Family Group path to read-only profile(s)

genthusiast

What are you trying to accomplish? Read-only protect sufficiently complete profile(s) by consent of Family Group of descendants - such that FamilySearch will preserve profiles in a manner approved by the Family Group.

 Why? Descendants have the duty and should have the privilege of representing ancestor profiles in priority over open-edit. Such representation should be arrived at preferably by unanimous consent - whether by popular or representative consent (the Family Group should determine - including representation from 'cousin lines' that might want to participate).

What is the challenge or roadblock you are encountering? Open-edit allows too many random/incorrect linkages of profiles/sources - such that - what was once a well-established/sufficiently complete profile is conflated into two or more people or is jumbled into a state of disorder needing too much effort to untangle/maintain. Thus once Family Group expends such effort - there should be some assurance from FamilySearch (i.e. marking read-only) - that the profile be protected from such reccuring. Example: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/479237#Comment_479237

What is your idea? I propose the path be developed such that a Family Group of descendants can request such 'locking' once the profiles are 'put back in order'. This would mean (minimally):

1. The Family Group - 'descendants of ____ and ____' is created/organized. A feature to alert descendants of such group organization - and inviting all/'heads' to participate.

2. The Family Group has the ability to consent that 'their line' (descendancy path)/profile(s) are 'in order'/prepared for marking read-only. This readiness could be determined/reviewed by a number of 'mile-posts' being arrived at - but perhaps a couple could be: generation of a Life Sketch/History, Family Group alert note, collaboration/discussion history, change history subsequent to Family Group alert note.

3. Transferring that consent to FamilySearch for marking of such lines/profile(s) read-only.

4. Any duplicate 'open' profiles subsequently created should be referred to the 'locked' profile. If there are valid/consequential relationship additions - such should be reviewed and added through the consent process of the Family Group.

How would solving this challenge improve your experience? It would allow me peace of mind - that I and the Family Group I am a part of - have done our duty in representing the profile of ancestors to the best of ability - and that such profile will be permanent and not 'open' further unnecessarily. It should allow a descendancy group to have greater collaborative input on ancestor profile(s) - and allow them to arrive at a 'finished' state. After marked read-only - it would allow others to focus research on lines/profiles needing attention - not those that do not and have been well established but now need correction yet again due to open-edit structure of Family Tree.

Thank you for your consideration.

Paul W

@genthusiast

I have long argued that the present Family Tree model is not sustainable. This comes through my having examined many branches of the tree, often completely unconnected to mine, and finding family groups that are complete works of fiction - including multiple spouses against many IDs and merged individuals who were definitely separate persons.

Open-edit appears to be the general policy, with the exception mainly applying to early / prominent members of the Church. Thus the read-only designations can prove to be highly divisive, with "non-LDS" users (who we have been advised form the majority) perhaps being resentful of the fact that their well-researched individuals / branches cannot be locked, too. However, if your suggestions were to be taken on board, there would be no room for any changes to be made if, say, a user totally unrelated to the "Family Group" found evidence which discredited "proven" inputs. As with science, we have to be prepared to accept that very little about our genealogies is completely set in stone and that close family members are not always the best people to assess / judge the facts.

A point I have raised here on a number of occasions concerns the disagreements within my own family as to the birthplace of my grandfather. Different aunts and uncles were quite firm in their (differing) opinions. Another example I would put to you concerns an unrelated branch I researched (in order to stop confusion with my branch, of similar identity). I provided complete evidence of the actual children of a couple of Durham, England - taken from parish registers that named each child in a format of, say, "2nd son of William Smith and Mary Brown", "4th daughter of William Smith and Mary Brown", etc. Yet the person I contacted on the subject, along with her family members, totally refused to accept my evidence - insisting that there were further children that belonged to William and Mary, despite the fact parishes, and even parents' names did not match!

What I am trying to illustrate is that you cannot necessarily leave recording facts accurately to those who are the closest family members. But, even if your ideas on Family Groups were to be adopted, how do you possibly believe FamilySearch would be suddenly willing and able to provide resources to implement and maintain such a scheme? It would mean a complete turnaround in its hitherto, hands-off approach in maintaining the tree. Some scheme involving arbitration would almost certainly be needed, because there is no way even close family members will necessarily agree on all the "facts" involving their relatives / ancestors.

I am sorry if I have misunderstood (hence misrepresented) your proposals in any way, but feel they would just not be practicable, given the nature of individuals to disagree - and the lack of resources FamilySearch appears to have to monitor activity on this giant of a project.

genthusiast

@Paul W Thank you. The fact that such an approach could not resolve disagreement for some profiles does not mean it could not provide benefit to those where agreement could be reached. For those where disagreement prevails - obviously the profile would need to remain open-edit. But if a Family Group could resolve the disagreement - that would be great.

no room for any changes...

#4 of the Idea should address any subsequent valid relationship changes needing to occur.

Minimal definition of sufficiently complete profile := a profile whose vital records are complete and determined to be a unique person. If agreement cannot be reached on this minimal profile - then yes - the profile will need to remain open-edit.

FamilySearch would not need to provide oversight - they would just to develop features/tools for a Family Group to accomplish these objectives and have a read-only queue - once profiles meet 'mile-posts' - that marks read-only when sufficient ...

I am probably not any more prepared on this iteration of this idea to present any details - but perhaps a step back to explain my reasoning is in order.

1. Does FamilySearch have the capability to mark profiles read-only? Yes.
2. Does FamilySearch have a process it goes through to mark a profile read-only? Yes, apparently/by implication.
3. By 1 & 2 above, the idea I am presenting makes no change in FamilySearch's oversight of profiles - it only formalizes a path for Family Groups to assist FamilySearch in the process of making profiles read-only. Whether that ends up making Vital Records read-only or the entire profile read-only - I don't care much for the difference - and that implies that Record Hints for the profile would go away. I would only like to see profiles that are well-sourced and long established - to be protected. This is much needed such that any random possible hint - changing said vitals/relationships morphs the profile into a different person - is prevented. If vital record A is asserted on the profile and the entire Family Group says 'yea, I agree' - then I am willing to accept that vital record A belongs to the profile. If they say 'nay, I disagree' - let them state/provide a reason statement for such - and let the discussion to resolve that take place until the disagreement is resolved.
4. I think this would obviously start with Vital Records but might be extended to other parts of the profile until the entire profile reached a read-only state. Whereupon, if open-edit contributors think they have contradictory evidence - let that evidence be presented to the Family Group ...

This Idea comes from my experience with Family Tree and my own perception of 'how I wish the Tree would work'. I did not investigate the profiles @burtfamily provided which prompted this iteration of this Idea - but am willing to accept from experience that what she stated is truthful. ... I would just like effort taken to correct tree profiles to mean something - not allow them to be changed yet again...

For your point of 'divisiveness' between members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS by your jargon) and 'non-LDS' - I disagree - as represented by the fact many famous people are also read-only. FamilySearch already has the idea that prominent, well-sourced profiles do not need the assistance of open-edit - this Idea just expands this notion. There is no such divisiveness built into Family Tree - and yes all can present evidence in the same manner. This Idea would provide a path for any such Family Group to arrive at marking profiles read-only - irrespective of church membership- all/representatives would be allowed to contribute.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

One problem: how do you define the "Family Group"? Would members have to prove their descent with DNA? (And if so, then what if they live in a country where commercial DNA testing is illegal?) And, as Paul mentioned, why give descendants greater rights? Do they somehow magically acquire better insight about the people concerned?

Another problem: what about profiles for people who technically have no descendants? Who gets to decide what goes on the profile of their ancestor's childless fourth wife? Or that wife's equally-childless first husband?

And finally, the biggest problem, which applies equally to current read-only profiles: what's to stop someone from just creating a duplicate profile for the locked one? I would consider such an action to be entirely right and proper, in keeping with the collaborative nature of the tree. If you're going to lock people out of collaborating on "your" version, then those people are entirely within their rights to collaborate on a different version instead.

genthusiast

@Julia Szent-Györgyi Thank you. Good questions - as always. 👍

Generally I'm thinking of Family Group as descendants - but each family organization could probably come up with its own rules. I wouldn't say dna testing would be mandatory. And yes the further back on the Tree and the more relations - probably the more difficult it gets to ensure everyone is invited/participate. For ease of rollout I would think maybe back to 3/4 g-grandparent would be a good starting point. I think I've covered why I think descendants and cousin lines are the proper place to start a Family Group.

#4 covers subsequent duplicate 'open-edit' profiles being created. You are ignoring the effort and perhaps greater right of descendants to collaborate in a Family Group setting and have their representation/effort be 'finalized'. Yes, this Idea is a big IF - if FamilySearch chose to implement. I consider the advantage of closing a profile to edit greater than it continuing to remain open-edit - especially if sufficiently complete. Others can certainly disagree and use which ever platform allows them to collaborate as they may wish.. One advantage of closing edit is focusing effort toward parts of the Tree needing the most work. Why remain open for random/incorrect record hints to introduce corruption?

genthusiast

For clarity and reframing my intent with this Idea:

1. Clearly I am not after my version of the Tree - excepting inasmuch as my contributions are correct/truthful. This Idea invites a group to participate to arrive at such a tree/profiles.
2. I am after a truthful representation of a profile. A Family Group should be able to arrive at that - without assistance of open-edit from all FamilySearch accounts. Once a truthful profile has been produced by the effort of a Family Group (or if extending the Idea further - any one FamilySearch account which then would be relying on the truth of one person's tree) - I ask yet again the unanswered question - what is the purpose of allowing that truth to be corrupted by the profile remaining open-edit? This is especially troublesome for well-established profiles - as mentioned ...
3. The open-edit structure has been in place since nFS - can't there be some recognition/correction for this at this point? One con - to show how open-minded I am - the newly implemented alert note feature is meant to provide some impedance of profiles needless/corruptive editing - I suppose we should see how effective it is. I'm willing to continue suffering if that is FamilySearch's decision - I just don't see the benefit of profiles remaining open-edit once correct vitals/sources are attached...

I could probably go on and give a more theoretical basis for the Idea - but such should be obvious to any serious researcher - especially for near-related generations ... Plus I'm out of time ... Got to get back to work ...