Duplicate people
I understand, I think, as to why each person (living) needs to create their own account (privacy). HOWEVER, I believe this also sets up a situation where there are duplicate ID's for the same person and thus the painstaking measure of having to "merge" them after they pass. Why in setting up a new account, the person just can't enter their PID already? I would think it would be better for the trees to be "merged" so that the tree can grow. If other persons are able to "add" to my tree, why can't my husband, children, and extended family be all part of the "larger" merged tree?
Answers
-
There is an article in the FamilySearch Help Center that will help you get your ideas to change FamilySearch to that team to review. There is a link below to that article. Click on the link and it will take you to it.
How do I give feedback to FamilySearch?
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-give-feedback-to-familysearch
0 -
This is one of the most frustrating thngs about this new "Community" discussion board, instead of getting an answer, someone posts an article for you to read about how to post a suggestion on the discussion board, which you just did. I am sorry that the customer service for family search has become a "discussion board" where they send you in circles instead of acknowledging that you have already made a suggestion and would like someone to actually answer your question.
Maybe I can help. You are absolutely right! The only reason why each person has to have their own account is due to the privacy of living people. However, I wish that family search would at least allow immediate family members share the same ID numbers for their living relatives. It seems silly that my husband has different ID numbers for our children than I do. I attended a BYU family history conference a few years back and they announced that the programmers were working on it. However, I do not know why it never came to fruition. It would be nice if Family Search would respond and explain why.
Note: Family Search representatives: PLEASE do not leave a comment tellng me to read an article on how to click on feedback and make a suggestion in the community because this is the community and I just made the comment and the suggestion. Thank you. And to jillmassara, that is a GREAT suggestion and there are a lot of people who support you.
2 -
Jill
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
That is something, that we have all been requesting/asking, for MANY Years ...
ie. Especially, since, the implementation, of "Private Spaces", in 2014
.... [ When, us "Living", Users/Patrons, were "Duplicated" ... ].
It seems, so to simple ...
Unfortunately ...
Many Users/Patrons think, that things are so, SIMPLE; and, EASY; when, in fact, they are NOT ...
Now ...
That Said ...
FIRSTLY ...
There is CURRENTLY no mechanism, in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', for Users/Patrons, to "Share"; or, "give permission" to "Share", the "Living" individuals/persons in their own "Private Spaces", with/between other/another User(s)/Patron(s).
There are a myriad of "Privacy" Laws within the many various Countries and Unions, throughout the World - it is a nightmare to negotiate.
"Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', is used in many Countries and Unions, throughout the World; and, as such, must adhere to the myriad of "Privacy" Laws throughout the World.
Hence, "Privacy" is one of the reasons that we cannot "Share" the "Living" individuals/persons in our own "Private Spaces" - it is NOT the ONLY reason; but, certainly has a bearing on the matter.
Another factor is that such would have to be 'Coded'/'Programmed' into the Programme that is "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
'Yes', these "Living" individuals/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' WILL, in fact, in many (most) cases will be "Duplicated" - unfortunately a necessary situation that currently cannot be avoided.
I know, that there are "Duplicates", of the "Living" ME - at least, one for my Wife and each of our Children, not to mention my other ("Living") extended Family members.
Here are some "Knowledge Articles", in 'FamilySearch', in regard to "Private Spaces" and "Living" individuals/persons:
Who can see my living relatives in Family Tree?
https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/who-can-see-my-living-relatives-in-family-tree
How does Family Tree protect the privacy of living people?
https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/what-is-a-private-space-in-family-tree
What Family Tree features are available in my private space?
Can my living relatives share a Family Tree private space to work together?
https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/share-a-family-tree-private-space-with-family
Can I transfer my Family Tree private space to another user?
SECONDLY ...
Plus ...
'FamilySearch', has been 'grappling' with this; and, 'working' on this, for Years.
There DOES appear to be some progress ...
Especially, with the recent implementation, of the NEW "Family Groups".
Currently, the 'premise' of "Family Groups" is:
PRIMARILY: for the "Sharing" of "Temple" Work, for Users/Patrons who are Member of the Church; and,
SECONDARY: a form of "Group" 'Messaging' Tool, for ALL User/Patrons
There has been 'Talk', in this Forum, that has suggested, that "Family Groups" MAY later, include a 'component', to enable the "Sharing", of the "Living" individuals/persons, in our "Private Spaces", between members of the particular 'Group'; as, a "Family Group" is, in fact, a "Closed" PRIVATE 'Group', with somewhat of a 'Modicum', of "Privacy".
We can but live in hope ...
Again, things are NOT; as, SIMPLE; and, EASY; as, most people think ...
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this may not help/assist; but, I hope, that this provides you, with some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
0 -
Just to add to Brett's comment above - If it were simple it would have been implemented already. As he stated this has been an issue for years and the developers have said they understand the issue and are working to find a solution. We have to wait and be patient.
2 -
I also brought this up as a bad business model. I have helped a number of people begin using FamilySearch. I suspect there are at least 4 records of me and probably that many of my siblings. If it is that bad for all the new people seeing how good the FamilySearch world tree is, the system will be overwhelmed in years to come.
0 -
Having my spouse die two years ago and having my record of her along with our eight children each having a record all records were merged within a few days of FamilySearch marking her record as deceased. It did not cause any issue was much less of an issue that the multiple duplicates created by GEDCOM uploads. I do not see the current procedure as being a major issue.
4 -
FamilySearch will only do that for LDS members, I believe. For non Church users, the accounts will not be marked deceased. I believe that is what I read somewhere.
0 -
That is correct. However, if a relative requests that an account holder be marked as deceased, my understanding is that it can be done. That is a current weakness that needs to be resolved. If others say children mark there record deceased others will see that mark theirs deceased and then merge. I don't see that much different than what happens with an LDS member account. The only issue is related to memories which are connected to living records that don't get marked deceased.
0 -
Gail
It's 'Brett'.
Just in passing ...
That is CORRECT ...
ie.
For ("Living") Users/Patrons, who ARE a Members of the Church, the principle 'FamilySearch Person Identifier' (PID), associated with their "Membership" Record of the Church, WILL be "Marked"; as, "Deceased" (with the "Death" details) by the "System".
But ...
That Said ...
Whereas ...
ALL Other "Living" DUPLICATES, of that NOW recently "Deceased" User/Patron, residing in the "Private Spaces", of OTHER ("Living") Users/Patrons, MUST be "Marked"; as, "Deceased", by EACH of those individual Users/Patrons; BEFORE, any "Merging"/"Combining" can take place.
Once, the Other "Living" DUPLICATES, of that NOW recently "Deceased" User/Patron, residing in the "Private Spaces", of OTHER ("Living") Users/Patrons, HAVE been "Marked"; as, "Deceased", by EACH of those individual Users/Patrons; THEN, "Merging"/"Combining" can take place.
Now ...
That Said ...
'NO' ... that is NOT "... a bad business model ..."
That is SIMPLY, what is required, due to the fact, that there are a myriad of "Privacy" Laws, within the many various Countries and Unions, throughout the World - it is a nightmare to negotiate.
And, "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', is used in many Countries and Unions, throughout the World; and, as such, must adhere to the myriad of "Privacy" Laws throughout the World.
Certainly, a lot more COMPLEX, than most people realise.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
@gasmodels . I should have said I am sorry for your loss. Very remiss of me not to do that. You are correct, someone can request my account be marked deceased, but I suspect that will happen in less than 1% of all cases, and I am pretty sure it will not be done for me. One potential person might do it, but she and I are the same age and she might go first. However, as @Brett . pointed out, everyone with a record of me needs to mark me deceased in their private spaces as well. I suspect that won't be done either, and FamilySearch will not go in and do it for them, even if my main account has been disabled. That violates privacy. Before I knew how this worked, I uploaded quite a few photos to my account and that of my siblings / spouse of all live people. That could all simply take up space for all eternity except that being forewarned, I have started randomly tagging my parents or other deceased people in all my uploads. Almost no one is forewarned, though, and a lot of space will be taken up by photos and other memories that no one will ever see. I still say, this is not the best business model. Servers will get clogged with a growing private space. I think all kinds of solutions are potential, but that is for the Church to decide.
0 -
@Gail S Watson -- No problem with not mentioning my spouse passing. Although I still miss her (probably always will) I understand that there are many my age who have experienced similar situations. I will definitely agree with you that there are issues with the multiple living records but the alternatives may be worse than what we have. I agree that the major issue is memories - photos, documents and stories. We do not want to lose those. The only way that I know to make sure they are not lost is to place them in an album that is easy to find - by name or to provide the URL of the album to someone who can link after we depart. I struggle with frequently. Fortunately with several children I can pass the issue down to them.
0
