing sources where possible, without resorting to abrupt, insulting, or unkind language or comments."
"Code of Conduct. You agree that you will not individually, or as part of any group or collective effort, submit or post information to this site (either at registration, as a genealogical submission, through a discussion feature, or through any other feature where any Contributed Content can be provided) that could be deemed harmful or offensive to other users. You also agree that you will not impersonate another user in order to hide your identity or implicate another in such actions. You agree not to mine, collect, or use any information from this site with the intent to harm, discredit, harass, or prejudice any person or entity. You further agree to do nothing that might disrupt the flow of data to and from this site, impact the service or performance of this site, or circumvent any of the controls or usage rules that we have implemented. You understand that the result of harmful or offensive actions may include revocation of your right to use this site and other FamilySearch affiliated sites, as well as legal action against you."
We understand your frustration with this other user, however, because Family Tree can be edited by everyone, it is necessary that all relatives of a common ancestor use proper etiquette when editing information and interacting on Family Tree. We recommend reviewing the wiki article on how to make a good reason statement: Reason statements in Family Tree * FamilySearch.
Please keep these policies and guidelines in mind as you edit records and collaborate with other patrons when working in Family Tree.
Thank you for your time in considering these guidelines.
FamilySearch Data Administration
Please reply to this email for help with the current issue. For assistance with all other questions or general FamilySearch topics, please visit our Community site at: https://community.familysearch.org
I'm so sorry @MichaelHCooley. I received several similar replies when I was trying to work through a similar issue with an abusive contributor. My issue was finally resolved, but only after far more time than it should have taken. I'm not sure I would bother again.
Thanks for your efforts and good luck with your future research.1
Just as this would probably be resolved if I continued to pursue it. But this is the 4th or 5th occasion in about the same number of years. I've fallen way behind on my research and writing because of this. I've had enough. I just posted this on one of my facebook groups:
Just so you know, I've been confronted with a great deal of stupidity and stubbornness on FamilySearch.org, as have others. The good researchers I've met there appear to have left and I've met others at my classes and presentations who've had the same experience. So, I'm no longer maintaining any profile there. I mean, I can't even stop people with mucking with my own mother's profile. (She *never* had the name Wilhelma!)
Cooperative trees sound like a good idea except for the fact that too few cooperate. The systems are designed in such away that the arrogant and ignorant rise to the top, and they do that by chasing others away, by making our efforts useless and null. It works because organizations like FamilySearch.org actually encourages the behavior simply by ignoring it.
Several years ago I hooked up with a group of researchers that had inherited a small but excellent collection of genealogy books. They wanted to find a home for it. I had hoped to keep it local (Eureka, CA had little resources of the kind) and thought the public library would take it. After all, it has a puny and very old and dusty collection *but* lots of shelf space. I approached the director. He declined saying, "You know, academics do not take genealogy seriously." Frankly, despite the large number of academics and professionals that are interested, it is predominantly true. And that will always be the case as long as people like M_d are encouraged to behave in the manner they do.
With that said, it remains a good place for finding source documentation. I'd encourage its use over Ancestry any day.
Thanks for your support, Aine.
All the best, Michael0
I totally understand. So sorry!1
I agree with you, except that everyone should be welcome to do genealogy. I mean, they are the problem but it's not necessarily their fault. FamilySearch is responsible. They've built a system that not only supports their actions, but encourages it while discouraging those like us who are trying to do the right thing. And it seems that the "support" folks are also volunteers. UNTRAINED PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO "RESOLVE" ISSUES LIKE THESE.
Like so many before me, I've withdrawn from doing any tree maintenance. FS supports junk. That's exactly what they'll get. I can do nothing to stop it.
I'd like some details about your experience: http://ancestraldata.com/mailer/?michael0