Errors on computer generated family tree
How does on correct or dispute the above?
Best Answers
-
Check out findagrave for Catherine Johnson in Cedar Hill Cemetery in Vicksburg, MS next to her daughter Josephine Loviza and her son Walter Johnson.
Joseph Bertram Johnson is buried in St. Isadore Cemetery in Lake Village, AK. Catherine as Kate was administrator of his estate. Her second husband Michael Doran was named guardian of her sons. She had a daughter by Doran. They are later listed on the census. Daughter Josephine married John Loviza a tug captain in Chicot County. These records are found in Chicot Co. AK
Without writing a book the subject is my GGGM. Josephine is my GGM.
In the 1860 census she listed her nativity as the Pacific Ocean. Her precise origin, their marriage date and location are not known. Keenan, Kiernan and other spellings have been offered for a maiden name.
I simply wished to offer an exception, thank you for the opportunity.
Now for whoever reads this I am grateful to have a Family Search membership and for all the volunteers LDS and others that have captured so many records I have viewed over the years though their generosity. Thank you.
0 -
@johnloviza, I went ahead and restored the Mississippi Josephine and detached her parents from the Arkansas Josephine (aka Mrs. Loviza). Then I created Joseph Bertram and Catherine, basing everything on their Find A Grave entries (which I've attached as sources). I also attached the 1860 census in Chicot. You've indicated that you've found them in the 1870 census; perhaps attaching that would be a good introduction to using the Family Tree?
1
Answers
-
I can not accept that I can not dispute or correct errors.
2 -
Um, the whole point of the Family Tree on FamilySearch is that it is open-edit: anyone can change anything (after logging in).
What do you mean by "computer generated family tree"?
1 -
John
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Question: WHAT "Part", of 'FamilySearch', are you referring to?
Please advise.
As, there are a NUMBER of "Parts", of 'FamilySearch'.
eg.
▬ "Family Tree"; or,
▬ "Genealogies"; or,
▬ The "Records" in
▬ Something else.
Brett
0 -
The new Roots Tech where you put in some initial ancestral info and then it takes off with information in their database. I research some on FamilySearch but I post my family tree elsewhere. I decided to try the new feature and was disappointed in an imaginative 4th generation error.
0 -
John
Just in passing ...
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is certainly NOT, "Computer" Generated ...
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', IS User/Patron, Driven; and, Generated ...
'FamilySearch', is just the "Unbrella" Programme, that houses "Family Tree"
And, has been around, in some form or other (ie. Family History/Genealogy), for well over x125 Year ...
[ And, in fact, it roots, go back even further, almost x200 Years now ... ]
IF, you have; and, ONLY maintain, your "Ancestral" Lines (ie. Database) elsewhere; and, DO NOT, really, use; or, "Build"; or, maintain, your "Ancestral" Lines, in the "Family Tree" Part of 'FamilySearch'; THEN, you CANNOT expect good results.
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', IS a CONTINUAL "Work in Progress", that is ever changing.
[ And, 'Yes' ... Errors abound ... ]
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is a "Collaborative" effort, on ALL Our parts.
We ALL make MISTAKES ...
NONE of us are PERFECT ...
NOT everyone (ie. User/Patron) is an "Experienced" Genealogist.
Most User/Patron, are far from that.
And, MANY Users/Patrons, are VERY "Inexperienced".
We are ALL trying ...
Everyone CAN help ... if they wish to participate ...
There are certainly pitfalls, with the basic 'nature' and 'premise', of "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', with working in a SINGLE "One" World "Tree"; and, such is not for all.
[ Just as, there are 'Pros and Cons', with EVERYTHING ... ]
But ...
That Said ...
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is certainly, well worth the effort; and, worth participating in.
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this certainly may not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
0 -
I do not care if someone presents a tree riddled with their own interpretations however inaccurate. You have the option, as you point out to post your own.
But we are not speaking of a contributor, rather the site owner.
I realize I can reconstruct my tree on this site and perhaps that might influence to outcome. But that was not as it was presented. And, I would prefer to offer information contrary to that.
1 -
John
Just my thoughts ...
Respectfully, I beg to differ ...
In regards to the "Family Tree" Part of , 'FamilySearch' ...
We, the Users/Patrons (ie. "Contributors"), are ALL the "Stake Holders" ...
'FamilySearch' (ie. the Church), is merely the facilitator ...
Perhaps ...
You may or may not be aware, (of the History) of the "Family Tree" Part (&, its predecessor), of 'FamilySearch'.
Please be aware ...
The "Family Tree" (and, its predecessors), of 'FamilySearch', was ORIGINALLY "Created", by the Church, for (and, to assist) Members of the Church, to do (and, work on) their Genealogy/Family History, of their OWN "Ancestral" Lines; plus, to allow them to follow, the "Tenets" of the Church.
Later, "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', was made available, for those, who were not member of the Church, to ALSO do (and, work on) their Genealogy/Family History, of their OWN "Ancestral" Lines, in the hope, of establishing and building, a bigger and better, SINGLE "One" World "Tree".
The "Family Tree" (and, its predecessor, "New.FamilySearch"), of 'FamilySearch', were ALWAYS operated on the basis of; and, 'touted' (ie. presented); as, a SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for ALL, for ALL of us to work on.
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.
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'.
------------------
Now ...
That Said ...
It is unfortunate, if you were NOT aware of such.
But ...
That Said ...
Regardless, NOTHING has "Changed", in regards, to the basic 'nature' and 'premise', of the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
Again ...
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is certainly NOT, "Computer" Generated ...
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', IS User/Patron, Driven; and, Generated ...
ALWAYS has been; and, ALWAYS will be ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
ps: 'FamilySearch' ... Where "Generations" Meet ... I like to add ... BOTH, the "Living"; and, the "Dead" ...
.
0 -
johnloviza Can you please provide the exact ancestor who has an error or incorrect relative attached? It was very likely NOT any site owner, because there is NOT a site owner. Please provide your ancestor data. I am sure we can then provide you some guidance on how you can fix the errors.
0 -
The RootsTech generated parents of Josephine Johnson are given as Jesse B. Johnson 1817-? and Levicia Ann Childress 1827-? Married 29 Sep 1842 Greene Co. AL.
Our family history is the parents of Josephine are: Joseph Bertram Johnson 22 Feb 1833 (Warren Co. TN) -11 Apr 1872 (Lake Village, Chicot Co. AK). Catherin Keenan 15 Aug 1840 (at sea?) - 23 Jun 1925 (Vicksburg, Warren Co. MS). No confirmed marriage date/place established
0 -
I'm still not sure what you mean by "RootsTech generated", but it appears to be referencing this Josephine Johnson: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/M61T-2Z2
Her parents appear to be based on an 1860 census entry, showing a three-year-old Josephine as daughter of a Jessee B and Levisa Johnson in Marrietta, Mississippi. This is three years older than what her marriage record indicates (age 18 in 1878), but unfortunately, said marriage record doesn't give any further identifying information.
Josephine's profile has had several different contributors over the years, the most recent a year ago; her current parents were added during a merge in 2018 by a user "SweetDeannaGale1".
If you believe that the 1860 census is a different Johnson family, I would start with reversing that 2018 merge, putting the parents and the census source on the restored Josephine, along with any other conclusions that depend on this apparent mis-identification of Mrs. Lovisa. (It's clear from the Change Log that the pre-merge Josephine was Mrs. Lovisa, going back to FS's preceding systems, from which the current Family Tree was initially seeded in 2012.)
I was unable to find a Joseph Bertram Johnson married to a Catherine; I looked in Family Tree, as well as in Historical Records (with special attention to the 1860 census). Do you have any documents about them?
1 -
Jos. B. Johnson, Catherine and 6 mo. old Josephine are listed in Chicot Co. AK in the 1860 census with her origin left blank. In 1870 again in Chicot Co. she gives the Pacific Ocean.
0 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi , I think I know what he is talking about. When you register for Rootstech, there is a feature to find relatives. There is a surname drop down list based on your lineage. If that contains wrong names, so does the surname list. Am I correct, @johnloviza ?
0 -
I presume you're talking about lines 19 to 21 here: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9YBX-Y82?i=1
That Josephine is indicated to be 4 months old on June 2, 1860, putting her birthdate sometime in early 1860. This agrees with her marriage record. Her gravestone (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/107403207), on the other hand, gives her birthdate as Dec. 1, 1857; I suspect this is why the three-year-old in Mississippi was concluded to be her. Find A Grave agrees that her parents were Joseph and Catherine, and Catherine's gravestone is in the same plot of the same cemetery and in the same style as Josephine's, so I think we can conclude pretty definitely that her mother was Catherine, not Levisa.
Further evidence for the Arkansas family being the right one -- despite the birthdate discrepancy -- is that Joseph Bertram died in Chicot County, Arkansas, same as the censuses. The shaky bit is the identification of this particular Joseph Johnson as the husband of the correct Catherine. It's hard, because he predeceased her by over fifty years, so of course his grave is in a completely different place. Find A Grave claims he was a Confederate soldier. Would his widow have been entitled to any sort of pension for that? Would she have applied for it, if so? It's an avenue for further research, anyway.
(I'm not related to anyone at RootsTech, apparently, so I can't really see what prompted all this.)
0 -
This is exactly what happened to me! My intention this morning was to add four generations before getting on with my day. When I reached the third generation back, a match appeared. I checked the information against the family tree that I created (elsewhere). The information matched so I accepted the Family Search match. Next thing, I knew multiple generations were added to that lineage and other lineages in my tree -automatically and simultaneously. I take a pride in having an accurate family tree (elsewhere) backed up with sources. The portion of my Family Search tree, with unaccepted and automatically added family members, is riddled with mistakes. The owner of the Family Search site should give the tree user/builder an opportunity to accept or reject suggested matches instead of automatically deciding for them. I see no obvious method for removing the additions with incorrect information. I understand this is an open-edit tree. After sampling the Family Search tree for the first time and seeing how much attention it requires, I don't think this type of tree is a good fit for me.
0 -
@Sandra Jennings-Jones, it seems to me that you've misunderstood how the Family Tree on FamilySearch works, and what actually happened when you "accepted the match".
The Tree on FS is not just open-edit, but a single, collaborative tree. The lofty (and distant) goal is to have one and only one profile for every person who ever lived.
When you find a profile in the collaborative tree that matches your information about that person, you should of course use that profile rather than creating a new one. However, be aware that all of that profile's relationships will "come along", too. Those relationships were entered by other users of FamilySearch -- and sometimes, people make mistakes. In John Lovisa's case, it looks like someone relied on a gravestone birthdate to identify a family in a census -- but got the wrong family, because it appears that the gravestone got the birthdate wrong. (This demonstrates that the presence of sources is no guarantee of anything.)
For me, linking up with other people's work like this ("tada, instant tree!") is the most thrilling part of working in a collaborative tree. The fact that it comes with the possibility of errors is sort of part of the fun: it's a detective game involving climbing up and down people's trees and discovering all sorts of new things along the way. I think it's much better than the individual-tree sites, because here, I can fix the errors -- on sites like Ancestry or MyHeritage, my only choice is to accept or reject a person's work. I cannot fix it. (And because I'm not a paying subscriber, I can't even contact the people who are dutifully perpetuating a mistake.)
To fix the errors, you'll generally want to edit relationships rather than profiles, but like most things in life, it all comes down to the specifics.
1 -
The easy, quick, temporary fix is to detach the person you just attached, with an explanation that the ancestor tree of that person does not match your own research, so it is not the correct person.
0 -
Cocke's Arkansas Regiment's history, the fragment of a record etc. lead me to believe he was likely a conscript of short duration.
I have 20+ years of research and recognize the comments etc. In this case its my Dad's family.....
0 -
Look at lines 19-24 for a picture of the entire family group. Why she was not buried as Doran is kind of obvious, but...
0 -
I only attached a handful. If I can take my contribution off I will.
0 -
Thank you Julia.
0 -
The Saga continues, now on my mother's side. John C. Pierce married Melissa Malone about 1868 not 1857 as you recently projected. William H. Pierce was born in about 1871, not 1857. Census data suggests 1835 for John C. Pierce's birth as opposed to the 1832 date on his memorial.
I have been fighting the battle of my family's genealogy for more than twenty years. This process of yours needs help.
0
