My Tree, Your Tree, One-world one profile Family Tree
@genthusiast said:
Why does FamilySearch Family Tree have an antagonistic almost adversarial structure toward private/personal trees? FamilySearch allows a user to upload a personal tree, import/compare it to Family Tree but then there is no residual collaborative expression into Family Tree. My tree is a collaborative work by nature and definition (I could not create My tree without 'family collaboration') - Family Tree largely ignores this collaboration by not allowing further 'communication' from My Tree.
In a nutshell - if My Tree contains truthful assertions/documentation ... Why should there be an 'adversarial nature' to further assertions in Family Tree - if they are both TRUTH then they should reconcile/unify - not be at odds or contradictory (this argument contains much of my Ideas for FamilySearch improvement). I will have to start an Idea to continue - because this stays from this thread.
Suffice it to say - I wish open-edit wiki Family Tree purists would stop devaluing the contribution of personal/private trees - and stating 'Family Tree is not for you - go work in your own private tree/solution' - because nothing could be further from the intent of Family Tree. Shouldn't we all make peace - realize the value of individual contributions - rather than force users into a strictly open-edit collaborative model/structure? I can think of at least 3 contexts of user tree/Tree state - one of which could contain a large amount of trees - why not have a platform that addresses and communicates contributions collaboratively amongst all these contexts - wouldn't that be a better model?
Comments
-
Correction/Edit: It's not FamilySearch's attitude - to be antagonistic/adversarial toward private trees (to hopefully clarify what I state above) - but because of the open-edit wiki Tree collaborative structure FamilySearch has implemented it causes these encounters here in Community though.
Continued comment about Family Tree largely ignoring the collaborative nature of My Tree: why did FamilySearch choose to largely ignore this collaborative aspect of private trees? There is very good/strategic reasoning. Platform buy-in/adoption. Besides the seeding of Family Tree with data from prior iterations - FamilySearch wanted to implement this new collaborative model - they basically wanted everyone to join up and restart collaborating. It is difficult to start a new model/structure without picking a 'starting point'/forcing a reboot/restart to collaboration.
So ... My Trees is good - it does allow a static representation of My Tree (but collaboration involved is stripped by not allowing Sources). Pedigree Resource File - I am unsure of whether the sources are fully expressed - but again does not allow residual expression through to Family Tree (it is also separate). We need to resolve this conundrum... i.e. allowing residual collaborative comment of private trees that is expressive to Family Tree and have an end to open-edit/private tree 'warring' here in Community.
Implementation of GEDCOM 7 could go a long way toward resolving this IF FamilySearch chooses to implement contextual (user role) login support for My Trees (my research state tree)/Family Group trees.
And to be clear - 3 different login contexts - one of which being Family Tree - means that the other two 'witnessing trees' would have no effect upon the state other than to express/expose agreement or disagreement (consent/dissent) with Family Tree. I realize there are some solutions which 'communicate/sync' with Family Tree - but I am unaware of any that allow expression of profile dissent (there simply isn't a profile/artifact attribute for such - to my knowledge). Yes I can undo, redo Sources/Memories/Details or create a duplicate profile and just merge the current state back into that duplicate - such does express dissent - but should I really have to when (if My Tree is 'current') my truthful assertions already exist in My Tree. Plus such Tree manipulation - really just obscures and makes such profile merges more difficult to decipher. Why not just expose such consent/dissent when someone tries to change the profile initially - if they read/understand the profile 'fully' - such should dissuade/impede changes.
If you think people don't understand the context of Family Tree - why not give them two more contexts to be confused about - rather than trying to mash all contexts into Family Tree?🤪 Yes it would be nice to have a single solution - but why not a single solution 'witnessed' (2 Corinthians 13:1"...In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.", etc.) by two other contexts/contextual trees (representative of a chain or 'cloud of witnesses')?
Such implementation would be a FamilySearch development decision - but would NOT create a continuing administrative burden to FamilySearch (being the ready/standing objection to such proposals) - the individual user(s) would retain edit privileges.
This largely expresses my Idea (the rest is mainly interface details/preferences - with some innovations).
0 -
I guess just call me Treebeard. Time for an Entmoot. "[You mean trees can talk to each other!?]"
0 -
I also do NOT think the relationship is adversarial at all .
BUT the entire design of FamilySearch - from the ground up - always has been with the collaborative paradigm in mind. It has been a very conscious decision from day 1.
BUT If you want a private tree - you can actually create one in the Pedigree Resource File area
FamilyTree has always been and and far as I can tell always will be - a collaborative system
There are plenty of other systems out there - that allows users to create private trees - FamilySearch is not trying to compete with them
here are some videos that I usually share on the subject
WHY USE FAMILYSEARCH FAMILYTREE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwRSRZ9amlM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epUcr4cH_EQ
The Pedigree Resource File section of FamilySearch does allow users to upload private trees
see: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-is-the-pedigree-resource-file
(but that is totally outside of Family Tree portion of FamilySearch)
0 -
the initial links I shared - were incorrect - but I updated them - if you check the posting in FamilySearch it now contains the correct links
0 -
Yes - I'm not sure you are contributing much on this Idea... But that's ok the posting space is free.
What this Idea is about; GEDCOM developing capability for other trees (My Trees, PRF, or who knows Ancestry or others that might adopt the possible Idea/specification) to collaboratively express consent/dissent with Family Tree.
0 -
I think those videos are very nice - in helping people understand the collaborative paradigm
That was my only main contribution.
but FamilySearch FamilyTree is not for everyone . . . it was never designed to be.
0 -
but FamilySearch FamilyTree is not for everyone . . . it was never designed to be.
Completely false statement - please stop using this incorrect/divisive fallback. Community is to welcome Ideas not prevent them. Family Tree was designed for everyone. What this Idea points out is how there are multiple contexts for interaction with Family Tree mashed together - which result in obscuring individual research/tree contributions into the one Family Tree. This Idea hopes to introduce the possibility of resolving these multiple contexts.
0 -
Familytree was not meant for people trying to maintain a database that they want total control over and dont want others to touch. There are other systems that easily allow for that,
2 -
That's not completely true either? (keyword: total) - Family Tree accepts GEDCOM import/comparison/sync - and as far as I know - still allows those bent on 'control' to overwrite existing profiles as mentioned in the Idea above (yes there might be consequences but I think it still allows such?).
Additionally - Family Tree was not meant to exclude any excepting those not willing to abide it's Terms of Use.
0 -
FamilySearch accepts GEDCOMS - agreed.
But FamilyTree (a section/portion of FamilySearch) allows any other user to modify, edit, change family tree data in a collaborative system - thus my statement that it is not designed for people wanting total control and no one else to edit.
Yes - you can upload a GEDCOM - that was what I pointed out previously about Pedigree Resource File. But that "locked GEDCOM" is outside of the Family Tree portion and is in its own section and outside of the collaborative database called FamilyTree.
FamilyTree and FamilySearch are not synonymous
0 -
? Ok. And? This is nothing additional to the Idea (it was already previously stated - please read and consider the Idea - not the current state of things). This Idea wishes people to consider an 'inclusive/expressive' interaction between 'private collaborative trees' and Family Tree (amongst other things). Yes, Family Tree does not currently accept the collaborative nature of 'private trees' - thus this Idea. In this Idea Family Tree is only one user context - and yes largely for collaborative input from 'the world'. And I have to point out that Family Tree - at least to my current knowledge - does still accept GEDCOM import (as mentioned above).
This Idea hopefully suggests a possible way to resolve this ridiculous separation into camps (especially here in Community) - Family Tree open-edit vs. private...
0 -
The minute you make portions of Family Tree private - you violate the basic rule of the entire collaborative Family Tree system- which has been its driving factor since day one - that of a system where "there is (should be) ONE record for any given deceased person" - one record for any member of humanity.
Private trees (duplicated data) would need to be outside of such a structure which they are (in the Pedigree Resource area).
Based on years of working with Family Tree employees and leadership and knowing of their guiding values - I don't ever see that paradigm changing - though for other areas - people could/can indeed have private family trees. There are many things that COULD be - but based on the guiding values of the leadership of FamilySearch - I do not foresee any change to the non private nature of FamilyTree.
1 -
1) The minute you make portions of Family Tree private - you violate the basic rule of the entire collaborative Family Tree system- which has been its driving factor since day one ...
2) Private trees (duplicated data) would need to be outside of such a structure which they are (in the Pedigree Resource area).
1) You still have not read the Idea or your statements do not appear to demonstrate such - or if you have - I bow to your superior knowledge that nothing will come of it... Thank you for demonstrating the difficulties with sharing Ideas here in Community. Again ... In this Idea nothing about the structure of existing Family Tree changes OTHER THAN allowing collaborative input (expression of consent/dissent ... And I would add 'Provisional' - much like the way FamilySearch implemented Places) from 'other trees' which DO reside in a different user contextual login space. Again - I cite the Idea - to resolve this conundrum and 'do away with contention and disputation' are very good reasons for such development consideration (sorry I am being somewhat abrupt - but I'm tired and frustrated with Ideas here in Community that only get 'canned responses' - if you couldn't tell...You and I definitely are not Ents.)
2) yes, exactly - in this Idea this is done through user-contextual login.
Now how do we get the Idea implemented to allow expression into Family Tree...? Obviously I need to understand the gedcomx and gedcom.io process for submitting rfc/Idea to someone that can do something ... I submitted it here because that is what FamilySearch wants.
0 -
I dont dispute any of your ideas about how things COULD be. How they could work - to meet certain people's wishes.
but again - Im speaking from the perspective of how this aligns or doesnt align with FS Leadership's guiding principles - principles which have been in place for many decades.
and that is always the caveat in presenting ideas to FamilySearch . . . they may make perfect sense to you - and they may be sound technically . . . but that is not always enough.
Do I honestly think the idea will go anywhere - frankly I dont - BUT That should not be any negative on you or your idea - which may be fully technically sound. As far as I can tell - you seem like a very smart person!!
and all of this is just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt. I am not a spokesperson for FamilySearch.
0 -
"FS Leadership's guiding principles" I'm sure are stated succinctly somewhere that could be easily cut/pasted - but off the top of my head - as far as I know the guiding principles are mainly 'to preserve as correct a genealogy as possible - one correct profile for everyone that has ever lived - and allow collaboration in that process'. If such is accurate - then this Idea (from my perspective) is in perfect alignment.
Current collaboration largely/potentially ignores the collaborative aspect/nature of 'private trees' - essentially excluding those that are keeping data separate from Family Tree. The current Family Tree (unless there is some background manipulation - which I suspect) - at least theoretically risks not preserving correct user-submitted contributions (collaboration conflation rather than preservation). This Idea - attempts at least - to expose those conflations and hopefully impede/prevent such within Family Tree. This would allow further collaboration really (consent/dissent - Mosiah 29:26 "...to do your business by the voice of the people."; D&C 28:13) - I wouldn't see how that could be against 'guiding principles' - but possibly I might be missing something.
I really am just an Idea person - the technical aspect is lacking - but I have put much thought into current Family Tree structure and how to maintain that - while still allowing collaborative input from other trees (it has taken me a while to arrive at this Idea - just view the record). FamilySearch can take the Idea and do as they wish. They possibly ignoring another Idea without feedback as to how it might compromise 'guiding principles' - is just the risk I take in sharing the Idea. I like the Idea - and I believe it has merit. I don't know if it is technically sound nor if it would cause problems with implemented Family Tree model (it likely would involve rebuilding/reincorporating/duplicating existing components that may make more sense in a different user context) - but I wouldn't know why viewing it from the outside. As far as I know - it would involve developing a path/mechanism to allow 'my research state tree' (amongst others) to collaboratively comment on profile artifacts - Details, Sources, Memories and Conclusions - such that a profile 'degree of agreement' notation is generated/exposed to anyone viewing the profile in Family Tree. That's all - display my contributory agreement or disagreement collaborative input (it is a different/complimentary collaborative model that adds more to the currently implemented model) - rather than 'taking control' and editing what I believe into the profile (and for near-relations 'know') to be correct. It would allow me to keep my 'research state tree' separate/intact such that others could compare it to the current profile in Family Tree - see the differences - and choose/notate their agreement/disagreement with Family Tree. It would further - allow those wanting to work in 'My Tree' to add such collaborative input - it would not require them to work in Family Tree - where collaborative edits could change/distort their contribution. I guess extension of the Idea might include profile replacement (one profile/couple/family group 'winning the vote') ... At some point ... But this Idea is not advocating for that conclusion. The simple fact is - if my research is correct and if Family Tree is correct - they both will agree - not disagree (my research state should witness the truth of Family Tree and vice versa).
Yep I feel the next objections coming ... Before you say it just know "how would that be any different than current Family Tree?"
It relieves my conscience to know that I have presented a valid Idea.
@Dennis J Yancey thanks for your input (round 1).
0 -
I like the Idea of have personal trees, like Ancestry, and I also like the idea of a world tree, maybe they could set it up so people could have both. That is how I would run a site if it was me, this is because of so others can see what you have instead before it is inputed into the world, IF they want accuracy than what is Family search going to make sure it is accurate, and clean it up.
1 -
Indeed one CAN have both
Family Tree is the Collaborative Public Tree
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/overview
and Pedigree Resource Files are the Private trees
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-upload-my-gedcom-file
0 -
Problem with Pedigree Resource File, People are not allow to keep them up to date and you are not allow to keep adding info to them. Once you upload a gedcom You can not add on to them. 👽️☹️
0 -
you simply remove the 1st GEDCOM and add a 2nd GEDCOM - its as simple as that.
indeed once you upload it - it is read only - but thats by intent/design.
It is a mirror image of a local database / off site database. If that off site database is updated - a new GEDCOM can be uploaded to represent that point in time.
Pedigree Resource Files are not deigned to be updated directly in FamilySearch - rather the data is updated in the database or system that created the GEDCOM in the 1st place. (RootsMagic, Ancestral Quest, Ancestry, FTM, etc)
1 -
Agreed; however, the collaborative expression of such is not ported to Family Tree - this is what this Idea is all about. I am NOT arguing for data transfer. This Idea would allow you to contextually login to a dynamic version/state of 'your research/tree' (as @s10297588641 intimates above) - not a static one - your 'personal research space/tree'. The components of such within Family Tree are mashed and spread throughout and do not allow you to retain 'your tree contributions' in tree format. This Idea would resolve this 'conundrum' with a contextual login...and resolve worry/disputes here in Community - "where is my tree?"..."why did someone change my tree?" It would allow comparison and communication of consent/dissent from/to Family Tree - that is all. In my initial posts above I already mentioned Pedigree Resource File (PRF) - I don't deny it's existence - this Idea suggests its further development. I seem to recall lingering questions about its completeness of retaining/display of Sources/Memories included - I seem to recall 'problems' from prior posts/threads.
Current 3rd party tree management applications, Ancestry or other online solutions could develop such functionality or not. If users prefer those solutions to a contextual login - fine - the user can choose what they will. I don't particularly care which app(s)/platform(s) develop/include such a solution - but think it would make more sense as contextual login at FamilySearch.
correction/edit: Where I state 'profile/artifact attribute' above (2nd post?) - I believe is incorrect terminology and may confuse the GEDCOM developer - I believe more correct terminology would be ' profile element/component'.
0 -
There are indeed existing ways to port the data from Pedigree Resource Files to Familytree and leverage the collaborative expression.
BUT many people cringe with its use - because so many people have the erroneous idea that what they are doing wont affect anyone else - and do a sloppy job of the tedious work in correctly doing the sync - and then wreak havoc on work of others - when they update FT with a GEDCOM which has very poor data quality - - yes indeed this area could be improved - I dont debate that. But a large portion of people - simply want people updating directly into Family Tree withotu GEDCOMS - because it vastly reduces the chances for hundreds if not thousands of duplicate records being created and / or good data being replaced with crappy data - because people are so careless and sloppy and simply want to do whatever they can to get the system to consume the file as quickly as possible
2 -
. . and when you do a "SEARCH GENEALOGIES" in FS Search tab - it is searching the Pedigree Resource Files - -
it is not correct to say the data can not be leveraged collaboratively - though indeed maybe not in the way you envision.
1 -
Again - this Idea is NOT about syncing/porting profile data! I never said (or don't think so) anything about the data not being able to import (which this Idea strictly makes no comment on) ...Only consent/dissent or 'provisional' agreement of that profile/ 'artifact' based on one's 'personal research tree/state'. It is a 'different collaborative model/process' than currently exists.
1 -
people can search/view the data in the PRF and decide to make it part of their personal research tree / local database.
BUT I agree there are definite ways this could be improved.
1 -
@Dennis J Yancey Thanks for agreeing there could be improvements. I hope this Idea is one that will be considered.
0 -
In so many cases it comes down to resources.
FamilySearch has MILLIONS of users - and yet doesnt charge a dime for its use.
They have to be extremely judicious in how they spend their limited resources.
there are literally many tens of thousands neat ideas, valid points, solutions to technical issues
but in the end - so many of such valid good requests - never get implemented because of
- lack of resources
- just doesnt fit into the current projected work for the forseeable future
- is for an area of FS that just doesnt get the attention / use / resources other areas do [Pedigree Resource File - definitely applies here]
- Just flies in the face of some of the guiding principles of FamilySearch
- items that may make sense for someone trying to fill short term goals - but may conflict with other long term goals of FS.
- Numerous other factors - both simple and complex
You have some very valid concerns/suggestions - - - - that was never my debate
BUT in the end FS has a very tricky job in taking millions of suggestions and deciding which ones actually get worked on - let alone trying to respond to anyone submitting a suggestion.
BUT surely improvement in such areas is a GOOD thing to always be working on.
1 -
Glad to reach the 'administrative' level decision response.
> My response to line items listed
- lack of resources > valid. I don't know the state of FS 'resources'
- just doesnt fit into the current projected work for the forseeable future > valid - but 'time is running out' - work harder/smarter... If the Idea is worth it (cost/benefit)- it really shouldn't be too hard for FS to implement - did you see their announcement for implementing gedcom 7 into 'My Trees' (otherwise known as PRF in this conversation)? Too bad this Idea missed the development cycle...but hey this would be an 'element/component' (well add the contextual login and moving/duplication of resources) - should take less than a year (roughly the time for the development in the announcement). If you are saying 'the perfect solution is too close at hand - no need for further development' - ok, why GEDCOM 7 now? Why acknowledge initial design 'flaw(s)' now?
- is for an area of FS that just doesnt get the attention / use / resources other areas do [Pedigree Resource File - definitely applies here] > understand but disagree - especially if value the collaborative expression considered - this is a worldwide platform - why would you want to exclude accuracy commentary on Family Tree profiles from anyone 'preserving' their family history? Maybe if implemented - it (PRF) would be more used... Great if PRF is the path to implementation - we are mostly there ... Just implement the rest of the Idea ... Valid point - just upload static tree(s) and don't expect collaboration as envisioned in this Idea.
- Just flies in the face of some of the guiding principles of FamilySearch > flat disagree - read the Idea - where does it 'fly in the face'?
- items that may make sense for someone trying to fill short term goals - but may conflict with other long term goals of FS. > Flat disagree - the long term goals align. Which long term goals do you claim do not align? Long term goals are composed of short term?Unique/accurate profiles? It aligns perfectly - review the Idea again.
- Numerous other factors - both simple and complex > go ahead and name them
Thanks for constructively acknowledging the validity of the Idea and then 'trashing it' - that makes sense?? Also - thanks for the cut/pasted 'canned/ready response' ... I seem to vaguely recall it from another thread somewhere. Luckily I can just take it with a 'grain of salt' as your opinion. Oh well since I bow to your more intimate knowledge of FamilySearch...
I guess I'll just have to more assertively make any profile changes I please/deem correct then and make Alert Notes galore. Or merge current state into 'correct' duplicate to express my dissent. Yes I can certainly work within the current version...
0 -
any further discussion I would think would be best with a FS employee - which I am not.
They are the ones - deciding the priorities - not me.
I have shared my thoughts based on over 40 years of working within the LDS/FamilySearch framework.
sometimes what people perceive as what should be the short / long term goals of FS are not actually what they are (based on those deciding the priorities and what their REAL actions have traditionally been in the past)
Good luck in finding someone to listen who is also in a position to make a difference and to take the time to give you detailed answers to your comments.
But I wish you the best. I really do.
I believe I am just as much a proponent of improvement as you are.
1 -
To the reader:
Questions that need resolution: Why should not my collaborative work in My Tree be valued as much as and be congruent to collective collaborative Family Tree? Shouldn't both trees agree? Then why not value My Tree more? Otherwise - is my collaboration really being valued?
I believe this Idea defines a profile accuracy 'problem' in Family Tree. It values only one tree result over - a 'correct' profile. This leads to all sorts of problems and contention - because one believes ones research is accurate/'correct' - as one should. A slight problem in a tree seed/branch - an incorrect profile - is much like a golf swing - the result can end up far astray from the 'aim'. One user cannot Follow enough people nor maintain enough profiles - to retain an accurate Tree - without collaborative agreement from others. This collaboration is largely obscured within Family Tree.
The goal of this Idea is to attempt to deal with this 'problem' - and presents a different 'collaborative model' for arriving at the single 'Family Tree'. It adds collaboration and does nothing to detract from the fully open/collaborative current Family Tree model/process. Interaction with Dennis J Yancy - has been 'fruitful' - though not an entirely welcome process/result (if his valid points end up being predictive). Either FamilySearch will continue with one solution - Family Tree - will contain multiple user contexts mashed together into a single whole - or could (if it chose to) - separate into at least two but preferably three user contexts - which I believe 'preserve' ones tree contributions more accurately (or I wouldn't have presented this Idea). I believe this is totally in alignment with the guiding principles, priorities and goals of FamilySearch.
The potential exists for focused parts of this Idea to 'be mashed into' the 'one solution path' - probably as another impedance layer. I don't see why there would necessarily be anything that would prevent that potential. Hopefully the Idea will bear some fruit toward reducing complaint and adversarial antagonism between open-edit Family Tree 'purists' and 'My Tree' adherents here in Community - ones tree has value and adds much to Family Tree - whether the Idea goes anywhere or not. Your tree exists within Family Tree - it just has multiple contexts which obscure your family's 'collaborative contribution' - possibly excepting where your 'collaborative contribution' retains 'such exceptional value' that it remains 'untouched' - which likely is closest to near-relation/living profiles.
Truth will prevail whether this Idea does or not.
Thanks for your consideration.
0 -
The potential exists for focused parts of this Idea to 'be mashed into' the 'one solution path' - probably as another impedance layer. I don't see why there would necessarily be anything that would prevent that potential.
A bit of clarification: contextual login and consent/dissent and provisional would require a separate tree state for My Tree - this part of the Idea falls apart without such tree state access. Interestingly - and hopefully my thinking is 'straight' on this statement - contextual Family Group login would not fall apart - maybe this is a path forward - I would prefer Family Group profile acceptance/rejection anyway. An entire group coming to the same conclusion IS much more convincing than an individual. But Family Groups are made of individuals ... Nope a separate per user/group state would be required ... Too bad.
0
