Are others seeing "Photo Detached by FamilySearch" in their recent changes weekly notification?
We received a recent notification of changes about ID# KWZC-Q5V indicating that several photos had been detached and the user is listed as "FamilySearch". The Recent Changes list confirms that many photos were detached on April 11, but we can't tell what was actually detached, if anything. The Portrait Photo seems to have disappeared, so we reselected it. We've heard of other getting similar messages. We can't see that any photos are missing, so we're wondering if the notification was just from a glitch in the portrait photo being removed?
Best Answer
-
Thank you. All of the people involved had portrait pictures attach for a long time. This user must have either changed them or deleted the wrong picture. But it's fixed now, so all is good thanks
0
Answers
-
The message shows "Change made by authorized support staff or as part of an update." You may need to contact Support to learn more, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for an answer, based on my own experience.
1 -
I have experience the same message and can't determine what action (if any) has been taken on photos that I have uploaded. Would be nice to have more explanation. Maybe familysearch is trying to address the growing incidents of duplicating photos in memories.
0 -
@CSM100 From the relevant change log, it's clear that the 15 photos detached on April 11 match the 15 photos attached on April 7, all by the same user. It appears that those photos were not just detached, but also deleted (there's no info about the specific photos in that change log, which typically happens because the photo was deleted). They were almost certainly deleted by FamilySearch support staff, but it's unlikely you'll be able to know why that was. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it, since the 15 photos only recently appeared and they disappeared within a few days. I see no evidence that longstanding photos have been affected for this profile.
Note also that the notifications have nothing to do with the portrait photo being removed — that action never appears in the change log (unfortunately).
2 -
Why would a deletion not appear in a change log? It's a change and therefore people need to be able to track it. (And ditto for portrait photo changes.)
1 -
@MandyShaw1 It's only the portrait changes that don't appear in a person's change log. The deletions do indeed appear in the change log as detachments (from the perspective of the person, that's the only thing that changed). I suppose you could hope for all changes to Memories to appear in some sort of Memories-specific change log, but that has never been available.
As for why changes to the portrait aren't tracked, I've never heard a satisfactory answer, but that's been the situation ever since the current portrait system was implemented several years ago.
1 -
Sorry @Alan E. Brown, my comment related to this (my bold):
'It appears that those photos were not just detached, but also deleted (there's no info about the specific photos in that change log, which typically happens because the photo was deleted). They were almost certainly deleted by FamilySearch support staff …'
but I wasn't as clear as I might have been.
I interpreted the above as saying that a photo's changes were no longer shown in the change log once the photo itself had been deleted (the deletion's not being logged being just one aspect of this).
But I take your point about there being no specific Memories change log (though I am sure, for Data Protection reasons if nothing else, there will be such a log behind the scenes, and I imagine information about deleted photos is not purged from that one).
0 -
@MandyShaw1 I also was not as clear as I should have been.
When a photo is attached to a person, and that photo gets deleted, then what appears in the person's change log is a Photo Detached entry. When a photo is simply detached, the Photo Detached entry will include a thumbnail for the photo with a link to the photo. But when a photo is deleted (and thus implicitly detached), the Photo Detached entry has no thumbnail or link — it just gives the date and the user info for whoever deleted it.
In this particular case, the 15 Photo Detached entries are still visible in the change log, but since the photos were also deleted, these entries are the bare-bones variety with no reference to the photo. You can see an example of the other type of Photo Detached entry in that same log in October 2023 where a photo was detached that still exists, and that entry includes a thumbnail and link.
2 -
Why is family search deleting memories that have been in the system for several years? When I looked at my grandmothers person page, Wynona Saunders L186-5TR, her portrait picture was missing, so were several of her siblings and children. upon looking they were deletated by family search. There was nothing wrong with the pictures that would normally not allow them to be on memories. I was able to chose another picture to fix the missing one. Can we see the deleted one? can it be restored?All Changes
FILTER
Change
Value
Date
Photo Detached
April 11th, 2024
FFamilySearchDELETED
Photo Detached
April 11th, 2024
FFamilySearchDELETED
Photo Detached
April 11th, 2024
FFamilySearchDELETED
Photo Detached
April 11th, 2024
FFamilySearchDELETED
Photo Detached
April 11th, 2024
FFamilySearchDELETED
Photo Detached
0 -
The photos that were deleted were not "memories that have been in the system for several years." When you look carefully at the change log, you can see that a user added 29 memories on February 21. Then on March 29 and April 11, FamilySearch support staff deleted 29 memories, which appear in the change log as Photo Detached. It seems clear that these must be the same 29 memories.
That exact same user was involved in an identical situation reported in another discussion.
As for the portrait, I'm guessing that that user set one of those 29 memories as the portrait, and so when Family Search support staff deleted those memories, the portrait was also removed. Changes to the portrait don't appear in the change log, so it's hard to know just what the portrait was prior to this whole business. In any case, it was good of you to set the portrait back to a helpful image.
2 -
Many thanks, that makes complete sense.
0 -
Mod note: Two discussions on the same topic were merged here.
0
