Clear up the Existence of Personal Family Trees in FamilySearh/FamilyTree
FamilySearh has recently put out communications saying such and such about your family tree. Does this mean FamilySearch has changed? Or is it misleading potential patrons? Like many things there is hardcore misleading and there is softcore. I think FamilySearh is peddling softcore misleading about personal family trees.
This should be cleared up everywhere and for everyone. My idea would offer, maybe in a fly-in, a definitive statement on this issue on every login. This would not be unintrusive because almost all login requirements are because familysearch.org cannot fulfil requests to remain logged for 2 weeks.
There is some evidence that the 2 weeks offer will be phased out. Will that obviate the need to sign in again at inconvenient moments?
Answers
-
Douglas
It's 'Brett'
Just in passing ...
Firstly ...
Your reference, to the x2 Weeks, is somewhat confusing ...
Question: Are you referencing the "Keep me signed in for 2 weeks", feature/function/facility?
IF, so, THEN, that is NOTHING more, than enabling us, to access 'FamilySearch'; WITHOUT, having to "Sign In", with our "Credentials" (ie. our, Username; &, Password), EVERY time, that we want to access 'FamilySearch'.
IF, one accesses 'FamilySearch', on a regular basis; THEN, more often than NOT, we NEVER, have to "Sign In", with our "Credentials" (ie. or, Username; &, Password); EXCEPT, if there has been a, "Change"; or, "Upgrade"; or, "Release", in 'FamilySearch', that "Resets", that "Option", to SAY "Signed In" for x2 Weeks.
The "Keep me signed in for 2 weeks", feature/function/facility, has NOTHING to do with OUR "Ancestral" Lines.
Now ...
That Said ...
Secondly ...
You are not alone ...
MANY; Many, many, of us, have been CRYING-OUT for this, for COUNTLESS Years ...
The DISTINCTION, of Personal "Trees", in 'FamilySearch' ...
That is ANOTHER matter ENTIRLEY ...
Which, NEEDS to EXPLAINED, more CORRECTLY / FULLY ...
As, such is "Very" POORLY, explained; and, made clear ...
'Yes', we CAN have Personal "Trees", in 'FamilySearch' ...
But ...
That Said ...
Such, can ONLY really appear/exist, in the "Genealogies" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
As, I have proffered on COUNTLESS occasions ...
In regards, to the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch' ...
==========
Here is 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'.
==========
Whereas ...
In regards, to the "Genealogies" Part, of 'FamilySearch' ...
We CAN have, 'Standalone' (ie. UNCONNECTED) Personal "Trees", for the purpose of "Research" ONLY.
But ...
That Said ...
Those "Trees" CANNOT be "Changed"/"Edited" ...
They are "Static" ...
They appear 'As Is', when "Uploaded"; and, REMAIN as such ...
They CAN be "Deleted"/"Removed"; and, "Replaced", with an "Updated" version, if one so desires.
Or, one can just LEAVE, the OLD one's, in PLACE; and, ADD a NEW, "Updated" version, if one so desires.
The choice is yours.
Now ...
All That Said ...
'YES'; 'Yes'; 'yes' ...
'FamilySearch' COULD do, MUCH; Much, much, better in EXPLAINING, the "Concept", of having a Personal "Tree" (or, "Trees"), in 'FamilySearch' ...
That is a given ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
FamilySearch has not changed. And I really don't think they are trying to mislead anyone.
In and of itself, use of the term "your tree" is perfectly fine and completely accurate. My tree is present on FamilySearch. I sign in and it is right there, starting with me, going back through my ancestors, and branching out to all by relatives.
The only problem is the unspoken, inconsistent, background implication of the term.
When one uses the term does one mean, "my (private, personal, keep your hands off) tree", as in Scrooge's point of view when he told Marley that he was "always a good man of business"?
Or does one mean, "my (shared, universal, let's all work on grandpa together) tree," as when Marley replied, "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business."
I'm not sure what FamilySearch can do to continually reinforce that when they say "your tree" they mean the second other than force people to periodically re-read the Overview page under Family Tree.
1 -
When charity extends to allowing misinformation/malicious edit of 'ones' near relations (people you had personal knowledge of your relation - even parents for example - any edit of such facts must be considered malicious) - then that platform has a little explaining to do for the user-base to understand why 'their tree' is open to such malicious/incorrect edits. I really would like to see the platform implement more secure/limited open-edit privilege for near relations (3-5 generations back from living persons). That it is 'difficult' to figure out how to do this on open-edit platform just means (someone) needs to think more upon the issue to arrive at a solution (but yes - there may be no easy solution to implement - so grrr stay off my near relations tree - unless you are one - and then welcome - my charity can be broadened). I don't have a problem with open-edit of 'our tree' for generations further back (collaboration - if communication actually occurs is welcome) - I only start to bristle when edits occur that destroy good tree and morph it into bad tree. Just like a golf shot - change the start minimally - and the end can be so far away from truth. So actually each parent - child relation is super important - but yes - mistaken identity/records does occur. That's why I hope Family Groups will develop into a shared open-edit privilege for near relations and provide a 'locked to further open-edit' status for these near relations for anyone not in that Family Group. Yes I understand 3rd cousin - 5 times removed is excited to find my uncle Bob and wants to establish collaboration. So a method to allow such limited open-edit would need to occur...
The platform does not have an easy method for indicating guesses at relationship - for example when extant records are not available to establish familial relationship but such relationship probably or more certainly must exist. At what point can one say; "I cannot find a record - but because of proximity there likely is some family relationship so I am adding this person to the family though I cannot prove the relation." Or is it best to just leave those persons unattached to any line that extends to further ancestry? I understand careful documentation - but when the documents cannot be found or don't exist - what does the platform suggest? I am fine with leaving brick walls (have several/many) - so just leave independent trees where no documented connection can be found. But then why not just enter the relations found in the document into the Tree to begin with (during indexing - along the lines of old extraction) - rather than waiting for a possible researcher in the future to do so?
0 -
FamilySearch is inclined to use confusing terminology.
When does the concept of there being no "my tree" disappear? When FamilySearch articles imply you do have a tree (within a tree).
When is a "delete" not a "delete"? When an ID is merged. Hence "deleted / deleted" and "deleted / merged" types of deleted record.
Also, what is the point of being "signed-in" for two weeks, when you still have to log back in if you don't do any work for about 40 minutes? And, in my case, if your browser is set to delete cookies, etc. every time you shut it down.
If FamilySearch would review / tighten-up its terminology there would be a lot less misunderstanding on these three issues alone.
0 -
Other confusing terms which I have been working for years to get people to understand correctly are FamilySearch's use of "standardized place name" and "standardized date."
People have a really hard time connecting the word standardized to the fact that "4/5/1850" may well be standardized and that "4 May 1850" may not be.
2 -
Missed that one!
0
