Was it a batch process? (not so from the discussion - Genealogies doesn't appear to have a 'batch process' and FamilySearch mentions profiles must be edited one at a time...)
It is entirely possible to write a bot to act directly on the user interface. That is a common method of denial of service attack.
The question I have been asking for days now is: Is that what happened? How many profiles were added via GEDCOM upload in how much time?
They need to be dealt with individually, and there are processes available for that.
I agree and have stated such. But I don't know the exact nature of what occurred and don't presume to (which is somewhat at the heart of this thread) ...
But if you look the supposed 'perpetrator' appears to have commented ... claiming ignorance ... DDOS is not ignorance. Distinguishing what actually occurred is a first priority.
...messes must be allowed and tolerated. ...And alienation leads quickly to stagnation ...
I think you will agree - messes and destruction are two different animals? All my comments have as a main thrust - prevention of 'malicious edits' to be considered 'destruction'. As such perhaps edits per time threshold will need to be enforced (probably a unfortunate 'alienating' side effect of these situations). There might be a determinable difference between a user 'mindlessly clicking' and a DDOS/bot attack (a computer/bot would probably have more transactions in a shorter timeframe)? What is better alienation of criminals/destruction or allowing them the same access? I think fighting against destructive persons is the only good option.
The idea that messes can be cleaned up is fine and I am glad of that. But it does not persuade me that such a course is preferrable to letting good data take presidence - and not allow it to be changed to a mess to begin with. For this reason I continue to be persuaded that some process in addition to those currently in place - should protect good data. Why should I have to allow well-sourced profiles to be destroyed (non-sourced), reconstituted - hopefully as the same person but possibly as a different person - different families linked in incorrectly - making it so much more difficult for someone to come along and figure it out and re-enter something hopefully close to what was there a decade or more previously? Or if you take the other point of view - am I just worrying without need - the millenium will just take care of it - in which case why continue adding data into Family Tree currently anyway? ... works, effort ... (effort for naught?) ...
I apologize if my tone came across wrong. I didn't intend to lecture anyone.
The file format underlying the Tree, and any discussion deriving from it, is very much a red herring to the topic that I believe this thread is talking about, which is the process that results in all those messes labeled with "GEDCOM data" in the Tree.
Yes, the GEDCOM compare-and-add process is masquerading as "one at a time" -- but all it means in practice is sequential mindless clicks. FS is constantly adding extraneous clicks to all of its processes (see Search and now Find for prime examples), so having lots of them is really par for the course.
Apology accepted. It just seems that my 'feelings/themes' on open-edit - get so criticized ... look I'm just contributing to Ideas - no one else has to like my contributions (I do). And I wish Community (and myself for that matter) could better organize to be more persuasive/helpful ... especially on these issues of critical importance.
The file format underlying the Tree ... red herring to ... this thread ...
I don't believe it is - because as mentioned - if the GEDCOM COMPARE processes (from whichever source) could not communicate with Family Tree GEDCOM structure - then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Yes - I don't know all the sources that could results in 'GEDCOM data' label (perhaps someone else does).
... masquerading as "one at a time" -- but all it means in practice is sequential mindless clicks.
But the Genealogies COMPARE process only allows -> REPLACE of certain artifacts - no Sources, etc. - from what I saw. So I don't understand why the 'destruction' referred to in this thread - unless as mentioned something more nefarious was going on? What replaced the sourced profiles is my first question - which yes - refers back to GEDCOM version and account log (which only FamilySearch will be able to forensically investigate).
If there are organized DDOS/bot attacks against Family Tree (as there seems to be such increasing destructive network attacks, ransomware encryption, etc. these days - these people just make me sick and tired ... ) I hope FamilySearch can not only block/prosecute them to full extent - but hopefully prevent such from occurring (yes even restrict open-edit) or else restore data loss from backups. Zero trust does not mesh well to open-edit? I wish I could provide better Ideas ...
I totally agree with stopping Gedcom uploads. I just want to add my support.
Thanks everyone for the discussion around Gedcom, batch processing, & mangled trees (and other topics). There are many good points and ideas to consider on both sides. I appreciate those who were able to come together on a topic of disagreement and share thoughts. That is not easy! I have removed posts that violated our code of conduct and were inappropriate. I have also closed the discussion to prevent any contention in our community. You may not believe me but I can assure you after having worked here for many years that these issues and many others weigh very heavily on the minds of FamilySearch. We do love to hear what you need and want but as you can see from this thread, everyone doesn't agree on what is best 🙂. It's a tough position to try and build something so massive and make everyone happy. We try and truly do care about your opinions! This discussion will be sent on for consideration.