Race horses in our tree
Does anyone feel it is appropriate for race horses to be listed as people in the tree? While researching yesterday I accidentally found six different entries for the famous horse Secretariat, one of which seemed to include a full genealogy for him. (see GDTN-LSD).
While this might be acceptable in someone's private tree elsewhere, I found it offensive in our community tree. I do research as a way of honouring my family and I was shocked at what I found.
Caleb L mod
There is a data security team assigned to handle abuses in the tree and I think this would likely be a breach of the upload guidelines and terms of service in the sense that the content is not relevant and support a family history purpose. Like Gail said, if it was associated to someone's ancestors there are more appropriate ways to do it. That's my thought anyway. The data security team deals with policy problems in the tree all the time so I would report it on the person page when you see things like that and let them do their thing.0
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
Well, if cartoon characters and mythical kings & queens have been tolerated over the years, perhaps there will be no great objection from Family Tree management. I have come across some ludicrous entries in the past, but FamilySearch does not seem interested enough in the issue of non-existent humans - or perhaps creatures that did actually walk the Earth - to have a dedicated team to which such matters can be reported directly.
Hopefully, one of the moderators knows of one, and/or will be able to offer advice on this specific issue.2
Thanks for the answer. I didn't realize the problem went that far.0
Caleb L mod
On the new person page there is a report abuse link.0
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
The problem is, is this be regarded as abuse? It took months (after reporting) before an ID for "The Devil" (and his wife) was removed, so is FamilySearch willing - or does it have the resources - to delegate individuals (or a team) to deal with these kind of inputs?
If I came across something like this associated with my ancestors, I would consider it pretty interesting. Although you don't say, were the race horses attached to the people record of their owners, or were they just a floating lineage? The genealogy of race horse bloodlines is tracked elsewhere with MUCH more accuracy than FamilySearch would ever allow, so I would (personally) transfer the information to the people records and delete the horse records. BUT, I don't have a dog in this fight, much less a horse, so I'll sit back and see how it ends.0
I've already reported it so I'll wait to see if I get a reply.0
I know this may seem like it's just an unnecessary sarcastic comment, but it's heartfelt and I believe pertinent. Someone in FamilySearch seems intent on making as many unnecessary, confusing, and counterproductive changes in FamilySearch (such as moving the controls for Landscape/Portrait/Fan Chart/Descendency - and the new "First Ancestor") without warning or apparent need, yet in the past there were plenty of people available to remove bogus entries in the Family Tree. I had Greek (or Roman) gods and goddesses actually inserted into my tree a few years ago, and a quick call to the now non-existent FamilySearch Support phone line got it removed very quickly.
Yet despite being reported by multiple people, these race horse entries are still up days after being reported, and the user is still an active (not banned) user.
Between the ongoing (often confusing and unnecessary) changes to FamilySearch and failure to promptly remove these kinds of entries, among other things, people are going to get too frustrated with FamilySearch to bother using it. And everyone then loses....