Implement a blue-chip type system for historically prominent figures to discourage duplicates
The number of duplicates that are being generated almost daily for historically prominent individuals is beyond ridiculous. The information included is almost always identical, with only minor discrepancies appearing in historically ambiguous areas or the use of slightly differing titles to identify them. Worst of all, the time taken up with continual merging of these new profiles takes away from real, constructive research.
Another side-effect is users not bothering to merge duplicates but simply deleting the duplicate relationships from the previously existing and well completed profile, thus leaving the duplicates active and hampering the integrity of the One Universal Tree.
My most recent experience with this has been within the Plantagenet and related lines, but I’m sure it’s rife across the board.
I suggest implementing a ‘blue-chip’ type system similar to the blue check system utilised in social media. Where in a PID that is genealogically complete and historically accurate and verifiable to accepted historical conventions, can be submitted for ‘blue-chip’ status. Once accepted it would become the ‘official’ PID for that individual. The idea being that it would also result in stronger checks being put into place for generating new duplicates.
For example. If the were a blue-chip PID for Henry II King of England (1133–1189) any new profile creation with variations such as ‘King Henry II’, ‘King Henry II of England’, ‘Henry Plantagenet’, ‘Henry II, Plantagenet’ etc with vital dates within 1132-34 to 1188-90, would have to jump through more hoops, or perhaps even need FS permission to be generated.
Users could still add information and relationships, suggest alternatives titles etc in the pertinent profile sections, and merge (one directionally) on these ‘offical’ PIDs. But all research and contributions would be in the one place, making it straight forward to maintain the integrity of the historical identity.
This would create anchor points throughout the Universal Tree, dispense with repetitive make-work and free up time and energy for constructive research and contributions.
Comments
-
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
GREAT suggested enhancement.
I LOVE this suggested enhancement, of yours.
Unfortunately ...
I DO NOT think, that 'FamilySearch', would want to have POLICE such ...
Plus, the REAL 'Questions' are ...
(1) EXACTLY "Who", can be afforded this 'Status'
.... [ ie. WHAT, is the Set "Criteria", for such ... ]; and,
(2) EXACTLY "Who", gets to make, the DECISION, on who gets that 'Status'.
.... [ ie. Obviously, someone in 'FamilySearch', gets to make, the FINAL "Decision" ... ]
.... [ But, CAN us 'lowly' Users/Patrons, get to "Request" such; or, is this a matter ONLY for 'FamilySearch ... ]
I can 'see' those particular issues; as, being the 'stumbling blocks', for the implementation of such ...
But ...
That Said ...
Regardless ...
For what it is worth ...
Your suggest enhancement, certainly has MY "Vote" of approval ...
I know, that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I just want to let you know this is a great idea.
Brett
ps: from one, who has such "Ancestral" Lines, to which you refer; and, has to continually, keep "Watch", on such; AND, to CORRECT (ie. "Swap") the MANY "Merges"/"Combines" that occur; where, the NEW (ie. MORE "Recent") individual/person, is made the "Surviving" individual/person, instead of the LONG STANDING, well "Documented" and "Sourced", individual/person, that has been, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', for some time.
.
1 -
Thanks for your enthusiastic support Brett! I know a lot of serious researchers and contributors must face the same frustrations and I’d love to see some constructive changes implemented to improve this, whilst maintaining the positive aspects of the open edit format.
You raise some very pertinent points regarding practical application. I would suggest the following:
- In the simplest terms, to be afforded said ‘status’ an individual must (a) be of historical significance and/or of public interest, and b) be well documented within broadly accepted historical conventions beyond a genealogical context. For example Mary Queen of Scots, King Henry VIII and his wives, President John F. Kennedy, Judy Garland, Ned Kelly and Gandhi would all qualify. Figures from prehistory, pseudo history, or history/myth conflation (Robin Hood, King Arthur, Ragnar Lodbrok) would not. Singular life events do not qualify an individual, for example being the mayor of such and such a town at one point, or being present at a historically significant moment or witnessing the signing of an historically significant document would not qualify a person.
- For parity it would have to be FamilySearch that approved or denied such status, I would imagine the same department of individuals that assist with other user-based interactions/queries and troubleshooting, perhaps. But yes, I would say any user/patron could request a PID to be reviewed for such status and furthermore request a status be reviewed if they believe it to be erroneously assigned.
As for policing, I see what you are saying, but I honestly don’t believe it would require much outside of the review process. I’m not an engineer or programmer but I’m sure applications could be set up to do most of the work as far as more stringent checks for new duplicates being created and the one-way only merge process already exists. Questionnaires or such could weed out ineligible requests automatically before reaching an actual human for final approval. Most of these historical figures have a dedicated group of contributors who monitor the PID integrity fiercely, so I imagine that would carry on much as it does now.
Anyway, I would be (pleasantly) surprised if it was ever implemented, but ideas are for sharing, so that’s what I’ve done!
3 -
FYI
Certainly sounds doable ...
And, much better than, a "Read-Only" individual/person ...
Especially, if one could "Add" new (ie. "Additional") ...
(1) Family members;
(1) "Sources";
(2) "Memories";
(3) "Merge"/"Combine"; of course; where, the "Blue Chip" individual/person, would be the (ONLY) "Surviving" Record (ie. individual/person); with, ALL, "Documentation"; and, "Sources", intact; and, maybe with some NEW "Edition(s)", from the "Deleted" (ie. "Archived") Record (ie. individual/person).
(4) "Other Information";
(5) Etc
WITHOUT, having to "Request", that such be actioned, by 'FamilySearch'.
But ...
That Said ...
I am also certain, that "Read-Only" individuals/persons, WILL still have their place; and, be necessary.
Lets hope, that such is given, serious consideration.
That is, if such, has not already ... who knows ...
It may have already been considered; and, rejected; or, still subject to further consideration ...
We can but live in hope.
Brett
1 -
I whole heartedly support the idea of a gate-keeping mechanism for persons of historical interest. I belong to an early prominent American family that has a very large tree with many given names repeated not only in different generations, but within generations, which causes much confusion with family groups and documentation. Also much early 20th and late 19th century printed genealogy material about this family had many errors and omissions, and these keep popping up and getting attached to the tree by well meaning but uninformed people. If there was a way for Family Search to vet changes to the FS pages for members of these trees without completely locking the pages (as is done with Presidents), it would be a great help and time-saver.
0 -
@RaniM Why just for 'famous people'? Common people deserve as much proper representation in Family Tree as 'famous people'.
I am all for a 'uniform platform' process that 'restricts' open-editing of Family/Group Association representations of PIDs which they have submitted/maintain. The difficulty (as previously mentioned) - I think - is the curation/vetting status path - how/who would be doing that?
When I create a person (new PID) or enter a source on an existing PID - I am asserting their 'uniqueness' based upon (atleast) 1. FamilySearch not returning a matching person 2. that record has not been attached to a person. If a duplicate is created - either 1 did not return a match or I ignored the match and created a new PID or the process proceeded through some mechanism which bypassed these. In any event - I am asserting that the person is unique and the record(s) if any are relevantly connected to that person.
Take for example just the Given/First Name and Surname/Last Name artifacts. As mentioned many persons may be named after names of prominent figures (example: Lorenzo Dow) - they did so as a sort of memorial to that prominent figure (prominent in their lives atleast). But that initial prominent figure's person representation and records should obviously pre-date and remain separate from any other similarly named person. As such it should be able to be documented and 'locked' as the correct name for that person - to the exclusion of any other names that any other person might submit. True their might be Alternate Names, AKA - but that doesn't change the birth name ...
Anyway I believe there should be a way to curate/lock a PID's Vital Records. People can assert whatever they want - for example, take any Muppet character, research and build their family tree - but such doesn't really belong in Family Tree. I especially feel strongly about expanding such 'restricting/locking' capability for my 'near relations' - so an expansion on the theme of this thread. I know my parents, I know my grandparents, I 'know' my great-grandparents (from family lore and research) ... why cannot I (or a Family Association) be granted exclusive or else priority edit privilege of the representation of these persons in Family Tree? Well the answer is simple and somewhat unfortunate - open-edit is the model the Tree is built upon. It will take Ideas (such as the one you are submitting) for how to change/improve the current model to 'restrict' open-edit. The Following process could be arranged to support a Family/Group Association capacity (the group following rather than individual accounts) such that the potential for edits to have an effect would be more minimized. But I still would prefer the open-edit didn't occur in the first place. I would rather the Family Tree recognized/respected my/Family Association assertions and 'restrict' them from being open-edited.
Anyway... I will keep thinking and hopefully present better organized Ideas in the future as well ... FamilySearch has probably thought this all through before - but hasn't implemented any further changes (for structural/model reasons) ... hopefully Community can make some convincing proposals for change that work well to change the model. If the model cannot be augmented further then this is all moot...
0
