Persons adding to my family tree
It is pointless just giving a list of strangers who have "added" to my family tree and "send them a message", because there is no indication of who they are or what they "added", or even if it is the correct information. Would you please show what these people have added or changed in my tree, as previously I have found changes made and incorrect information added - e.g. the spelling of my mother's name was changed to an incorrect name!
Comments
-
FYI
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
You are not alone ...
MANY; Many; many, of us, ... have been there ...
Many of us have "Changes" made to our "Ancestral" Lines ...
Now ...
That Said ...
Please be aware, that technically, one DOES NOT, have a "Tree", in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch' ...
Please let me explain ...
Technically, there is no way, to STOP, another User/Patron, working along the SAME 'Ancestral" Lines.
Unfortunately, such CANNOT be prevented.
As, basically, we are all related.
One's "Ancestral" Lines, are most likely ALSO another User's/Patron's "Ancestral" Lines, in fact, probably, that of quite a few other Users/Patrons.
Now ...
That Said ...
Basically, we DO NOT have, a "Tree", in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', than is common misconception.
And, OTHER Users/Patrons, DO NOT need/require, our (ie. one's) "Permission", to "Change" the information/details of "Deceased" individuals/persons, in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch'.
Here an old 'standby' of mine, that I have previously proffered on occasion ...
------------------
Most new (and, some old) Users/Patrons, DO NOT, understand, the basic 'nature' and 'premise', of the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', when they join in.
We do not have our OWN "Tree", in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
We ONLY have "Branches" (ie. Ancestral" lines), that are interconnected, in this SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is NOT like 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
We DO NOT have "Private"/"Personal" 'Trees', in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', like other 'On-Line' "Websites"; and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes.
We do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
And, most importantly ...
We DO NOT even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, Our OWN "Deceased" Ancestors/Family/Relatives, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why any "Registered" User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
------------------
In other words ... "Collaboration" ...
Of course ... often ... easier said, than done ...
[ Sometimes, no matter how hard one tries, "Collaboration", does not work ... such is life ... ]
We ALL make MISTAKES ...
NONE of US are PREFECT ...
None of us want to have our "Ancestral" Lines 'messed up'; but, unfortunately, it happens.
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 -
FYI
Furthermore ...
Just in passing ...
FIRSTLY ...
That is exactly why, many Users/Patrons, ALSO maintain their own PRIVATE "Database(s)" (ie. Copies) of their "Ancestral" Lines , on 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
And ...
SECONDLY ...
All that one can really do, is 'Monitor', one's "Ancestral" Lines, for 'wayward' CHANGES, by OTHER Users/Patrons.
Nothing more, nothing less ...
As an aside ...
IF, you were not already aware; THEN, ...
In "Family Tree", of "FamilySearch' ...
We have the ability to "Watch" (Oops, sorry, 'old school', "Follow"), up to a MAXIMUM of x4000 individuals/persons, at any given time.
Basically ...
It is a matter, of "Following", one's MOST important Ancestors.
Just to keep on top, of any 'wayward' CHANGES.
I check, the "Changes" to those that I "Follow", on a "Daily" Basis; so that, I can keep on top of things.
More often that not, nothing needs to be done; but, at least, I have the opportunity, to be abreast of things; as, they happen/transpire/unfold.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
If you click on "Show All" on the Person page you will see all the changes made, and by whom. In turn, click on the name against the change you wish to "challenge" and that will provide a link for you to send a message to them. You often won't receive a reply, but it's worth trying to communicate.
1 -
The notification message could include a link to a Help Center or Blog page explaining how to see the changes. Many recipients will need that information.
0 -
Thanks for all your comments and advice. I still see it as pointless that any random person can add what they like to my family tree, changing what I know to be correct to something that is not correct - which I then have to waste time deleting and reinstating the correct information!!! When I have the time I do careful research and only insert correct information, and I find it infuriating that this can be changed by anyone and all my time just is wasted and have to re-do everything. I still think that the current method frequently leads down the wrong path and just complicates things to the extent that it is a complete waste of time in the end because you have a family tree which is just a mess of incorrect information. I hope they will change the system and we can end up with logical trees that we can be assured are our actual ancestors and do not belong to someone not remotely related to the original person who started the tree! A similar method is used by Ancestry and works a lot better, but is still far from perfect.
1 -
A similar method is used by Ancestry and works a lot better
Are you sure about that? One surname I have been researching for years has under 10,000 persons documented in historical records since the year 1500. But I have merged at least that many duplicate profiles, many "contributed" by Ancestry users.
You might try figuring out why others keep changing the tree around your family. Very often the reason turns out to be important.
1 -
so after reading all the above comments do i understand this right? you have to go to each person (some people have huge trees) and click all to see when changes were made? holy crap..... that is a great deal of extra wok. perhaps those changes made by other should be highlighted in red or purple or yellow..... something to let you know that you didn't change it
I am updating the above comment by adding this: i have told people not to start a tree on FamilySearch because of the confusion other people cause when adding someone to a person or tree with not verification or resource. People you are not helping you are making things confusing instead.
I had deleted some people from the tree(branch) i started and someone added them back on. they are all incorrect. none are related in any way.
so i give up with looking at this "tree" the only good thing i have found on Family Search is i finding documents and trying to find out if they are an actual sourcse to work with.
so my advice is ..... stop helping people! only work on your branch and if you think someone is related contact that person first to verify.... don't just assume
0 -
New Person page
Old Person page
If you FOLLOW the people in the Tree that are most important to you - FamilySearch will provide you messages immediately or weekly when someone modifies those persons. FamilySearch will then provide you list of all those people you follow:
(from the new homepage)
That way you can go to their page and see what has changed and immediately revert those changes if needed (if you react quicker than the other person making further subsequent changes). However I tend to agree - if the profile in a better state why allow attachment/change to worse state. The problem is not really with the FamilySearch Family Tree platform but lies with the possible careless/malicious change - someone either is not paying attention to the existing profile OR they mean to cause the problem they are introducing. Unfortunately there is not a good method - yet (or else I haven't seen it yet) - to have FamilySearch 'lock' or allow 'primary editing' to near relations for profiles already containing good information (this would probably be best for near relations of living people in my opinion).
Careless contributors should be able to collaborate and become educated in how not to be careless. Malicious destructors should be monitored and not allowed to continue destruction - changes should revert back to previous Tree condition when such actions are detected.
2 -
I had deleted some people from the tree(branch) i started and someone added them back on. they are all incorrect. none are related in any way.
We can help you with this if you share the PIDs where the edit war is happening. Usually it happens because there is a problem in the tree. It isn't just other people being stupid or careless or malicious.
2 -
I had deleted some people from the tree(branch) i started and someone added them back on. they are all incorrect. none are related in any way.
>>
...Usually it happens because there is a problem in the tree.
Yes someone adding people another researcher has determined do not belong in that family - is a problem ... If they don't belong in that family then they apparently belong somewhere else ... and to continue adding them back to that family is an indication of carelessness or maliciousness because - either one researcher is not documenting their research OR they insist on such without documentation.
Would it not be better to enter unattached families than to attach them into the wrong family?
0 -
Don't stop there, @genthusiast; dig deeper. Why does someone keep adding those people who don't belong? Answer: Because they think that's where they belong. So, Why do they think that? Almost always, the answer to that last question leads to a lasting solution.
Would it not be better to enter unattached families than to attach them into the wrong family?
Maybe, maybe not. I see a lot of floaters get picked up and attached where they don't belong. On the whole I say no, it isn't better. When attached, even wrongly, the family can be found by traversing the tree. Floaters are much harder to find.
2 -
@dontiknowyou I appreciate your additional perspective. Yes, if they keep adding them - obviously they think they belong there... but that could be undocumented fiction or the result of family lore (for which perhaps they could share documentation - yes point taken I may have to do the untangling for them by examining those families - but it is bothersome when obvious differences between relationships, timeframe or location can easily be demonstrated - why attach something that can obviously be demonstrated as incorrect - at least by the commonly available documentary record?). I have such family lore tree members I have attached in my ancestral lines - not too far back but far enough I cannot find documentation of a relationship but because of locality and timeframe, there must be a family relationship between this generation and that ... somehow ... it's my best guess as a researcher without the supporting documentation... It is not easy to document this type of possibility in FamilySearch Family Tree.
Well, maybe this could lead to another Idea being suggested...
If as a researcher - you feel that your research is complete enough (excuse the lack of correct genealogical process terminology) to have documented all family members/relationships - perhaps there could be something similar to Details> Other Information> Facts> No Children (there is the option of adding a Custom Fact - but this would not include the effect I desire).
... but instead FamilySearch might be able to create a Fact: No More Children Relationships or No More Couple Relationships meaning that a researcher (or for near-related generations a descendant or family organization) has edited all relationships that in the current state represent the best of their research. Perhaps if that Fact were in operation no one else could Edit the relationships until collaboration resulted in the researcher/FamilySearch clearing those facts? Yes ... bottleneck for you ... we just seem to be working from opposite ends of the string...or tangent lines somewhere...
...continuing to brainstorm on this idea ...
So note, It would not prevent additional Sources from being attached to a Person - just additional Relationships... If a Source were attached that introduced another possible Relationship then yes, the other researcher has the opportunity to include Reason to Attach explanation. Then perhaps that would be the key to open the Add Relationship gate ... reduce the overhead of FamilySearch monitoring and automate that a little...
I try to work from the known to the unknown - most recent to further back... I tend to like to 'concretize' what I have documented - as known. That seems to be the way many people view their own near relationship family Tree assertions/attachments...
0 -
Perhaps if that Fact were in operation no one else could Edit the relationships until [...]
Huge opportunity for abuse right there, so no.
This regularly reappearing complaint rather perplexes me. My Family Tree contribution stats are above 250k and with very few exceptions these types of issues, while frequent, are also short lived. Almost always the problem is easily resolved by working just a little on the profiles the other contributor thinks belong. Examine the details at the heart of the confusion/conflation/conflict.
0 -
This regularly reappearing complaint rather perplexes me.
Well, just consider it like I keep adding a family to your immediate family tree ... there must be a reason...
How can a fact (including supporting documentary evidence) be abuse?
Yes I could do better in helping others resolve their family tangles with mine ... I would just prefer if there were a way to not get in the tangle in the first place. Facts that are known don't change... otherwise they are theories? Who my biological parents are is a fact. Who my biological siblings are is a fact. The documentary evidence as well as our combined historical family life supports these facts. We siblings accept that we are siblings and the only siblings in the family. Any other immediate family biological relationship that someone might try to assert is fiction (made up/forged documentation). If it turned out that my parents had a stillborn older child would that change the facts? No, it would just be another fact - something I was unaware of but did not change the family relationships. Facts are facts.
0 -
The missing piece is that Family Tree profiles are not facts. They are syntheses and may include fictions.
Common reasons I see for repeated edits that appear to be counterfactual include:
- Profile lacks standard event dates and place names. Solution is very easy: standardize dates and place names. Go through the sources and from them add missing dates and place names to the profile.
- Profile has residue of prior conflation: places, dates, sources that refer to another person. Solution is easy: remove the residue.
- Conflation of that profile or the profile of an attached immediate family member or a profile of an unrelated person that a contributor keeps trying to attach: child, spouse, parent. Solution is moderately difficult: resolve the conflation. This always involves working on 2 or more profiles, and can be very involved.
- Existence of an additional family not known to other family members, and refuted or denied by them. Solution is as easy as you are willing to make it: tincture of time is the only real cure, so I recommend treading lightly or leaving it alone.
- Significant error in an established family history. Example: A surname I work on has a book published in 1949, apparently with a print run of over 1000, that is on the whole remarkably accurate but has some contributed parts that are pure fiction. Solution is very hard: a huge amount of research perhaps even DNA work and, ideally, publication in a high quality genealogy research magazine or book, fully exploring the issue and hopefully settling it. In the meantime, I would put a Note or Discussion on the profile explaining the problem and then leave it alone.
0 -
Profiles can/should contain facts. I surely didn't say profiles were facts/100% factual ... but they certainly can be thought of as a collection of facts representative of a person and their connected family relationships.
I referred to:
New Person Page> Details> Other Information> Facts (pictures would not upload)
Old Person Page> Details> Other Information> Facts
If FamilySearch added the facts No More Children Relationships or No More Couple Relationships then both could act as a gatekeeper to editing of Relationships connected to a Profile (simple Idea - at least in my mind).
0 -
"Facts that are known don't change... otherwise they are theories?"
Not always. My father was in his 60s when he discovered that one of his sisters was actually a half-sibling. New information can be discovered, and the "facts" may need to change accordingly.
There are all kinds of reasons why "documented facts" can be wrong. When new information is found, it must be considered.
2 -
It is sometimes hard to remember that facts are not truths. Facts may be true, false, or indeterminate.
The fact that Joe was born in 1900 may be proved true, proved false, or unsupported by any evidence and thus unprovable, in which case it isn't even a fact but merely a theory. If there is evidence such as, say, a 1910 census record that says Joe was born in 1900, that record is itself a fact that is almost certainly true, but the fact of the record does not prove the fact of Joe's birth year. Is the 1910 census record accurate? Maybe. We know it isn't precise, though: 1900 could mean 1899, depending on when in the calendar year Joe was born. And is the Joe in 1910 the same Joe?
0 -
Definition of Fact commonly does include truth...and yes what is 'known' as a fact might change as Cheryl mentioned. But notice how not all the facts/relationships changed ...
What I was claiming as a fact above - my immediate family and siblings - are known. That chain of facts extends to our lived history and that of my parents and grandparents (I even knew one of my great-grandparents) - to me those relationships are facts that should be able to be represented in FamilySearch Family Tree and not be allowed to change - because as I mention they are facts and do have documentary evidence... Anyway - one of the main points of this thread is that there is a problem with open-edit causing good information to change by those who 'don't know any better' to incorrect information. I just wish that could be restricted or not allowed - especially when those that do know already entered good information... that needs no further editing. Yes I can edit things back to the way they were -but those edits become more difficult the further the generation is from you (especially if there are multiple edits and the recent changes list does not allow reversion to previous condition - it just makes things more difficult if someone introduces bad information).
...
0 -
Because I don't have a good enough memory to remember the facts for more than a few generations away from myself... But I can remember those I knew in my life for sure - those facts won't change.
....
0 -
I'm a fairly new member, however I've been lurking for many years. This is a topic that can be very frustrating. Family Tree can be very informative and helpful. At the same, it can be counterproductive, misleading, and in some cases hurtful. For instance, I have seen close family members listed as deceased in the Family Tree. In fact, they were very much alive. For me the most frustrating part(s) are: 1. Inaccurate information. 2. Duplicate information. Pay attention to what you are inputting. If you see the same person, try and figure what is correct. As the moderator said, collaborate.
Myself, I use Family Tree as a major resource. It's invaluable, especially when comes to sources/documents. If I find any source, document, information etc. is accurate and correct, then I'll enter it into my standalone software program. Sure, if you see information that is incorrect, try and point it out and collaborate. Although from my experience, no one has ever replied back. Just smile and carry on. Sorry for that ramble, cheers.
4
