Opinions on duplicate external sources?
I’m curious as to users processes when it comes to duplicate external sources, e.g. sources attached via Ancestry for records that exist and are already attached within FS.
I recently noticed a large number of duplicate external sources had been added to a number of PIDs I created/“care-take” and I’m in two minds as to what to do about it.
On the one hand, obviously this person has gone to a lot of trouble to add them all and in some cases the Ancestry records have original images where FS just has transcripts (eg England and Wales Census records), and it doesn’t do any overt harm having them attached.
On the other hand, not everyone has access to external sources such as those hosted on Ancestry, and when it’s pushing the number of sources up to 20 or 40 or more the PID a) looks far more sourced than it really is and b) it starts to become annoying to look though sources to quickly locate information, get a clear sense of timeline via records etc.
I’m just curious as to if there is an unofficial standard that people have adopted in this regard, or if it’s just managed on individual preference.
Obviously if it’s an external verified primary source with no internal equivalent it’s better to have it attached than not.
No official standard that I am aware of.
I like the image sources attached because I like to have them whether visible to others or not.
But some people will remove all but FamilySearch sources - if there are duplicates.
I agree though - all the duplicate indexes - although they may be actually from different sources - are cumbersome. I am hopeful that one day there will be the ability to group these duplicates so they are all 'hidden' beneath the one with the image or the best source with access. After all duplicate indexes referring to the same source aren't really needed... I run into this problem in a county in North Carolina - there are duplicate/separate indexes of marriage records - all documenting the same original marriage records. But so far I just leave them attached - because technically they are 'separate' sources (different indexes).
I think perhaps the problem with detaching them is that they may reappear as hints and be reattached...
I suppose one could edit the Title to include DUPLICATE - or a duplicate type of note ... but that doesn't really remove the clutter... If the event dates are all Standardized this would at least put them next to the original/image source so that they could be somewhat distinguished? Or perhaps as @Paul W is mentioning below - leave all the DUPLICATES unStandardized - so that they do not appear in chronological order...
There is also the option to change from chronological to Custom Order - which allows drag and drop ordering. Interestingly this might allow viewing as a per-user setting - maybe?1
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
As NO ONE is responsible for ANY "Deceased" individual/person, in 'Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch' ...
[ NOT even those that they "Create" ... ]
WHY does it matter, that there are ADDITIONAL "Sources" attached, that are SIMILAR "Sources"
[ Even, if the are the SAME "Sources", also from 'FamilySearch', that are attached ... ]
The MORE, the MERRIER ...
[ Provided that they are RELEVANT "Sources" ... ]
LEAVE other RELEVANT "Sources" attached by OTHER Users/Patrons alone - DO NOT "Detach" them.
[ Just think: Would you like the "Sources" that you attached, "Detached"? I certainly would NOT. ]
It matters NOT, that any RELEVANT "Sources", from a "External" Websites, that are attached, CANNOT be accessed/viewed by SOME Users/Patrons.
Because, there may be ANY number (in fact, MANY) of Users/Patrons that MAY actually be able to access/view such, RELEVANT "Sources", from a "External" Websites.
MANY of such RELEVANT "Sources", from a "External" Websites, MAY (in fact) be accessible/viewable at "Family History Centres" of the Church (or, "Affiliate" Libraries), by, MANY; Many; many, Users/Patrons.
That Said ...
Bottom line ...
NO ... DO NOT...DETACH any RELEVANT "Sources", from a 'External' Websites, attached by OTHERS.
Just my thoughts.
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
As I am not a LDS Church member and do not have an ancestry.com subscription, these sources are quite useless to me, when researching from home. I usually place all sources of this nature at the bottom of the Sources sections (of the IDs to which they have been attached), so they are out of the way of the FS ones. Mind you, I can't view many FS sources, either - usually because I have added them at a Family History Centre or Affiliate library, so can't see them again until I leave home and return there!
Fortunately, some external websites do provide a direct link to their records, so (instead of getting a Home page) clicking on the URL link brings up the actual page, which often contains more detail than the FS one. I keep these in the "main body" of the Sources section, once I realise they are of direct use.0
There is a way to create a "share" link in Ancestry that's viewable regardless of subscription status. If you add (or substitute) such links in the external citations, they become much more useful, especially in those cases where Ancestry has the image while FS only has the index.
But regardless of viewability, I would leave the external sources. As Brett rambled somewhere, the more the merrier. :-) Perhaps you'll help some future researcher to enter a correct and well-sourced tree on Ancestry.
(I only delete duplicate source citations if they actually refer to the same image or index entry on the same website. This can happen pretty easily when the citation's title is uninformative.)2