Suggestion
We are consultants in the Family History Center in Modesto, California, Modesto North Stake. We have frequently in our own work and helping patrons, that we are spending more time solving issues than actually doing any new work.
We are wondering if there could be an extra step before someone could add or change entries, such as having at least one source.
Currently we are encountering issues where someone has added a person to the tree with no information. For example, someone added a person with no birth, death, location and only a question mark for a last name. They provide "deceased" without even a century.
We also have one child, same ID# listed with 3 different sets of parents.
We are sure you are well aware of the issues, and are wondering if requiring a source would be of any help. Thank you.
Answers
-
Ruth
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ... ]
[ And, I have been a Staff Member, of Family History Centres", of the Church, for many Years ... ]
You are not alone ...
'Yes' ...
It is 'Frustrating', when Users/Patrons, in this day and age, make changes; especially, to "Vital" information (or, even add individuals/persons), to the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', with either, NO, associated "Sources"; and/or, NO, "Reason This Is Correct" ...
I, totally, understand, the intent, of you suggested enhancement ...
But ...
That Said ...
Where you say/suggest:
We are wondering if there could be an extra step before someone could add or change entries, such as having at least one source.
Short Answer: 'No' ... on two (x2) fronts ...
Firstly ...
This one is a 'pet peeve' of mine ...
I am sorry, to say; but, it concerns me, when Users/Patrons suggest, that "Sources", in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', should be REQUIRED, under ANY circumstances.
"Sources" are NOT "Mandatory"; and, NEVER should they be, NOT even for "Temple" Work.
Even TODAY, there are People, ALL around the World, whose, "Birth"; and/or, "Marriage"; and/or, "Death", is NOT "Officially" recorded.
And, more often than not, any "Documentation"; and/or, "Sources", that there MAY be, can be somewhat quite elusive, to find ...
Even TODAY, for many Countries and Unions, throughout the World, there are, MANY, Many, many, "Official" records, that are NOT available 'On-Line'; and, if they even are, are certainly NOT for FREE.
[ And, NOT even, in the likes of 'FamilySearch'; &/or, the many other, Government; or, Commercial, websites ]
As such, MANY, Many, many, Users/Patrons CANNOT afford the funds to obtain a "Copy" of "Official" records.
And, 'Yes', even TODAY, there are individuals/persons entered, in "Family Tree" of, 'Family Search', that DO NOT have "Sources" attached.
Plus ...
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.
Even some of the pre.Digital "Records" (ie. 'Hard-Copy'/'Paper'), had the "Details", of "Sources"; where, the "Information" was obtained.
And, "Sources" were not originally, in; or, later when included, made "Mandatory", in "New.FamilySearch".
Unfortunately, MANY of those "Sources", from BEFORE "Family Tree", were NOT transferred across.
There was an effort, in 2014, to "Transfer", the "Sources", from "New,FamilySearch", into "Family Tree"; being, "Legacy Sources"; but, that was NOT very successful; and, many of such, have subsequently been "Deleted"/"Removed", by User/Patrons, over the Years.
Now ...
All That Said ...
It would certainly be nice, if Users/Patrons, who DID NOT have "Copies" of "Official" (or, "Family") records; but, had the "Details"/"Information", from such, would INCLUDE that "Detail"/"Information", in the likes of "Reason Statements" (ie. "Reason This Information Is Correct:"), UNFORTUNATELY, many do not.
Such is life ...
The 'Question' (ie. problem/issue) is ... How "Restrictive" do they make, "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch'?
Believe me ...
IF, "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', was TOO "Restrictive"; THEN, I can assure you, that, MANY; Many; many, People would NOT Participate in it; and, sadly, that would include MANY Users/Patrons, who are Members of the Church, that DO NOT have ready access to, "Documentation"; and/or, "Sources" (and, CANNOT provide such) - if "Documentation"; and/or, "Sources" (ie. Evidence/Proof) were mandatory.
Unfortunately ...
"Documentation"; and/or, "Sources", (and, even the "Details"/"Information", from such); being, REQUIRED, is excellent, in "Theory"; but, such is NOT so good, in "Practice" ...
Secondly ...
"Reason Statements" (ie."Reason This Information Is Correct:"), should NOT be made "Mandatory", in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
The REASON, that I suggest such, is "Very" SIMPLE ... "GIGO" ... ( ie. Garbage In, Garbage Out )
I would RATHER 'see' NOTHING, at all, rather than "Garbage" (eg. '.'; or, 'x'; or, 'xxx'; or, 'Records'; ETC; Etc; etc).
[ And, believe me, that is WHAT the result would be ... make NO mistake about it ... ]
I am sorry to say such; but, MANY, Many, many, Users/Patrons, DO NOT, have the 'Time', to add/include such.
Of course, some, are:
(1) "Inexperienced" (and, DO NOT know, that they should; or, in some cases, HOW); or,
(2) Worse, just lazy/sloppy (and, have NO intention, of including such)
Whereas ...
Many of us, do INCLUDE, "Sources"; or, "Reason Statements" (ie."Reason This Information Is Correct:").
Finally ...
Remember ...
NONE of us are PERFECT ...
We can ONLY do out best ...
HE, just wants to 'see' you, making an effort; and, doing the Work (and, of course, also doing your best) ...
Perfection, is NOT required ...
And ...
'FamilySearch', is TRYING, to ENGENDER, participation, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
[ NOT 'Stifle' such ... ]
Plus ...
Great, in THEORY ... but, that said, ... NOT so good, in PRACTICE ...
A Programmer (NOT from 'FamilySearch'), once said to me ...
You CANNOT, make a "System", FOOLPROOF; as, FOOLS, are so INGENIOUS ...
[ That is SO true ...]
So ...
That Said ...
I am Sorry ...
Taking things, into consideration ...
And, the fact, there is NO "Simple" solution ...
[ I, certainly, DO NOT, have one ... ]
As such ...
I humbly, CANNOT recommend (nor, support; or, agree with), your suggested enchantment.
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
0
