Clarify that The Family Tree is a Shared Public Tree and contains no Private Trees
I have served at the FamilySearch Library for the last 4 1/2 years; and do online consultations for Navigating FamilySearch. I am often asked by upset users who get Campaign emails with statements such as "we've identified the top contributors to your family tree!" which most people interpret as meaning they have an individual tree at FamilySearch.
This leads people to be upset when others have added or edited information incorrectly and, thinking they have their own tree, do not understand how FamilySearch can allow strangers to "ruin MY Tree." Most people do not realize they are contributing to a public, global, shared tree that can be edited by anyone with an account AND that FamilySearch does not verify information added or edited in the Family Tree.
I suggest changes to how people are introduced to the Family Tree:
Clearly inform everyone before they add anything to the Tree:
- It is a global shared public tree that can be edited by anyone with a FamilySearch account. (Perhaps users should have to check a box indicating they understand it is one public tree; anyone can add and edit information which may not be accurate.)
- FamilySearch provides tools to find records to document every name, date, place and relationship but does not verify the information in the Tree.
- Encourage every contributor to keep a personal documented tree on their home computer.
- Show a prominent statement on weekly campaigns that if there is an error in the campaign, it means there is an error in the Tree and they can correct the error and include documentation.
Thank You
Comments
-
As I've opted out of receiving these Campaign emails, I can only accept they do include the term "Your Tree". In which case, the missing suggestion here should be for the use of that wording to be terminated immediately.
5 -
I've opted out of most emails but a few get through. I received the latest one with the Headline "[my 1st name] see who has been contributing to your family tree!" In the body was also "[my first name], we've identified the top contributors to your family tree! FWIW I do NOT use my first name as part of my username on FS.
When I clicked through the "See Who's Contributing" link, I was informed that I was the top contributor to my part of the tree.
2 -
It is clearly stated in the tree overview that everybody shares a single tree, but nobody actually reads that. The home page (before you sign in) also describes the shared tree, but is incredibly vague. It merely says that someone may have already added your family, which is a statement that could also be applied to Ancestry. In an explanation of why FamilySearch is free, they refer to the tree as belonging to the community, but I'm guessing that most people don't click the link. So the intention of letting people know is there, but the execution is a little lackluster.
But what pains me is that when you start a new account, they already have it guide you through adding your ancestors, which is the perfect time to explain how FamilySearch works and why, but it just... doesn't. It asks you to add your closest ancestors, and that's the full extent of its guidance. They just leave it to older users to explain, but at that point the newer users are already confused and/or angry.
5 -
I completely agree that "your tree" should never be used. "Your part of the tree" is a marginally better, but maybe something like "your branch of the community tree" would be better. The reminder that this is a public, community tree should be plastered on every page somewhere. I've spent way too much time repairing damage from people so focused on "their" tree that they have no regard for anybody else's line and feel no obligation to repair damage they do while editing. I've seen entire families pulled apart because one of several children was attached to the wrong parents.
5 -
I am almost at the point of deleting all my information. I get tired of having to correct information that is incorrect, added by people who do not verify the information, especially as I may not find an erroneous entry. A shared tree is a good theory but it falls down in the execution.
0 -
denisem1952 Have you thoroughly sourced all the information you "know". If you have not, then you are leaving your ancestors open to incorrect editing. I recommend you spend hours adding all sources available, look for additional ones and include some that may be in the form on digital images. You can make sources from images, and even if people delete the image (which has happened to me only once, and I suspect it was an accident) the image stays viewable in the source.
0 -
My experiences leave me rather doubtful about the advice that providing sources has too much effect on the matter. If the other user is determined or careless enough they will disregard any attached evidence and make changes / merges regardless. Also, due to the "new" formatting of sources that FamilySearch has introduced, the source titles are now so vague that they could relate to anybody with that first name, so there is now little clear evidence that I have added them (in the past) to the correct individuals.
2 -
Paul W I have seen those discussions about editing of source titles, and I have been a bit confused, but that is not the topic of this thread so won't pursue. However, I will add that in the past couple of days I have added perhaps 40-50 sources to ancestors, some mine, some associated with my lineage research volunteer work, and I have been able to edit the titles as I linked the sources. I haven't tried to go back and edit, maybe that is the issue?
Anyway, putting robust sources on people can be a form of deterrent. Yes, if someone is focused on ignoring everything and engaging in what is essentially vandalism, not much will stop them. But if someone new to FamilySearch is looking for their ancestors, and stumbles upon a person of the same name, but then sees birth and death certs, all the census records, land records, obituaries, tax records, and any other kind of source which serves to both source the person and link them to children or parents, then the chance of errors is reduced. That new user may realize there is someone in this record of the same name, but not the same identity. To me it's worth it to heavily source.
1 -
@Paul W Yes, leaving sources doesn't really deter some people from making erroneous changes, but the people who ignore sources also tend to leave them there, which means that someone later will have all the information they need to correct things. I think that makes it worth it.
0
