Allow choice to add info to Family Tree
As a Family History Consultant the most often complaints about Family Tree I get is that FS automatically merges other users info to thier tree creating duplicates. The person must then go in to their file and merge the duplicates, wasting valuable time, only to have them show up again. After a while the member just stops using FS because it frustrates them so much. Personally, I don't like it either. My once prestine tree is a hodgepoge of mutiple duplicates with incorrect information!
Instead of automatically adding names of duplicate individuals to a persons Tree, why not notify the person of a duplicate name, (an icon by the name) then allow them to compare the information, and then allow them the choice to add information to their tree or ignore it. For example, perhaps the duplicate had a birthdate your tree does not have. Just click on the birthdate and it gets added to your tree. NOT everything about the person, just what you need. Then there would not be DUPLICATE names added to a persons Tree.
Comments
-
FamilySearch doesn't do anything whatsoever to Family Tree, neither automatically nor otherwise. They "seeded" it over a decade ago with data imported from previous systems, and a lot of those duplicates have still never been cleaned up, but all of that cleanup has to be done by regular old users of the website, just like you and me.
Your phrasing ("their file", "my once pristine tree") makes it unclear whether you're aware of a very important underlying detail: the Family Tree on FamilySearch is a single, collaborative, open-edit tree. The lofty (and distant) goal is to have one (and only one) profile for every deceased person. To achieve that, any user can edit nearly anything (after signing in). It is nothing like the individual-tree websites (such as Ancestry and MyHeritage): nobody has a separate tree here, and nobody "owns" any part of it.
Your suggestion about notification and an ensuing comparison process is exactly how it already works. If the hinting system finds a possible duplicate, then it puts an alert at the top of the Research Help box. If a user clicks on that alert, he gets an opportunity to review the merge or to dismiss it as "not a match".
Clicking "Review Merge" brings up the three-screen merging process. I can't imagine completing that unintentionally or without any awareness that it's you doing it, not the system. So I do wonder: what exactly is your usual workflow, to have formed the erroneous impression of FS automatically attaching things?
6 -
Since you are a Family History Consultant, I would suggest you request a few training sessions with your Stake Temple and Family History Leaders. Your comments suggest that you do not properly understand the purpose and goals of FamilySearch's tree and how to teach everyone you work with about the great potential of Family Tree.
Yes, it does have its challenges as we learn to work together in a vibrant, living tree rather than the petrified forest of our private databases.
Yes, acting as volunteers who willingly contribute to and tend FamilySearch's tree to keep FamilySearch's tree healthy takes more effort.
Yes, being forced to consider that our conclusions might wrong and being forced to prove to all comers that our conclusions are correct can be stressful.
Yes, correcting the same errors multiple times as people transfer information from their Ancestry or other tree that was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a tree with no sources can get annoying at times and if FamilySearch could do a better job at educating new users that there is only FamilySearch's tree and all the user's data is likely already in FamilySearch's tree there would be fewer duplicates.
But these very challenges are also great opportunities to teach, expound, exhort, watch over, and encourage each other as we perfect FamilySearch's tree and finally have in one place the best information available for every identifiable member of the human family.
5 -
...petrified forest of our private databases.
@Gordon Collett I am a little surprised by your divisive/perjorative comment - especially considering how private trees are valuable! The vibrancy of one's personal tree can be equally as vibrant or perhaps even greater than the vibrancy of Family Tree - dependent on 'the arborist/gardener'.
Have you considered that a family's Memories are perhaps the richest sources that one can add to a tree/profile? If so, then private trees may contain a richer gold mine (at least to the family) than the mountain of film/fische FamilySearch has collected over the years. Why would a Family Group submit these treasures to FamilySearch - if they cannot at least expect their family groups and lineage-linked private records to maintain integrity (where correct) and with respect and consultation toward the Family Group their wishes collaboratively can be made known within the one world, one profile Family Tree? It really is an important tradeoff being negotiated! Surely the Family Tree can go ahead and create thin, possibly incorrect profiles based upon Source collections - without Family Group collaboration - as is the case with a majority of the sparse/distant generation profiles. FamilySearch does provide many resources to living descendants wishing to add connection to those more distant source-based profiles and thereby entices adding the richness of near-related generation Memories. The concern I have is for the preservation and collaborative input of these Family Groups' contributions within the open-edit Tree.
Yes there really are compelling reasons that much profile data 'should end up' in FamilySearch Family Tree - unless there are copyright or other concerns as determined by a Family Group (or even sometimes by FamilySearch). But once you verify no issues and upload to Family Tree - as you have mentioned before - there is no turning back. And the downside is the risk of others corrupting your near relation tree. If the golf swing is off - the shot will be harder to recover from.
0 -
I must say I am becoming increasingly confused about some of the ideas you are expressing on what appears to involve a suggested radical reform of the Family Tree format.
We all know / should know what to expect when we sign-up to use Family Tree - with it's (not-quite-completely) open-edit format. Then we come to realise our continued participation in the project involves a trade-off between the disadvantages: (careless / inexperienced / dogmatic) users damaging our carefully researched / inputted data - against the advantages: discovering relatives / branches that have been accurately researched and whose inputs can save us many hours / days of duplicated work.
In your comments here you talk of Family Groups, but for many of us (like me) it is a case of working very much alone (I have no known relatives who work on FT), so my collaboration is rather on an ad hoc basis. I don't see why a Family Group (I must admit I've never read-up on how they are formed, or are supposed to operate) should have any more rights to control certain sections of the tree than an individual who might well have more accurate information on a branch than a group who has come to some sort of consensus over what are the "facts" relating to the individuals included, or the branch as a whole.
On one particular occasion, I queried another user's work on a branch to which she was closely related, but which I'd only researched for "differentiation" reasons - it closely resembles one to which I am connected. Initially, she accepted my conclusions (backed-up by clear facts and sources), but then - under pressure from other family members - her attitude changed and she insisted that (totally false) information (children that were clearly not part of her family, etc.) should be reinstated to "her" branch.
My impression from your recent comments (here and in other threads) is that you would wish to see certain branches / IDs locked once a Family Group had come to agreement over the "facts" - please correct me if I am misrepresenting your views. However, although in the example given I did back-off and left the branch for closer family members to work on, it still upsets me that totally incorrect details are being displayed and that anyone should consider I have less right to correct inaccurate details, just because I am not a close family member.
Of course I am annoyed at having - from time to time - spend two or three days correcting a mass of incorrect merges and other changes - including the need to detach (thus) misplaced sources, notes, reason statements and items carried across to Other Information, which are not applicable to the ID to which they have become attached. However, I accept that is the "trade-off" for my getting so much benefit (many hours / days of research saved) through working in this collaborative project, rather than just within locked trees (say in Genealogies or Ancestry), or personal software.
Naturally, I appreciate any ideas that might stop the continual damage being performed by clueless / inexperienced users. But I just can't accept that creating a "hybrid" tree (with huge amounts of "proven" branches locked and other branches remaining completely open-edit) to be in line with the ethos of the Family Tree project.
1 -
Gordon wrote:
"... we learn to work together in a vibrant, living tree rather than the petrified forest of our private databases."
This is great, I'll have to remember it!
I admit to having given up on deciphering genthusiast's idea(s), so I will not address that part, but I disagree with the assessment of Gordon's quip as being "divisive/pejorative". It is nothing of the sort. It is simply descriptive: on individual-tree websites, the errors get entrenched (and duplicated), with very little chance of ever getting corrected, because even if they're successfully pointed out (a difficult proposition without an active/current subscription), people don't necessarily have the time or inclination to do the work, and even if one person gets around to the edit, that doesn't affect the dozens of other copies of the error. In FS's open-edit collaborative model, on the other hand, the correction only needs to be made in one place -- and I can do it myself, without needing to wait on anyone else's schedule and energies. I don't need to inconvenience anyone in order to achieve a more correct Tree.
1 -
My impression from your recent comments (here and in other threads) is that you would wish to see certain branches / IDs locked once a Family Group had come to agreement over the "facts" - please correct me if I am misrepresenting your views. ...
Naturally, I appreciate any ideas that might stop the continual damage being performed by clueless / inexperienced users. But I just can't accept that creating a "hybrid" tree (with huge amounts of "proven" branches locked and other branches remaining completely open-edit) to be in line with the ethos of the Family Tree project.
Again you have the gist of what the Ideas I propose involve - but no - my recent iteration has NO (zero, zip, nada) effect upon the open-edit context of Family Tree ...OTHER THAN ... (rather that explain the Idea fully again here - go read the Idea). Thanks for being a kinder version of 'your Ideas do not align'.
Yes I am looking for ways for Family Groups or Genealogical Societies or 'any group' to expose and preserve the consensus of their research into Family Tree. I especially focus on near relation profiles - because largely that is where personal/Family Group trees SHOULD agree/align with Family Tree - and therefore contribute to the preservation of correct lineages. A tree of any GEDCOM flavor (proprietary GEDCOMX/Family Tree, GEDCOM 7 or older) has value and should collaboratively agree in profile conclusions - the research path may differ but should arrive at the same 'sufficiently complete' profile. I believe this correct preservation will help the whole Tree to: 1. Get a correct start (golf shot idea) 2. Allow users to see where collaborative agreement/sufficient completeness - or disagreement and pending/needed research also - already exist and thereby indicate whether there is any need for them to add to it, or move on to other Tree profiles/areas needing more attention. That there could be mistakes amongst such consensuses? doesn't negate branches/trees that 'are correct' and SHOULD have expression into Family Tree.
Yes some of my Ideas may seem a radical reimagining - of Family Tree - but I like you am doing this on a shoestring budget, as a singleton (though I have a couple close confidants I have yet to present the Idea in interface format - which could take me some time - to 'rebuild the wheel'. If Julia can't figure out my Idea - then yes a prototype would probably be best. I really would prefer to build a prototype so that Community could envision these Ideas easier. I would focus on that rather than bother y'all here in Community).
Regarding Gordon's quip- yes he probably doesn't realize the perjorative nature - essentially he is saying 'petrified trees' contain no value - should be abandoned in favor of working on Family Tree - while I believe the exact opposite - they should not be abandoned. Gordon instead is focused on the many positive aspects of Family Tree (.. hopefully you can have a little pity for those - such as myself - that are continually looking at alternate models to address weaknesses inherent in Family Tree open-edit structure). Such comments exclude those collaborative efforts of family historians/others past/present from contributions to Family Tree (which are largely obscured). In my research there has been much benefit from those collecting 'private trees'. So yes I am looking to revive 'petrified trees' and make them communicative and contributory to Family Tree - not just leave their value in a 'petrified forest'.
FamilySearch asked for Ideas - this Idea is the best I could come up with. If there are better, simpler, more elegant solutions (like leaving Family Tree singly/alone without exposing collaborative agreement ...etc ) - present your best - and hopefully it will help FamilySearch in the preservation of a correct and unified Tree (leveraging the collaboration of 'private trees'). In the end I care not whether this Idea is implemented - I believe it is a good Idea - and expression of Ideas relieves my conscience that I have 'done my part to the best of my ability' to preserve a 'correct' tree branch. This is at least an Idea worth testing to see whether it is indeed complimentary to Family Tree (if not complimentary then no need to implement it). May the best shoestring Idea gain acceptance in Community!
Thanks for your consideration.
0 -
... At last, I realize that can never be, ...
@donmthomas Only if it is never built. I believe it is not impossible ... But it seems nearly impossible to convince anyone to believe it could be accomplished.
0
