Why is FamilySearch encouraging duplication?
I don't understand why there are so many census projects that just continue to add more and more duplicates! It is so time consuming to have to merge multiple duplicate families to an already existing family because they are added from census projects. I thought FamilySearch was created to stop duplication. Is this going to continue with each census?
Answers
-
Yes, the problem being caused by these "census projects" is quite a serious one and has been raised previously on other threads within this Community platform.
The original idea of the projects themselves appears to have been well intentioned. However, the trouble arose when FamilySearch management decided it would be a good idea to add the data to Family Tree, instead of keeping it in a separate database. As most of us know, the main, stated aim of the Family Tree project is for there to be just one profile for as many individuals that can be identified as having lived on Earth. Supposedly, checks are made before adding a person found in a census record to Family Tree, but obviously (as so many of us have discovered) these checks have not been anywhere near thorough enough.
Further, as most genealogists would acknowledge, the census is a far from reliable method of finding accurate details of the individuals included. If one compares a census record for a particular individual from one census to, say, the one compiled ten years later, both age and birthplace can be found recorded so differently that it initially appears this cannot be referring to the same individual!
As these are basically indexing projects, however, it appears that the volunteers involved have been instructed to record the details as written. Although, apparently, not so when it comes to the surnames of wives. We have been told that the volunteers are encouraged to find, and record, their maiden names. However, I can personally assure you I have yet to find one such name (of a wife, or widow) that has not been added to Family Tree using the surname of the husband.
All of this makes it difficult to even identity (and thus merge) these duplicates with the previously created profiles of them in the Tree. But, sadly, hundreds of previous complaints about the whole issue (whether regarding accuracy or the countless thousands of duplicates that have been created through these means) appear to have been ignored, and the projects continue with encouragement.
Certainly, census returns are not a suitable source from which to add individuals to Family Tree. We have been advised that the volunteers have been instructed to make checks that should prevent duplicates and inaccurate detail being added to Family Tree, but many FT users would confirm there is very little evidence of this, judging by the end results.
2 -
As far as I know, none of those "projects" have any connection to FamilySearch. Why they continue to be allowed, I cannot fathom.
3 -
As far as I know, none of those "projects" have any connection to FamilySearch
Well, only inasmuch as one might say that BYU is a "sister organization" of FamilySearch, through their joint connection to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
3 -
I totally agree with the comments about the census projects. WHY is FamilySearch allowing more avenues for duplication when one of the fundamental reasons it was created was to cut down on duplication! These census projects contradict everything the program was designed to do at it's inception. Having spent countless hours resolving duplicates and straightening up messes caused by bad merges, I'm about to throw in the towel if these census projects continue to occur.
0 -
Don't get me started on church records from the middle ages. When I find a person in the records, there is like 3 duplicates that don't even have the record attached. What causes this?
0 -
@SeanDay2, there are no extant church records from the actual middle ages. The keeping of church registers wasn't mandated until the late Renaissance.
You're probably talking about the index-based legacy data that was imported into the then-brand-new Family Tree back in 2012. It's generally based on parish registers from the 18th and 19th centuries, although in some places (notably England), some of them go all the way back to the 16th century. (I have not encountered any from earlier than that, however.) In the prior system where these profiles were originally created, every event created its own sets of profiles, with no means of connecting the people who participated in multiple events. This means that if a couple had eight children baptized, and each of those baptisms was made into profiles, then those parents have eight profiles each -- and that's just based on the baptisms. If the marriages of those children were also indexed and made into entries in the database, then the parents will have another set of duplicate profiles based on those marriage entries.
The legacy duplicates are annoying to clean up, but they are a very different beast from the duplication caused by the "census project" contributors. The legacy data is static: it will never be added to. You only ever need to clean up a family once. They will not pop up again based on the next census.
2 -
I could use a support group of survivors. Specifically, with other folks who are now saddled with years of cleaning up the errant profiles left behind by census projects.
When I've had a particularly grueling day of repeatedly stopping to sew families back together - I find myself wishing I had others, with whom I could commiserate.
0
