How do I enter unproven information?
Every fact that is proven begins with a hypothesis. If I record my hypothesis, I don't want other users to presume it is fact and run with it. FamilySearch used to have filable PDFs for research logs, family group sheets, and the like. Do those still exist and if so please point me to them.
If these things aren't an option I am open to other suggestions.
Thanks in advance.
Best Answers
-
Yes - it's not so much "entering unproven information" (to which the answer is "Don't") as "entering hypotheses and other research logs." A sensible question.
Thinking out loud here - is it sensible to even try to enter the stuff into any part of FamilySearch? Is it possible to save stuff on your own PC / phone / whatever? This might be a better option if you're using more sites and archives than just the FS web-site? It would generally avoid copyright issues because most web-sites (clearly I've not checked them all!) are happy with us downloading images (i.e. images that might or might not relate to our research) to our own PCs, whereas putting such images onto FS somewhere, might be more problematic legally and will certainly be more difficult physically...
1 -
I believe the wiki still has those printable forms (FGS, research logs, etc) lying on some page (sorry I don't have that link right now).
DO: You add unproven information to Family Tree just as proven. I would conservatively estimate probably one third of Family Tree is unproven. Since Family Tree is open-edit - there's bound to be someone willing to prove you wrong - even if 99.9% agree with you.
True - there is no current profile element to indicate it in whole/part as hypothetical - but now you can add an Alert Note to bring this to others' attention.
2 -
2
-
A good place to enter hypotheses is in Notes. There you can fully write out all your reasoning, all the evidence for and against, what needs to be found to support then, all the places you have checked for sources, and anything else you have that might help other researches follow your thinking and start working along with you.
3 -
I run into this fairly often and I 2nd the use of notes. My notes are speaking to future researchers who may have better access than I do. I want to 1) get their attention and 2) save them from duplicating my work.
In my latest example I have 2 individuals I suspect are the same person (LBKV-X69 & KLVC-TFS) even though their names are wholly unalike. I got as close as I could to proving what I suspected and included all evidence that proved & disproved my suspicion - especially including nuances that are particular to this (confusing & complex) family.
In my Ancestry tree, I have combined them into one person. However, FamilySearch is our tree, not my tree. Declaring my suspicions is the most I can responsibly do.
1 -
I third (I think I'm counting right) the use of notes. I have put hypothetical info on the tree.
There is a mystery boy living with my 2nd greats in the 1880 census labeled "son". Just about the only thing we know is that he is NOT their son. One possible set of parents exist, which would make him a nephew to the 2nd greats, but no confirmation that boy is him. Thus, I have this child listed 2 times with my second greats, one with possible bio parents making him a possible nephew and a second with no bio parents. Both person records are connected to 2nd greats with guardianship relationship. I created an alert from the notes explaining why this boy is listed twice and requesting people to NOT merge unless the two can be proven to be the same or proven to NOT be the same. (The nephew is NOT living with his parents in the 1880 census, by the way).
Hauntingly, I know he lived. I inherited a tin type photo of him and my great grand, clearly taken around the 1880 date. Information passed down? "Not known who the boy is."
A 3rd cousin and I beat the bushes trying to figure him out, but could not.
5 -
Excellent responses here! Great to see members of Community working in harmony, in offering both useful advice and practical information to address the question - albeit adopting "different angles" in their responses.
4
