Search > Genealogies
I am concerned with the new 'Search > Genealogies' feature that allows many family trees from different places to be attached as Sources. I am seeing more and more of these Sources show up. Although they are great for hints, they are usually without documentation, and potentially fraught with errors. Unfortunately, people are now using these so-called-Sources to make changes to documented profiles with disasterous effect. Additionally, it makes it increasingly more difficult to look at a Sources Page and see valid sources. Eventually, there could be hundreds of these 'Genealogies' Sources attached to one page! Perhaps these 'Genealogies' could be attached on a different page or area of the Profile.
Answers
-
Can you give an example of a profile where a genealogy is attached as a source, or an example of a genealogy as a records search result or hint? I've never seen the former, and haven't encountered the latter in about four or five major changes to the Search - Records interface. (There was a time when the search results page had results from genealogies down at the very bottom, but I think that must have been a decade ago by now.)
Search - Genealogies has been around for many years; I don't recall a change in its basic presentation since well before the pandemic. If it's possible to cite one of those files as a source in Family Tree, I haven't figured out how.
1 -
Yes. I'll find one and post it. I hadn't seen it myself before today. It will take a few minutes…
While I search for a specific example… You can try it yourself if you like. Just go to the Menu > Search > Genealogies. Enter in one of your ancestors and see what pops up. You should then see how you can attach as a Source. If you look below the search fields and scroll-right you can see info on all the Collections. I believe there are currently 12.
FYI: They showed up as "Roots Finder" Sources.
Found one profile that has one Roots Finder Source. I saw a couple of profiles that had multiple. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LTJ9-RQN
Ok, here is one of them. It has 3. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LTVC-PW8
And another: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LR6Z-P8M That's enough for now.
0 -
I checked Genealogies before I posted, using my usual method of searching for my ggm (Julianna Trnyik), because the file I uploaded six years ago is the only one that has her. As always, it has an autocitation and my sources, truncated as before. Other than creating a source using the URL, same as I would for something found on a different website, I don't see a way to cite the file on Family Tree.
For completeness, I also did a search on a more generic name (Mary Miller) and checked both a PRF and a "MyTrees.com" entry, and didn't see any sort of "use as source" functionality on either one. Ditto for a random IGI submission. Perhaps there's a new feature that has only been rolled out to some users?
2 -
I searched the genealogies for one of my ancestors (who is often given a made-up name) and got a long list of search results as in any other search. Clicking on the name of one of the results brought up a screen with the details of that entry for that person in the submitted genealogy, with tons of errors. However, clicking on the blue “mug shot” icon to the far right of a result brought up the usual source linker. Only a few clicks away from easily attaching nonsense to the person and the relatives.
sorry, looking at this again I see not all results have the mug shot icon. Also, you may have to close the search window on the right hand side to see the icons.
1 -
"Mug shot"? Oh, the circle-and-half-moon "profile" icon that invokes Source Linker on Records search results (and has the false tooltip of "view possible tree matches")? I haven't ever seen that in Genealogies results.
Oh. That's 'cause my ggm only generates three of them (out of 253 results), and they're all well below the "nonsense" threshold, on page 2: "Lady Darnick" and "Darnick", born circa 1080.
The good news is, either the current hinting system problems are hiding them, or these matches in Genealogies are not shown in Research Help. (I checked Lady Darnick's suggested match.)
I'd rather not muck with the Tree by attaching these entries, so I don't know what they'd look like on the Sources tab. Anyone have an example they can link?
1 -
Mod note: Several links were embedded and some posts were edited to put multiple comments in a row by the same author in one post. In case some are not aware, users can edit their post for 4 hours.
2 -
Please re-read my original post.I posted example links and they have been rolled up into the original post. Thanx.
0 -
@Tiffany Farnsworth Nash, your post with examples wasn't there yet when I made that comment.
Do we have any idea whether these sometimes show up as hints or not?
1 -
I have not seen these has hints thankfully.. I have seen new profiles/people created based on "Roots Finder" Sources. So, it isn't just attaching Sources, it is also allowing creation of profiles/people based on the info in Genealogies. I just saw one that was added and it is totally wrong! Unfortunately, I believe this is even worse than people uploading GEDCOMS!
0 -
Yes, this is rather worrying. The reason FamilySearch has kept much of the Genealogies material (except the total extraction part of the IGI - sorry if I have used the wrong description) away from the main "Search" database has previously been given as relating to its lack of reliability.
Now, we are suddenly (?) able to add this stuff as sources to Family Tree. Either a change in thinking has taken place by the FamilySearch management team, or - in introducing this ability - there has been a lack of liaison between its different teams.
Unfortunately, this does illustrate the flaws in reporting matters that need escalating for investigation. Okay, we can probably rely on one of the mods to pass this issue to an appropriate FS team, but we will probably never be aware if this change was by accident or design, or is going to be reversed.
BTW - can anyone confirm for sure that this is a "new" option? I would have never even thought to add these records as sources, so this could have been going on for months (or years) as far as I'm concerned.
2 -
@Paul W
Thanks for your response. You are correct, Sources are being added BUT ALSO People/Profiles are being added from this often-erroneous information.
Please, everyone, if you agree that this is a big concern, post a comment that you agree so that we can escalate and get this in front of the right people. Also, if you can click the Like button that may help too.
Moderator, if you can help too that would be greatly appreciated.2 -
Here's the example I just found: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3WXD-56N
Interestingly, this "Community Trees" part of the Genealogies section is headed: "HIGH DATA ACCURACY", whereas other parts, like the IGI, are headed "UNKNOWN DATA ACCURACY". Other parts are headed "MEDIUM DATA ACCURACY". Ah, but it appears these records can't be attached as sources! **
So, the factor here appears to relate to someone at FamilySearch deciding which of its records are of "High Data Accuracy" and which are not.
This "rating" factor reminds me a bit of the new "Quality Score" feature for Family Tree profiles. Is it a human or a machine working out the criteria used for categorising the quality of data in FamilySearch records / material, I wonder?
** See https://www.familysearch.org/search/genealogies, as can't paste screenshot here.
0 -
I do not think people should be encouraged in any way to use Genealogy information within the Family Tree unless it is fully backed up by proper sources (in other words, it should be treated in the same way as Ancestry Family Trees).
I spent months trying to understand where an ancestor's first name in FT had come from, there being no primary or indeed secondary source for it (even family records had it as a ?). It then turned out to appear in the IGI in Genealogies, with zero backing information of any sort. So I have removed the name from FT.
I honestly can't see the point of having Genealogies in FS at all, there are many non-FS places where people can keep this information without confusing FT users.
1 -
I can understand your feelings here, Mandy, following your personal experiences. However, I'm quite happy to view trees in the section and still find that part of the IGI that has not been transferred to the main website to be of great use. True, they are subject to errors, but in the same way material indexed under a formal project can also be flawed (names or dates recorded incorrectly, wrong parish attributed, etc.).
When I started working with FamilySearch material in the mid-1980s, the only indexed source directly available was the IGI, but I would never have been able to trace my paternal family branch without the IGI.
I admit I have made little use of Genealogies with regard to submitting any of my own family branches, but have never posted these details on any other website, either.
2 -
I do see what you mean @Paul W - Genealogies can clearly steer people in the right direction - I'm no doubt being a bit harsh!
1 -
Paul - Great point about the Collection's Accuracy Ratings! When I did a search for my 5th GGrandfather Adonijah Farnsworth, I clicked to attach-record and the info that it wanted to merge was incorrect so I backed out. I'm not sure which Collection it was. I am looking for that now cuz now I'm curious if it was supposed to be highly accurate or not.
Julia - I did a normal search (name only) by going to his profile and clicking Search Records > FamilySearch. Nothing there. Many Results but no 'Roots Finder' info. I clicked on the Collections button to see if it showed up there. Nothing. I dug deeper into Collections and clicked on 'Other'. Nothing. So the Genealogies Collections don't appear to be showing up in the Hints system (yet - only time will tell).
Next, what is the Accuracy of the record that I found for Adonijah Farnsworth? I jumped over to Search > Genealogies and did a name-only-search for him and found the record.
On the Results page I see the following under the hint . That is the Collection.
Partner Trees
RootsFinderI went back to the Search > Genealogies page, scrolled down to see the Collections, scrolled right and found that collection: "UNKNOWN DATA ACCURACY". Well, duh!
Now, if you actually go into the record you will find the Citation:
"Roots Finder," database, FamilySearch(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:3:MM45-QZY : accessed 2024-04-22), entry for Adonijah Farnsworth, cites sources; "User:kenpur Tree:Ken&AnnePurucker" file (2:3:2:MMMM-2V9), submitted 2018-03-07 by Kenneth Purucker.
This doesn't give me any idea of which collection it comes from. Am I missing something?
Looking below the Title I clicked on "SHOW MORE DETAIL" which provides the following:
Submitted by: KENNETH PURUCKER
Person Count 44,807
Submission ID 2:3:2:MMMM-2V9That doesn't give me a clue as to which Collection it was either.
What does this tell me? That after you attach one of these records it is very difficult to figure out which Collection it came from and therefore the accuracy of it.
0 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi said:
" … I'd rather not muck with the Tree by attaching these entries, so I don't know what they'd look like on the Sources tab. Anyone have an example they can link? … "
I did try to see if I could attach a "Genealogy" entry to the Beta Tree but you can probably guess that I failed. I can search the Genealogies on the Beta Site and get index results, but the index results don't link to a record on the Beta site. I just see
Well, this is unexpected...
We can help you search literally billions of records, but we can't seem to find the page you're looking for.Presumably there are no Genealogy records on the Beta site, only indexes pointing to them… (or not).
1 -
Did you get to see the examples that I posted? They are in my original post.
0 -
Yes, I did thanks. I was hoping to watch the thing go through the attachment process from enquiry to finished profile. Not sure if that would have given me any further insight but it doesn't seem possible without potentially messing stuff about too much.
I could find my grandpa in the production Genealogies but that was an unattachable record.
2 -
My takeaway is that there will always be newer researchers who easily accept “what somebody else said” as proof. Those who have been at it for long time are shocked at the thought of it. In my personal experience, the following databases are frequently listed as sources, when they are nothing of the kind: Millenium File, International Genealogical Index [IGI], Ancestry Family Trees, Gedcom Data, and numerous, undocumented vanity genealogies [both published online and in book form]. I see these databases and vanity genealogies regularly used as “sources.” Two old sayings come to mind, “Let the buyer beware,” and “You can stand in your garage and call yourself a car. It doesn’t make it true.” There will always be an endless cycle of “old hands” who have been researching for decades, and the newer folks who have just recently become enthusiastic about researching their family history. Thoughtful older researchers already know to be careful about what you can safely add to your own personal tree to keep it accurate, BUT we can also encourage the newer researchers to be discriminating as well. The importance of using valid, well documented sources cannot be repeated too often.
1
