What are Family Search's rules for deleting multiple duplicate sources?
One of my ancestors has 15 source entries for only two sources and duplicates for both. Should I delete the dups? What are the rules?
I am hesitant to delete another researcher's source.
However, I am carefully opening each one to make sure all info and URLs are the same and looking for notes.
It would be helpful if the interface detected duplicates and provided warnings and or the ability to merge duplicates if they are not prohibited.
Thank you,
Answers
-
I often attach multiples of the same source. For example, one of my paternal lines was in Newark, New Jersey, from the 1850s until the 2000s. Many marriages and baptisms, from the Roman Catholic churches there, were indexed multiple times. Those records were used to create multiple profiles - meaning that my 2nd great grandparents and their 11 children all had multiple profiles. Over time, I've merged all of them, I think. Now, when I find a record has been indexed more than once, I attach all versions of it, to avoid having multiple profiles created for the same person. I'm careful to keep from creating multiple events for those duplicate records - only one marriage for a couple, even if the marriage has been indexed several times.
Hope that helps.
5 -
Thank you, Aine.
Sources are more complicated than I realized, so I'll leave them alone. I have sooo much to learn. :-)
If there were a way to collapse duplicate/similar sources down to one entry, it would give a more accurate list of sources. When I saw there were15 sources, I was ready to open 15 different sources.
No biggie, but disappointing and may not be efficient.
0 -
@.. ..._1
FYI
Just in passing ...
'NO'; 'No'; 'no' ...
It is NOT, a matter, of being inefficient.
It is, a matter, of including/attached, ALL "Sources", regardless, if they relate to the SAME "Event".
[ Especially; so that, they DO NOT keep appearing; as, possible "Record Hints", in 'FamilySearch' ... ]
I like to say ... 'the more, the merrier' ...
I have Ancestors, with, x40+; 50+; 60+; and, 70+; plus, one with x90+, "Sources".
Some; but, very few, of those "Sources", relate to the SAME "Event"; but, the odd one or two are ...
Why User/Patrons, get so concerned, that there are SIMILAR "Indexing" of the SAME "Event", which exist; and, that such, should not; or, need not, be "Attached"; and/or, should be "Detached", astounds me.
I actually LOVE, that there are SIMILAR "Indexing" of the SAME "Event" ...
To me, it is 'proof positive', that the "Event" actually took place; and, is being confirmed, so many times ...
Genealogy/Family History, is NOT a "Sprint".
Genealogy/Family History, is "Marathon".
The MORE that one can, find; and, attach, the better ...
[ Even if, such may be SIMILAR, from somewhere else ... ]
[ eg. 'FamilySearch'; Ancestry_com; FindMyPast_co_uk ( FindMyPast_com ); MyHeritage _com; WHEREVER, ... ]
Sorry ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
1 -
Ahhh, I understand. You explained it very well, and I'll look at all duplicate sources with more respect.
Maybe my brain works differently, or perhaps I don't have enough research experience.
Grouping or collapsing similar sources would make reading and finding them much easier, reveal more data points at once, and be more efficient because it is possible to skim a page like when reading bullet points.
This forum has been so enlightening. :-)
Thanks for your help.
0 -
@.. ..._1
FYI
Just a final note ...
Hey, look, OTHERS, have a TOTALLY different view, to mine.
MANY, like you, DO NOT like, the SIMILAR "Indexing", of the SAME "Event" (ie. ADDITIONAL "Sources").
As, to them, it is, tedious; and, time consuming ...
I happen, to take, a different 'tack' ...
I just LOVE, all the ADDITIONAL proof; even, for the same "Event".
And, I "Group" ALL the SIMILAR "Indexing", of the SAME "Event" (ie. ADDITIONAL "Sources") together.
That makes things much easier.
And, I ALWAYS make sure, that ALL the "Sources", are in 'Date' ORDER.
[ Where, it is personal preference; whether, it is 'Ascending'; or, 'Descending', really matters not ... ]
[ Personally, I like the LASTEST/Most currently 'Dated' "Source", at the TOP ... ]
[ ie. "Birth" on the BOTTOM; and, "Death" (and, anything after, where mentioned) on TOP ... ]
Hey, but, that is just me ...
The MAIN thing is ...
"Attach" ALL "Sources"; even, those, that are SIMILAR "Indexing", of the SAME "Event".
Otherwise, they WILL keep being offered; as, possible "Record Hints", through the "Record Hints" System.
The OTHER Problem/Issue is, that ...
IF, you "Dismiss", the possible "Record Hints"; when, they ARE actual "Matches"; THEN, you THROW OUT, the "Record Hint" System; and, you DO NOT want to do that.
Just my thoughts.
Good Luck.
Enjoy the journey.
Brett
2 -
This is an issue on which you and I will always disagree!
Where the source material is identical and the only difference is the URL, I would love there a way that one of the "duplicates" could be retired. I fully except your argument when it comes to an indexed record relating to a different original source (e.g. the Bishop's Transcript, rather than the Parish Register entry), but - as I have commented elsewhere - including the exact same record / content twice (or sometimes 4 or 5 times) in the FamilySearch database leads to unnecessary clutter.
The other problem is that material brand new to FamilySearch has probably been subject to a delay in its indexing, whilst indexing "another filming" of the same records has taken up the valuable time of indexers. As you know, "priority" is the key word in FamilySearch's work planning, so surely priority should not be given to getting duplicate records online when this holds-up the publishing of completely new material.
As others (especially indexers) regularly point out, the indexed work should lead the researcher to finding the original document, for further examination. In an example included at the other post, the self-same image was even attached to the duplicated sources! I'm afraid your "more the merrier" approach to sources doesn't find agreement with many users, who have to scroll down and down an often unnecessarily cluttered Sources section to find sources for vital events that, ideally, should be right up there, near the top of the list.
2 -
Paul
It's 'Brett'.
I did point out, that ...
Hey, look, OTHERS, have a TOTALLY different view, to mine.
MANY, like you, DO NOT like, the SIMILAR "Indexing", of the SAME "Event" (ie. ADDITIONAL "Sources").
As, to them, it is, tedious; and, time consuming ...
I happen, to take, a different 'tack' ...
And ...
'Yes', certainly one matter, that we do, disagree on ...
I must admit, I was awaiting for your response ...
And, I was expecting, that 'Word' of, "Clutter" ...
I simply, just DO NOT consider, such to be "Clutter" ... as for me ... 'the more, the merrier' ...
Now ...
That Said ...
Regardless ...
Most IMPORTANTLY, the MAIN points are:
(1) ALWAYS "Attach", the SIMILAR "Indexing", of the SAME "Event" (ie. ADDITIONAL "Sources")
(2) DO NOT, "Dismiss", the SIMILAR "Indexing", of the SAME "Event" (ie. ADDITIONAL "Sources")
(3) DO NOT, "Detach", the SIMILAR "Indexing", of the SAME "Event" (ie. ADDITIONAL "Sources")
Just my thoughts.
Brett
ps: And, basically, LEAVE the "Sources", attached, by Other Users/Patrons, 'as in'/'in-situ' - ie. alone.
.... Unless, they are wrong; and, DO NOT, relate, to the individual/person.
.
1 -
Put that way, it's difficult to argue with the points you make - apart from what constitutes clutter!
I would agree that we need to attach them all and not detach those others have (correctly) added.
My main point (as always) is that if FamilySearch had recorded, in detail, the material that had already been indexed, we should never have even encountered many of the examples concerned. In other words (as an example), the same register should not have been indexed multiple times, thus taking up the valuable time of indexers, whilst previously "unindexed" material was left waiting in the long queue. Those oft used terms "limited resources" and "priorities" always come to my mind when this issue arises!
Great that we can disagree without ever "falling out"! If you ever get to London, give me a call!
0 -
It's 'Brett'.
I would have liked, to have met up, when we travelled the World, for over 2 Years, not long back ...
[ Luckily, just before COVID-19 ... ]
And, we spent of over x12 Months travelling around, England; Scotland; Wales; Ireland; and, Europe.
I loved visiting my Ancestral Home Lands; and, extended Family.
We actually, met up with many of those Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch'; and, "Ancestry_com", who we had been in contact with; and, were related to.
Nowadays ...
It would also be great, to meet up with many of the Participants, of the 'FamilySearch' "Feedback" Forums, around the World, that I have, so readily, conversed with, over the many Years.
Funny enough, through "RootsTech", over the last few Years, I found out, that I am actually related, to MANY of those, who I have worked with (ie. Leaders; and, Group Leaders) in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum; and, many of the Participants.
Same, same ...
IF, you are ever "Downunder"; THEN, get in contact, let me know.
We do not think, that we will be travelling again, for some time.
[ Although, in our travels, we still only 'scratched the surface' - there is still so much to 'see'/'experience' ... ]
Brett
0 -
Clutter, I don't like it either.
Someone in my family tree has 21 copies of an obituary notice attached to her. It is a notice of her spouse's death, not her own. The obit was published in many different newspapers. Each newspaper was indexed and a "different" source showed up as a Research Hint & then was attached to her record because her name, as his wife, was mentioned. The sources were all from United States, "GenealogyBank Obituaries, 1980-2014".
0 -
On the flip side - I would rather have 21 copies of an obituary attached to a profile than have to merge 20 multiple profiles of the same person because a bot went through and created a new person for each version of the obituary.
2 -
FYI
It's 'Brett'.
'NO'; 'No'; 'no', NOT "Clutter" ...
Great proof that an individual/person really DID exist ...
Just the opposite ... I would LOVE it ...
And, "Group" the x21 Obituaries (ie. "Sources") together, in ORDER, of 'Date', that they were each "Published".
I have done such, many time ...
Brett
0 -
One reason for repeated indexing is if the indexing is very difficult and the result of not great quality overall. In that situation, indexing again may be less expensive than tasking reviewers with comparing and rectifying the indexing, and provide the best end result over the long term. Those of us who have the misfortune of dealing with 21 copies are simply participating in the work flow.
1 -
Well Brett I haven't been following this community help blog very long but I've developed tremendous respect for your style of writing and the deep knowledge you're willing to share.
Even though I disagree with you on the following I think you make really interesting points and I'm interested in what you think about my objections to your position.
"I actually LOVE, that there are SIMILAR "Indexing" of the SAME "Event" ...
To me, it is 'proof positive', that the "Event" actually took place; and, is being confirmed, so many times ..."
You make the following points:
1. "Sources", MAY, in fact, be ANOTHER "Indexing", of the SAME "Event".
2. "IF, "Sources", have "Different" URLs; THEN, they are NOT "Duplicates" ...
3. ""Attach" ALL "Sources"; even, those, that are SIMILAR "Indexing", of the SAME "Event"."
All the quotation marks are curious. Is there a difference between a "source" and a source or between a "duplicate" and a duplicate? Is this just a way of suggesting that these terms are imprecise and require explication?
You focus attention on URLs -- the address of the information. I fail to see how URLs are relevant. If a certified copy of a death certificate can be found at 33 Market Street how could another certified copy of the certificate found at a different address 89 Market street be another source or provide addition evidence for the death? It's kind of like using one book from one library as a reference and then suggesting that another copy of the book from a different library is a different reference.
How could another copy provide additional confirmation or raise the level of confirmation?
It's like looking at another copy of the same newspaper to confirm the account of a story.
Sources, or as you put it "sources", are relative: where ever you got your information that is your source. If I get the information from something or someone else that something or that someone is my source.
From another perspective (perspective is relative) there is only one source for the date of birth of George Washington. That source is Mary Ball Washington's Bible. I have never laid eyes on that Bible. I have seen digital images of the page from that Bible that where birth was recorded. The digital image is my source. I saw it on my monitor a few days ago. You've never seen it on my monitor so you've never seen the same image that I've seen.
I'm going to push this a bit further.
If you saw it on my monitor would you think that you have additional proof of Washington's birthday? Would you have further, additional or better confirmation of his birthday? Get a thousand monitors to display the image does that make the birth date more reliable? Is confirmation that easily provided? Is proof that simple?
The more copies of a book we print the more we can be sure that the claims in it are true?
This is getting into the distinction between primary sources and secondary or derivative sources. A derivative source might be the only one available to me. As I understand it digital images of primary sources have become widely accepted as in some way equivalent to a primary source.
A certified copy of a death certificate is a derivative or secondary source. Only the original certificate actually signed by the doctor is the primary source. A certified copy has more evidentiary value than a non-certified copy. We have more confidence that a certified copy is actually a true copy of the original.
Its hard to quantify evidentiary value, but a certified copy has more of it than a non-certified copy. Evidentiary value correlates to amount of confirmation value a document possesses.
None of this is simple though but I'll skip the complexities. Bottom line for me is that as long as we have the original documentary evidence in some form the indexed references to sources have zero value,
0 -
Well Brett I haven't been following this community help blog very long but I've developed tremendous respect for your style of writing and the deep knowledge you're willing to share.
Even though I disagree with you on the following I think you make really interesting points and I'm interested in what you think about my objections to your position.
"I actually LOVE, that there are SIMILAR "Indexing" of the SAME "Event" ...
To me, it is 'proof positive', that the "Event" actually took place; and, is being confirmed, so many times ..."
You make the following points:
1. "Sources", MAY, in fact, be ANOTHER "Indexing", of the SAME "Event".
2. "IF, "Sources", have "Different" URLs; THEN, they are NOT "Duplicates" ...
3. ""Attach" ALL "Sources"; even, those, that are SIMILAR "Indexing", of the SAME "Event"."
All the quotation marks are curious. Is there a difference between a "source" and a source or between a "duplicate" and a duplicate? Is this just a way of suggesting that these terms are imprecise and require explication?
You focus attention on URLs -- the address of the information. I fail to see how URLs are relevant. If a certified copy of a death certificate can be found at 33 Market Street how could another certified copy of the certificate found at a different address 89 Market street be another source or provide addition evidence for the death? It's kind of like using one book from one library as a reference and then suggesting that another copy of the book from a different library is a different reference.
How could another copy provide additional confirmation or raise the level of confirmation? Isn't it like looking at another copy of the same newspaper to confirm the account of a story.
Sources, or as you put it "sources", are relative: where ever you got your information that is your source. If I get the information from something or someone else that something or that someone is my source.
From another perspective (perspective is relative) there is only one source for the date of birth of George Washington. That source is Mary Ball Washington's Bible. I have never laid eyes on that Bible. I have seen digital images of the page from that Bible that where birth was recorded. The digital image is my source.
I'm going to push this a bit further.
Perhaps these images are forgeries and the original Bible doesn't exist. So perhaps each publication of the image adds confirmation value to the claim that it is an image of an actual Bible in which Mary Ball Washington recorded her son's birth. This is analogous to each multiple index projects recording the existence of a document that is the source of the information they are recording.
This is getting into the distinction between primary sources and secondary or derivative sources. A derivative source might be the only one available to me. As I understand it, digital images of primary sources have become widely accepted as in some way equivalent to a primary source.
A certified copy of a death certificate is a derivative or secondary source. Only the original certificate actually signed by the doctor is the primary source. A certified copy has more evidentiary value than a non-certified copy. We have more confidence that a certified copy is actually a true copy of the original. We have some measure of confidence in all of these documents however.
Its hard to quantify evidentiary value, but a certified copy has more of it than a non-certified copy. Evidentiary value correlates to amount of confirmation value a document possesses.
Suppose you have the certified death certificate that gives a particular date of death for person. Suppose, an indexed entry gives a different date. Which date would you consider accurate? Which one carries more weight? If you go with the death certificate and reject the indexed entry how do you assess the value of an indexed entry when it agrees with the death certificate? Why would you think it confirms the death certificate when it is unable to disconfirm or falsify the certificate?
None of this is simple though but I'll skip the complexities. Bottom line for me is that as long as we have the original documentary evidence in some form the indexed references to sources have zero value, zero confirmation value and they are nothing more than clutter.
How would an indexed entry for Washington provide more evidence that he existed? Suppose you had my birth certificate. How would an indexed entry for me provide additional evidence or confirmation that I exist? Is it because more people can see the index than can see my birth certificate? What if my birth certificate was easily available on the web for everyone to see?
0 -
Perhaps a different issue, but with a max of 200 source attachments to a single person, I think there comes a point where having the same Digital Folder Number and Image number indexed 100+ times becomes superfluous. Ex. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/G52J-1HM
0 -
Perhaps you should have raised this as a separate issue, rather than raise it against this 2022 thread. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to hear any responses on how this might have happened and whether anything can be done to "retire" all the duplicate sources - the difference only appearing to relate to their URLs.
I've often complained about multiple indexing of the same record causing clutter to the Sources section, but this is really on a different scale!
2 -
Brian - I just cross-referenced your / my comments here. See https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/145716/duplicate-sources#latest
1
