Moderators for individual records and/or family lineages.
FamilySearch is a valuable resource for genealogical research, but it is not without its challenges. One issue that many users face is the proliferation of inaccurate information by careless or malicious contributors. To address this problem, I suggest implementing a moderation feature that allows individual users to be set as moderators for one or more individuals in a family line.
The benefits of this feature would be numerous. It would help to maintain the quality and accuracy of information on the website, increase user engagement and satisfaction, and encourage knowledgeable and dedicated users to contribute their expertise. Moderators could be provided with training or resources to ensure they are equipped to properly curate and moderate contributions, and FamilySearch could establish a fair and transparent process for selecting moderators to ensure they are accountable and responsive to users' concerns.
To illustrate the need for this feature, consider the following example. A user has spent weeks researching their family line and has added detailed information and sources to several individuals' records. However, another user comes along and edits the records based on false or assumed information, undoing the first user's efforts. This can be demoralizing and frustrating for dedicated researchers who have invested time and effort into building an accurate family tree.
To prevent this from happening, I am proposing a moderation feature that allows individual users to apply or request to be moderators for specific records. Moderators would be selected after application/request, by FamilySearch administrators, based on their level of activity on FamilySearch, length of time on the website, and contributions to the individual record(s) they wish to moderate. Moderation rights would be shared among no more than two users, and moderators would need to maintain an active presence on the website to retain their status.
Moderators would have the authority to approve contributions made by other users, provided they are accurate and supported by legitimate sources. Contributions that do not meet these standards would either be rejected (with reasoning provided by the moderator) or remain in moderation while a public dialogue is conducted using the discussion/chat feature.
By empowering dedicated users to maintain the accuracy and completeness of records, FamilySearch can become an even more valuable resource for genealogical research.
Comments
-
I agree with this suggestion. Having been one of those researchers who has dedicated 100s of hours to a family line only to have an inexperienced person merge people to wrong people and then me spending a dozen hours untangling that mess is not only demoralizing, but also suggests the church does not value our time.
At the very least, having a moderator or two assigned to individuals within a whole family to approve a merge before it happened would be invaluable to the integrity of FamilySearch as well as show us it values our time and contributions.
i hope FamilySearch does something like this.
1 -
Resources - who's going to find and vet these moderators? Who's going to pay to train them? Who's going to moderate the moderators, resolve conflicts, etc?
I already moderate groups on other platforms. It's a thankless task and takes far more time and energy than anyone who hasn't done it realizes.
5 -
Having moderators for each family or even profile would be an impossibly large undertaking for a family tree of more than 1 billion profiles. Yet there is undeniably a problem with the current laissez-faire system, with many incorrect edits and merges made.
Perhaps a better idea is to loosely follow WikiTree's model and require "followers" of a profile to be notified and asked for permission. I suggest they should have two days to respond (if there are no followers, then the merge can take place immediately). They can vote in favour or object, but if they object they will be asked to explain themselves and reference sources.
If no one objects, the merge is approved. If only one person objects or two or more object but are in the minority, the initiator will be asked to consider the objections very carefully, but the merge can take effect a day later. If two or more object and they form a majority, then the merge is prevented from taking effect. A tied vote would be considered a vote against the merge.
This system should not usually require involvement from FamilySearch staff. Only if unsupported or bad-faith objectors are made, then FS staff may need to overrule an objection or even remove a user's right to object. As is now, FS staff would not adjudicate bona fide genealogical disputes.
3 -
This is WikiTree all over again. No thanks!
4 -
I fully agree with this recommendation.
0 -
"A user has spent weeks researching their family line and has added detailed information and sources to several individuals' records. However, another user comes along and edits the records based on false or assumed information, undoing the first user's efforts."
Now think of the same events but a different interpretation. The first user has spent weeks collecting source records and assigning them to individuals. A second user comes along and realises that the records and individuals have the same name but otherwise no connection. The second user even finds proof that Person X (at the root of it all) is still in the UK and hasn't emigrated to the USA, as the first person thought.
The first person has been appointed moderator for that line because - well, no-one else wanted the job, so I can't blame them for getting the role.
So where does this go?
The second person (me, but you probably guessed that) tries to message the so-called moderator with no result. Am I supposed to ignore the proof that the first person's work was wrong?
Unless and until the moderation process takes account of issues like this, it's a recipe for even more disaster than we have. At least in the current situation I was able to correct the errors.
NB - I'm not particularly blaming the first researcher who actually appears to have done a lot of useful work on that line in the UK - it's just that it's my line he's done the work on, and not his. And the crucial information was found in things like the 1939 Register for England & Wales, Cheshire Parish Registers and Vital Certificates for Montana, USA. None of which would have been around when the first researcher did their work. Which is another aspect - how long do you believe the first researcher's work for?
5 -
I would prefer an additional collaboration layer/feature - that minimally allows indication of collaborative agreement, disagreement or provisional status (essentially meaning further research needed or incomplete). Each vital record, memory or source could have such indication thus exposing collaborative consensus - or lack thereof. I especially advocate for changes to open-edit for near-related profiles (those in your tree that are known or well established). For more distant relations - not as well known/established in your tree - I believe the current open-edit model is sufficient. I would most wish to change/restrict near-relation profiles.
A pro of the current open-edit model is it equally allows anyone to make whatever change (allowing collaborative discussion/input)- but a corresponding con of the current model is that it values bad changes as equally as good - and thus requires following profiles 'by someone that cares' to 'maintain/revert' such bad changes as quickly as possible - rather than preventing them in the first place. If there is consensus (or authoritative assertions) of a 'sufficiently complete/correct' profile - then why allow it to needlessly change? If near-related/well documented profiles can approach this 'completeness' - then why not mark them (or perhaps partially - such as vital records) read only? I realize one main reason to keep a profile open-edit is to allow possible new source collections or memories to be attached/tagged - which thus hopefully further establish the validity and richness of a profile - but do these affect vitals? Another problem with the current model - it is easier to conflate (bad merge) a profile than to restore it to a prior /potentially more accurate condition. The logic of allowing the collaborative consensus of near-relations to be exposed should be self-evident.
One problem with implementing a moderation model sequence or timing process is that a person following/interested may not login on such a proscribed timeframe - even if they receive profile change notification (life happens).
1 -
I would prefer an additional collaboration layer/feature - that minimally allows indication of collaborative agreement, disagreement or provisional status (essentially meaning further research needed or incomplete). Each vital record, memory or source could have such indication thus exposing collaborative consensus - or lack thereof.
But we already have the Collaborate tab and a messaging facility. In the story of my Montana (non)-relatives that I referred to above, I messaged the two contributors who appeared to have contributed the most - and who had already communicated with each other via the Collaborate tab (IIRC). Both did not respond. I had replaced one major line of their ancestry - and they didn't seem to care...
That leads me to a question and an observation.
Question - if people don't use the basic facilities that exist already, why do we imagine they will use anything more sophisticated?
Observation - I totally would like to see more effective collaboration. I'm perfectly prepared to contemplate a well designed impedance on changes such as "You have X days to respond to my proposal". What I can't accept is the idea that the first person on the scene gets a permanent block on my proposals. They might be dead, lost interest (see my Montana saga) or so full of their own confidence that they dismiss my careful arguments. (Or yes, they could be snowed under with real-life...)
If near-related/well documented profiles can approach this 'completeness' - then why not mark them (or perhaps partially - such as vital records) read only?
My problem is that this sort of consensus can all be based on shifting sands - e.g. someone had a GEDCOM that said... In the Montana saga there had been a name-change that had either been missed or assumed to be a reversion to a more correct name (based on no recorded evidence whatsoever). That had led to a consensus matching the Montana guy to my grandfather's cousin in England. It would be unacceptable to me to have my GF's cousin made read-only based on no real evidence.
Sorry if this all sounds negative but until the collaboration proposals take account of the need to correct bad data as well as protect good data, then nothing will improve.
4 -
@Adrian Bruce1 sorry these minimal ideas are not more 'sophisticated' - they actually are quite simpler than the current options. It would be much easier to select thumbs up/down or question mark than to engage in a discussion about agreement, disagreement or uncertainty (but yes I agree such discussion really needs to occur) - so yes the Collaboration tab needs to remain.
The fact is - you have to expose collaboration /research or the lack thereof if you want there to be a productive discussion (though clearly not discussing is not collaborative) - this idea facilitates such - in comparison to the current model which buries 'collaborative contributions' in the Changelog/Recent Changes - in preference of only displaying the latest. Yes - the wind blows so the sand shifts - but if each conclusion attached this layer /feature - such indication would not change (but yes there could need to be a method to change one's vote to reflect learning/research).
Your rebuttal seems to ignore that this particular idea is for 'known, well-documented near-relations' which should not have as much 'shifting sand'. Yes I am looking to protect good information/profiles from bad changes (once in a good 'sufficiently complete' state why allow them to change?) - especially since I'm saying 'i know who I, my parents, grandparents ... are'. Do you really think you know them better than I do (because you found/attached ____ record(s))? One person one vote ... But maybe I haven't accounted for 'the dead voting' (there could be unforseen uses contrary to 'terms of use') - or that might create a 'burden on resources' - but I wouldn't expect such ... It a robust web application. Basically this Idea should allow 'collaboration' to shift to profiles needing it ... Rather than researchers continually redoing/changing well-established ones that really don't need further collaboration... Just indicate the 'sufficiently complete' state.
0 -
Before making any fundamental changes in Family Tree's open edit model, FamilySearch should do an analysis of whether there is actually a problem or not, with real evidence and root cause analysis. Anecdotal evidence of a problem such as is presented on these boards is the worst type of evidence one can use in such a process.
A couple of questions would need to be addressed:
1) Out of the 1.46 billion people in Family Tree ( https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/2022-familysearch-year-in-review ), what percentage have ever been involved in an incorrect conflation of two people? 1%? 0.0000001%?
2) What types of records get involved in such confusion? Ones with no sources? Ones with incomplete information?
3) What dates are problematic? That is, do incorrect changes in information occur mainly earlier than 1750 when the concept of some tiny group of people owning a record does not make any sense? How often do they occur with people born in the last 110 years?
4) What changes are simply differences of opinion? Charlemagne having his name changed almost daily from one version of it to someone else's opinion of his "correct name" is not a reason to lock his record.
5) Has the rate of conflated profiles dropped through the years? That is, did the tightening up of the Possible Duplicates and Hints system solve most of the problems? The last untangling of three profiles I did was caused by an incorrect merge in 2016 which would probably not have been presented as a possible duplicate in today's updated system.
One possible fascinating solution to part of the issue being discussed here regarding moderation of records came up in a discussion my wife had with a friend of hers who had someone add some incorrect information to his mother's profile. It would be to make use of relationship checking to determine whether one is allowed to edit a profile in combination with a certain year cut off. For example, for any profile with a birth date of less than 110 years ago maybe only a second cousin or closer should be allowed to make edits.
3 -
I really believe that this suggestion is unworkable and many have listed the types of issues that will get sticky. I have yet another.
When there is actually NOT enough information to know if person A is the same as person B, who would make the decision that they stay separate or get merged or they get added to the parents or they don't get added?
That conundrum happened with a Scandinavian ancestor of a cousin of mine. I had sources for the ancestor after he came to America as a young man around 1886, but was having trouble with his parentage and childhood. Searching the tree, I found a person of the same name - not big news for Scandinavians - and who was born approximately the same year as my cousin's ancestor. That record only had sources for the person as a child. So I messaged the username who had put most of those sources there, asking if it were possible these were the same person. Her immediate reaction was "Yes, I am sure they are" and she merged them by the next day.
Even now, I see no paper evidence to confirm this. What I did to become comfortable with this cannot be done within FamilySearch. I updated the tree in Ancestry that has my cousin's DNA test attached and found that my cousin has lots of DNA matches that share various ancestors of that line going back to the 5th greats.
But again, that kind of information will not be available to the moderator. So, for those of you who want moderators, will the moderator still get to make the "go / no-go" decision on what is "correct" when there is no conclusive paper trail?
1 -
I don't know why anecdotal evidence of the problem is bad for this particular problem - but accepted for others (it still indicates a problem) - but I would agree FamilySearch will need to do their investigation. Most Ideas probably result as a perceived solution to address a problem .. The Ideas along these lines should be meant to prevent problems or facilitate existing features to impede or recover from such problems
I'd be in favor of relationship checking/proximity having more edit privileges (and have suggested so in other ideas).
General idea comment: Further, I'd be in favor of having 'my Tree' interact with Family Tree - exposing/expressing my agreement or lack thereof - in 'automated' fashion.
Please keep in mind that the ideas I'm suggesting (in current iteration) would not affect open-edit (every user would have equal opportunity to express agreement or lack thereof - whether they take the further step of editing the profile or not) - and would apply only to 'my tree' for the most recent near-related generations that are 'known/well-documented' (it seems some rebuttals are forgetting this limited scope).
0 -
I understand your frustration. However, I don't think that it a good solution because I don't want to have to approve things and don't want to have to get someone else's approval, either, to add good sources or the like, to a person when I find them.
I do think we need a solution, though. My husband put in about 20 hours of research. He attached documents in "sources" to prove that what information he had, was backed by these sources. He even posted images of the original records as can be seen in memories. He knew which church and which subdivision of a city they were from and made sure they really belonged. A person recently went in and deleted all links to the person and all sources. Sigh. My husband is very upset.
0 -
Unfortunately, moderation schemes neither reduce conflicts nor ensure there won't be sabotage. I have been a moderator for many years on multiple platforms and it was a thankless task. Constantly people tried to play me, recruit me to play the 2-against-1 game.
5 -
(@MrsLCJ, the information is all still there and can be restored from the profile's Change Log. The unintuitive part is that you have to go back to where the information was added to find the "Restore" link.)
1 -
People making changes that are not well thought out can be a real nuisance. Especially when someone decides to merge every John Smith over several hundred miles, and creates a very energetic traveling salesman with a dozen wives. These can be tediously untangled, but not if each and every change has to be approved by some process.
I am working with records that assign a unique person to each. When I find a couple with 9 children, I have to merge a ton of people to get down to one husband, one wife, and each child listed only once. If I also have to go through, and wait weeks for, some sort of approval process, it won't be worth the hassle.
4 -
I also work on the WikiTree. There are 3 profiles for a 6th great grandfather. The creator/manager of the oldest profile is inactive on WikiTree. I have to wait 30 days after proposing the merge before I can request a merge without the creator's approval. And so on down the line.
If I also had to do that on FamilySearch, I just wouldn't bother.
6 -
It certainly seems that the idea of paid or volunteer moderators could work. Even at the size of FS - other Wikis manage it.
Not to put too fine a point on it - but the church could afford to pay a staff of reasonable size (or it could be a genealogical missionary self-calling) - if this information (and its accuracy) is important to it.
As noted - if there is perhaps not a statistical LOT of abuse or casual misapplication, then the moderation staff needed won't be egregious.
0 -
In the 2022 FamilySearch year in review, it states there were 1.46 Billion people in the family tree. How many people would be in this "staff of a reasonable size"? How many thousands of person pages would you agree to monitor, research, referee and decide what sources are correct and what are not?
5 -
FamilySearch Family Tree (FSFT) is far bigger than it's competitors. WikiTree has "only" 33.8 million, which is 2.3% of the 1.46 billion on FSFT.
If one staff member was needed for say, every 100,000 profiles, you would need 14,600 staff members. Various different public sources about FamilySearch International state it has just over 1,000 staff currently.
Something has to be done about abuse on the FSFT, but this is not the way to resolve it.
5 -
if there is perhaps not a statistical LOT of abuse or casual misapplication, then the moderation staff needed won't be egregious.
My fear is that if there are 1.46Bn profiles, then even a minimal amount of problems percentage wise, would produce a serious number in absolute terms. Further, other Wikis are updated by people who are committed to the topic. Is FS FT? How many times have some of us wondered if there is an emphasis on quantity not quality? Because if some people do think like that, then it makes the situation worse comparatively...
0 -
When the new My Tree (personal tree) feature is implemented (spoken of at Rootstech) - if it interacts with the Family Tree - that should allow everyone to minimally have input on when they agree with it or not. Thus moderation would not be needed - just put your best work in your personal tree. Family Group trees - which were also spoken about will allow consensus from the group to be communicated to Family Tree.
0 -
Kevan, the Utah Society of Mayflower Descendants guy, recently gave me an idea that sounds pretty much perfect to me. It overcomes the issues people raise about being too resource intensive because it would be managed by an existing organization that is already invested and considered the authority on these ancestors. It also is suggested it just use the existing technology to lock profiles and require reviews, simply forwarding suggested changes to a different authority (the mayflower society instead of the church). It certainly sounds doable to me. In an email to me he said:
”it would be terrific if the MayflowerSociety had some ownership of the data associated with the Mayflower, what you suggest will not happen unless FamilySearch changes its own processes and allows it. It’s interesting to note that FamilySearch itself locks down early church leadership and folks are no longer able to make effective change on the spot. It can still be done, but it goes through another process. Mayflowerfive generations should be locked down in the same way….but the church, i.e. FamilySearch, is NOT the expert on this topic and therefore has no authority to adjudicate differences of opinion.”
I would probably say start there. The experts exist and the tech exists in the tree already but only for the church to moderate select profiles. If it works well with the Mayflower society think of other expert bodies like the Winthrop society or war of 1812 society etc etc. They all have existing expertise on specific groups that are often changed far too much by less experienced people.
1 -
@Michael W. McCormick Several things are VASTLY different about the Mayflower Society. First, it is a descendancy database. All of the original people are identified that small group is the ONLY focus. FamilySearch can't do that, even with those same Mayflower lines, because people here aren't doing lineage. They are doing family history (note the opposite direction), which means we care about those spouses and in-laws of Mayflower descendants who came after the Mayflower as well as parents and siblings who stayed behind in England because they are family too. They are all important here. Second, I highly suspect people pay a nice fee to submit a lineage application for Mayflower membership and prior to admitting a new member, there is a rigorous review which likely takes up to a month or so, am I correct? Perhaps less time, but wow, how would that translate to the world tree? And what this means is a) Mayflower Society gets to have a small number of genealogists who are expert in this focused population and time period, rather than all of history for all the world, and b) that your locked lines are subject to being unlocked at any time, should there be a new source in an application for a conflicting lineage several generations down. (And when that happens, I'm sure they would communicate that IMMEDIATELY to FamilySearch). I am a DAR registrar, and the DAR database is similar, but a step away from your fixed original Mayflower population towards a more FamilySearch situation. DAR constantly has women submitting applications for a new Patriot, or a new child of a Patriot. There are also lines which become red lined when new information pops up proving that the service attributed to one John Smith was actually done by a different John Smith because the identities were confused. A whole set of applications can be declared EL (error in lineage) with the advent of one new source. This is a matter of public information and anyone has access to that kind of information Ancestor database.
Now THAT process is MUCH closer to what you are suggesting for FamilySearch, except that DAR is also focused on a limited population in a lineage context: adult men and women who supported the American Revolutionary War in some way. What you are proposing will have NO focus group at all and is not lineage, is instead the opposite direction. I could be documenting a line of my husband's which starts in North Dakota, goes to Ukraine, then Poland and finally Alsace in France, or his line to Greece, where a huge brick wall exists. What about African Americans proving they have white enslaver ancestors through the use of DNA and research. All people, all periods of history, all locations in the world. "If it works well with the Mayflower society, ....." No. An ascendancy database without any focus will be WAY too big and too unwieldy. Your group of expert genealogists will have to be FAR bigger with MUCH broader expertise than just New England colonial America. And how much time will it take them to review "lines" or people to lock down. And what is a "line" anyway? The term "line" only make sense in linage, not ascendancy.
2 -
I was saying that FamilySearch should have their partnerships division talk to lineage societies and see if they can agree on sending the moderation for those profiles to those societies. I am not saying FamilySearch should do the moderation. I am not saying that this solves it for the whole tree, but think it could be a good start. G, I wish users on here would just stop being so eager to tell people why their ideas are bad. That is far too common from far too many people. It should never happen, but you’ve spent pages trying to explain why my idea is bad. If you have a better idea just share it without focusing on mine being bad. You didn’t understand my idea anyway. That is often how it goes on forums and it is sickening (not you just the habit people have of doing that). It makes people want to give up on sharing ideas when other users always come around to say why it is a bad idea instead of being supportive. Ever hear the golden rule of speech? Nothing good to say then don’t say it. Again I am not trying to be mean here to you, but this is just a huge problem in general and people need to think about it before they post.
1 -
Ever hear the golden rule of speech? Nothing good to say then don’t say it.
This is about IT - we absolutely need to have the ability to say if an idea won't work.
3 -
As mentioned, with the announcement of My Tree and Family Trees - individuals will have greater collaborative input on ancestry and lineage (research goes both ways). This should curb any moderation bottleneck and promote more collaboration (or who knows ... generate more problems in Family Tree - but at least individuals will get to have their input) - IF methods of interacting with Family Tree are implemented.
A rebuttal 'from the armchair' carries little weight. If one has insider information about handling of Tree/record resources - then it should include as much or more detail than the Idea - not just a refutation that 'it won't work'.
Perhaps lineage societies could manage their own contributions/group trees or Genealogies:
1 -
I get the sense that I also get over on social media. Because of our different life experiences it will be nearly impossible or impossible for us to understand one another, to be reasonable, and to be kind. I am not speaking about you. I am speaking about the social dynamic on social media, politically, etc. in general. In this specific discourse I was making the point that we should be more careful how we say things so that the thrust of the comment is not to disregard someone else's suggestion. There is a constructive way to say something like "Thanks for your participation and ideas. I am not sure how this would work. Some of my concerns about this matter are: X, Y, Z." Instead of saying "I do not believe what this forum user said is true." or "That makes NO sense. You and ONLY blah blah blah. Clearly, you do not UNDERSTAND blah blah blah." Which is how a lot of people write. They are thinking about the issue and how much they disagree, but not thinking about being kind.
Frankly, it makes me not want to participate in the forum. That is the same reason I left years ago. I just came back for a day or two and people are already showing me the same issue of not thinking about being kind when they post. I guess I need to learn to be more kind myself anyway so by going through this it hopefully will make me more careful to be kind when I talk to other people, but if it keeps happening I will be leaving the forum again as I did before.
Imagine how many thousands of less confident people quit engaging because of this same feeling that I feel. I have been engaged for many years and am a leader in my work and community (like probably most of us are) when it comes to educating others and genealogy. Imagine those beginners finding this community encountering anything less than a thoughtful kind reply to their comment. They may never come back.
0 -
Aside from the manpower problem, there's another issue with making profiles limited-edit: people would do what they do now with read-only profiles, which is to create a duplicate and just work on that instead.
Nothing in genealogy is fixed and immovable. There is always the chance of new information.
4 -
@Michael W. McCormick I apologize intently if you believe I attacked personally. I am indeed very sorry. I will try to make a point a different way to show you that lineage and family history are not the same. If the Mayflower genealogists were able to lock down certain people in FamilySearch, (or work with FamilySearch to achieve that), you may achieve a lineage stability by locking down that a certain person has known parents, known spouse(s) and known children -- until someone submits sufficient proof to change that. You know that will happen because that far back new sources are being discovered and digitized all the time. How much work would it be to keep the FamilySearch lines in sync with the Mayflower lines? And what might be a bigger problem is when someone is inexperienced and submits what they think is sufficient proof, but it really isn't. How much work will it be to answer that mail? and how much cost, both emotionally and in dollars?
Another issue comes in when someone wants to upload a letter talking about how fantastic their great time X grandmother's swiss steak was, or to upload an image of a non-sourced Bible record that was inherited, or a photo or newspaper clipping. OR they want to add a marriage license when a separate marriage certificate has already been added, or a death index when a death register image is already there. All of this will generate requests for unlocking so that the documents / images / sources can be added. None of this is important to lineage, but it does serve a purpose for family history, which is the intent of FamilySearch. Will someone have to look at each and every request for a source or memory? at what cost?
1
