How to resolve users having different confidence thresholds without deleting FamilyTree information?
Hi… I think I am using FamilySearch how it is not intended. Please bear with me as I learn.
There were already some family trees of the people I am researching, however they include information/relationships without sources in some cases. I personally would prefer a tree which only contains cited data, but I respect that someone has put a lot of personal work and effort into these other trees, and that work most certainly has meaning to them.
So instead of making hundreds of changes to their family tree and disrupting the 10's-100's of hours of work that they have put in, I have started building a separate family tree which follows first-principals based on my own strict criteria of requiring unambiguous sources. This way, I can build out this separate tree and attach documents as I see fit, without taking away any of the work that other users have done.
But I can see based on all the warnings I encounter, this is not how FamilySearch wants its users to be creating trees. For example, the first time I used "Source Linker", it was really helpful because I used it on a document that was not yet attached to any other tree. It presented me with arrows to include information from that document into the tree I was attaching it to. Really cool! But now when I try to attach documents about people that are already associated to another tree, source linker only shows me a comparison without lining up entries or any ability to import data to my tree. I am assuming this is because Source Linker doesn't play nice when trying to import "duplicate" entries… This was actually my initial reason for posting a question here, was to ask how to use source linker when there is already a duplicate tree for that person. (I am still curious about this, if anyone has an answer.)
But more broadly, I wish to understand: If the intention of FamilySearch is to have only a single tree entry for each historical person, then how is someone expected to resolve when there are substantially different beliefs about what is true in a family's history? And related to this, is there anything preventing someone else from modifying the work I am doing, potentially deleting or modifying all the hours that I am putting in? (ie. someone doing the thing that I am trying to avoid doing to other users?) I am curious how source indexes and family trees stay intact if the system allows/intends for such fragile overwriting.
Thank you.
Answers
-
There is only one tree. The FamilySearch Family Tree is intended to be a collaborative tree with a single profile for every person who has ever lived on the planet.
You can contact most other contributors by clicking on the username to send a private message. In that way, you can offer information or ask questions about the information they have posted. Of course, some users may no longer be active or may be deceased.
Any user can edit most profiles. A few profiles are Read-Only, such as those for famous people or early leaders of the LDS Church.
The changelog allows anyone to see what changes have been made and by whom. In most cases, that log also makes it simple to reverse a change.
You may be interested in the pilot FamilySearch Labs project Profile Quality Score where we work to improve existing profiles with the best possible information.
Hope this helps.
A blog post about the collaborative nature of the FSFT: https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/tips-collaborative-family-tree
6 -
Áine has covered most of the points I was about to respond to myself. In summary, you do not need to add separate profiles for individuals who already have IDs in Family Tree. As you rightly suspect, another user could quite easily come along and either merge your newly created profiles with the older ones and / or carry out extensive work, which might indeed have a detrimental effect on your many hours of diligent work. Sadly, this is the "downside" to a project like the open-edit Family Tree. The advantage lies in finding some of the already, excellently constructed branches to which you can link your relatives.
On the issue of sources, if an indexed source has already been attached to an ID in Family Tree, you would usually examine that profile. If it was for the same individual to whom you were intending it to be attached, you should compare the profiles ("yours" and one created by another user) and (taking time and care) merge the two. However, if you find the source has been incorrectly attached (say to an individual of similar, but not the same identity), you should feel free to detach the source from the individual to whom it is currently attached and add it to the "correct" ID.
Hoping these comments will be of help, but please return with any further queries - either on merging, adding /reassigning sources, or any other procedures with which you have not had previous experience.
5 -
Thank you both.
I appreciate the information about the Profile Quality Score, @Áine Ní Donnghaile. This kind of automated feedback is very helpful to me. That blog post also does a very nice job at explaining the benefits and difficulties of the collaborative family tree - thank you.
@Paul W - Your explanation makes sense to me, thank you. This concept of merging sounds very relevant for my situation.
In light of all that you have shared with me, I think I would like to complete my work with this duplicate tree I have started, and then collaborate with the creators of the other colliding trees to merge them all into a single canon. This way, I am able to build out the information from-scratch without impacting the existing trees (and it gives me space to make some errors as I learn how to use FamilySearch), and then collaborate on merging once my tree is "mature". I hope this approach seems reasonable.
Continuing the discussion around Source Linker: As I refine my duplicate tree in preparation for later merging, is there a way I can access Source Linker for my duplicate identities so that it offers that really helpful 1-click import of fields from a source document into the identity? I believe the reason I am not seeing this behaviour is because the source has already been linked once before. But it would be really nice to be able to import that data to my duplicate identity for the purposes of building up this tree prior to merging.
A followup question about merging/overwriting: Is it possible to view a tree and its sources at a specific snapshot in its change history? For example, if I complete this current tree with my strict sourcing requirements, but later on a merge results in relaxing those burdens of proof… Am I able to easily view a snapshot of my tree from before the merge?
Alternatively, is there a way I can export all information and linked sources about all members in a tree, so that I can save a local copy of my work in case it is significantly changed in the future?
Thank you both again. I appreciate the support from this community.
0 -
If you continue building the branches you have been working on, you will almost assuredly create more duplicate profiles that will eventually need to be merged in the one and only tree. I would suggest that you begin to work within the tree framework.
If you want a snapshot of what you have done, you can see your contributions at https://www.familysearch.org/tree/contributions/changes
You can see the changes for any individual profile in the changelog of that profile. On the right side of any profile, look for "Latest Changes" and the "Show All."
Due to the size and complexity of the single tree, it's not possible to view your work in isolation, within the FSFT. If you want to download your work, you'll need desktop genealogical management software. You'll find several options listed in the Solutions Gallery.
Edit to add: This comment was in reply to a comment from the OP that has now disappeared.
4 -
Another point to keep in mind is that there is a high probably that the unsourced information you are seeing did, in fact, have great sources at one point. The trouble is that Family Tree contains every bit of genealogical data submitted by users ever since FamilySearch first opened as the Genealogical Society of Utah in 1894. Some of the data you run across in Family Tree could have started out as a nicely sourced paper family group sheet submitted in 1895 and gone from a paper in a filing cabinet to the microfiche IGI to a transcription put in various databases to a file on a CD to the New Family Search database to Family Tree. Unfortunately the transition through all these various prior databases did not take the sources along with them. It is only with Family Tree that we finally have a really good source documentation process available to us.
I would encourage you to switch your viewpoint from "this data doesn't have a source so out it goes" to "this data came from a source and I am going to use it as a clue to let me work backwards from this final research conclusion to the sources it came from and get those original sources on the profile."
Regarding your concern, "I am curious how source indexes and family trees stay intact if the system allows/intends for such fragile overwriting," I have found that profiles that have as complete information as possible with all possible sources properly attached with research notes, reason statements, and other documents as needed which come from time periods that actually have sources available, tend to stay very stable aside from very minor squabs such as is a last name spelled Seely or Seeley.
It seems to be mainly the profiles of famous people from way back in history that run into problems with major stability. For example if you have someone like King Arthur and high level experts cannot agree whether he was even a real person or not, you do tend to get armchair dabblers in history picking out their favorite theories then arguing over his Family Tree profile.
You will hear reports here of users that do seem to have as their goal to just do as much damage as possible, but fortunately the Change Log does make it rather easy to correct corrupted profiles and I would assume that the problems that get reported are a minute fraction compared to the excellent work done by the vast majority of users and do not reflex the overall health of the database.
7 -
Well, first principle: it's all meant to be one tree. What it actually is is a jungle, of course, but the intent is to have one and only one profile per deceased person. All of the tools and algorithms are set up with that principle in mind.
If the "fantasy branch" is entirely unsourced, then it's easy enough to work on the documented version separately, ignoring any notices of possible duplicates; the difficulty arises — as you've discovered — when the users working on the fiction have started trying to document it as fact, "using up" the index entries that you need.
Yes, Source Linker is specifically set up to only attach an index entry to a single profile in FamilySearch's Family Tree. You have to detach from the one profile before it'll let you attach to the other. It is possible to attach index entries to multiple profiles using your Source Box, but this doesn't have the conclusion-creation feature of Source Linker, and has to be done separately for each person in the index, so it is often easier and faster to just bypass the index entirely, attaching the image directly as your source.
I've encountered my fair share of unsourced branches; my experience is that they aren't invented or created on FamilySearch. They're copied from genealogies found elsewhere, such as nobility compilations or magazine articles. If I find this outside source, I often go through the work of attaching it to every person mentioned. (Yes, it gets incredibly tedious, but the sense of accomplishment of looking at "attached to 58" is …not insignificant.)
The way I see it, working separately from the undocumented (or more relevantly, inaccurate) entries on the shared tree is only ever a temporary measure. Eventually, the versions will need to be reconciled, duplicates will need to be merged, and all of the available documentation will need to be correctly attached. It's largely irrelevant whether that's done by you, "intruding" on someone else's work, or the other way around; the important thing is that it be as close to correct and proven as it is possible to get.
5 -
Wow, this thread is getting popular! Bear with me as I take time to respond to all these replies. I will tag a user before responding to their comment for convenience.
Also, I tried editing some punctuation on my previous response above, but it seems that caused it to be held for moderation. I apologize if that is making this thread more confusing to follow.
Thank you @Áine Ní Donnghaile. That Solutions Gallery you linked to is very helpful, I am looking forward to exploring local software that FamilySearch can sync into. That would be great for personal archival purposes.
As to the duplicate tree situation, I do acknowledge that the endpoint of this process will be to merge profiles into the single "one tree to rule them all". But the way that I work, I feel a lot more comfortable having these blank slate profiles to add to and avoid confusion/assumptions. Rest assured that I fully intend to merge at the end of this process.
@Gordon Collett - Thank you for your perspective. I believe we align on how to view sourceless data - I certainly do not want to delete any data from the platform, and I have already encountered such information being a useful research "hint" to ultimately find the unnamed source. It is in my duplicate tree specifically that I am being very particular about only adding data which I can confidently source, as I do not want to perpetuate any false information as I build this duplicate tree of select individuals from the ground-up. But note that this is only a restriction I am placing on my ground-up duplicate tree. Ultimately, I intend to merge my strict tree with the other trees that contributors have built, and preserve as much compatible data as possible.
Your note of stable profiles is reassuring. I have so far been adding reason statements only for non-obvious additions (like non-primary references, census age discrepancies, etc.). But I have not been writing reason statements for obvious sources, like a census with the person's name and information (impressively) spelled and entered completely correctly. If you believe even obvious sources warrant a reason statement, I would appreciate that guidance and update my entries accordingly.
Overall, thank you for your reassurance :)
@Julia Szent-Györgyi - Regarding first principals: hah! You got me there 😅 Thank you for that reframe. I definitely want to reiterate that my end-goal is to merge what I am working on into a single profile per deceased individual. It's just the process of getting there is a little shaky in my workflow, and that makes sense once I think about how the tools expect no duplicates. I just really don't want to alter the existing records until I have a better familiarity with FamilySearch, and feel more fully confident in the data and sources I am including (specifically, to build a strong overlap). So I am using the ability to create duplicates as an intermediary tool, to hopefully avoid as much headache as possible for others (and I guess that means leaving all the headache for me while I build it, lol).
It certainly has been rewarding as I have added extra fields to an index (the highlight tool is VERY nice), and it feels great when it all comes together through attaching to everyone :)
I suppose where my apprehension stems from is I have been viewing isolated trees as peoples' pet projects, and "who am I to disrupt their personal work?". But ultimately, if the goal is one unified tree, and if I can point to all my overlapping sources, it sounds like that objective truth should take priority over any conflicting information in less documented trees. I just hope that the eventual merge won't ruin somebody's day.
1 -
We can't predict whether our edits will make or ruin another person's day. There are many users of FS who operate under the assumption that it is another individual-trees site, exactly the same as Ancestry and MyHeritage; they think they "own" the profiles they've worked on, and are shocked, confused, and angry when this is proven wrong. However, there are also many users who fully comprehend the collaborative tree concept, and are happy to encounter fellow researchers who are adding well-reasoned conclusions with supporting evidence.
On the other collaborative tree platform that I'm familiar with (WikiTree), editing is not quite as open as it is on FS; profiles have managers and trusted lists and varying levels of privacy. There is, therefore, a sort of mostly-unspoken/unwritten etiquette to editing there: while a profile with "open" privacy is technically available for anyone to contribute, most people think it's best to start with a message to the manager before making any major changes. (And many people will not touch a profile with a photograph unless it's a famous person.) Some of those ideas can be applied on FS: if another user has made extensive edits on a profile, you can try sending an internal message ("chat", now), asking after the person's sources and reasoning, or informing him or her of your intentions. But I think such messages are completely optional: if you attach your sources, and you explain any non-straightforward reasoning, then the previous contributor(s) can have no complaint.
Regarding "snapshots" of the tree: while the Change Log preserves everything, restoring the tree to a previous state is not a trivial endeavor. Merges, especially, are difficult to undo; that's one reason they're a three-screen process with many warning messages (that we've all learned to ignore, but that's a different topic). Synchronizing with offline software is really the best backup method, but this is definitely a "do as I say, not as I do" situation, as the closest I've come to a backup of my FS contributions is to copy profiles over to WikiTree. (For me, FS is vastly preferable as a working environment, not only because it happens to be the most useful repository for the part of the world relevant to me, but also because it's much more forgiving of mistakes than the other sites I've tried. A typo in a transcription only needs to be corrected once, on FS.)
4 -
I am hoping somebody will be able to help me out here (with the queries directed at me)! I can address some of your points, but probably not so well as some of the other members of this forum.
On the point of "merging your tree" at a later stage, I see nothing wrong in refining the profiles of the individuals included in the branch, but as it is not a "tree" as such you must be aware that any merging will have to be done on a one-by-one basis for each of any duplicate individuals.
Regarding the sources, I come to see whether any applicable to my relatives have been attached (rightly or wrongly) to another profile (ID) in one of two ways. Firstly, when I carry out a search of the FS database I often find a "Family Tree" symbol to the right of the record, which shows it has already been added to another ID. If you bring up the record it will show to whom it has been attached (as a source). For me, it would usually be at that stage that I would either transfer the source to my (version of the) individual - usually if it has been attached to the other ID in error - or straight away carry out a merge. The other way I would notice a source (concerning my relative) had already been attached to another profile is when a flag suggesting a possible duplicate appears as a "Research Help" on the Details page. Again, I would examine that ID to see what sources and relatives had been attached, before deciding my next step.
The problem with FamilySearch indexed sources is they can't be attached to multiple individuals (well, not if they share the exact same URL), so you will have to detach them from the other ID if you want them for the profiles you have created. Another user (who possibly created that ID) might still be active within Family Tree and probably wouldn't be too happy if you removed sources from "their" relatives and transferred them to "yours", though - especially if the two IDs concerned did represent the same individual!
On the issue of viewing a "tree" at a specific point in time and/or saving data to a spreadsheet, or exporting to another program (like RootsMagic, for example), this is not an area in which I have any expertise, so hopefully another Community member can help advise on these matters.
Whilst I have become quite proficient in carrying out many of the tasks required to maintain my relatives' FT profiles to a (hopefully) good standard, I still have a lot to learn and still find some aspects a little difficult to grasp myself. It also always helps if there are multiple users engaged in a discussion (like this) as we all express ourselves in a slightly different manner, so if you don't see what I'm trying to explain, I'm sure (expressed in a different manner) the (unique) way you need to complete certain tasks within Family Tree will soon "click". (Sorry for being so long-winded!)
3 -
For my personal research, I work in parallel, with almost everything being entered on the FSFT and on my personal tree on another website.
For client work and pro bono work - I do a lot of both - I sometimes start within the FSFT if I find a solid, well-sourced branch. I may then use Family Tree Maker software to download that branch and all its sources to a standalone tree.
3
