Good / bad intentioned people duplicating registers: How vulnerable is the family tree?
Maybe this have been addressed in another question, maybe my problem is due to the changes in the search bar result, or maybe the problem has never been addressed.
Some people in my Stake, me included, have had problem with people duplicating or changing names, dates, etc. in our family trees. Just last week, someone duplicated (in some cases triplicated) the same children of an ancestor. So instead of 6 children, the couple now had 14, with 2 or 3 with the same names, birth dates, birth places, dates and places of death (clearly the same person). Even spouses were the same. It made that part of my tree a mess and I had to unify each register and go over the tree to see where else the damage was made (and I didn't finish it yet). Important to note that the Temple ordinances had already been made between the 80's to the 00's, but it was showing that there were still ordinances to be done to the "other 8 kids" that don't even exist.
Now, I suspect the user that caused this mess was a "good intentioned" but inexperienced person. Maybe suffering with the system updates, or in the process of learning, or maybe just a "good intentioned" individual that doesn't have some common sense to use a "communal" tree. But there are people who's hobby is to mess up Wikipedia pages. If anyone can change my family tree (deceased ancestors) with their "good intentions", as long as they have an account, and cause me to have double, if not 10x the work just to fix it, what of an ill intentioned individual?
Temples in my country doesn't even give us the papers back anymore, they say it is saved on Family Search. Is anyone aware of the HUGE problem that can be and represent for all the work that is done? How big this vulnerability is???
Is there a function in which only I (and whoever I authorize) get access to my tree? Like a public tree version (one anyone can consult the deceased's names) + a private one where no new registers or alterations can be done UNLESS I allow someone access to it?
If there isn't, PLEASE consider the creation of this function! I know it will have to increase your data base and back up space and memory. However, what I just narrated above is a dangerous and huge vulnerabity to all the Family History and Temple work we do.
Waiting for the Family Search response.
Answers
-
WikiTree (one of the 2 most prominent competitors to the FamilySearch Family Tree) has an elaborate system of permissions for editing different profiles. The outcome of this is that WikiTree remains a single family tree for all humanity like the FSFT, but not everyone can edit some profiles. Additionally, each profile (including those that can be edited by anyone) has one or more "Profile Managers", and these managers have special priviliges.
I believe that the above has been mentioned here before and brought to FamilySearch's attention, but they have not yet implemented a similiar system.
1 -
I'm not LDS, so I don't know about its applicability to your religion's procedures, but FamilySearch does have a "static tree service": the Pedigree Resource File under Genealogies. This allows anyone to upload a GEDCOM file to FS's servers. Once uploaded, the file can be searched and viewed by anyone, but cannot be changed. It is essentially a cloud backup service for genealogy files.
2 -
A van Helsdingen thank your for your answer. Yes, that would be closer to the ideal.
Julia Szent-Györgyi thank you too. Unfortunately, I don't think that will solve the problem, actually it might create one. As per Family Search, this is what happens to information uploaded from a GEDCOM file (https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-happens-to-information-uploaded-from-a-gedcom-file):
"After you upload your GEDCOM file to the Pedigree Resource File, you can transfer the information to Family Tree. We do not typically recommend that you do this, since the information may already be in Family Tree. Transferring the information from a GEDCOM file can end up creating more work for you or someone else to do:
You may add duplicate records to Family Tree, which will need to be merged.
You may overwrite or delete accurate information that is already in Family Tree with less accurate or less complete information from your GEDCOM file.
The sources, notes, and media in your GEDCOM file cannot be transferred to Family Tree.
The relationships to parents and spouses are not automatically included when you transfer the person to Family Tree. However, the parents and spouses are listed separately, and when they are compared and transferred to Family Tree, the relationships are automatically created.
Your FamilySearch contact name and information will be shown in Family Tree as the contributor.
Important: Before you transfer information from a GEDCOM file, make sure that it contains information that is not already in Family Tree."
Still, thank you for reaching out to point me a way to keep a back up. I really appreciate it!
0 -
Sorry, I should've made it clearer that I meant only the upload to the PRF -- the mechanism for transferring the information to the Tree is severely flawed and I do not recommend it at all. (I do wish that FS's pages made it clearer that it is perfectly possible and acceptable to stop at the upload.)
I do not think it likely -- or feasible -- that FamilySearch will ever adopt a WikiTree-style curated model. For one thing, the FS FT is simply too big. Also, given how rarely I get responses to internal messages on FS, I don't even want to imagine what would happen with any sort of "unresponsive manager" process that would become necessary.
2 -
FYI
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member o the Church ... ]
Just in passing ...
You are not alone ...
MANY; Many; many, of us, ... have been there ... done that ... still do ...
Many of us have had 'wayward' "Changes" made to our "Ancestral" Lines ...
And, we understand; where, you are coming from ...
Now ...
That Said ...
Like it or not ...
Please be aware, that technically, you DO NOT have a "Tree", in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch' ...
Please let me explain ...
And, technically, there is no way to STOP another User/Patron working along the SAME 'Ancestral" Lines.
Unfortunately, such CANNOT be prevented.
As, basically, we are all related.
Your "Ancestral" Lines, are most likely ALSO another User's/Patron's "Ancestral" Lines, in fact, probably, that of quite a few other Users/Patrons.
Now ...
That Said ...
Basically, we DO NOT have, a "Tree", in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', than is common misconception.
And, OTHER Users/Patrons, DO NOT need/require, our (ie. one's) "Permission", to "Change" the information/details of "Deceased" individuals/persons, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
Here an old 'standby' of mine, that I have previously proffered on occasion ...
------------------
Most new (and, some old) Users/Patrons DO NOT understand the basic 'nature' and 'premise', of the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', when they join in.
Please let me explain ...
We do not have our OWN "Tree", in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
We ONLY have "Branches" (ie. Ancestral" lines), that are interconnected, in this SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is NOT like 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
We DO NOT have "Private"/"Personal" 'Trees', in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', like other 'On-Line' "Websites"; and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes.
We do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
And, most importantly ...
We DO NOT even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, Our OWN "Deceased" Ancestors/Family/Relatives, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why any "Registered" User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
------------------
In other words ... "Collaboration" ...
Of course ... often ... easier said, than done ...
[ Sometimes, no matter how hard one tries, "Collaboration", does not work ... such is life ... ]
Plus ...
We ALL make MISTAKES ...
NONE of US are PREFECT ...
None of us want to have our "Ancestral" Lines 'messed up'; but, unfortunately, it happens.
Thus ...
That is exactly why, many Users/Patrons, ALSO maintain their own PRIVATE "Database(s)" (ie. Copies) of their "Ancestral" Lines , on 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
And ...
Also ...
All that one can really do, is 'Monitor', one's "Ancestral" Lines, for 'wayward' CHANGES, by OTHER Users/Patrons.
Nothing more, nothing less ...
As an aside ...
IF, you were not already aware; THEN, ...
In the "Family Tree" Part, of "FamilySearch' ...
We have the ability to "Watch" (Oops, sorry, 'old school', "Follow"), up to a MAXIMUM of x4000 individuals/persons, at any given time.
Basically ...
It is a matter, of "Following", one's MOST important Ancestors.
Just to keep on top, of any 'wayward' CHANGES.
I check, the "Changes" to those that I "Follow", on a "Daily" Basis; so that, I can keep on top of things.
More often that not, nothing needs to be done; but, at least, I have the opportunity, to be abreast of things; as, they happen/transpire/unfold.
And ...
As, Users/Patrons, who are Members of the Church, we MUST ( and, just have to) work both, in; and, with, what we have, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
0 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi once again thank you. I've wondered about it being feasible or not, considering the current configuration. Still I think it is worth and important putting this question out there. Programs do go through developments and who knows, maybe with the feedbacks, suggestions and questions eventually someone thinks of an even better way and simpler way to do it. Maybe not today, but eventually. Thank you for your kind response.
@Brett . I'm completely aware that a communal tree is the original idea of the Family Search system, and in that point it has achieved its goal. But everything that becomes too big with too many users, all of them with their own rights of use, well it starts to present problems that have to be addressed as they come up. My question concerns a vulnerability in the code of Family Search.
Should we expect the best in people? Definitely. Should we ignore that we live in a world where there aren't only good intentioned people? I think that would be dangerous and unwise. If good intentioned people are already causing trouble without intending to (whatever their reasons are), imagine what an ill intentioned person could do to a vulnerable code (as I said, there are people who's hobby is to mess information up). It could make Family Search unusable in the long run, and I really rather discuss it flaws and problems, and try to suggest ways it could work and grow and retain more accurate information, than to see it end.
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your insights. I'm still going to wait to see if there is some answer from Family Search. They certainly have an amazing IT team (this is no small program) and with time they could find a solution to better improve this aspect of the Family Tree.
1 -
Just a thought. Duplication of children often occurs when duplicate parents are merged. Those doing the merge forget they also need to merge the duplicated children
2 -
@Karen 19 thank you for the thought. Yes, that is probably what might have happened (and I've heard there were some new changes to the system that complicated checking out the existence of duplicated registers).
My question is about something else though. It is easy to understand people having difficulties or being unfamiliar with the system, trying to be helpful and sometimes causing duplication or some problem. But if the program is easily susceptible to good intentioned people causing problem, how vulnerable it is for people that doesn't have good intentions? As any growing system with growing user numbers, it is normal for vulnerabilities to start showing up. Those need to be addressed at some point in order to find ways out to keep the data protected.
I just noticed you are a moderator. Are you from the FS IT team?
0 -
Hello Daniela
One sure way of dealing with the "messed" tree situation, which sadly occurs often with FamilySearch, is to always keep a personally controlled "mirror" tree, in programmes such as Rootsmagic, Legacy or Ancestral Quest, where no on other than you can change the data.
1 -
@DavidBeck1 thank you for your reply. That is a way to keep the data, yes. Still, it involves me exporting a file from a church related platform to a 3rd platform that probably has its own code vulnerabilities. And in that other platform I probably have no way to access the confirmation of Temple ordinances (that are not handed on paper anymore), which still leads us back to the vulnerability I mentioned at the original post.
That is why I'd still like to get some feedback from the FS IT team. We are highly encouraged to use FS by the church and to recommend FS to others, so the strengthening and improvement of the code is of great importance.
Back to your suggestion, can you tell me how I can do that? I did read something about exporting a file to another platform, but I admit I was confused. It is not a solution to the problem I posted about, but it can at least work as a temporary plan B for keeping safe part of the data.
0 -
Daniela
It's 'Brett'.
You may, want to consider, using one (or, MORE), of the "Third Party" Applications, that is (are) "Certified", to work, with "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', that can be found in the "Solutions Gallery", of 'FamilySearch':
https://partners.familysearch.org/solutionsgallery/s/
ie.
Family Tree Management
https://partners.familysearch.org/solutionsgallery/s/list?category=family_tree_management
A number of those "Third Party" Applications, that is (are) "Certified", to work, with the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch' ARE, in fact, "Family Tree Management" Programmes, that CAN "Download", ones Ancestors, from the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
There is BOTH, 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
Certainly, worth considering, if you have not already.
Good Luck.
I hope, that this may help/assist, somewhat.
Brett
1 -
Daniela. You can upload to Pedigree Resource on FamilySearch and no-one can change what you put there.
This is a link to a knowledge article in the Help Centre What is the Pedigree Resource File?
It explains what it is and the advantages of using it. There are links to other useful articles at the bottom of the article.
I hope that this helps
Karen
1 -
@Brett . Thank you for the information about certified applications. I'm going to save the links and read them tomorrow.
@Karen 19 Thank you too for the link. I'm going to read it tomorrow.
I'm also going to ask you to excuse me for marking your answers as "No" to "Did this answer the question?" You've been greatly helpful with your suggestions on how I can keep a back up for part of the data, and for this I'm grateful. But it still doesn't answer the question about the software code vulnerabilty and unfortunately I have no other way to contact Family Search IT team. I hope you understand as this is a serious code problem that might only get bigger and bigger with time.
0 -
Nobody here has directly addressed Daniela's apparent main concern about what effect this (duplication) work has on temple ordinances. As I am not a LDS Church member I can certainly not offer any advice here, but that given hitherto appears to merely address the duplication problem "in itself".
Specifically, how can Daniela can be assured temple work has not been "undone" or messed-up by the actions of other users?
(Quoting Daniela: "Temples in my country doesn't even give us the papers back anymore, they say it is saved on Family Search. Is anyone aware of the HUGE problem that can be and represent for all the work that is done? How big this vulnerability is???")
1 -
Thank you @Paul W for understanding. I've tried looking into how I could contact the IT team directly, but the community seems to be the only channel I can use. I guess for now I'm going to have to keep waiting.
0 -
It is frustrating for many of us that FamilySearch employees rarely visit this forum to give direct advice and reassurance, as we do not have the option to message the IT (or any other) team directly.
I'm sure there have been previous posts about the effects of careless users' work (particularly with regards to temple work), and I believe the advice given has been that such actions should not effect ordinance work already carried out. Hopefully, an experienced FS user / Church member will come back to specifically address the issues that are causing you so much concern.
1 -
Thank you @Paul W . I have a great respect for IT Teams, since softwares and applications can be a never ending work in progress with new problems and solutions everyday. Especially programs this size, with a huge data base, crossed data functions, partnerships, and number of users worldwide, striving to keep intuitive and user friendly as well as aesthetic, without glitches.
I'm also aware there is a limited number of human beings behind all the AI, and that it can be frustrating to them as well. I believe the idea behind the community "question and answer" method is to solve most of the questions that involves experience as a user, and I believe that it has achieved this goal as well, which is great. But yes, not all questions about the code can be answered through user experience. Hopefully, sooner than later I can get some kind of news from IT. Once again, thank you for reaching out.
0 -
Paul
It's 'Brett'.
In relation to ...
Be assured, that "Temple" Work, NOT be "... "undone" or messed-up by the actions of other users ..."
Simple ...
Short Answer: Such assurance, CANNOT be made.
That happens ...
Just like ANY 'wayward', "Changes"; and/or, especially, "Merges"/"Combines" ...
That is WHY ...
Such, needs to be, addressed/fixed, by 'FamilySearch', through the 'Category' of "Temple", for Users/Patrons who are Members of the Church.
OTHERWISE, the programme, would just be TOO "Restrictive" ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
1 -
@Brett . do you think I should post this question in another category? Which one?
0 -
Daniela
It's 'Brett'.
To be honest, NOT really.
What you have raised, has PREVIOUSLY been raised, on COUNTLESS occasions, by many, over the Years.
[ ie. NOTHING "New" ... ]
The ORIGINAL reason, that the Church "Created" the "New.FamilySearch" (and, now, "Family Tree") programme, all those Years ago, was for Members of the Church, to follow the "Tenets", of the Church, regarding "Temple" Work; and, specifically, to TRY to STOP (or, at least, CURB) the amount of "Duplication", being done, in the "Temples" of the Church, for our Ancestors.
Look ...
There is NO "Perfect" model ...
That is what, I was trying to imply, in my original 'Comment' ..
ie.
We DO NOT have a "Tree", in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch' ...
Technically, there is no way to STOP another User/Patron working along the SAME 'Ancestral" Lines.
Unfortunately, such CANNOT be prevented.
As, basically, we are all related.
One's "Ancestral" Lines, are most likely ALSO another User's/Patron's "Ancestral" Lines, in fact, probably, that of quite a few other Users/Patrons.
OTHER Users/Patrons, DO NOT need/require, our (ie. one's) "Permission", to "Change" the information/details of "Deceased" individuals/persons, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
We ONLY have "Branches" (ie. Ancestral" lines), that are interconnected, in this SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
Of course ...
That DOES NOT, bode well, regarding "Temple" Work; when, it comes to 'wayward', "Changes"; and/or, especially, "Merges"/"Combines", by OTHER Users/Patrons.
Again ...
That is WHY ...
Regarding "Temple" Work ...
Such, needs to be, addressed/fixed, by 'FamilySearch' "Support", through either,
(1) DIRECT Contact (ie,"Telephone"; and/or, "Live" ('On-Line') "Chat"; and/or,
(2) this "Community.FamiySearch" Forum, under the 'Category' of "Temple",
for Users/Patrons, who are Members of the Church.
OTHERWISE, the programme (ie. the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'), would just be TOO "Restrictive" ...
And ...
Please be aware, that ...
We ALREADY have, the ABILITY, to MAINIATIN, our own PRIVATE "Database(s)" (ie. Copies) of our "Ancestral" Lines , on 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
Plus ...
We ALREADY have, the ABILITY, to "Upload", our "Database(s)" (ie. Copies) of our "Ancestral" Lines, into the "Genealogies" Part, of 'FamilySearch'; which, is a "Static" Environment, if we so desire; but, such is ONLY for, information; and, research purposes, certainly NOT an "Editable" Environment.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
1 -
@Brett . thank you! I see what you mean and I can understand better now what you were trying to tell me. Thank you for your thoughts and explanation.
The support number for my country only has missionary volunteers that provide help using the program, and they don't have contact with anyone in support / IT. Do you know where I can find the contact for "chat" or "Live" (online)?
0 -
Daniela
I have been around for a while ...
It does not matter; where, one is located, in the World ...
We DO NOT, get, DIRECT access, to the Programmers/Engineers of 'FamilySearch', we NEVER have ...
[ ie. In ANY of the 'iterations', of the various 'FamilySearch' "Feedback" Forums, over these MANY Years ... ]
Of course, in the OLD 'FamilySearch' ("GetSatisfaction") "Feedback" Forum, we did often get interaction from, the Product Managers; and, even, the Programmers/Engineers, when thy chose to do so (Participate/Answer).
And, even in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, we have had some (but, very little) interaction from the Product Managers; and, even, the Programmers/Engineers, when thy chose to do so.
The 'FamilySearch' "Support" ( Personnel ), that respond to the "Contact Us", through/via BOTH,
(1) "Telephone"; and/or
(2) "Live" ('On-Line') "Chat"
AND ...
Even, "E-mail" ( if available),
Are ALL, 'FamilySearch' either, "Support" Missionaries (ie. Members of the Church); or, "Support" Volunteers (ie. can be either, Members of the Church; or, sometimes, non-members of the Church - just NOT "Serving" a "Mission").
NONE, of the aforementioned, are, Product Managers; and, even, Programmers/Engineers, of 'FamilySearch'.
And, they are usually, just Level ONE; being, the "Lowest" Level, of 'FamilySearch' "Support".
All, they can do is, possibly help/assist; or, if necessary, refer matters, further "Up the Line".
[ ie. If you, request; or, have to sometimes, insist ... ]
Now ...
That Said ...
You ask about, the "Live" ('On-Line') "Chat" ...
[ Which, may be ONLY available, in SOME "Regions", of the World; but, NOT all ... ]
Again, please be aware, that such will ONLY be, WITH the 'FamilySearch' "Support" ( Personnel ).
You will NOT get access to, the Product Managers; and, the Programmers/Engineers.
Whereas ...
Of course ...
The Product Managers; and, even, the Programmers/Engineers, MAY contact you DIRECTLY, if they FEEL such is, warranted; and, necessary ...
But ...
That Said ...
Please be, aware; and, advised ...
NOTHING much is ACTUALLY "New" ...
MUCH of what is suggested; as, enhancements, HAS been requested/suggested/proffered, over MANY Years.
I am NOT trying to, discourage; or, dissuade, you ...
I am just try to let you know ... that, MANY; Many; many, of us, HAVE been there, BEFORE, you.
And, things are certainly NOT ... as SIMPLE ... as MOST of us ... think/believe ...
Furthermore ...
As an aside ...
[ Again, as I have often proffered, on occasion ... ]
We can ONLY 'see' "Deceased" individuals/persons, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'; except, with this 'rider', that you can ALSO only see "Living" individual/person, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', that one creates; as, they reside in one's "Private Spaces".
No other User/Patron, can 'see' ANY "Living" individuals/persons, that were created by another User/Patron; as, they ONLY reside in the "Private Spaces", of the User/Patron who created them.
We CANNOT even 'see', the ACTUAL Record, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', of our IMMEDIATE Family (eg. Spouse; Children; Parents; Siblings; ETC; Etc; etc), if they are "Living"; and, they have their own 'FamilySearch' Account.
Of course, you can create your "Living" Family members; and, record them in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'; but, they will ONLY be seen by you:
▬ You cannot "Share" them with any other User/Patron.
▬ You cannot "Merge"/'Combine" them, with any other "Living" individual/person, residing in the "Private Spaces", of another User//Patron.
There is CURRENTLY, no mechanism, in the "Family Tree" Part, 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.
The "Family Tree" Part, 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 the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
'Yes', these "Living" individuals/persons, in the "Family Tree" Part, 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?
Now ...
That Said ...
'FamilySearch', has been 'grappling', with the SHARING, of "Living" individuals/persons, between "Living" Users/Patrons; and, 'working' on this, for, MANY; Many; many, 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
But, 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/believe ...
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
