Search for a person on my tree
Comments
-
This is a community discussion board for users to toss ideas back and forth and share perspectives and experiences in working with the FamilySearch website. You will rarely find any developers or programmers here. They get ideas and problems forwarded to them as appropriate by the moderators. But they almost never post any replies.
I try to sprinkle in as many "I think"s, "probably"s, and other qualifiers as needs to show these are just my thoughts as another user of the site.
If you do not find any discussion helpful, feel free to post your idea and never return to look at any user comments. If a developer wants more information from you, they will find you. But not through these boards.
4 -
No Áine. the memory limitation is my laptop and the size of my familytree. It indicates the size of my family tree not the size of familysearch total db size which never resides locally
0 -
Mod note- code of conduct violations are removed from discussions. Please refrain from attacking others and using aggressive formatting.
1 -
FYI 1.46 billion records in modern times is not big .
Modern sw systems are capable of processing 1000 times that per second back in the 1990s and now even quicker. Even my middle of the road latop top processes 50K tree in seconds.
Instead of 50+ records of the 1st 3rd party tool but a mere 19642 before finding the loop. Of this 19642 there are actually 13819 induvial peeps with the following data problems
- 32 records named ? that I cannot find or see on FamilySearch . Help please
- 15 records named unknown that I cannot find or see on FamilySearch! Help please
- 3512 Individuals with burial date after death date. This could be corrected automatically!
- 1247 Individuals with birth date greater than christening date. This could be corrected automatically!
- 362 Individuals with dates inconsistent with their parents dates . Needs genealogists and research cool! Thats why peeps use FamilySearch
- Stats 3 to 5 was processed Gedcom file on my laptop. I have other stats.
A lot of these data issues could be corrected automatically quite easily see points as points 3 and 4 above. The records in points 1 and 2 should be removed automatically has they have no real data just noise!
Please note people reading this post. Its better to have a smaller family tree of definite and a local sandbox with what if records of uncertain accuracy than a huge tree with data uncertainty!
I sincerely wish everyone I am wrong and wish everyone good luck and enjoyable and rewarding time.
0 -
For numbers 3 and 4: no, they could not be corrected automatically, because how is the computer supposed to know which date is the correct one?
Here's the Help Center article on fixing a looping pedigree: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-solve-a-looping-pedigree-in-family-tree. Of course, it kind of skips the hard part: finding that incorrect relationship that needs to be deleted. Having never dealt with this myself, I have no practical advice to offer.
1 -
The consistent advice is that the FSFT should not be the ONLY repository for our genealogical research. I maintain an offline database as well as working in other collaborative trees and with individual trees on other platforms. Having my research on other websites supports DNA. Having it offline and backed up multiple ways helps ensure my extensive work will not disappear.
4 -
None of the data inconsistencies mentioned can be fixed by automated systems. (As a side note, I think there is a typo in #3, since burial date after death date sounds just fine to me.) Obviously some have 2 or more pieces of information that conflict. An automated system can't know which piece of data to trust; if a burial date is before a death date, is the problem with a death date that is too late or a burial date that is too early, or both?
As for point #6, Family Tree uses data warnings and research suggestions to make people aware of these things. These are shown in the Research Help section of a person's page, and also many of them are shown in the various tree views. The exact list of inconsistencies that you value may not precisely match those that are flagged in Family Tree, but there is great overlap. In general, the collaborative philosophy of Family Tree is best served by making users aware of inconsistencies and encouraging them to research and fix them, rather than making hard rules about what may or may not be entered (especially when such rules might depend on comparing with other data that could be incorrect at this point).
My advice is to embrace the shared, open-edit tree. Have your heart filled with gratitude to the many thousands of people who have contributed to help get Family Tree to where it is now and who continue to contribute. Have patience and humility, realizing that although some of those contributions have mistakes, we all are imperfect and will make mistakes and hope for grace from those who encounter our mistakes. Diligently make your own contributions to the tree, correcting errors, adding sources and other documentation, and adding new people to the Tree. With so many people involved, this process can sometimes feel a bit chaotic, but it's amazing to behold what those people's combined efforts have been able to produce. The data in the Tree gets better and better in so many cases, and in those cases where it might temporarily be less than perfect, we all can help make it better.
4 -
The BYU Family History Technology Lab has a nice little program called Tree Sweeper at https://treesweeper.fhtl.org/start Unfortunately they list it as a Legacy project so I'm not sure it is something they continue to work on to keep updated and functioning. It has a setting to check seven generations of ancestors but seems to choke if checking more than four. You can set anyone in Family Tree as the starting person and have it scan to generate this type of report:
From the report you can jump directly to the person on Family Tree. Here, although the setting says Possible Errors Only, the scan does include Definite Errors. Here all the possible errors are like the one I have open in which grandparents adopted a grandchild. The program does not distinguish between biological and adopted children.
Maybe we should be sending in requests for them to continue to improve this program. It works directly from Family Tree without any need to download then import a GEDCOM.
To reiterate and explain my opposition to any type of automatic data correction in Family Tree, I am totally against such because it completely violates my personal principles of data correction which are to look at each interesting piece of data and evaluate:
- Why is this data on the record?
- Where did it come from?
- When was it added to the record?
- Who added it to the record?
- How was it added to the record?
- What is the best way in this particular situation to reconcile, repair, restore or remove this data?
6 -
It would be nice to have a search function without having to people hop or go to the records to find a person.
0 -
If this Community had a "most frequently requested/asked" list, this would be at or near the top. Every now and then, the mods combine some of the threads.
The problem, as various long-time users have said in various ways over the years, boils down to defining the scope. How exactly should FS's search algorithms determine which of the over a billion profiles in the shared Tree are related to you?
Here are a few of the discussions:
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/147633/quick-ancestor-search-in-my-tree
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/117582/how-do-i-search-my-tree
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/142197/search-for-people-who-are-in-my-family-tree
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/115815/search-my-family-tree-for-a-specific-person
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/91131/how-to-search-just-my-family-tree
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/117334/feature-request-specific-tree-search#latest
3 -
I'd like to be able to search within just my own family tree instead of just a general search. This is because my tree is so large that finding specific names and places can be incredibly difficult. Hopefully there isn't already one that I don't know about!
Some things it would be helpful to search for are:
- Names
- Places
- Specific dates
Thank you!
1 -
Requested at least once per week, every week. The issue is that the tree is ONE TREE for all, and trying to define "your family" would slow the system to a halt for all.
7 -
I find the "Following" feature covers my needs in respect of having to trace most individuals I have carried out work on, and feel it likely I will have the need to return to such profiles. True, there are a maximum of around 4,000 individuals that one user can follow, but (if you find yourself getting close to that number) you can reduce numbers by not "following" every, single relative and adding just one or two members of that branch to your Following list, to make room for more distantly related persons of different surnames.
I have added all of my ancestors to my list and still have space to include totally unrelated individuals, who I can get back to by using the options illustrated:
True this might not work too well in sorting by Place, but for names and dates it works well for me - the Label feature being an added help.
4 -
Yup, as Áine says... Most recent iteration, from a week ago: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/540631#Comment_540631. I replied with a few links to older threads.
2 -
Great idea!
0 -
That would be cool.
0 -
Mod note - Several requests for the option to search your branch of Family Tree have been merged here. The discussion is closed to reduce contention since users have very different opinions on this matter. You are welcome to upvote the idea if you like it.
0
