Duplication in Memories and Sources
Duplication in Memories and Sources are just terrible. Probably 30% or more is duplication. For an example, go look at my relative Edmund Lovell Ellsworth 1819-1893 KWNK-QMM and see all the duplication in pictures. I have many relatives that are just the same as Edmund’s Memories.
With the computer technology we have now, you would think FamilySearch could come up with ways to stop all this duplication. Maybe at least put a flag notification to check to see if it is already there before adding to Memories or Sources. I have used “Notifications--- Changes to People You Follow” and when I see duplication and email them about it, they do nothing about it. That system does not work.
It would be wonderful if the programmers and computer technology could stop this duplication. It would also free up a lot of space on FamilySearch computers.
Comments
-
FYI
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
I understand the premise of your post ...
FIRSTLY ...
"Memories" ...
And, 'Yes", for some individuals/persons, in 'Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch", there is definitely "Memories", that ARE "Duplicates" of the SAME Photograph/Image, that have been uploaded, by DIFFERENT Users/Patrons.
The problem/issue; being, with those is, that they WILL all have DIFFERENT "File" Names [and, in many cases, DIFFERENT "File" Extensions (eg. jpeg; png; bmp; gif; etc)]; so that, the (Computer - "Image Moderator") "System" CANNOT identify that, in fact, they ARE "Duplicates; when, in fact, they are.
And, 'FamilySearch', DOES NOT have, the 'person power', to have People "Vetting", EVERY single "Memory".
[ Just NOT, feasible; or, practical ... ]
Plus, in 'FamilySearch' (and, this Forum), the "Image Moderation", used, is currently somewhat OUT OF CONTROL - ie. rejecting MANY "Memories" (especially, "Images"), that it should not.
So ...
That Said ...
Although, I great "Idea", I would humbly suggest, that having the current (Computer) "Image Moderation" System, used in 'FamilySearch', to "Weed Out" the "Memories", that are "Duplicates", whether, when "Uploaded"; and/or, even, at a later 'Date', that such would NOT be a good thing.
And, I for one, would OBJECT to such.
SECONDLY ...
"Sources"
And, 'Yes", for some individuals/persons, in 'Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch", there is the "Very" ODD "Source", that really is an ACTUAL "Duplicate"; but, that said, NOT so many these days.
And, your example of Edmund Lovell ELLSWORTH ( KWNK-QMM ), is one of those such individuals/persons; where, at a quick glance, I did 'see', at least, ONE "Source", with the EAXCT Same URL, that was "Duplicated".
[ By the way, to whom I am "Related"; but, have not worked upon ... ]
Now ...
That Said ...
I would humbly suggest, that in; MANY; Many; many, cases, the "Sources" are NOT "Duplicates"; as, you suggest/consider; but, are, in fact, simply ADDITIONAL "Indexings", of the SAME "Record" (ie. "Event"); as, there are more often than not, NO "Duplicate" URLs.
Here is a case, where this is the case:
Josiah STAFFORD ( MZW5-ZTL )
Such is common; but, maybe, not to the extent, here; which, is exacerbated, by BOTH, "Christening" in 28 January 1798; and, subsequent "Burial" on 13 March 1798, just over a Month and a Half later.
Whereas ...
"Records" (ie. "Events") can; and, are often, "Indexed" MORE than ONCE, for whatever reason (and, there are many).
Plus, the "Records" (ie. "Events"), MAY even be "Indexed", by MORE than ONE organisation.
[ eg. 'FamilySearch'; "Ancestry_com"; "FindMyPast_co_uk" [ FindMyPast_com" ]; "MyHeritage_com"; etc ... ]
And, many of those DIFFERENT "Indexings", of the SANE "Record" (ie. "Event"), can find their way into 'FamilySearch'.
Sometimes the "Indexing", comes from the actual "Parish Registers"; whereas, other times, the "Indexing", comes from "Bishops' Transcripts"; plus, some can be ADDITIONAL "Copies", that are in the 'Keep' of various "Record Custodians".
Now ...
That Said ...
As, in the majority of cases, NONE of the "Sources" are, in fact, a "Duplicate", with the EACT Same URL.
I am not concerned that there are similar "Indexings" of the SAME "Record" (ie. "Event").
In fact, I like to say ... the more, the merrier ...
What I do, is put ALL the Sources in 'Date' Order; and, the, for the similar "Sources" for the SAME "Record" (ie. "Event"), I simple ADD "Reference x of y", to each; so that, they are grouped together; and, easy to 'see', that there are a number of "Sources" for the SAME "Record" (ie. "Event").
[In fact, I will probably, take on a 'Project' to do so, for Edmund Lovell ELLSWORTH (KWNK-QMM); as, I am "Related"]
Many Users/Patrons, do not like the fact, that there can often be, ADDITIONAL "Indexings" of the SAME "Record" (ie. "Event").
Personally, I really think, for many such Users/Patrons, that such equates to just unnecessary work, on their part; as, they need to "Attached" ALL those "Sources".
Unfortunately ...
Genealogy/Family History is NOT a "Sprint" ...
Genealogy/Family History is a "Marathon" ...
GOOD Genealogy/Family History takes BOTH, 'Time'; and, 'Effort'.
Many Users/Patrons these days, do not want to do, the necessary 'hardy yards', taking the, 'Time'; and, 'Effort'
[ They just want it done - quick; and, easy ... ]
Plus ...
At one stage, 'FamilySearch', attempted to "Weed Out", these similar "Sources", for the SAME "Record" (ie. "Event"); and, such was a "Dismal" FAILURE, with MANY that were removed, later, being 'resurrected'.
It certainly was "Disheartening", to 'seeing', original "Sources", that one attached, a number of Years ago, in 'good faith', with the expectation, that such would NOT be "Removed", literally DISAPPEARING, from one's Ancestors ... And, NOT, at the 'hands' of ANOTHER User/Patron; but, instead DELIBERATELY by the "System" (ie. 'FamilySearch' itself).
And, I have a number of Ancestors, with between x80 and x100 "Sources"; and, I have ORGANISED all.
I would humbly suggest, that having the "System", 'FamilySearch', to "Weed Out" the "Sources", that are possibly "Duplicates"; and, in the majority of cases, NOT "Duplicates" (ie. with the EXACT Same URL); but, in fact, similar "Sources", for the SAME "Record" (ie. "Event"), would NOT be a good thing.
And, I for one, would OBJECT to such.
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this certainly DOES NOT help/assist (nor, support); but, I hope, that may provide some additional, insight; and, another perspective.
Brett
ps: There are certainly those, that disagree with me, on "Sources" ...
.
0
