How can you stop people incorrectly merging trees?

IanTudor1

I have come across several instances where other users have merged different trees incorrectly, which then creates a tree that is just wrong. Wrong people, wrong places, wrong occupations and there appears nothing I can do about it.

I have tried in many cases to add comments or open up discussions but to no avail. So currently on this site I have several ancestors documented who's history is wrong and inaccurate, this has corrupted the whole tree, misattributing many people to my family line (making a farse of the whole tree).

Is there something I can do to highlight this misinformation?

Paul W

@IanTudor1

Unfortunately, you appear to have acquired the misconception that there are different "trees" within FamilySearch's Family Tree: although perhaps it is the terminology you are using, because of course there are family branches within the one, huge communal tree.

As there is just the one tree, all users have equal entitlement to make their contributions relating to all profiles, except a minority that are "read-only" (usually those of Church leaders and their immediate families). This means a great deal of perseverance is often required when using this product, including the need to keep a careful watch on - by "Following" - your relatives' profiles, in the expectation another user will sometimes come along and make erroneous changes.

This is the "negative" side of Family Tree, whereby - no - you cannot stop others making incorrect merges, completely messing up the painstaking work you have possibly applied in presenting an accurate picture of your family members. The only advice that can be provided is to add as many sources and notes to each profile that might deter others from assuming other individuals (often of quite similar identity) are not the same persons as your relatives. I often try to do this by adding notes in the Collaboration sections, headed (say): "Not to be confused with William Brown xxxx-xxxx", where I go on to relate the difference between my relative / ancestor and the individual (often of very similar identity) another user might assume to be the same person.

In spite of all our efforts, careless or inexperienced (though rarely malicious) users will still make incorrect connections, causing the damage you have described: which, sadly, I have found is quite widespread throughout Family Tree.

The "positive" side of the project, however, can be the extremely useful contributions of those who have a similar interest to yours - possibly distant cousins within the same family. I have often found I have had very little to do when "adding" the profile of an individual in one of "my" family branches (not strictly "mine", of course). The newly-found relative is already there in the tree, with their "vitals" already completed.

Some users are only too willing to collaborate and provide further details that can fill out previously missing (and previously elusive) detail. For me, this can more than compensate for the many hours (sometimes days) I have to spend in correcting the errors / incorrect relationships carelessly added by others.

In summary, the everyday users (and even management) of Family Tree are only too aware of the problems you (and thousands of others) encounter in their work within "the Tree". The only further advice I would offer is to make sure as much of what you enter to Family Tree is backed up on your own, personal software package - hopefully you have already taken that "precaution". Then, no matter how much of your work is "corrupted" you will still have the accurate detail stored for reference (in a place where no one can change it).

Áine.ní.Donnghaile

@IanTudor1 You may wish to explore the new project for CET here on FamilySearch.

There is a dedicated group for feedback: https://community.familysearch.org/en/group/338-cet-feedback
https://www.familysearch.org/en/groups/research-tree

https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/the-new-gedcom-upload-experience

You can access all the resources of FamilySearch in a controlled tree environment.

SantaNinfa

@IanTudor1

In your post you stated:

So currently on this site I have several ancestors documented who's history is wrong and inaccurate, this has corrupted the whole tree, misattributing many people to my family line (making a farse of the whole tree).

Is there something I can do to highlight this misinformation?

As you read through @Paul W 's informative reply, keep in mind what is implicit in everything Paul has stated: You can change everything that was done that is wrong. You do not have to look at anything that is wrong, inaccurate or misattributed - in other words, you can change it.

The beauty (and flaw) of the tree is that you don't have to live with those incorrect changes - you can fix them all and follow Paul's advice regarding how to document your corrections. You don't want to highlight the misinformation, you should correct or delete the misinformation and then explain your changes.

PiioN

There are many who only look for similar names and then merge, not looking at profiles. I would even suggest to spot if thisis hte case with those persons who were merged wrong and then change the data somehow, to put names a bit differently, or to add addition to name ("in Eastborne") or to leave out the eact dob and only vague place. And then to use a clearing notice as a tick chosen as a warning: "This is a profile XX in ZZ, not to do with MM)

CherylMillerBlack

In my experience, a faulty merge often happens because a source gets linked to the wrong profile and then both profiles look the same.

When unmerging, it is necessary to look at every source and decide which it will go to.

Anyway, it's not just people doing random merges, but (more often, even) people attaching the wrong sources to someone with a similar name.

Mark McKenzie_1

As @CherylMillerBlack mentioned it is important to do the 'clean up' phase when unmerging. Making sure errant Sources are removed and the various associated events/facts and alternate names as well. It helps keep the same suggested merge from being offered again down the road. When you remove a Source make an effort to find out what existing PID that it may belong to and attach as appropriate. This will also help create a bigger 'difference' between candidate PIDs. You may find you'll have to create a 'new' PID and its associated 'line' if an appropriate one cannot be found

IanTudor1

Thanks for all the feedback, it explains a lot. It is clear this one big tree is full of errors and misinformation.

Fortunately I maintain my Family tree on Ancestry.com, it contains 30,000 people who i know without doubt are related to me and that any information attached to them has been put there by me and can only be altered by me.

Mark McKenzie_1

@IanTudor1 If you ever have the inclination to bring your Ancestry work here to FamilySearch via a CET the lines you've developed along with the supporting Sources/Facts can no doubt help others here as well. My Ancestry tree was where I first started my work and it has expanded thanks to some DNA connections I've been able to justify thru the records. I intend to export/import the Ancestry GEDCOM here in a CET

You don't want to give up entirely on the FamilyTree as the collaborative nature is for the most part very helpful

JuanZuluaga3

Would it be possible to incorporate an indicator of Quality for data?

GEDCOM has a QUAY tag.

I've found that it often helps to send a friendly message to the people who messes the data. We can all learn. I just rediscovered a tree that I worked on years ago — and it was awful. I think I do much better now.

Also, there may be honest disagreements about what happened and there is value in presenting the competing explanations out in the open.