Is the user "TreeBuilding Project" taking the tree forward or wasting time?
Answers
-
@Paul W agreed on all counts (and thank you), though BMD records in E&W post 1837 do seem more logical and structured (even if a bit lacking in detail) when compared with the US.
I'm just doing some more analysis (also using the BYU RLL Census Tree Dec 2023 snapshot which I found in the Computer-Generated Trees section of FS Genealogies) to look at these delays in more detail. More on this soon.
0 -
I know that Rootstech is a few months away. If anyone is planning to attend, it would be worth the effort to try and talk to FamilySearch staff in person. Clearly the emails are easy for them to ignore or set aside as not that big of a deal. Joe clearly has connections with FamilySearch. I'm assuming that FamilySearch had to have approved these projects because the BYU RLL are using scripts (maybe API's) otherwise the activity would be flagged by systems engineers. The registering of dozens of "volunteer" accounts on a regular basis would normally be flagged as sock puppets and yet they are allowed to exist. It is also appears that FamilySearch is not reviewing these types of projects on a regular basis, both for outcomes and data integrity, or are not communicating about it. This kind of activity, despite not originating from FamilySearch, reflects poorly on an otherwise amazing service and platform.
And while these projects are full of good intentions, they are being done against good standards of practice established by genealogy organizations around the world. It's easy to become enthusiastic by advances in technology and assume that technology will make the work easier. We are seeing just the opposite.
1