URL links in memories items
For a little while now - a specific administrative team at FS - has been restricting items (not current uploads - but items uploaded long ago ) - that are pdfs with hyperlinks (internet links) in them .
( I actually think they haven't yet added the check to the current check for new uploads)
this is some retroactive work they are doing.
just seems like a rather arbitrary decision.
We are allowed and encouraged to include url links on Family Tree Sources.
We are allowed to refer to url links in notes/collaborate items
and various other locations . .
So why is that any different than memories???
Answers
-
and the problem is - there are literally millions of pdfs that have been in the system now for many years
and are only now being restricted/deleted. The submitter would have assumed that all was good with the upload.
which means if the user is no longer active now - these memories items will be gone for good - - (the person will not be correcting the situation - they may even be deceased)
and even for active users - many users just dont have the tech skills to understand what to do.1 -
Yes, this happened to me. I had a professionally written research report with proper citations that included basic URLs. The irony is that all of the citations/URLs were for FamilySearch. I appealed the decision and the senior volunteer is blindly and strictly following the rule. Apparently I can strip out the citations and it is all good, which doesn't help me prove my case. I was also told to add the sources to the Family Tree, which are all there but doesn't help with the correlation and analysis of my case and ironically contains the FamilySearch urls that I used. The sad thing is this particular report is critical because of a dispute with a DNA cousin that is insistent on a connection that I can prove has no documentary evidence (not to mention extraordinarily weak DNA evidence).
1 -
yes - the whole point of urls is often to provide source documentation and proof and show research
This is one change that just flatly makes no sense to me.
I mean, sure one could argue, that such links could point to some inapproproate site - and a way for bad actors to point people at inappropriate material.
But this is using a sledge hammer to fix a small problem.
People could do the same thing with the family tree source url links - and yet those are not being restricted.
This just makes no sense at all . .
and Yes - I agree - people are just blindly enforcing the rule with no idea as to why1 -
and even more bizarre - - -
Is that if you have memory items hooked to a READ ONLY Profile (usually a famous person)
FS has also been reviewing these - and often wants you to point to a LINK which shows that the item is in the public domain and doesnt violate copyright,
Its like the left hand and the right hand dont talk to each other
One doesnt want hyperlinks and one does
in both cases - these are reviews of old uploaded items - NOT part of the process for new uploads.0 -
I'd suggest uploading the report document to the Internet Archive (https://archive.org/upload/) and then linking to the result as a single Source.
0 -
This explains an issue I had with a PDF that I loaded as a Memory in about November 2024. In March 2025, I had an "Upload was Restricted" missive from FamilySearch Data Administration saying that the memory was not in accordance with the guidelines.
I immediately appealed the restriction - which was slightly difficult since I wasn't told which guideline had been breached. In fairness, within 3 days, the restriction was lifted, with Support saying:
We have reviewed this uploaded memory and determined that it was restricted in error. We have removed the restriction
But still nothing stated why the restriction had been imposed in the first place. My best guess at the time was that it referred to a case of illegitimacy in the 1890s which might upset someone today. But this thread explains it, as the document links to the URL of the California Digital Newspaper Collection website. I've just checked the guidelines and the list of forbidden things includes
Links to outside websites (i.e. no URLs).
But I'm sure that if I had read that, I would have assumed that they couldn't possibly have meant that citations containing URLs were forbidden… After all, I can create links containing URLs to external sites when I'm creating sources in FamilySearch. This leaves me with a number of questions:
- Why wasn't the URL picked up and rejected when the memory was first loaded? ( @Dennis J Yancey suggests this is not being done on load - yet);
- Why can't the exact issue be highlighted in the restriction notice?
- Will my memory with the URL be picked up again at some point in the future and restricted again? After all, it still has the URL in it.
- Why are URLs acceptable in so many places in FamilySearch but not in Memory documents?
- Why is FamilySearch suggesting we ignore Best Practice in genealogy by neglecting to fully cite our sources inside memory documents?
0 -
It feels to me as if FS has two roles here, one as a genealogy data store provider endeavouring to encourage good practice, but also one as a cloud storage provider (i.e. for Memories) with really, really risk-averse policies, and that these are conflicting.
1 -
Personally I dont think it has anything to do with Cloud Storage directly
this is a decision by FamilySearch alone - totally independent of cloud storage or not.
For whatever reason they just dont want hyperlinks . . . it would be the same whether or not it was cloud storage.0 -
They dont like this either . . .
they dont want any external link . . . whether its a single link to one external document or not.correction - I guess if you put it as a family tree source and not a memory - yes it would work - but that kinds of defeats the purpose. Memories are nice because they are so obvious and in your face - and not like sources that everyone misses.
0 -
But this would be just an ordinary cited external Source (not related to Memories in any way) like any other such Source: a book, or an article in a paper or electronic periodical, or whatever. External Sources can and often will have URLs in them, surely, without FS taking any notice? Not the same thing at all as a Memory (or Memory treated also as a Source) that has URLs in it. I have never heard of FS restricting or limiting external Sources in any way.
0 -
You are correct. I was initially thinking you were referring to a memory that was referencing a single external source.
1 -
That's fine thanks. The key difference here I think is that FS stores Memories itself (hence my reference to it as a 'cloud storage provider') and therefore perhaps has (or feels it has) more responsibility for their content. Can't personally see that it makes any difference at all from the perspective of the user viewing a mixture of Memories and Sources on a profile.
1 -
Yes the enforcement appears to be any URLs in the memory and the rule says no outside URLs. So a bit of a conflict when the URLs that are supposedly in violation are familysearch.org and not outside URLs at all. Certainly a policy that needs some reconsideration. There needs to be a way to attach professional-style research to profiles. I was perfectly willing to release copyright and wanted the research out there. The benefit to attaching a document to a memory is that it is much more visible. Very few drive-by genealogists even review sources before making changes, but they MAY look at a memory. And has been mentioned, I now have to host the research elsewhere, attach it as a source link with an OUTSIDE url. The irony.
2 -
Note - this is not a new policy - it has always been part of the memories rules.
(though never really making much sense)
BUT for many many years - it was never enforced.
Now it is being retroactively enforced ( a little at a time) - on items that people assumed were fine since they have been in the system for years now.
and so potentially millions of items are at risk of being restricted - when maybe even the users are no longer active any more.
I really hope FS Leadership re-thinks this . . . .1 -
If a person knows about both sources and memories - yes I agree
BUT so many people totally miss the sources - and are attracted to the memories due to their visual nature.
and also - the idea was that if you uploaded a item to memories - it would be there forever
Versus some link to some external site that could go dark next week or any time . . .
Anyone who maintains a list of internet links across the web - knows just how transitory such links can be.
Many of FS sources with url links will no longer be valid 10 years from now
but hopefully a memories item will still be here 10 years from now.
unless as I bring up - they restrict/delete it for some stupid reason.2 -
Agreed, if you're going to disallow something you need to do it straight away while the notification is still going to reach the uploader.
To be honest I tend to focus on Sources rather than Memories - we're all different.
0 -
sources are wonderful too - - - but like I said - - dont expect the link to work forever. . .
Memories should be here for ever
and they dont rely on you using some sort of third party storage.Geocities . . . gone
rootsweb . . . gone
genforum . . . gone
Genweb - most have changed their url
just a few of the thousands of web sites - totally gone or links chnaged . . .
which is why I love Memories with the hope they will be around forever0 -
Please see the FamilySearch Upload Guidelines and Policies - Updated 2017-03-28
https://www.familysearch.org/en/legal/familysearch-upload-guidelines-and-policies
"Content MAY NOT contain images, depictions, or descriptions of4. Links to outside websites (i.e. no URLs)."
0 -
yes - that is not new though - the rule has been in place almost forever. . . .
though never enforced till now - and even now is not enforced as far as I know in the first pass upload process. but has been enforced in a rather selective and arbitrary manner retroactively by a certain FS team looking at existing items. (There surely are currently millions of pdfs in memories that contain urls - that have not been restricted - just the ones arbitrarily restricted) if the team continues to retroactively restrict items - it could mean millions of documents would be deleted from Familysearch.
The question that everyone asks - - - is WHY cant we include urls ? No one seems to have any good answer to that other than - "that's the rule"1 -
That's why it is a good idea to use the Internet Archive to future-proof external links, as on Wikipedia (which in fact, as I understand it, automates the archiving of links).
0 -
so what happens when tomorrow the Internet Archive no longer exists?
why is it any different than the other millions of web sites that are no longer around?
"Future proofed links" just means that they don't plan on making changes to the URLs
but plans change . . . and organizations and web sites do go dark - when no one thought they would . . .
Just look at what happened to Rootsweb - - which no one ever thought would go away - and their future proofed URLs are no longer around . . .0 -
I think we will need to agree to differ here (and I agree 100% that there is no obvious reason for FS to limit links in Memories, so we could easily not be in this position).
0 -
I just dont understand why the Internet Archive is any different than millions of other web sites that are no longer with us - - what makes you think it will still be here 10 years from now?
0 -
Of course I don't know that, it's just a least worst option given it exists, and is widely trusted, for specifically this purpose. (I guess, if FS wanted to, it could look at setting up its own archiving capability for external links.)
0 -
I tend to agree. I have a profile, my wife’s uncle, KIA during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. After retirement, the Commanding Officer of his ship wrote a memoir describing the ship’s history including that day. He wrote it, it’s under copyright restriction, cannot be posted on FS, so, it would ne nice to include a link to that memoir for those interested to read about her uncle’s fateful day.
0
