Duplicate persons being added to FamilyTree by FamilySearch
Example: Bernard Jasper Beach PID LLM9-H4D
Existing Child Beatrice Leona Beach PID MW18-VSF. This instance of Beatrice is well sourced and her DOB and Death dates are complete.
Since I "follow" Bernard Jasper Beach, I just got a notice that a change has been made, ie a change in relationship. upon investigation I find that the following "new" child has been added to this family group:
Beatrice Leona Beach PID GNGT-85D dob 29 Oct 1912.
This "new" child has the identical name, dob as the existing instance of Beatrice already in Family Tree. This "new" instance only says it has been added by family Search. No document is attached to this new instance.
Family search family tree recognizes that a duplicate has been created. I get a notification on Bernard Jasper Beach's person page that duplicate daughters exist.
- WHY is this happening? What is the source of this new person? It seems like is coming from some type of campaign that FamilySearch has initiated. I mention this because this exact same scenario has happened with other families I have worked on.
- This is very discouraging and leads to ongoing efforts to merge these "new" instances who never should have been created in the first place.
- These "new" instances that are being created VIOLATE ALL OF THE RULES we ask patrons to follow when adding new people to FamilyTree: (a) Check to be sure the person you are thinking of adding is not already in FamilyTree: We want to avoid duplicates to avoid duplication of temple work. (b) add sources to support the names, dates and relationships for the person you are adding. ( C ) identify yourself as the person making the change so that other researchers can collaborate with you about the person you have added.
- Is there any way to stop this from happening????
I have read on these boards, but can't tell you where at this point, that FamilySearch administrators will only make changes in Family Tree as a last resort and will do as little as possible when they do. I had the impression this is only when there are problems in background data that only they can fix. If you ever wander through the Temple category here, you will quickly see that there are numerous old tangles of data they are asked to repair.
In this case, I would assume the best. That would be that the duplicate child here was an old record lost in an incorrect merge, maybe back in New Family Search, that was confusing the data on someone else and the record was restored to fix that. They would not add anything that was not in the original entry for her such as sources that were not on that profile.
This is just a theory, of course.
It is a good thing you were watching the record so you can finish this repair process by correctly merging the duplicates.4
@Dennis Campnell You mentioned that you have seen other instances of this type of duplicate record creation. Can you give us any other specific examples? We are looking into this and your other examples would help to pinpoint what is occurring.1
Reply to AnnaloforteWilson
I do a lot of work on FamilySearch and have done merges in the past to address the issue I have mentioned. I am certain this has occurred several times over the past few years. I am Looking to find other instances. So far I have found one other example:
Oscar H Rimer PID K2MP-C5K. this is the original correct person.
Oscar C Rimer PID LL3J-XX5 this is the new instance created with no documentation by FamilySearch.
I have no easy method to find these and it took me over an hour to find this one. Why don't you work with these two as a start.
@Dennis Campnell LL3J-XX5 was merged into K2MP-C5K in 2017. There is no existing duplicate.0
reply to Aine Ni donnghaile
Of course there is no existing duplicate. Who do you think did the merge in 2017?? (Clue: I did. ) Why did I do the merge? because Family Search created this new instance of the person ie LL3J-xx5. which was a duplicate of K2MP-C5K.
Why am I citing this example at this time? because Annaforewilson asked me to come up with other instances I have encountered IN THE PAST!!!!
Older profiles may show "FamilySearch" as the creator when that is not the case. In some of the transfers from older iterations of the website, usernames were not transferred.3
Thank you @Dennis Campnell. We will start comparing with these two. If you find other instances, please add them here.
@Áine Ní Donnghaile While it is true that that has occurred in the past, that really doesn't explain a new occurrance of this type of duplicate. We will investigate to see why this occurs and get back to both of you with an answer.
If anyone else finds an occurrance of FamilySearch creating a duplicate individual (especially a very recent creation) please indicate the IDs of both duplicate records here.2
This is NOT a new occurrence. Look at the dates, @AnneLoForteWillson0
@Áine Ní Donnghaile It is true that the 2017 creation was not a new occurrance. However, the 30 Oct 2022 creation is a new occurrance.0
@Dennis Campnell thank you so much for taking the time to search back through your contributions list (?) and retrieve this duplicate you remembered from 5 years ago. I too have seen similar mysterious duplicates pop up in parts of the tree that I have thoroughly worked over so I knew the duplicate was new, yet "FamilySearch" made it...? I see these only rarely, and I never thought to report them.0
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
The issue of "FaamilySearch" creating records (post-2012) was first raised many years ago on the old GetSatisfaction forum. The point made was that any employee / missionary with admin rights to log on and make changes / additions should be provided with a user name that indicated on whose behalf they were carrying out such work. At the very least, the username should include the FamilySearch team to which they were attached.
Apart from 2012 dates, and others that have been noted (where there was, say, a mass import of names to the database), I (like @dontiknowyou) rarely come across instances of this kind and had hoped the use of "FamilySearch" (alone), as a username available to a variety of employees, was no longer in place.0