Warning message when attaching sources for the living to deceased profiles
We see all kinds of warning messages "These people were born more than 3 years apart" when starting a merge or (worse) "These people may be twins" when 2 profiles have the same name and birth date.
We need a warning message for "You're attaching a 1930 census to someone who has been dead for 30 years. Are you sure you want to do this?"
5 times in recent weeks, 5 different contributors have done just that to 2 different families I have on my Following list. Maybe a warning label would slow down the corruption of the FSFT.
If this has happened 5 times in recent weeks within the ~3000 names I have on my Following list, I dread to think how many times it has happened in the entire tree.
Julia Szent-Györgyi ✭✭✭✭✭
(Yeah, as a twin, I'm especially bothered by the "may be twins" message: twins is the one thing that they cannot possibly be, can't you see that they have the same name?!...)
The problem is, not all posthumous sources are wrong. Deceased parents appear on marriage and death records of their children all the time. I have no idea if it would be possible to come up with a warning mechanism that applies only to census sources -- and even for those, I'm wondering if it'd be problematic for those household-list-slash-yearly-census things that they had in some places. (The Netherlands is where I encountered them.)
But hmm, warning messages for source attachments. Interesting idea.3
Yes, I know some posthumous sources are correct. I tried to be very clear that I was specifically referring to sources that indicate someone must be living (a census) when the death and burial records are correctly attached.
For specfics: Mary Ann Hughes died in 1900. 3 different contributors added the wrong 1920 census to her and her family. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/changelog/LC7F-NBW
And this week, 2 different contributors have added a 1930 census to the Dunn family where both parents died in the 1920s and the daughter was married and living under her married name. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/changelog/L1H5-V6P
With the pattern, I expect the 3rd attempt on the Dunn family any minute.1
A prevention of such attachments would definitely be a positive. It would indeed have to be carefully tailored so that it doesn't stop legitimate attachment of sources for the deceased where someone could indeed be deceased.
The entire category of normal census population schedules does need such a flag enabling as the whole point of a census was that those enumerated were alive at the time of enumeration!3
As predicted, the 3rd incorrect attachment of the 1930 census has been made to the Dunn family overnight.1
Precisely why the new "Vital Note" option (yellow banner across a profile page) has been made available for profiles with the new Person Page. Intended for lazy or repeat offenders. (Kinda like "You toucha this page, I breaka your hands!", except nicer.)0
@RobertLeighPritchett Do you mean the Alert Note? It's not yellow on my monitors. And it doesn't stop anything. I've been dealing with some apparently malicious changes even with an Alert Note in place.0
Yes. Maliciousness can be reported and dealt with by Salt Lake.
One example of many is a recent passing of a spouse whose former spouse had three instances we tried to merge by the 2nd surviving spouse, but could not. The first spouse - from way, way back - kept changing dates related to the 2nd living spouse and had blocked editing. We got Salt Lake to intervening and one instance of the no-longer-living husband remains.
Meanwhile, I continue practicing what I call "Genealogy Repentance"© (I broke it, someone else found it, I fix it). And I likewise practice Genealogy whack-a-mole©, which is what you apparently are currently doing.
Perhaps FamilySearch could provide a whack-a-mole button for profiles being attacked (updated incorrectly)...0
The message wording would benefit from a tweak.
When reading "You're attaching a 1930 census to someone who has been dead for 30 years..." I was struggling to understand what was wrong with attaching a 1930 census to someone who died in 1993.
Regardless, well worth an upvote.1