There information being posted that is incorrect and no sources listed. How about requiring that a source be attached? I have talked to several people who are no longer using family search because all we are doing is removing information and making corrections. Example GSFZ-N7H all of the words in this woman's name are descriptions Mukwa means bear clan. They have attached another woman as her mother which is not supported with any documentation. We are all tired of this.
Also itwas very hard to find a way to write this to you.
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
If you are relatively happy with the profile for KNQQ-5SQ, why not just detach her from these parents? After all, they would be effectively a "Mr and Mrs Unknown", if from another race / culture.
The only reason I have found the need for a parent, or parents, of unknown identity added in Family Tree is to connect siblings. Hence, say I have an Edward Smith and a George Smith, born in England in the seventeenth century. I know them to be brothers through probate documents, but there is no indication of their parents’ names. Following advice concerning an actual pair of brothers like this, I created an ID for a father, using just their surname (say "Smith"), so I could connect them in the Tree. Obviously, I have no sources to add to the father of the “Smith brothers”, but an ID is there purely to link the siblings in some way.
In your example, "Kweh" is the only listed child, so does not need to have (basically unknown) parents attached, so (as they cannot actually be deleted) I would just detach them.
Regarding your issue about sources, Julia makes a good point. We can add any number of sources to individuals, but a computer program will not be able to determine their validity - they could just contain gibberish, or be totally unrelated to the IDs to whom they have been attached, but still pass the criterion of having a source attached. As an example, some users attach multiple birth or census sources to one individual – presumably in a hope that one or two will be an actual match.0
Stephanie, first of all: you are aware that this is simply yet another bulletin board / online forum / public discussion site, right? There are moderators who have access to some background layers of support, but otherwise, you're just addressing other users of FamilySearch.
Second, the idea of requiring sources crops up very regularly, but I doubt it can ever be implemented usefully. There are two main reasons for this: one, the computer can't tell junk sources from real ones, and two, there's a chicken-and-egg problem: you can't attach a source to a nonexistent conclusion, which makes it impossible to enter a conclusion if having a source attached is a requirement.
What you've described is both an advantage and a drawback of an open-edit system: anyone can fix errors, but anyone can introduce them, too. I prefer to focus on the advantage: instead of messaging all of the Ancestry or MyHeritage subscribers who have dutifully propagated a piece of fiction (and getting a response out maybe one in ten, if I'm lucky), I can simply correct the mistake, explaining my reasoning just once. This sort of collaborative genealogy is not everyone's cup of tea, which is fine; the rest of FS is still available, even if you never look at the Tree.0
Hello @Stephanie Markiewicz,
You are seeing posts with no sources and that do not have an actual name in the name field, correct? We looked at the example you gave. Your idea of requiring a source for information about an ancestor will go to the right people if you post it in Ideas.
You can get there in a couple of ways:
- Click on the Ideas icon in the left menu of the Community:
- Scroll to the bottom of most FamilySearch pages and click on Feedback. This will take you to the same place.
Thank you for your idea on improving FamilySearch!1
Because this post is about working in Family Tree records that may not have Sources, I will be moving the post to the Family Tree Category where it can be viewed by others who may have a similar concern. Please don't be alarmed when it shows as closed in the FamilySearch Community category after it is moved. Clicking the title will allow you to see that it is open and active in the Community Family Tree Category.0
To Julia I did not know I was in a blog, I thought I was contacting someone at the resource center. Second how can someone state that a couple was married in Michigan without a marriage record. I have been to Michigan and went through Marriage records in the courthouses of two cities without finding a marriage record. I suspect a Catholic church has them but won't release records or let people look at them. Also a Priest, Minister or other person does NOT marry a couple they marry eachother so many children were born before the Priest came through and blessed the marriage. A Priest is only a witness, I taught 4th grade religion in a catholic school and this is trut today.
To CDBurk and bathompson thank you for the information. I will check it out. I am not skilled enough to make changes myself so I have to go to a resource library.0
Like I said I am not confident enough to detach anyone. When I don't have documentation I don't make statements of fact, like my gr grandparents being married in Michigan. I regards to your issue I would just put a note explaining how the brothers are related. Maybe when I go to the library I'll write down how to detach parents. Then I can do it at home rather than going to the library each time.
You can find instructions on how to do many things under the Help (?) button on FamilySearch. Click Help, click Help Center, and put your question in the box, and click Search. Please give a clear reason for detaching the child so other users will know why. The article below shows how to detach parents.