FamilySearch has minor legal issues
1. When I merge a duplicate entry, all existing events are credited to me even though I'm not the contributor and haven't changed anything. This is incorrect and violates my personal rights. It is not allowed to attach an utterance to a wrong person. Publishers must promptly correct such errors.
Of course, with FamilySearch, that's just a bug. I reported it to support and sent in an example (G8KJ-QDV). The answer was unfortunately anonymous and negative. Nothing happened. That doesn't surprise me because it's related to American business culture. Loyalty to superiors is more important than the quality of the product or responsibility to customers, see the Boeing 737 Max. When I made a suggestion in our company, I was given a balloon flight for my wife and myself. In an American company I might have been fired (slightly exaggerated).
2. A digitized page can be linked to the person you are looking for. This allows anyone with access to verify the entry. Of course, it's practical. But it is only a reference to the source and not a quotation. Anyone who has an account with FamilySearch should be able to identify the source even if they are not members. Our archives demand that they be cited and are not very happy when they are not.
Loyalty means: I do my job and you do yours. And you mustn't bother me.0
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
From the outset, let me stress ... I am no legal practitioner ...
This matter, has been raised, previously, in all of the various 'iterations', of the 'FamilySearch' "Feedback" Forums, over the Years.
In other words ... this is nothing new ... as, you yourself have indicated ...
Many would agree ...
That when one "Merges"/"Combines", one's "Contact Name", should NOT be applied, to ALL that; which, is 'brought across', from the "Deleted" (ie. "Archived") individual/person, to the "Surviving" individual/person; where, such SHOULD "Remain" the "Contact Name" of the User/Patron who originally entered/recorded such.
[ Myself, originally, being one of them ... ]
That Said ...
I then realised ...
(1) The User/Patron, affecting the actual "Merge"/"Combine", is ultimately, "Creating" a NEW individual/person
(2) The User/Patron, who originally entered/recorded, the "Data", against the "Deleted" (ie. "Archived") individual/person; being, 'brought across', DOES NOT have ANY 'hand' (nor, 'say'), in the LATER matter, of the "Merge"/"Combine"; thus, their "Contact Name", should NOT be applied.
When one inherently "Merges"/"Combines"; then, in affect, one IS the "Responsible" User/Patron.
And, certainly NOT, the original User/Patron, who originally entered/recorded, the "Data", against the "Deleted" (ie. "Archived") individual/person.
At least, the "Sources"; and, the "Memories" (and, if I recall, correctly, the "Collaboration") REMAINS recorded against the ORIGINAL User/Patron.
As, ONLY the "Details", recorded on the "Person/Details" page/screen, "Change".
And, in any case, when the "Data", is 'brought across', from the "Deleted" (ie. "Archived") individual/person, often, such is immediately "Changed" (even if that may ONLY be, a "Minor" alteration).
[ I know, as such is often the case, when I "Merge"/"Combine" - all-be-it, a "Minor" alteration ... ]
Thus, I would humbly suggest, let such remain ... "As Is" ...
Trying to 'factor in' the exact, WHO; and, WHEN, would make the "System" both:
(1) Far TOO difficult to code/programme for; and,
(2) Ultimately, far TOO complex, to understand, by the average User/Patron (&, maybe, even, the experienced)
Just my thoughts.
[ ie. And, NOT, from any "Legal" standpoint ... ]
I believe your second point was recently discussed in this thread: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/4206610
I don't quite see the point being made in the title of your post. If there is a legal issue involved then there is the option open to you to take advice as to whether to obtain a legal remedy. I don't want to stir up problems here, but you could write a letter to FamilySearch asking for withdrawal of incorrect information on yourself, with the consequence of your taking legal action for its removal if they did not comply.
However, I do not think you have any rights to challenge published detail regarding other persons - especially as they might be deceased or (if living) not overly worried about any errors themselves. I'm sure most data is recorded in good faith on the FamilySearch website, so your assertion that, "Publishers must promptly correct such errors", should only apply if you are personally affected by the publication of false information and FamilySearch refused to remove this from its website.0
I am another FamilySearch family Tree patron (another user of this site). As patrons we try to help each other with concerns, issues and questions. Perhaps I could share with you my thoughts about one of your concerns.
FamilySearch Family Tree is a single tree that is a collaborative effort involving all the patrons/users of the site. It is an open-edit format, which means that any users can make changes to the Tree. One of the key goals for the Tree is to have a single Person Profile/Person Details Page in the Tree for each individual ancestor. We can all contribute to that Person Profile/Person Details Page by adding Source information/records, collaborative research notes, and memories. When there are duplicates created for the same individual ancestor, the website system allows us to merge those duplicates so that there is a remaining single Person Profile/Person Details Page. Each individual Person Profile/Person details Page has a PID number, the person Identifier number (the 7 digit number/letter combination).
If I understand correctly from the example PID you have mentioned, PID G8KJ-QVD, one of your concerns is that when you merged 2 PIDs, the remaining/surviving PID for the ancestor indicates that you were the contributor who contributed to various actions on the Details page in the PID, such as adding birth date, death date, burial date and place, with the date of the action being the date you merged the 2 PIDs. The contributors to all of those actions on the Details Page and the dates of their contributions were previously listed in the deleted PID. The other thing that happened in the merge is that the names of all those patrons/users who previously contributed to the deleted PID are now gone, except those who contributed by adding Sources, collaborate notes and memories to the PID. (the contributors to the Details Page can still be found in the deleted PID profile, but it takes some searching to find them, and it is not apparent when looking at the surviving PID Details page).
The PID that was deleted in the merge was PID KWVG-L4X. It had a number of contributors to it, it had 9 sources attached to it, and it was created by FamilySearch in April 2012, when the Family Tree was being created and populated from the previous legacy website.
The surviving PID G8KJ-QDV was created by you on September 28. 2021.
On the same date, September 28, 2021, KWVG-L4X was merged into the new G8KJ-QDV.
At that time (September 2021) it would not have been necessary to create a duplicate PID for that ancestor, as the PID KWVG-L4X for that ancestor already existed. Once the duplicate Q8KJ-QDV was created and it was determined that this was a duplicate of KWVG-L4X, the action that could have been taken was to merge the new duplicate into the already existing KWVG-L4X. That would have retained the dates and names for all the contributors on the Details page from 2012 to 2021. Since the September merger of the 2 PIDs, there have been 2 further actions on the PID G8KJ-QDV, a custom event added and a source attached, both were done on November 7, 2021, by another individual.
When I have had this type of merge action with some ancestors I have been working on, it is possible to reverse the merge action so that the older PID with its details becomes the remaining PID. I have found the ‘Help Articles’ in the Help section of FamilySearch very useful for instruction.
‘The Family History Guide’ website is also very helpful for obtaining detailed instruction concerning the FamilySearch website.
I realize that my comments have been lengthy. I hope they may be of some use.4
If you have legal concerns with FamilySearch - review the Terms of Service (https://www.familysearch.org/legal/terms)0
Here is an article from the Help Center that explains a few things about what happens in a merge. Though it does not address the sources being changed to yourself, it does state:
"Keep the record that is most complete or correct. If necessary, switch the position of the articles that you see on screen so that you keep the one that is most accurate and complete. Switch records from right to left if necessary. "
Many thanks for the answer. But it doesn't address the problem. The problem is not the so-called sources (which are not sources in the scientific sense, but only links), but the events, see my example. I can't decide anything when merging. There is indeed a bug.0
I would have thought that - given the nature of your question - you have been given excellent advice above - especially from @GlennPruden. If you want to resolve the issue, you must first be able to detail the exact nature of the bug and how it might be remedied. I just looked again at your example G8KJ-QDV and you have added no reason statement for the merge (other than "ok") and no notes to indicate any problem relating to the merge, sources or any other data attached.1
Merging duplicate entries is usually a trivial matter. I have already merged x thousands and do without time-consuming explanations. The problem with the incorrectly assigned events can only be seen afterwards. For everyone who programs, the solution is clear.0
Thanks for all the good advice. I should add that programs with an interface to FamilySearch merge correctly. Personally, I use Ancestral Quest, which allows me to work with large amounts of data from Excel. But AQ doesn't find all duplicates.0
The philosophy behind merging in FamilySearch seems to be that you must first make two right turns before you are allowed to turn left.
Now to the sources: Many submitters think that more or less useful links to some kind of relatives are sources. Sources are publications and name the author or publisher, title, place, time and possibly volume and page number. If possible, the primary sources should be cited. Otherwise one often writes: "cited in ...". Of course you can also name interesting secondary sources like "Find a Grave". Primary sources for old civil status data are church or state registers of births, baptisms, marriages and deaths. Secondary sources are local clan books etc.0
Peter, I think you need to re-think your statement that "sources are publications and name the author or publisher ...". You contradict yourself toward the end of the paragraph, when you mention vital registers: these are not publications, and have no author or publisher -- unless you consider the printing company that produced the blank book to be a publisher, and the bureaucrats who came up with the pre-printed text to be authors.
The truth is that a source is anything that led you to the conclusion in question. If this is "grandma said so", then that's what should be cited (with information about when she said it and to whom, if possible). The trustworthiness of a source cannot be determined based on its type: a birth register entry is a far worse source than family hearsay, if the register entry is for the wrong person. Some types of sources fit best in FS's reason boxes, while others are suited to the more "formal" Sources tab. There's value to both.
Other than the vestigial tagging capabilities, I think FS's sourcing scheme is actually better than any of the "competition": the citations are flexible, with only the title being required, and only a few fields available beyond that (instead of the highly-granular-but-entirely-inapplicable fields on other sites), and it's easy to attach a citation to multiple profiles. (On other sites, you have to re-enter the whole thing.) There is, of course, room for improvement (have I mentioned tagging?), but what we have is pretty darn good.0
Julia, we don't understand each other because we're not talking about the same thing. I work exclusively in Europe with documents from the period 1550 to around 1910. There are only the documents mentioned above as primary sources. It is sometimes not possible to clearly identify people with this, but that is not the task of citing a source. According to international practice, the source names the publisher, which in our case is always a state or church archive for a primary source, and in such a way that not only members can access the information. If a submitter, as unfortunately often happens, links the name of a person to all digitized pages where this person or a confused person appears, that is not very helpful. You don't know how many errors FamilySearch has with these old records. I spend a large part of the day correcting, merging duplicates, and standardizing names, locations, and so on. I am afraid the millennium will not be long enough to correct all mistakes.0
Peter, the part I don't understand is where you say "If a submitter links the name of a person to all digitized pages where this person or a confused person appears". Are you talking about index entries being attached to the wrong people, or misindexing, or something else?
(My immigrant ancestors are my parents, so I work exclusively in Europe, too, although in Hungary I'm lucky if I can get back into the 1700s in most places.)0
Julia, there are often numerous links to pages that show children or other real or fake relatives for a person. It's just easy to link digitized pages from church registers, etc. with people. I don't want to name any examples and I don't care if at least one correct source is included.0
Back to the legal requirement: A source has the national language, in my case for example "Staatsarchiv Bern (URL), Kirchenbücher Aarberg, Taufen, Heiraten 1549-1604 (Vol. 1, p. 10)".
"AB in the entry for XY" is not a source. In all my cases I would use this to refer to a source for XY, but not for AB because I can't identify AB with it.
The statement above is not useless. It helps bring families together. FS may offer the opportunity to set such links. It is the submitter's responsibility to cite a source correctly.
Now I would like to add what I keep saying: Please do not write down surnames, first names and place names as they appear in the documents, but use today's official and standardized names. It often happens that there are several different lines for the same person because the name was spelled differently.0
Peter, the use of modernized/normalized names in genealogy is a contentious topic. Your stance is exactly opposite to mine: I believe we should not impose our modern notions of correctness on our ancestors, nor invent new names for them, but record their names the same way their contemporaries recorded them. Entire genealogy websites (such as WikiTree) share my opinion that names should always be recorded as they appear in documents.
Surnames cannot be standardized: some families use fossilized older spellings to this day, while others use a modern spelling -- and we cannot predict, based on their ancestors, which way a particular family will end up going, come the 20th century and its newfangled notions of The One True Name. What we can predict with confidence is that neither the family with the old spelling nor the one with the modern spelling would appreciate being randomly re-named by a genealogist.
Placenames should be recorded in a form that is correct for the time of the event, because that never changes. Modern names and jurisdictions change.
Duplicates are entered in Family Tree for many reasons, but not having exactly the same spelling is very seldom among them, because FamilySearch's matching algorithms are pretty good at their job. (Well, other than not recognizing that -y is Exactly The Same Thing as -i....) More often, entire branches are duplicated because of People Unclear On Concept: they fail to comprehend what a "single shared tree" really is, and what it means about their entries.2
Julia, the different opinions are again due to the fact that we don't live in the same culture and you speak of the present, I of the past. In Switzerland, surnames are fixed by law, also in relation to the past. My wife's grandfather received a letter from the government around 1950 saying he was no longer allowed to write his name the way he used to. My wife's name is Dellenbach. There were or are also the spellings Tellenbach, Dällenbach, Tällenbach. Depending on discretion, a person's name was written one way or the other in the registers. Later it was legislated how to write the names in the different places. That's what we have to do about the past as well, and that's what all genealogists do here. (I am a member of two societies.) I have an example of how six different spellings for the same person in FamilySearch resulted in six different lineages with corresponding ordinances. One of my great-great-grandmothers was baptized, confirmed, etc. 71 times, sealed about 30 times to the wrong parents and just as often to the wrong man (to the right ones too, of course). FamilySearch also promotes standardization and we should do that too.0
Dear Julia, it seems to me that you work at FamilySearch. So I have one request: There is no Lutheran church in Switzerland. The text should read: "Catholic and Reformed Church ...", see Wikipedia, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformierte_Kirchen.0
Not entirely correct. Today there are Lutheran churches. From a historical point of view, "...Protestant Church..." would also be correct.0
I'm just a fellow user of FamilySearch. I'm not even LDS. (Baptized Lutheran, actually, but grew up attending a Reformed church, because that's what was available in Hungarian, and my parents considered the language/culture to be much more important than the particular flavor of Protestant.)
I think Switzerland must be fairly unique in its legislation of name spellings. Hungary, Slovakia, and Austria certainly do no such thing, and I think they'd have a rebellion on their hands if they tried. (Slovakia does enforce Slavic name endings, and that's contentious enough.) And of course there's absolutely no chance whatsoever of any such legislation ever even being proposed in English-speaking North America. English can't decide how to spell sounds in regular words, never mind in names! (There's really no hope of this ever changing, because there are too many dialects. The eternal question becomes, "correct by which pronunciation?")
And I'm sorry, but I cannot see any value in legislatively changing history for the sake of a hobby or a religion. As I wrote above, I doubt that the different spellings are the real reason for your duplicated great-great-grandmother. I'm sure the system yelled about the duplicates, but people ignored it in favor of getting more "points" in the "game".0
Gordon Collett ✭✭✭✭✭
I mainly research my wife's Norwegian lines. She was born there and has a lot of family lines that no one else is working on. My Utah lines have so many dozens of relatives working on them, it's hard to find something to do there.
It sounds like Switzerland had a situation similar to that in Norway with changing last names. Also, in Norway, there was a law passed in 1923 that stated that all families had to pick one, fixed, unchanging last name and stick with it. A prior attempt was made at this about ten to twenty years previously that everyone in the country pretty much ignored.
However, I also feel it is historically inaccurate and makes it really hard to find anyone in the historical records to give him or her a name that that person never used and will never be found in any record.
As far as standardization of name spellings and place name spellings, FamilySearch actually does not require or really even promote standardization. Instead it promotes using historically correct names and spellings and demonstrating the connections between them.
That is why Family Tree gives us an unlimited number of entries for Alternate Names under Other Information like this simple example
and why the search engine looks at all the names entered for a person.
Many old "standards" are based on ancient paper forms with a single line for a name and archaic computer programs with limited capabilities. We do not need to limit ourselves to those anymore.
Allowing full use of all information and not limiting us to artificial data standards is also why the Places database has no limits on the number of alternate names for a place, all of which link to the proper geographical spot on the map. Again to take a relatively simple example:
I can enter this farm name using any of these possible spellings and the program handles all of them just fine.
I can go even farther in my use of historically correct names without any trouble:
This place name is correctly entered and correctly standardized. The program knows exactly where I am referring to and all search, hint, and possible duplicates routine will work just fine. The days of having multiple duplicates of a family just because of spelling differences is over. Not because we are required to use one spelling, but because we now have the ability to properly include all spellings.
(Sorry for this final aside, Julia) It is more likely that your great-great-grandmother had ordinances done 71 times not because of different spellings but because every instance was on a different paper filled away in huge filling cabinets. My great-great grandfather had his ordinances done dozens of times also and every instance had the identical name and spelling with his birth information also with the identical place name and spelling. It wasn't any spelling changes that made the difference. It was the impossibility of double checking through enormous stacks of paper. That is also why it used to take six months to a year to get a name cleared for temple work. This is something else that Family Tree has solved.0
Thanks to you both. You're right. Different spellings are often only responsible for a few double entries. But if you don't want to standardize, which is the correct spelling, the one in the baptismal register on page 12, 16 or 31 or maybe in the marriage register page 15 or 46 or rather in the death register? From around 1820 onwards, state registers were often kept and the spellings were also standardized backwards. In Switzerland, every genealogist is for standardization and everyone who researches ancestors here should accept that. In other countries it may be different.0
You know there's another problem in the German speaking countries that others don't have, that's the ancient writings that few people can read. There are different chancellery typefaces and later the Kurrent typefaces. A letter can have 20 or more different shapes and easily confused. In addition, there are the different writers with their personal characteristics. In one word, two different forms may be used for the same letter. Some write beautifully, others illegibly. This leads to many reading errors, which are then reflected in FamilySearch. I'll only give three examples: "Schnackheli" (laughable) for real "Schnebeli", "Ipsing" for real "Tschanz" (!), "Leutzelfluch" (bad; a place, FS will not find the right name) for real "Lützelflüh". Such errors also occur when indexing despite double checking, and unfortunately not infrequently.0
Just to be clear: when we index, we write exactly what we read. It is up to the user to realize what is meant by this. The same applies to historical research.0
Perhaps I should say something about the different spellings. This does not only apply to the German names. Even in the 19th century, ordinary citizens generally did not have an identity card. Sometimes, for example, passports were issued to leave the country, but in our case, for example, only if someone wanted to come back. When someone immigrated to the United States, they gave their surname and first name, and the officer wrote down what he understood. It was the same with baptisms, marriages and deaths here. The pastor or helper wrote down what was said to him, the first one way, the next another way. There was no doubt about many names and they were always spelled the same way. But it was difficult in German with umlauts, doubling and sharpening. There was for example Kunz (derived from Konrad), Kuenzi, Küenzi, Küentzi, Küntzi, Künzi. There were also regional peculiarities that applied in one place and not in another. In addition, there were differences in dialects in Switzerland. For example, Jakob could be called Köbi, Jaggi, Jäggi, Jogg, Joggi, Goggel, Boppel, Schagg, Zaggen, etc. Sometimes the christening name, given name, name at marriage or as a father differ from each other and you would have to choose something random. For surnames, standardization is even more important. If you don't, you might be walking down a wrong line in the next generation.0
We only need to standardize names up until 1875. After that, the ecclesiastical registers were replaced by state registers and the personal compilation of lines of descent is no longer necessary. (The same applies to Germany.)
As we have seen, surnames had different spellings, but the pronunciation was always the same. In my wife's case, "Dellenbach" is the oldest spelling, but the pronunciation is in all cases (I'm trying to imitate the phonetic notation) "däl(e)ba[ch]". Baptismal names were notated in German, but they were often pronounced quite differently. "Bendicht" (standard: "Benedikt" or Catholic "Benedictus") was "Bänz" etc. "Kunigold" (standard: "Kunigunde" or French "Cunigonde") was "Chüngeli" (= little rabbit). The language dictionary "Duden" is responsible for the standards of first names in German. In rare cases, there are multiple standards for the same first name, for example "Hans", "Johann" and "Johannes". The latter usually appears in the baptismal registers, but has never been used in everyday life here. The standards for family names are in the "Familiennamenbuch der Schweiz" (Swiss Surname Directory), which must always be consulted for family research.
With place names (where FS supports standardization), there are similar problems. Due to the often repeated change of political affiliation and migration of language borders, there are sometimes different designations in old documents. In any case, it is impossible to fully grasp the political changes with their often short time intervals. If someone needs family history help in a specific location, they need the administrative affiliation of today, not some hundred years ago. In Switzerland, for example, the canton of Neuchâtel belonged to Prussia for a long time, and then to both states. The French place names were never replaced, since French was also spoken at the Prussian court. Conversely, in other now French-speaking areas, German names were used, which no one knows today and which it makes no sense to record. The difficulty, especially in Switzerland, is that in recent times many small communities have merged into one larger community and, according to the information in Wikipedia, you have to add this to FS.0
Peter, I don't understand your logic in your first paragraph above: what difference does the recording entity make in the need to identify "lines of descent"? A change from ecclesiastic to civil registration mostly just changes where and how you search for the records. The purpose and usage of those records in genealogy doesn't change at all.
The pronunciation of surnames may have been less variable than their spelling, but there was still dialectal or regional variation in both speech and perception. For example, an Austrian pronunciation of "Bauer" would likely be heard and written by a Hungarian as "Pauer". As another example, one of my great-grandmothers had the surname of Heitler, which the current family pronounces alternately (and without conscious thought) as /hájtler/ (using the German value of 'ei') or /hejtler/ (using the Hungarian value of 'ei'). Based on the spelling variations in the records (Haitler, Háitler, Heitler), the /áj/ pronunciation likely predominated, but we don't know how great-grandma or her parents said it, so we cannot impose a correct phonetic transcription on it. The good news is that we don't need to: FamilySearch's Family Tree has room for all of the spelling variants, if we choose to enter them, and generally works just fine even if we don't.
I am perplexed also by your assertion that family history help must use modern jurisdictions. Depending on how the records are labeled and filed, this may be patently false. I suppose your stance may be explained by Switzerland's status as a neutral country: I expect that unlike in the rest of Europe, most Swiss places retain custody of their own records, regardless of what entity was in charge when they were created. In the parts of Europe that I deal with, the current successor state is generally only half of the equation, and knowing the name of the place at the time of the event can be crucial. Luckily, there are gazetteers that can tell me what I need to know. Also luckily, FamilySearch's flexible dual place-labeling setup allows me to simultaneously get the map pin in the right place, and label it in a way that makes sense to me, without even needing to suggest any corrections to the database (although I can do so if I choose).
Recording places by their name at the time of the event has another benefit (besides being unchanging): it makes it much easier to identify whether a record is talking about the right person. No 19th century source says "Bratislava". They say Pozsony or Pressburg. If you have a man's birthplace entered as Pozsony, and find a marriage record where a groom by the same name is from Pozsony, you can immediately put a mark in the "plus" column, whereas if you had entered the birthplace by its current name, you'd need to either remember the equivalence, or do some digging. (Now, granted, there's some memorization of weird equivalences needed, no matter what, because how the heck do you get from Győr to Raab?, but that's a slightly different topic.)0
Julia, on your first comment: For us it makes a big difference because in the state family registers an entire family is listed on one page with the parents, all children and events as well as the references to the ancestors and descendants. The surnames are already standardized, with the first names it doesn't matter because of the references. For our standardization, you should take a look at the Swiss Surname Book. It is online: https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/famn/?lg=e. Of course, the church registers look similar in all countries.
Regarding your second section: Onomastics is a vast and university research field. I think that we've come a long way in the German-speaking areas and can explain a lot of things that can't be done elsewhere. And when it comes to language development, topography also plays a role. In mountainous countries, many dialects have developed and idiosyncrasies have been preserved over time. Contrary to your opinion, it's not the case that we're modernizing old names; on the contrary, we're using an original form for standardization. Of course I could give all possible readings in FS. Unfortunately, however, I have to remove a lot of wrong readings because it would be embarrassing if a Swiss person saw them. Such entries mostly date from 1950 or earlier and should be revised urgently.
Regarding the third section: I also work, albeit rarely, in Germany (including the former east territories), France, Italy and Spain. However, since I am in charge of our FHC, I usually have to provide information about Swiss ancestors. There are spelling problems everywhere. A copying error, for example, changes a surname in one fell swoop. This also happens in Switzerland. Then the old standard applies until the change and then the new one. Our system with the so-called "origin locations" (see above) is just as convenient as in any other country and that's why we seldom have problems with the localization. I understand your problems are different. I am sure you will agree that standardization is a great advantage, but not always possible. If you're a historian, you might be reluctant to do that. However, genealogy primarily has the purpose of correctly presenting family relationships and getting closer to one's ancestors. And like I said, we don't invent anything with standardization, we just choose from a variety of options, to be precise: the government did it for us and we're grateful for it.
FS is an excellent program. Apart from the two points mentioned at the very beginning, I have nothing to complain about. It is different with the old data records. Sometimes the quality isn't very good. This deters many people in our country from even getting started (along with the difficulty of reading ancient writings).0