Please take steps to limit the addition of unsourced rubbish for early profiles.
Every time I look at profiles of early (before 1600, say) ancestors who are obviously shared with many people there is too often misinformation such as e.g. children attached to the wrong spouse, incorrect pictures, completely different person because they haven't checked the dates etc.
There is no way one person can keep correcting all of the questionable additions that get onto some profiles. Family Search is sometimes used as a 'source' by unwary individuals so that all this misinformation spreads around the internet and becomes self supporting.
Could you add big warnings to early profiles and request that persons tick a box to say they have read all the notes/sources/dates etc. and understand them before proceeding?
Surely, if you care about the integrity of your site, you would want to help reduce the spread of misinformation?
Comments
-
Robert
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Perhaps, you are somewhat NEW, to "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch' ...
I understand, WHERE, you are coming from ...
You are not alone ...
'Yes', it is 'Frustrating', when Users/Patrons, in this day and age, make changes, to "Vital" information (or, even add individuals/persons), to the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', with either, NO "Reason This Is Correct"; and/or, NO, associated, "Sources".
But ...
That Said ...
'FamilySearch', should NOT, restrict, the individuals/persons, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', to ONLY those, with available "Sources".
This is a 'pet peeve' of mine ...
I am sorry, to say; but, it concerns me, when Users/Patrons suggest, that "Sources", in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', should be REQUIRED, for ALL individuals/persons, under ALL circumstances.
And, please understand, that no offence is intended; but, I also believe, that it is somewhat 'blinkered' thinking, to suggest, that "Sources", MUST be required.
"Sources" are NOT "Mandatory"; and, NEVER should they be.
Even TODAY, there are People, ALL around the World, whose, "Birth"; and/or, "Marriage"; and/or, "Death", is NOT "Officially" recorded.
And, more often than not, any "Documentation"; and/or, "Sources", that there MAY be, can be somewhat quite elusive, to find ...
Even TODAY, for many Countries and Unions, throughout the World, there are, MANY, Many, many, "Official" records, that are NOT available 'On-Line'; and, if they even are, are certainly NOT for FREE.
[ And, NOT even, in the likes of 'FamilySearch'; &/or, the many other, Government; or, Commercial, websites ]
As such, MANY, Many, many, Users/Patrons CANNOT afford the funds to obtain a "Copy" of "Official" records.
And, 'Yes', even TODAY, there are individuals/persons entered, in "Family Tree" of, 'Family Search', that DO NOT have "Sources" attached.
Plus ...
There were COUNTLESS individuals/persons (and, in fact, entire Families), that where "Transferred", into "Family Tree", from its predecessor, "New.FamilySearch" (ie. pre.2012), the 'Transfer' of which, took over x2 Years, to complete and 'bed in'; plus, MANY; Many; many, more of those individuals/persons (and, in fact, entire Families), that were, EVEN, from BEFORE, "New.FamilySearch" existed; being, the likes of, Pedigrees; and, Family Group Sheet; ETC (ie. 'Hard-Copy'/'Paper'), were submitted by Members of the Church.
'FamilySearch', ORIGINALLY the "Genealogical Society of Utah", has been operating for over 125 Years.
And, the "Temple" Work tenets, of the Church, that Members of the Church follow, have been around for even longer.
Even some of the pre.Digital "Records" (ie. 'Hard-Copy'/'Paper'), had the "Details", of "Sources"; where, the "Information" was obtained.
And, "Sources" were not originally, in; or, later when included, made "Mandatory", in "New.FamilySearch".
Unfortunately, MANY of those "Sources", from BEFORE "Family Tree", were NOT transferred across.
There was an effort, in 2014, to "Transfer", the "Sources", from "New,FamilySearch", into "Family Tree"; being, "Legacy Sources"; but, that was NOT very successful; and, many of such, have subsequently been "Deleted"/"Removed", by User/Patrons, over the Years.
Now ...
All That Said ...
It would certainly be nice, if Users/Patrons, who DID NOT have "Copies" of "Official" (or, "Family") records; but, had the "Details"/"Information", from such, would INCLUDE that "Detail"/"Information", in the likes of "Reason Statements" (ie. "Reason This Information Is Correct:"), UNFORTUNATELY, many do not.
Such is life ...
The 'Question' (ie. problem/issue) is ...
How "Restrictive" do they make, the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'?
Believe me ...
IF, the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', was TOO "Restrictive"; THEN, I can assure you, that, MANY; Many; many, People would NOT Participate in it; and, sadly, that would include MANY Users/Patrons, who are Members of the Church, that DO NOT have ready access to, "Documentation"; and/or, "Sources" (and, CANNOT provide such) - if "Documentation"; and/or, "Sources" (ie. Evidence/Proof) were mandatory.
Unfortunately ...
"Documentation"; and/or, "Sources", (and, even the "Details"/"Information", from such); being, REQUIRED, is excellent, in "Theory"; but, such is NOT so good, in "Practice" ...
Plus ...
Even, "Adding" BIG "Warnings", to the "Very" EARLY individuals/persons, in "Family Tree"; and, "Request", that Users/Patrons, "Tick" (ie. "Check) a "Box", to say, that they have, read ALL the, "Live Sketch"; "Vitals"; "Other Information"; "Notes"; "Discussions"; "Sources"; etc.; and, understand such; BEFORE, proceeding, will make LITTLE difference - well, maybe, just a little, for the VERY "Inexperienced".
Most Users/Patrons, will just, "Tick" (ie. "Check) ANY "Boxes", WITHOUT doing ANYTHING, just to proceed.
[ ie. Such impediments make NO difference ... ]
As a "Programmer" once said to me ...
[ And, NOT, from 'FamilySearch' ...]
You CANNOT, make a "System", FOOLPROOF; as, FOOLS are so INGENIOUS ...
[ That is every so true ... ]
Remember ...
NONE of us are PERFECT ...
We can ONLY doing out best ...
We are ALL, making an effort ...
Perfection is NOT required ...
Just my thoughts.
Again, no offence intended ...
Brett
ps: 'FamilySearch' ... Where "Generations" Meet ... I like to add ... BOTH, the "Living"; and, the "Dead" ...
.
0 -
Family Search is imperfect. It's a tree where anyone can, at any given moment, change everything in it. When I found the still somewhat tenuous few sources that proved to me (along with DNA) that my great-grandmother is who she is, I added my grandfather and his sister and their father to her record. Now that information is being propagated to various trees in Ancestry. I wouldn't have added it if I weren't certain of the information but anyone could question it and remove it at any time. I'm glad they haven't, and that her children are finally restored to her. She counted them in the 1900 and 1910 censuses. That's my evidence that she didn't forget them. As for documentation? I've found no marriage record for her and my great-grandfather. Since he wasn't legally divorced, any marriage would not have been legal anyway. I have the letter she wrote in his Civil War pension file and the affidavit given by an aunt in the same file. She called herself Mrs. Crook when she married her third husband. She includes the children in those census records. That's all I have for documents. Basically, I regard all more distant ancestors and connections as unproven and tenuous. The Van Dyke name carried down to another great-grandmother, and it makes a great deal of sense that we'd be descended from New Amsterdam settlers. But can I really prove any of it? No. Take every undocumented relationship with a grain of salt, and remove the garbage you encounter, including those ridiculously incorrect place names that are being foisted on us right and left. And Brett, could you kindly rewrite your comment without all the quotation marks and brackets because it's a heck of a thing to try to read it.
0 -
At this time, this is not something we are considering.
0
