"Verified" button
We use "Like" buttons everywhere. How about using a "Verified" button next to a Fact, that we checked?
- Verified: NUMBER
If you checked and verified that Fact too
- Verified: NUMBER + "You"
Than you would know that you already checked it too and how accurate the data is.
If the data is changed, just reset the counter to ZERO.
If I see that a Fact is already checked like a 100 times, I think it might be quite accurate.
Comments
-
That is a good idea as most of the time facts don't come in 2 versions. But sometimes they do. A cousin of my grandfather has a birth date in his obit, tombstone and death certificate. Then - surprise! - his birth certificate was released. Not only is his birth date different, he was a twin, which was not documented anywhere. His sister died at 3 months.
So the "old" birth date is certainly verified in very reputable sources, but turns out to be incorrect.
2 -
Facts can come in to versions. Your grandma's handwritten, 100 years old version with shaking hands and unreadable, and than the truth :) I'm struggling with this problem :)
I think we all understand what you mean. I see that problem too a lot. Like 2 different wedding year in the couples death certificate. Then you actually see the wedding certificate... and both is wrong :)
Personally, I would disable the verified button until a person is actually browsed to THAT certificate or record (if any). Otherwise, people could verify by checking their own family books, that might be completely wrong.
"Verified by a Certificate" - only
1 -
We see - every day - the wrong record/certificate attached because of same-name confusion. A "verified" button might only mean that one contributor thinks the research is correct. And it might stop someone else from researching and finding the correct records.
5 -
Then skip it. But a real researcher double checks it and verifies it too.
Personally, I check everything. Which is also would be great to see if I have checked it too.
The other problem is if someone changing the data. How do you know if you checked that change?
You might believe it's correct, because in your memory "I already checked it"
1 -
If you Follow the person profile you should be alerted to any changes - but I agree - once you've check d the change you should be able to indicate that you agree (or not). Just because some profiles might be wrong doesn't mean those that are correct shouldn't have such a feature (my opinion).
0 -
To follow thousand's of people is a bit to much. Specially when you just helping out other people to build their family tree.
People takes things way to much seriously (word-by-word). So maybe "Verified" is a bit to much. Your choice of word is better "Agree"
But of course, "so far". It's also like leaving a mark behind "I was here. Don't check it again for a hundred times!"
A person who is just checking his family tree would say:
- Hmmm, 100 people agrees? This MUST be correct.
A real researcher would say:
- Hmmm, 100 people agrees? This just MIGHT be correct.
1 -
ImreSzabó24 I understand your frustration, and sympathize whole-heartedly. But unfortunately I don't think a "Verified" button will solve the problem, as there will still be people who think that "Ancestry.com" or "GEDCOM" or even "my grandmother" is a valid source.
Add sources. Link to sources. Note sources in the "Reason This Information Is Correct" box. And if there isn't a link to an image of the source, *include the information from the source*. And if there are conflicts in two sources for the same event (different dates on death certificate and headstone, say), note that!
What I'd wish for is that in order to contribute to the FS Family Tree, a new user must take a training course emphasizing both the necessity of citing primary sources, and that genealogy isn't a matter of collecting names as quickly as possible.
1 -
I think most of you misunderstanding this. It's NOT really about "Verified", I just used the wrong word.
Don't take it word-by-word. @genthusiast used the correct word, "Agree".
The subtitle IS
- "I was here too and others who agrees, great!"
No, it's not frustration, just a little improvement.
But since this little thing causing this much headache for you guys, let's just forget it.
Now, I have been doing genealogy research for 19 years now, since 2004 and programing On-line and off line genealogy programs since than. It just feels as you guys has lack of imagination, how this little thing could help out.
And since I've been doing this for a loooong time, !!! MANUALLY !!! I already have ALL the info in my GEDCOM file. Thousands of people and +1000 families. Yes, that many. I already have the certificates even on papier :) I'm just placing up all my info here at FS. I know where to look :) Even if they are NOT indexed. FS is a great tool !!! I wish I would find it sooner !!! Yes guys, this is a compliment. I can verify everything, it's like not only double, but triple checking.
The NEXT step would be to be able to see what I have "Agreed" on, where was I ? To be able to search for it under "My Contributions".
- Where was I ??? Did I finished this person ??? "Did I hit the button "Agree" ???
If someone would make a change the "Agree" would be reset to zero.
- Did I finished this person? No, there is no "Agree" in "My Contribution", than let's check it out.
Now, I have this function in my off-line server and it's great! I know what I'm doing, and where I am and what comes next. Do you? :)
Every body who is doing genealogy stuff understands, that there is no such thig as "guarantee" or "verified".
I just used the wrong word accidently, but it did triggered you guys :)
Personally I give up this idea, to give you a hint for improvements. I use this in my off-line server, so for me it doesn't matter...
2 -
I like the concept of sources or facts having "agree", "disagree" (with a pop up text box to explain why) and "maybe" (again with a pop up text box to explain why. Now THAT is a great idea!
0 -
Yes, that was the idea. BIRT, CHR, DEAT, facts etc...
How do you mean, why disagree? If you disagree, you can just change it with an explanation why.
"Maybe" sound good "I'm not sure about this, so watch out !!!", But than again, everything is just a maybe :)))
I like you, you have ideas, visions, imagination. Good! Continue, go for it!
0 -
@Gail Swihart Watson Wait, I think I got it. You mean "disagree". You dont want to change anything, you just want to alert?
1 -
@ImreSzabó24 it sounds like we have similar creative ideas ... I've suggested the same thing and gotten the same sorts of replies. Anyway the reason I think disagree should be an option is the same reason for agree and 'maybe' for tracking/marking purposes - do you know the status of your work on the profile - but also to make the collaborative agreement more visible than the 'latest changes' addition. In other words it would allow those pursuing the profile to visibly see where the was consensus. The only reasonable drawback that has been mentioned is that it might allow unscrupulous to manipulate that consensus easier (which I hadn't really thought about) - thus my suggestion that perhaps these marks would only be visible to the person making them - but result in an overall percentage agreement that would display consensus or lack thereof.
0 -
@ImreSzabó24 You are correct, I rarely change facts (I have done it only in one extreme case) and I never remove sources. I do this out of respect for collaboration. Instead I add comments to sources such as "I believe this Civil War pension is inappropriately associated with this man. Note this man was deceased before the war began." If I know the person who added the incorrect information, I don't even do that. I have numerous relatives who are at various stages of learning genealogy, and with them I collaborate completely behind the scenes. I do not want to burn bridges or stop communication by publicly embarrassing them.
0 -
...and I never remove sources
How can you never do that? Surely that's the whole idea of "Review attachments"? You find a christening or census record has been attached to the wrong ID, so transfer it to the person to whom it does apply. If we fail to correct inaccuracies, we might stop getting cooperation from one contributor (who probably made a genuine error), but at least (by reassigning the source) we are helping everyone else who is interested in that family branch to be presented with the facts.
Sorry, but I'd sooner "burn bridges" than go along with blatant errors. Okay, you might be adding an explanatory note, but even my Alert notes are often completely ignored by users who are happy to use "Ancestry" as their reason statement in adding a wrong source or relationship. So, sorry, I wouldn't recommend your lack of corrective action to other FT users. When you say "I rarely change facts", you surely mean you "rarely change fiction", if indeed you are sure that a mistake has been made, however unintentional?
2 -
Personally I gave up this idea, but now I have no other choice but to bring this back up.
Personally I change facts when wrong. But disagree sounds good for me. It's like "I'm not sure"
- "it sounds like we have similar creative ideas ... I've suggested the same thing and gotten the same sorts of replies."
#metoo or U2 :)) The lack of imaginations...
- "thus my suggestion that perhaps these marks would only be visible to the person making them - but result in an overall percentage agreement that would display consensus or lack thereof."
It's ok for me. As long as I see what I'm doing, it's fine.
Even a disagree? If people dont see that, they just might think that its correct. A "maybe" should sound an alert.
It's just a like/dislike button like on YouTube. No names, who thinks what.
I upload a picture for you all to see why we need an "agree" button. If this still don't convince you to agree to have this opportunity... I'm done here for good...
Background: Unfortunately there are these name collectors, who does nothing but pulling names together, just because it "looks" god. They don't do any research, not reading the documents, not filling out the details.
You know what I'm talking about...
Here is this guy "Randall"... He loves to mess up everything. See the picture. Tomorrow I will clean up this mess.
BUT !!! How do I know where I was, what I checked? How can I agree (or disagree) to some data that I checked? I don't want to recheck everything more than once.
That's the big question.
I contacted the original submitter, to get some help, but almost 2 weeks has passed and no answer. So this is a solo cleanup. And this is just ONE of many messed up families from Randall & Co...
Take a look at this picture. How many families (husbands) does she have? The first one she married 5 years after he's been buried :)
How do I know what I already checked ???
Poor Julianna, she had a very busy life with all these man, both alive and dead.
Wish me luck to clean this up...
0 -
Even a disagree? If people dont see that, they just might think that its correct. A "maybe" should sound an alert.
When you would do a profile review - you would have the option to mark each element (names, dates, places, relationships ...) - agree, disagree or maybe (more research needed) - you would see what you have marked but others would only see either an accumulation tally or percentage - thus would indicate (at least for those following terms of use - subtracting errors) consensus of agreement, disagreement or need for more research. I would find such an improvement of the collaboration model currently implemented - when I have to investigate the entire Latest Changes an di my own painstaking analysis to arrive at what might be a similar end result (the ability to see if I agree with the entirety of the profile or not - or what additional research is needed). Makes sense to me ... But I seem to be the only one?
Well...I wish you luck in correcting Juliana's busy life ... It looks like maybe a few duplicate husband and some children to sort.
Keep the imagination alive ...
0 -
I see I missed quite a bit here, but I had a family situation in another state and had to do other things for most of April. I apologize to people who mentioned me in comments and I did not respond. ImreSzabó24 and Paul W, I see no problem with YOU or anyone changing facts and removing sources when they are wrong. Go for it. On my part, I would rather have people see a fact, see my comment and learn something from it. "This person was NOT married in Kentucky. Kentucky did not exist in 1780. Read the marriage source; it says Virginia." or "This person did not have this Civil War pension. This person died in 1858 and and the Civil War did not begin until 1861. It is possible his son of the same name is who had this pension." My hope is to get people to learn history by not removing or editing information / sources. (I almost put learn history in all caps, but I managed to contain myself.)
When people are a total mess - such as Miss Juliana - that is a little bit different, in fact a lot different. It's kind of a different beast than what I described above. A serious commitment of time is implied, even if you KNOW the fixes. When you aren't sure of the fixes, and see that people or information has been added with out sources, you are going to have to carve out several weeks on your calendar to fully research and sort it out. Yes, I have those spots and they are on my to do list, but not high at present.
My recommendation is to not do this alone. If you have or see distant relatives of this line, try reaching out and inviting them to collaborate with you. Kind of like building an army. That has worked well for me, and not because it was my idea, but because I was one who was invited to join the collaborative research. It was wonderful! And in the process we bumped into a group of more distant cousins in Europe who joined the research pack. It was a very cool experience. None of us has met face to face, by the way; not even the collaborators here in the States.
1 -
- "When you would do a profile review - you would have the option to mark each element (names, dates, places, relationships ...) - agree, disagree or maybe (more research needed)"
Absolutly! Thats the idea! Otherwise you don't know what you checked, whats needed to be more research on. Or just to be careful. "agree, disagree or maybe" It doesnt really matter what they called as long as people get it :)
PS: The next step would be to add this to the family tree view! You can already see "Vitals missing", some new document is there etc. Imagine, if you could see also what you did NOT checked! To browse around hundreds of people manually, just to check what you checked or forgot or if someone made an update, you would be able to see it immediately. I'm using tree view to see if there is a data problem or research help has something somewhere. Just open tree view and voila!
What a great tool! Remember Mr Bond, that this next step is a secret "For your eyes only"! Dont tell anyone !!! We have to sell this first step first :(
- "(the ability to see if I agree with the entirety of the profile or not - or what additional research is needed). Makes sense to me ... But I seem to be the only one?"
Nopp, you are not the only one. That's the next step :) See it in the tree view, easy... "There is something here you forgot to check" (or what ever)
Back to the first one... Yes, it would be great to see what we are doing, where we are, what we checked
About Julianna's busy life, her husband are not just duplicated, they are different people with the same name. Their birthdays are different :( And the husbands FAMC is a mess too.
I'm not going to clean it up fully, but only what I have to. I don't know where I am...
If these two step function would be available, I would clean up the whole thing.
I struggle almost every day with these name collectors, Randall & Co, it's a pain in the fingertips
The Change Log: I stopped reading the changelog. Complex and misleading. I check the document instead, and I would like to agree :( It's faster
When you are merging 2 people, the change log gets very complex, not every one can read it and understand it. It says "Added / Deleted". Nooo! we are only MOVING data. I hade twice a discussion like
- You added this data
- No I didnt
- Yes you did! The changelog say so!!!
- Ok, I give up. I did it :(
It should say "Moved by merging", transferred or something. Thats the correct (human) term. Imagine this:
- Hey bro! I was at your house with beers and chicks, but you where gone with the wind!
- Yes. I deleted myself from home and added myself to this beach, here on Tahiti
- Say what ?!...
I use the Note's to. More and more every day even the Alert Note's (Great Tool. I love it !!!). Randall & Co goes on my nerves.
They don't read the document, pages etc. so they want read the Note's either. But at least they are there... for some one who can read. 50% of what I do is cleaning up, 40% adding the data (filling out the detail page) that not many does and only 10% actual research.
But you are doing fine I see! Good for you. I was just teaching a girl here how and why to use Note or Alert Note. She loves it. She get's it now why it's necessary.
Collaboration... Uhmmm, sound ok. Did tried that but people don't have time. You see, there is a trick here!
If you fill out the details page properly, fully, then those people want come up at research help as "hint", they are done. That reduces Randal & Co marching to mess up everything, so time is ticking. Right now, I'm looking for death certificates to close people as son as possible. Than they have less chance to add a spouse or something... But with Randall & Co, all bets are off, see Julianna's first husband :)))
Just in case, have a nice weekend to you all!
1
