Question regarding Memory Sources and Upload Policies:

ChrisPetersen

I’ve been running into "screening" issues when uploading PDFs that contain URLs. It seems even non-hyperlinked web addresses trigger the filter.

1. The Issue: Modern PDF readers turn plain text URLs into clickable links, causing them to fail FamilySearch screening.
2. The Conflict: Removing "www." allows the upload to pass, but I’ve been told this might be considered "circumventing" Policy #4 (No links to outside websites).

I’ve now removed all location references from my document, but I want to make sure I’m following the spirit of the guidelines.

Can someone explain the underlying principle behind the "No URL" rule and the best way to cite external locations without breaking it? They are list in the source citation.

Is removing "https" or "www" circumventing this policy?

See

Samuel Law Busby L1F2-3GT Sources 1833

Nyx773

Regarding #4 of the image guidelines:

https://www.familysearch.org/en/legal/familysearch-upload-guidelines-and-policies

It seems contradictory, that "Links to outside websites (i.e. no URLs)." is prohibited on images but is allowed when creating a Source.

ChrisPetersen

MandyShaw1

@Nyx773 I imagine it's because FS hosts Memories but doesn't host external sources, but I agree it's a somewhat artificial distinction from the end user's perspective (what if they click on an external source from FT and the url has been hijacked, for example?)

Nyx773

@ChrisPetersen True, if the source is an image file and the webpage links are listed in the "Where…", "Describe…" or "Reason…" fields.

However, I was referring to a source as a webpage, which is very much clickable.

Áine.ní.Donnghaile

@ChrisPetersen Are the "screening" issues automated emails you receive after uploading a memory? If that is the case, you need to respond to the email asking for human review.

The initial review of each memory we upload is computer-generated. Nearly every memory I upload - even proof statements in my own words - is rejected by the algorithm but accepted when I request human review.

ChrisPetersen

@Áine.ní.Donnghaile I never received the email, It just said "screening" on the memory on the source. It was that way for over a week and a half. FamilySearch will not accept any memory that contains URLs.

Is removing "https" or "www" circumventing this policy?

ChrisPetersen

I know that many have been receiving emails regardingrestricted memories. These notifications are being triggered because the memories contain URLs (web links). Familysearch Upload Guidelinesstate that content may not link to outside websites.

MandyShaw1

@ChrisPetersen

I honestly think archiving the pdf to e.g. archive.org and attaching it as an external source is the better option, especially as these Memory restrictions often seem to crop up long after the Memory was first uploaded, and potentially when no-one is looking (and you can't watch/follow Memories).

The attaching, editing and detaching of (properly archived) external sources are properly reflected in the profile change log and permitted to all (so properly collaborative), while Memory upload/removal support neither of these things (though tagging/untagging do get logged on the relevant profile).

I think Memories are fine for photos, stories, and other background information, but I definitely wouldn't use them for documents that back up the genealogy in any way. I suspect they often get uploaded as just Memories when they genuinely verify elements of the profile and thus should be Sources. And Memory Sources are all well and good, but what if FS suddenly restricts the Memory?

Adrian Bruce1

@ChrisPetersen said "FamilySearch will not accept any memory that contains URLs."

This is pessimistic in my experience. I had written a Memory document (PDF) containing the "proof" of someone's parentage. Naturally, I cited my sources, one of which was an online source of newspapers for California, with its URL. I got a rejection (with no specific explanation, which is not helpful), immediately replied to the rejection mail asking for manual review. Fairly quickly (within a day or so) I got a clearance for the unaltered document.

If you didn't receive an email then that is an error and needs to be reported, as it is utterly impossible to completely automate such a review process.

I know @MandyShaw1 doesn't like my method of using memories but I'm not wild about putting PDFs elsewhere.

MandyShaw1

@Adrian Bruce1 that's fair!

ChrisPetersen

Still playing with adding memory / sources. I added a new memory to Samuel Busby (as a test). All it has in it, is the following:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/19114/page/2380

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/19583/page/191

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/19728/page/877

When I copy them and pasted them here in this post or in chrome. It replaced the "tt" with " (quotes).

h"ps://www.thegaze"e.co.uk/London/issue/19728/page/877

This created an invalid address. It passed screening. Maybe Familysearch has found a way to make memory / sources all comply with Policy #4 (No links to outside websites).