Do a sanity check on GEDCOM, before allowing input to Family Tree
There have been many complaints lately about GEDCOMs being able to input many duplicates into Family Tree (FT). Instead of disallowing GEDCOMs completely, a sanity check on the GEDCOM could be made before allowing input to Family Tree. Perhaps, if there were more than 4 duplicates in FT in that GEDCOM, an error message could be sent back to the patron, something like, there are more than 4 duplicates in FT in this GEDCOM. Here are two of the duplicates. (List two duplicates with their name and ID number from FT). Please submit a smaller GEDCOM with fewer duplicates. We allow four duplicates, perhaps for two families where the husband and wife are listed in FT, but no children, and the GEDCOM has the complete family, with all of the children.
Comments
-
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Better still ...
Like MANY, I really wish, that 'FamilySearch', would just STOP allowing, the "Upload", of GEDCOM Files, into the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', altogether.
There is just NO need (nor, "Valid" REASON), to "Upload", a GEDCOM File, into the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', under ANY circumstance; even, if one's "Ancestral" Lines, are NOT already, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
And ...
As I always 'say', to User/Patrons, who mention, the "Upload", of GEDCOM File, into the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch' ...
------------------
You can; but ...
Please, DO NOT, "Upload", a GEDCOM File, into the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
Upload, the GEDCOM Files, in the "Genealogies" Part, of 'FamilySearch', that is fine; but, please NOT, into the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
Some of the reasons, that Users/Patrons (like myself), DO NOT, want the ability, to upload, a GEDCOM File, into the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch' are:
(1) It is most likely, that individuals/persons in a GEDCOM File, are ALREADY, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'; and, most Users/Patrons, DO NOT; even, take the time to 'look', to 'see', if anyone in their GEDCOM File, is already in "Family Tree", in some instances, negating the need to even upload the GEDCOM File.
(2) There has been (many) cases; where, Users/Patrons, using the "Compare" process (of the upload), have "Dismissed", a "Possible" Match, with an individual/person already, in "Family Tree"; so that, THEIR "Record", from their GEDCOM File, is loaded into "Family Tree", regardless; just so that, their "Record" appears in "Family Tree" (and, in some instances, for Members of the Church, so they can do the "Temple" Work, despite the fact, that the "Temple" Work, is ALREADY done, with the "Possible" Match, with the individual/person already, in "Family Tree").
(3) Even with the "Compare" process (of the upload), there has been (many) cases; where, Users/Patrons, have uploaded, THEIR version of an individual/person, in their GEDCOM File, on top of (ie. Over) an individual/person ALREADY, in the "Family Tree" Part, of "FamilySearch", that has been there for MANY years and is well documented and "Sources" - in many instances obliterating all of the documentation and "Sources".
(4) If an individual/person, is ALREADY, in the "Family Tree" Part, of "FamilySearch", there is NO need, to uploaded one's version of an individual/person, from one's own GEDCOM File - just take note of the the 'FamilySearch Person Identifier' (PID) of the individual/person, that is ALREADY, in "Family Tree"; and, one can go back later, to ensure what information/detail, is recorded and attached, for that individual/person. Just, DO NOT, uploaded one's version of an individual/person, in one's GEDCOM File, on top of (ie. Over) an individual/person ALREADY, in "Family Tree" - obliterating, all of the documentation and "Sources", ALREADY in place/on record.
(5) The "Hours" (sometimes "Days"; or, even, "Weekes") of work, by other Users/Patrons, that can be needed to CORRECT the DAMAGE, done by the "Upload", of a GEDCOM File, can be disheartening.
I am sorry ... 'off my soap box' ...
Enter (ie. 'Create') the individuals/persons, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', one at a time - on a one by one basis.
Many of the individuals/persons in a GEDCOM File, most probably, ALREADY exist in, the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
Only one or two generations of the "Living" individuals/persons; and, perhaps, maybe, only one or two generations of the "Deceased" individuals/persons, may be required to be entered/input, into the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch"; BEFORE, some of the "Deceased" individuals/persons, from one's Ancestral Lines, ALREADY existing, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', are discovered.
Use the "Find" facility/function/feature to Search, the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', one may be surprised to find some (if not, many) of them already there.
Many well established and documented (eg. "Sourced") individuals/person, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', have been RUINED, by the "Upload", of a GEDCOM File, into the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
I hope, that this puts things into perspective.
------------------
Just my thoughts.
Brett
1 -
I think the problem is more with merge/synching of profiles - not with duplicates. If I understand correctly these merges have to take place one at a time. Perhaps Familysearch could at least compare (and I don't know that they don't) no sourced profiles versus sourced ones AND compare if sources are different and then only allow different sources to be merged with the existing profile. I don't think it is that we don't want to allow good information to be uploaded/merged - we just want to keep wholesale replacement of individual/family profiles to be morphed into worse/false representations...
I'm all for good merges ... care just needs to occur and yes forgive a mistake here or there with kind educative correction/communication about error(s). But many times communication falls on deaf/unresponsive ears (perhaps an idea to require reading of such collaborative messages after a merge - if not a response - before other features are 'unlocked'. After all if there is no response - what are the collaborative features for?)
0 -
FamilySearch has created a Genealogies section. What is the purpose of this section? It seems to be the IDEAL place to upload GEDCOM files. But why have uploads here AND in the main tree? Double the work for what reason?
And why "lock" these submissions to GENEALOGIES, only allowing them to be removed by the uploader? Why isn't that section collaborative too? To protect the data?
What are the benefits of uploading GEDCOM files to the main tree? I have been reading about the negatives, and it appears there are many.
Are these GEDCOM files so valuable, that they merit uploading in TWO distinct sections of FamilySearch?
I don't think so.
1 -
Generally - you are correct. There is no 'need' to duplicate trees if they are the same. I do not know if Familysearch 'compare' of GEDCOM uploads with others in Genealogies would be a good 'collaborative' idea or not - Familysearch would have to determine if that 'compare' process would be too large of a processing load/burden. It seems like they would be able to do that sort of 'compare'. But a researcher wanting to preserve their research that is - 'different' or 'groundbreaking' - may find it useful to upload to Genealogies - precisely because as you mention it is 'locked' and is NOT collaborative.
For example, suppose your family history had never been recorded in a Family Tree before - it would be very useful to record in both Genealogies and Family Tree. Suppose another case - suppose you cannot get 'collaboration' in Family Tree to accept your 'researched' representation of 'your family tree' - there again it might be useful to upload to Genealogies. ... However there are some concerns about 'preservation' if sources/memories for these uploads are 'automatically stripped' from the GEDCOM. The only point there would be preservation of 'unsourced' profiles ... Just the lineage-links one is asserting.
So Genealogies exists for good reason. The problem people are talking about so much right now - is that when someone uploads to Genealogies and then continues to merge that 'version' with Family Tree - in essence asserting/insisting their version is correct. Familysearch tries to make this difficult by only allowing these merges profile by profile (one at a time). But this still doesn't prevent someone insisting their profile (that is the theory - and reports of 'problems' indicate examples to be investigated by Familysearch).
I do not know whether there is further restriction in merging profiles through this routine (I hope so). But the recently referenced case of 3000/37000 (yes a big difference) profiles that were replaced with unsourced profiles is 'troublesome'.
... The problem with Family Tree being 'open-edit' (anyone at any time can edit any profile -excepting ones marked 'private/read-only' for special cases - changing any information in an open-editable profile -with few exceptions as they wish) - is that it 'could' allow such malicious changes (at any point). The possibility exists that a well sourced profile could be rendered into another person (bad merge) - or worse yet a profile with sources possibly removed (I am speaking theoretically without a specific example). The Changelog records changes - and may allow undo/restore back to previous representation options - but in the worst cases should be presented to Familysearch representatives as 'malicious' edits. The possibility exists that a 'new user' not being aware of what they are doing may make mistakes. If so - those hopefully can be unravelled and the 'new user' taught to be more careful. It is more the potential for 'malicious' editors - and how to protect good profiles from such edits that I have more concern about.
For example, I knew my grandparents ... I have entered sources and memories for them. Someone may edit them at any time - removing good sources - merging them into some other family - and generally causing 'problems' with what are already 'sufficiently genealogically complete' profiles. I don't want that to happen... Why allow 'morphing' of 'bad/unnecessary' changes to profiles that near relations/descendants have contributed? I would prefer Family Tree to allow others to submit edit requests to me (or other cousins) if someone feels the need to edit those 'complete' profiles of my near relations. But that is not how Family Tree currently works. So I have submitted ideas here in Community - that Familysearch can consider - for future development ... There are current pathways of development which could restrict global open-edit - which I would support (examples: discover pages, show my relationship, family groups) FamilySearch should value and respect near relations representations of recently deceased and well-sourced near relations - especially family associations/descendants (this is good-faith toward descendancy contributors). FamilySearch should similarly value and respect well-sourced trees submitted by 'qualified research(ers)' (this is good faith toward researcher/professional communities). Generally the problem is not with FamilySearch - it is moreso the globally open-edit model that is at fault ... but FamilySearch chose this model ... Hopefully the future development path will continue refinements/improvements to 'prevent malicious edits'.
The same goes for GEDCOM uploads merging/syncing. There may be some issues Familysearch can review about how these take place in Family Tree.
The idea under consideration in this thread restricts GEDCOM upload IF 4 duplicates are found in Family Tree. It suggests presenting the uploaded notice of this detection and a suggestion to upload a smaller GEDCOM not including duplicates. As I mention above - the problem is not necessarily with duplicates - the problem is with merge/sync of those duplicates. I presume the idea to stop at 4 is just prevent ANY upload (with duplicates). This could leave that user puzzling about why/how to remove the presented 4 (likely to remove several branches out of the GEDCOM). I am fine with restricting/reducing 'strictly duplicate' branches/trees for which there have been previous submissions (yes no reason to duplicate) - but stopping at 4 does ignore additional information that might be added further down those lines.
But this just puts the question of whether Familysearch current process does this sort of compare already? I think they do allow compare profile by profile - but I am unsure if this is server-side or user initiated. If currently it is user initiated - then I could be in favor of some server-side routine which restricts duplicate tree branch uploads (I would just need to be informed to make an upvote decision - with the aforementioned caveats).
0 -
Thanks for your response. I do see the value of having a Genealogies section. I believe this is the best and only place for the GEDCOM files to reside. It is perfect for sharing your tree, with better safeguards in place.
What I don't see is the benefit of uploading these GEDCOM files to the main tree. I have yet to see a good argument as to why this practice should continue.
For every experienced genealogy enthusiast using FamilySearch, there are probably a thousand or more who are inexperienced or casual users. I think it is a good idea to keep the "power tools" out of the hands of the later.
0 -
Basic logical Reasons to continue allowing GEDCOM uploads to Family Tree:
1. Family Tree itself IS based on GEDCOMX specification. So yes - any change in Tree could be considered an 'upload'. Obviously it should be allowed to continue.
2. Upload of GEDCOM to Genealogies is no different (other than they may be created in a program using a different/older GEDCOM specification other than GEDCOMX). So similar to 1 above - MAY include good information to 'update' Family Tree'. There are some 'problems' mentioned with these uploads but those problems are with users performing bad merge/sync with Tree - not enough restriction from FamilySearch on those users. You will never hear a 'problem' with the many good/well-done Upload merge/sync with Family Tree. Obviously those should continue.
3. Internationally - upload of GEDCOM through Genealogies may be the best way to populate Family Tree (as long as source-references are allowed).
I don't understand stripping the sources unless this is a form of Familysearch discouraging their merge/sync with Family Tree to begin with. GEDCOM is the specification various 'tools' are built upon - the power in the 'tool' is largely based in the user's usage. Like all tools - they can be used well or poorly... and in worst case may 'damage' Family Tree.
0 -
The Genealogies section is basically a cloud backup service, with the added benefit of being searchable and viewable by others. I don't think it needs to be at all collaborative. Many of the people in my uploaded file are duplicated in my godmother's file -- and this is perfectly fine.
Uploading to Genealogies is actually the first step in inflicting a GEDCOM file on the Family Tree. There's only the one upload, which goes into the Genealogies section. If people stopped there, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, the process makes it seem like you're not done at that point: it wants you to go through the compare-and-add steps. It is this section of FS that is badly broken, missing many obvious duplicates, presenting so many false matches that people get bored with checking them, and not giving nearly enough visibility into what's already in the Tree for people to have any chance at making good decisions.
The other major flaw in the process is that the upload strips sources and notes from the GEDCOM file, meaning that anything added using the compare-and-add process is definitionally either worse than or no better than what's already in the Tree.
1
