Add a feature that will lock the information
Can we please get a feature that locks the information especially for your own personal history, family personal history such as parents or even the pioneer history. My own history I would not want someone going on later and changing my information. Any and all information can arbitrarily be deleted or changed. Please let us have this feature for our pioneer ancestors as well. they were alive and their own biographies and personal journals should not be discarded as erroneous when they have 1st hand knowledge of their information.
Answers
-
Firstly, you would have been better to have posted this under the Family Tree (not Search) heading - assuming you are referring to other users removing details from your ancestors' profiles.
That said, it is highly unlikely that the open-edit format of Family Tree will be altered any time soon - although Church leaders already do usually have read-only (locked) profiles.
2 -
If you don't want others changing your "personal history", then you should think hard about whether it should be kept in FamilySearch FamilyTree. You can create it elsewhere and load it into the "FamilySearch Genealogies" - it can't be changed there.
1 -
@Adrian Bruce1 Read the terms of use - those who are changing Family Tree haphazardly are not complying with the terms. They have pretty much had free reign to change whatever they wanted for the past decade plus. FamilySearch starting to add restrictions is long overdue. If the pendulum swung toward finalizing/locking profiles - how would y'all open-edit purists like it? People need to take more care - especially with editing recently deceased - or near Living generation profiles - that are not their family/near kin.
0 -
mod note - moved to Family Tree category
2 -
"Read the terms of use - those who are changing Family Tree haphazardly are not complying with the terms."
Very possibly @genthusiast - but I've seen no evidence that FamilySearch Support enforce those Terms. Rather the opposite - when faced with evidence of repeated wilfull, unsupported, changes in defiance of anyone else's evidence and / or requests, Support simply back off and tell users that it's their responsibility to agree things.
For evidence of that, it took ages for them to do anything about profiles that were obviously "jokes" - one was even called "The Devil" if I recall correctly.
I would love for FS Support to enforce those Terms in a meaningful way. (But I wouldn't want to be the guys in Support who have to referee whether a profile for "Donald Duck" is a real person or not)
FamilySearch starting to add restrictions is long overdue.
I totally agree.
If the pendulum swung toward finalizing/locking profiles - how would y'all open-edit purists like it?
You totally misunderstand my position on open-edit. Yes, I (and others) keep banging on about open-edit for the simple reason that that's what FamilySearch's policy is. Clearly some people still don't understand this (witness all those who talk about "people altering my tree" and the necessary responses that "there is no my-tree"). I'm not advocating open-edit - I'm simply telling people that's what it is. Do I think FS are likely to change? They have to trade off volume against accuracy. Which way are they likely to go? What's the evidence so far?
My personal view about restrictions is that the system needs to be programmed to do a bit more validation of likely source links and merges against the existing values on profiles. For all I know, it has already been tightened - the garbage merges that I "unmerge" were generally done ages ago.
Also, I would whole heartedly support restrictions on what people can edit until they have reached certain levels of experience.
"People need to take more care - especially with editing recently deceased - or near Living generation profiles - that are not their family/near kin"
Agreed - I would question why people are even allowed to work on near contemporary people who aren't their relatives when they don't know the families or localities. But the policy is open-edit so....
2
