Suggested Change to Alert Message
SUGGESTION: Please change warning message: “Important research has been done on this person. Please read these alert notes before making changes” TO READ “Important research has been done on this person. Please read these alert notes AND REVIEW THE SOURCES ALREADY ATTACHED TO THIS INDIVIDUAL before making changes.”
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? WHY?
As a contributor since 2012, I have attached over 25,000 sources. The collaboration options now available didn’t exist until 2019. Not only do many FamilySearch users continue to act on “Hints” that appear prominently on the person page without reading these notes; they continue to merge and change data without attempting to review the sources already attached under the sources tab to the individual record. The situation has improved only slightly since the current Alert was added to the top of the person page back in April 2023.
I have added over 4,300 people to FamilySearch since 2012. It is rare for me to add a person to the database, or work on someone already there, without adding at least 7-12 sources. Besides birth, death, and marriage records, I use census records extensively. I do this not only for my direct line ancestors but also for individuals and families connected by marriage, whose records are often found in the same locations. Frequently I do the same basic research for unrelated individuals who share common names with my ancestors, hoping to keep them from being continually mixed up with my family members.
WHAT IS THE CHALLENGE/ROADBLOCK YOU ARE ENCOUNTERING?
There is no way that I can follow every person whose record I work on. In fact, I only follow 123 people, mostly direct line ancestors. However, since my name appears on all my contributions, I spend a considerable amount of time responding to messages from people who see my name attached to information they find on their ancestor’s records. I don’t mind answering questions about my research; what I do mind is going back to review sources I attached to someone else’s ancestor and finding that my careful research has been ignored or changed by patrons who assume that a FamilySearch “hint” can just be attached without further review.
HOW WOULD SOLVING THIS CHALLENGE IMPROVE YOUR EXPERIENCE?
I would be able to devote more time to original research on my own family lines. I would have much less frustration and stress every time I receive an email about Weekly Changes to people I follow. I could use my time to help people who appreciate my research contributions to their family lines.
Here is an examples from my experience that show what happens when people merge individuals or otherwise change a record without looking at what is on the sources tab.
(1) Change to the record of my 3rd great grandfather’s nephew William Wood, 1806–1891, L694-Z34, whose record I follow, which appeared in my Weekly Change report, 31 Aug 23. Source: William Wood in entry for Sarah Wood, "England and Wales Non-Conformist Record Indexes (RG4-8), 1588-1977; Added: Sex, Name Elvin W on 29 Aug 23
I reviewed this change & immediately added this Alert note to William’s record:
Please Note: See Research Document Attached as a Memory for Details of William's Life and Relationships Added KathyBowman1 31 August 23
This alert directs people to a 10-page document showing the extensive research I completed for this individual and posted in the Memories section (last edited in March 2020). I originally placed this note in the “Life Sketch” portion at the top of William’s page, but as you know FamilySearch deleted it there and then added it as a Note in the Collaboration section sometime in November 2022. It was not marked as an alert when that happened.
At the same time I posted the above Alert, I followed my standard practice of messaging the person responsible for the incorrect change. I am including our entire message thread for you to review. My messages to this other patron are in italics. Other comments on the situation are interspersed within our conversation and marked as Notes which explain my view of what happened: this individual simply did not look at the sources attached.]
31 AUGUST 2023 11:16 PM
K - Can you explain why you attached the recent baptism record to William Wood? He had a daughter named Sarah, but her mother's name was Elizabeth (Betsy). He did remarry, and his second wife's name was Sarah, but this didn't happen until 1861, more than 20 years after the baptism record for Sarah Wood showing her parents as William and Sarah.
1 SEPTEMBER 2023 E 2:34 PM Can you send the person’s Family Search Identification number, or a link? Thanks a lot
3:18 PM K Sure! The ID # is L694-Z34. You can just click the name in the message header, too.
3:20 PM K How are you related to this family? Apparently you haven't yet enabled relationship viewing in your settings so that you can see how you are connected to others working on your same family lines. {Note: He never answered this question.}
E 3:35 PM The message header is non responsive. Thanks
E3:36 PM William Wood https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/L694-Z34 This way, it’s a link to reference. Sometimes, quite often, when it’s sent as an About: the subject field it does not transfer as a link
3:40 PM K Yes . . . Were you able to review the record I asked you about?
E 4:22 PM [Sent Image] {Note: View of 1851 Census from Lancashire; William Wood L694-Z34 lived his entire life in Kent, and the 1851 Census in that location had been attached to his record in 2017.}
E 4:39 PM There is an issue here… Two unmatched. Elizabeth Burbridge isn’t attached. And the other is an unattached daughter. There may be a discrepancy as the birthplace is different and Wood is an extremely common name and there might be two Wood pedigrees. . . . There’s quite a few attachments and no patrilineal documentation for Elizabeth Burbridge yet. Lots of to do in other words! . . . “Work In Progress” until there’s manual verification with data, gravesite or with luck searching online or thru tomes like “The Peerage” if someone was important enough. For many the only way was church records and some of the EU countries are just starting to put them online.
4:44 PM K We are dealing with a case of mistaken identity because of similar names! The 1851 Census from Lancashire has nothing to do with the William Wood who is my 3rd great grandfather's nephew -- even if they did have some children with similar names. This William's entire life was spent in Kent (Headcorn, Biddenden, Frittenden, Cranbrook), and there was already a correct 1851 Census attached to his record. As far as I know, he never set foot in Lancashire. There is a research document attached as a memory to William's record which you should read. It lists all the census and other records which belong to him and his family members. If you need help in creating a new person on FamilySearch and transferring the sources attached to this record in error to that record, I will be glad to assist you. But please do not make any further changes to this record, as it belongs to a different person.
8:54 PM K Just an explanation: You can review all changes made to a record by going to the right side of the details page. Underneath Latest Changes, you will see a link that says: Show All. What comes up is a history, in reverse order, of every change made to a person's record since being added to FamilySearch. If you scroll back to the first change you made on this record, on August 29. you'll see that it was the christening record for Sarah which you added. After sending you the first message, I made the next change, on August 31, which was to add an alert note about reading the research document on his memories page. Only 3 of the fifteen changes you've made since then belong in this record for William Wood L694-Z34, and three of them were duplicate sources that someone else had detached and left floating around in the hinting feature. You added five children who do not belong to this family: Alice, Janet, Esther, James, and Mary, all born in Lancashire. If you are working on another William Wood and have just mixed up the two individuals, I will be happy to help you move the sources you used to this other record. Otherwise, I would like to delete the incorrect changes before more errors occur. Please let me know which you prefer.
E 11:53 PM When you make changes please standardize them. We’ve been to SLC twice. The UK 3x. Genealogy has been in the family by hand from the 70’s to the naughts. Everything else you’ve written is apparent. Until William Wood has birthdate and a wife with a pedigree? So as you please. Just do it properly with your entries keeping in mind the standard of Date and Locations for the time of the event. Family Search is not perfect (the volunteers around the world). Brigham Young and Joseph Smith Jr are within “family” pedigree so if you think we take this lightly you’re assuming incorrectly. Of anything you were further alerted and there are going to be permutations from the 17th and 18th century, never mind the 19th century and the Uniting of the Kingdom. Glossing over the mistakes made by Family Search the work done by my family over the decades. The tact you’ve taken is somewhat condescending.
{Note: Unfortunately, this patron continued to make changes to William’s record – 15 of them on September 1st, either before or after our messaging took place. After receiving his last comment, I removed the incorrect data and made ten changes (which you can review through the Show All Changes History if you’d like). I made sure to include reasons for my changes and add collaboration notes to clarify my research; but I have not contacted this other patron again.}
Comments
-
Additional Reasons to change the Alert Message:
(2) The second example involves an individual I had researched back in 2018, Frederick M. Cole, LBK3-QL1. As explained earlier, I do not watch, or follow, records that aren’t for a direct line ancestor. I had not looked at Fred’s page from the time I attached sources for him in 2018 until I received a FamilySearch message asking about the Cole family.
Here is that message thread, with explanatory notes about my actions:
20 JUNE 2023 Pamela5577 10:49 AM
Hi, My name is Pamela B____ (married name C_____). My mother is _____ Cole (married name B_____), Fred’s only daughter. I am looking for more Cole relatives. My mother just turned 99!
{Note: I try to do random acts of genealogical kindness when I can. My first action when receiving such inquiries is to figure out when and why I did any research on the subject individual, who in this case was Fred M. Cole. When I looked through his sources, I saw that I had added both a 1900 US Census from Beloit, Rock, WI and a 1905 Wisconsin State Census. In both sources, Fred was listed as a son in the household of George and Mary E. Cole. However, there were no parents attached to Fred’s record in June 2023. That seemed especially strange, since I normally would have attached his parents through Source Linker when I added the sources.
Luckily I knew how to access the Show All Changes History, which is the only place to see information entered between 2012 and 2018 to explain actions taken when adding/deleting sources or making other changes to an individual record.
Looking into Fred’s Change History, I found that he had been detached from parents George Cole and Sarah Ann Wooley back in 2020. I can’t reconstruct the exact order in which I then looked at Fred’s history, then George’s, then eventually the record for Sarah Ann Wooley – which revealed that her name had been changed from Mary E Marriott to Sarah Ann Woolley back in November of 2020! [This really blew me away! Who does things like that???]
As I studied these change histories, I realized that FamilySearch’s apparent policy is to make name changes effective all the way back to when the person was added to the tree, replacing whatever was originally there with the name currently entered on the person page. That may often be a good idea, as sometimes a maiden name is unknown, or a nickname can be changed to a given name, which makes finding sources easier – but in this case, it made my job of unravelling what happened much harder, because the first entry (from 1 May 2012) showed Sarah Ann Woolley as the child of Daniel Marriott and Esther Town – who had then been detached as the parents in a later change.
I finally found an entry that proved that the original name of Fred’s mother was Mary E. Marriott. I had deleted Mary E. Marcott during a merge on 23 April 2018 with this explanation:
Reason: The record misspells the last name, but other data is consistent. The record refers to her father as "Reader". That was the name of her mother's second husband. Did not attach directly with a relationship, as the record is correctly assembled in FamilySearch at the present time.
This note confirmed to me that my connection to this family was through the Readers of Walworth, WI – which is also the location where George and Mary E. Cole were married, according to a source added to Mary’s record by FamilySearch in November 2014.
I did not reply to Pamela until 15 August 2023. Here are excerpts from my reply:
K: When I . . . went on FamilySearch to review Fred's record to see what I could tell you about the Cole family, I found that someone had made changes back in 2020 that had totally disconnected him from his parents, Mary A. Marriott and George E. Cole. . . . George had been completely detached from all his family members; Mary had been replaced by a woman named Sarah Ann Woolley (whose husband was also named George Cole). . . . I think I finally have everything back the way I had originally researched the family back in 2018!)
Even though I did this research, I am not a Cole relative except through a second marriage. Fred's mother, Mary, was the daughter of Daniel Marriott and Esther Towns (Towne, Town). After Daniel's death, Esther was married a second time (on 5 September 1869 in Walworth, WI) to John Reader, who was also a widower. Esther still had children at home when they married, including Mary, who did not marry George until 1874. However, only the two youngest daughters are in John and Esther’s household at the time of the 1870 Census.
John Reader had been previously married to Elizabeth Featherstone, who died in 1868 after they had fifteen children together. Elizabeth was the daughter of Francis Featherstone and Elizabeth Wood, who was the sister of my 3rd great grandfather, Benjamin Wood.
What is common to our two families is the connection to Walworth, Wisconsin. There is an excellent county history available online that covers the history of John Reader and other early settlers who pioneered the untamed areas of Wisconsin beginning in 1836. Most, like Daniel Marriott and John Reader, had come from England. There may be more information about the Marriott family in this source that could help you trace that line back to England. There could even be some mention of the Cole family, as I believe this history was published in 1880, after George’s marriage to Mary. (I was focusing mostly on the Reader and Featherstone families in my research, although I did find some census and other records on the Marriott family which are attached to members of Mary’s family.)
There is enough information about Fred’s father, George E. Cole, in the sources attached to his record to do research on the Cole family as well. One great hint (which probably came from a birth record) is that his mother’s maiden name was Blackman. Based on the census records attached to George, it appears that he immigrated from England to the United States in 1870 and then became a naturalized citizen in 1871. If his immigration and naturalization records can be found, they may show the name of his father and could possibly have information about other family members. I hope this is helpful to you as you continue to search for your ancestors!
{NOTE: Fortunately for me in untangling the records of Mary E Marriott and Sarah Ann Woolley, no one who worked on the record had removed any sources. That meant, for instance, that there was an 1880 US Census for Mary (which I had added in 2018) and an 1851 England Census for Sarah -- which had been added to Mary’s record by the same person who had changed her name 3 weeks earlier from Mary E. Marriott to Sarah Ann Woolley. Although the relationships of Mary to her children had been detached, the sources for their birth records were still there.
Other patrons had added sources both before and after the changes made in November 2020 to what was once the record of Mary E. Marriott. To restore the record of Mary E. Marriott, I had to separate the two families, create a new record for Sarah Ann Woolley, restore all the relationships, and attach sources to the correct individuals. This took two lengthy conversations with FamilySearch phone support missionaries and more than eight hours online, during which time I made what turned out to be more than 270 changes. In the course of making these corrections, I also messaged at least three other contributors to the record: once to ask them not to make further changes while I was making corrections, and then again to pass along the information giving the new ID # for the individual whose unique information had been moved to a new record. (To date I have not heard back from any of them, either.) I also added collaboration notes and alerts as needed to explain my corrections.
Unfortunately, after I created the new record for Sarah to split and correct the inappropriate merge, I had to add the sources I removed from Mary’s record to Sarah’s record – so I now appear as the contributor on Sarah’s source page. I am hoping that no one from that family line will contact me for help about “my research” on her!
0 -
Personally, I prefer the current wording. The alert notes banner is intended to catch people's attention and encourage them to read the alert notes. A short message is more effective at doing that. In many (but not all situations) it will indeed be helpful for people to read the attached sources; in those cases, the alert note itself can include directions to review sources. And those directions can point to the specific sources that are key to the issue(s) being raised in the alert note. That will be far more helpful than a vague reference in the alert notes banner to review sources.
4 -
I agree with Alan that shorter is better. Besides, as your correspondence with the other user amply shows, it's not like he read (or comprehended) even that far; adding text to the alert would've made absolutely no difference.
I think a lot of the people who blindly add every hint that the computer offers never actually look at any of the profiles. They start from the list of hints on the home page, or from a tree view.
I do wonder: would it be possible to highlight the existence of an alert note in the various tree views? Maybe a little yellow alert triangle in the corner (kinda like the leaves and stuff on Ancestry)?
2 -
Mod note - 3 posts on the same topic were merged here.
1
