People changing information without sources.
I have been nearly four hours trying to undo incorrect information that has been attatched to my pedigree. This is not the first time. After 60 years of research on my family, I have about given up with Family Search. I would think that after all these years, this problem could be solved. I am now trying to delete a wife that was attached to her father-in-law, and Family Search will not let me delete her. I have sources to prove the change. Someone has attached her to a family without sources. If you are interested the family is Leonard Weaver b. about 1775 and his wife Polly Shaver. His father was Leonard Weaver. The father left a will and gave his son 150 acres of land. In 1817 his son sells the 150 acres of land and leaves Virginia. People have added additional children without sources. It will take the 1000 years to correct the records that you have allowed to be created. I say this because sources don't have to be given when someone adds new information. They lived in Botetourt County, Virginia.
Answers
-
Hi Loretta,
I suffer a similar level of frustration with FamilySearch and for similar reasons. The FamilySearch website is an absolutely monumental achievement and we all appreciate it deeply, but there is a near-fatal flaw in the software in the respect that there is no integrity grading: data can easily be added without sources and it then appears in your lineage without any indication of its integrity (or lack thereof).
I suppose we have to recognise the huge variation in what people want from FamilySearch. However, some of us do not want to see a phony 'line of descent' from individuals to whom we have no relation whatsoever. In its current state, FamilySearch is maybe not for us, which is a shame because its potential is enormous.
In my own tree, I have a plethora of ridiculous lineages - some going back to the Patriarchs and Adam and Eve! Frankly, this completely destroys the initial pleasure of working with FamilySearch. It strikes me a strange that the LDS people do not seem to place a premium on veracity in a discipline which relies so completely on the itegrity of the data. It is far too easy for people to attach wives to their fathers-in-law, or as in my tree, to have fathers dying four years before the birth of their children. Maybe in the early days of FamilySearch, it was thought to be necessary to allow this level of laxity in order to grow the project, but surely there comes a time!
Of course, people must be allowed to indulge in wishful thinking and play with the idea of their famous ancestors, but as a (3rd-rate) web developer, I feel it should be possible to introduce a ranking system for well-sourced data, and perhaps a cookie-based option, for those of us afflicted by a need for truth, to view only that part of the tree which is based on good data. It would be fantastic to be able to see at a glance where work needs to be done to pursue a particular line, but as things stand, the tree view renders it impossible to distinguish well-sourced, reliable data from the fanciful products of wishful thinking.
I feel your pain,
Jimmy
(a direct descendent of Marcus Aurelius... if you don't look too closely at the sources)!
0 -
When trying to figure out how relationships came to be in a way that doesn't make sense, the change log is most helpful. In this case, you can examine the change log for Leonard Weaver of 1775 at https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/changelog/MY9S-9M8 . That change log shows that you added Polly Shaver MY9W-GTS yesterday as his wife. From what you said, that sounds like the correct relationship.
But looking just a couple of entries earlier in the log, we see that you were the one who also added that same Polly Shaver as his mother. That was done 3 years ago, and it sounds like you did that unintentionally.
To fix a relationship problem like this, you need to delete the couple relationship between Leonard Sr. and Polly. Looking at Polly's change log at https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/changelog/MY9W-GTS, it appears that you deleted it successfully 3 times yesterday, but each time added it back soon after. You'll also need to make sure you remove Polly as the mother of Leonard Sr.'s children.
3 -
mod note - Comments have been edited to remove personal identifying information such as email addresses and names that do not match the username. Please see see the Community Code of Conduct for more details. https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/community-code-of-conduct
1 -
Allan,
In checking the change record on Leonard Weaver Sr., In 2020 I added children but I did not add Polly as his wife. Someone else did that in 2019. I made comments as far back as 2020 that I felt that Polly Shaver was the wife of Leonard, Jr. I tried to delete Polly Shaver from Leonard Sr. in 2023 but the program would not let me do it. I finally gave up. Perhaps I wasn't deleting properly. I also believe that Sarah is probably the daughter of Leonard Jr instead of Leonard Sr. In his will, he only lists four children. Conrad, Catherine, Leonard and Barbara.
0 -
Polly currently appears as the wife of Leonard Jr and has been disconnected from his father and siblings.
0 -
Hello Loretta Nixon1, I find your response not surprising but puzzled at your comments. The reason why i say this you need to understand how the tree works and clearly your response shows you do not. It important since people have changed what you hold so dear.
There are many reasons why changes take place firstly your tree is in a pool of all trees.Your tree maybe attributed to you but that may also be part of someone else tree. And when they add, delete, the information it is the collective tree that is being adjusted.
Your tree is a segment of the pool of trees.
Unlike the Tree on ancestry which is down to the originator or guest who can make changes other people can not.
0 -
SG7107 ✭
My whole objection to Family Tree is that people are allowed to make changes without proper sources. What good is a Tree that is obviously wrong. I am not certain I agree with you that I don't understand the collective tree. I am not a novice to genealogy. I have been doing it for sixty years.
0 -
"My whole objection to Family Tree is that people are allowed to make changes without proper sources"
The problem with this statement lies within the "validity" of the sources that have been attached to individual profiles. Take a look at MWTY-JXB in Family Tree as an example. Ninety seven attached sources would seem to provide enough evidence for this individual's identity and relationships. Except, one user in particular has attached the exact same sources to numerous individuals named John Thompson who lived in the county of Durham at this period. Also, a large number of the sources here could not possibly relate to this John Thompson - some not even relating to the same county.
Obviously, I would not discourage the attachment of sources, as it can be an excellent means of providing evidence of that person's identity. However, there also needs to be reason statements and detailed notes to differentiate between, say, the large number of "John Thompsons" who lived in a particular area at the same period of time.
I am not doubting your own research, but I have found close relatives do not always have the correct conclusions attached to their (assumed) ancestors and relatives. I just spent three weeks trying to find the "correct" ancestor for a lady who (with her relatives) had taken names to the temple, having safely assumed them to relate to her family. I can only try to image the hurt this lady must feel after assuming (for many years) she had discovered her true ancestors. At least she was willing to accept the facts - unlike others to whom I have advised errors, but continue to insist (against all the evidence) that the longstanding conclusions held within their family cannot possibly be placed in doubt.
In summary, my main points here are, firstly, (unlike the position in your case) many close family members have made serious errors that someone (possibly totally unrelated to their family) has needed to put right. And, secondly, sources alone do not necessarily provide any more proof of an ancestor's identity than if there were none.
3 -
Of course it is necessary to use proper sources. Primary sources being what everyone should look for. And of course as you say they need to relate to your ancestor. Ancestors with common names can be a challenge. Secondary sources have to be used when primary sources are not available. And then it takes experience to analyze and hopefully come to the correct conclusion.
0 -
It's always advisable to have your tree in a seperate data base. that way you know that no one can interfere with the information. There are several free sites which you could use.
What many do not realise is that FamilySearch, Family Tree is a “one world tree,” or a “unified database” that aims to contain one entry for each person recorded in genealogical records, therefore all FamilySearch users are able to add persons, link them to existing persons or merge duplicates. Family Tree is different from other similar genealogy sites in that it is a single, public tree linked together in families, rather than a site that only allows users to create and manage their own private trees. This distinction means that everyone works together on the same data, allowing for the potential to connect every member of the human family.
Family Tree compares records and sources in order to help you resolve mistakes or duplication in records. It also provides messaging and collaboration tools, as well as free expert phone support, to help you resolve errors. Family Tree draws from FamilySearch's enormous database to provide record hints. This makes it easier to link you and your ancestors to earlier generations.
0
