Willfully maintaining an inaccurate profile for the sake of fame.

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: A lot of things make me angry. But one of the most hair-tearing, teeth-grinding, blood-boiling things in the world is willful inaccuracy. If you have the truth before you and you deliberately ignore it, you are the worst kind of fool and you have no business operating a business that purports to be on the side of truth. I am referring, specifically, to the profiles of "famous" people. I have a "famous" person in a tangent line - no, he's not a direct ancestor, he's my 4th cousin 1 time removed - and because he's "famous" and I am not his direct descendant, I can't correct his profile. I have requested that FS correct it, I've even provided proof for the correction (direct from the horses mouth!); however, FS has decided to fatuously err on the side of stupidity and leave the record incorrect - simply because I'm not closely related enough.

This is beyond tolerance. Isn't the whole point of FT so that records could be correct to the best of our ability so that any ordinance work that gets done gets done properly? If the record is going to remain in FT then it needs to be correct. If it's not going to be corrected then it needs to be removed.

LegacyUser

Lee Grant Porter said: Joleen,
I sympathize with you completely. It is extremely exasperating to write up a case that shows that the Tree information for person, not even necessarily a famous one, is completely inconsistent with historical facts, inconsistent with natural laws, or not supported by primary sources which you have provided, and then be told that nothing can be done until you have shown how you are related to them.
That canned case response in such cases should be outlawed.

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: I don't understand how they can refuse to correct a blaring inaccuracy (especially where PROOF is provided) simply because someone isn't "closely related" enough. That defies logic. It's stupid, and not just because it's stupid, but because it makes them look like liars. It gives the whole program a bad name.

LegacyUser

Randy Hoffman said: If you could be more specific and provide your proof as well, it would increase the likelihood of your post being noticed and your problem being resolved.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: There are a number of Persons that are locked - only admin can change them. Some are famous, some less famous but for various reasons are locked.

Support has a limited number of resources and the urgency and importance of the change probably affects how likely Support feels the need to handle all these changes. Sometimes its hard to be objective about data and each person subjectively judges how important the change is. I would think being related to them and having evidence that materially affects the data does help your case. For instance there might be more attention if you have evidence that does affect ordinances.

I would be interested in the evidence and ancestor you refer to.

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: I've already contacted FS about the specifics of this case. The "resolution" I was given was that it's not going to be resolved; that, because this person is "famous" then the profile will absolutely not be corrected.

My purpose with this post is to make it known that this sort of ridiculousness is happening and perhaps, by alerting more people to the situation, I can generate enough pressure that my original case gets reopened and the appropriate steps are taken - namely, either the correct information is attached to the profile, or the profile is removed from the system.

I have already made my position clear to the "data administration" flunky who arbitrarily decided my case. The profile has now been officially locked (it was already locked before, but now there's a snazzy message attached to it making this clear), but if you are genuinely an employee of FS then you should realize the very real negative impact this type of action can elicit. If the FS head honchos want to be taken seriously in the field of genealogy, then they can't allow blatantly (and verifiably blatant) false information to be the status quo on any profile, let alone the profile of someone who many people might be inclined to search for (i.e. "famous" people).

I was told, initially, that "individuals are not able to make changes on restricted records. This information is restricted to protect the information from being altered incorrectly." In light of the "resolution," this comment is ludicrous! They are doing EXACTLY what they claim should not be done! I provided proof, directly from the individual whose profile is in question, as to the veracity of my correction. If that's not enough proof that the current profile is incorrect then I guess we should all just stop adding sources because no source, however close to the individual, is going to be proof enough.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Can you provide the person ID and evidence here?

(Sometimes there is so much abuse that Persons have to be locked -wikipedia will lock articles when this situation occurs)

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: Person ID LZTW-G33
Evidence: birth record, 1930 and 1940 US Census records, SS Death Index, and an interview in which he confirms all of the above.

LegacyUser

RealMac said: It is the weight of the evidence, the quality of the scholarship, that should determine the outcome of a request to correct errors of fact. It seems to me that the closer the relationship, the more likely it is that a bias may exist, so "not related closely enough" is probably worse than irrelevant as an acceptance criterion.

LegacyUser

Randy Hoffman said: And what is the error?
If it is the birth date, the census records are not really useful.

The birth index says 7 June, and the SSDI says 1 June. If you have the original birth certificate and a copy of his Social Security application, it would help in the evidence analysis. Until those are obtained, or until other original documents are, I believe most professional genealogists would not consider his birth date proven.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Without looking at the evidence (urls?) are you concerned with his name "Andy" versus the current "Andrew"? Or some other data values?

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: It's the name, not the dates. But since you bring up the dates, other public records all show 1 June 1926 as his date of birth.

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: BTW Randy Hoffman, thanks for calling me unprofessional. That's rich coming from someone who works for FamilySearch.

LegacyUser

GeneJ said: Perhaps as time permits, someone will update us on the plans for this classification?

1. Spot checking a couple of other profiles, appears the current "read only" classification has been more broadly applied than I expected.

As I recall, this classification was intended for the profiles of presidents and LDS church leaders.

2. I was disappointed to find messy, confused, unsourced profiles assigned this classification. Somewhat echoing RealMac's comment, where's the scholarship?

See Rev. William Noyes. LZ25-QK5.
https://familysearch.org/tree/#view=a...

See his son, "James" KN76-R4F
There is not even a last name on this profile; has union with "Living" wife.
https://familysearch.org/tree/#view=a...

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: GeneJ,
It's my understanding that certain "read only" records have been locked because family members have complained that unconcerned people have taken to altering information within those records so much that they've become, as you say, messy. I've found that this control method has been applied where and when FS chooses to avoid actually correcting the issues. (Yes, I realize that FS is making major changes all the time, but some changes are not quite as important as their position on the "to do" list might suggest, and when a concerned submitter brings a specific case to light, it seems that that case should be dealt with in a less avoidist manner)

And if FS support has "a limited number of resources" then perhaps they should hire more people? You can't open up a website like FT without expecting to handle issues. To believe otherwise is shortsighted, at best.

LegacyUser

Randy Hoffman said: Sorry, I assumed that you were not a professional genealogist, because I don't know of anyone on this system who is (although the topic has never come up).

LegacyUser

GeneJ said: Hi Joleen,

It is quite possible some of this is just a hiccup.

At least I hope FamilySearch wouldn't purposefully lock the Noyes profiles, much less lock them down in their current state.

On the other hand, if that is the route they choose to go, there are other sites that will welcome your work product. This includes that there are other universal "tree" sites where the same profiles exist.

No one can do everything at once. I think we need to give FamilySearch folks the opportunity to work through their tall stack of priorities.

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: Hi Gene,

I can't speak for the Noyes family, but I am personally aware of other families where this has happened and it was because someone hasn't done proper research and insists that incorrect (undocumented) information is accurate, even in the face of primary source evidence. I have been dealing with some people like this myself. I guess that's why I get so passionate about accuracy.

Yes, I'm aware of other sites that have universal trees and after the treatment I have received from FS I am seriously considering taking my business elsewhere, or shunning all interactive trees completely and keeping my research to myself (hey, wasn't that one of the things that FT was supposed to stop?).

BTW, it wasn't their lack of speed on this issue that steamed my clams, it was the flippant and hypocritical way in which the matter was handled. Had they simply stated that they needed more time to complete the (simple and easy) correction, then I wouldn't have had a problem with that. Had they requested more information, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. Had they asked me to contact the person who created the profile, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. I am not an unreasonable person, but hypocrisy is something that I can't abide.

LegacyUser

Jade said: They just terminated a bunch of tech staff in August 2013. Adding staff maybe not very likely.

LegacyUser

Lee Grant Porter said: The issue of establishing direct familial relationship before moving on a correction
The issue of establishing direct familial relationship before moving on a correction
request by a patron was an issue I encountered often in making corrections in nFS. My attitude on that issue has not changed so I will quote from one of my responses of a few years ago. I have the same attitude to making corrections to the so called restricted or blocked records, and since I have many ancestors who were closely connected to LDS Church leaders, I have encountered them often. You can be assured that no one in the special task force given the exclusive privilege of working on those records has more interest in seeing that the records are correct than I have, and I have just cause to be irritated when I see them entering in incorrect information and relationships using a mysterious user name with no contact information.

“Dear Family Search Data Administration,

I am not a direct descendant of the people involved in this case. They or their ancestors were fellow emigrants, pioneers, settlers friends, and neighbors, with my ancestors. Their histories are mingled with those of my ancestors. While checking my own direct ancestors, I see in their NFS records entries that are inconsistent with the histories and public records for these people. The histories and public records are in most cases very easy to check as they are now available on the internet. Sometimes the entries are inconsistent with geographical and historic facts and even natural law and so are very conspicuous and require little research at all to check, except to try to find the correct relationships when that can be done. When I encounter errors in their records, I try to see if some of them can easily be resolved. Since NFS is a program which my Church sponsors to the world as a credible genealogical information source, I feel some obligation to try to see that conspicuous and blatant errors are corrected before publishing them to the world. I am only interested in seeing that the records in the NFS program are correct.

If I were making an original submission of genealogical relationship information for persons, then I can see how my relationship to the persons involved would be relevant, but I have no intention of doing temple work for people who are not in my direct line. However, I feel it would be irresponsible of me not to try to see that errors in their NFS records are corrected when I find them. And if a suspected error can not be proved to be an error by reasonable interpretation of historical records, geographical facts, and/or natural law, then I will enter my suspicions into a discussion without requesting any corrections. However, having in the NFS records two twin brothers, one with two mothers, and the other with only one mother is a clear sign of an error; If children are born before their parents there is no question that it is an error, and I refuse to make myself look foolish by entering into a discussion about why this cannot be, and I can see no reason to wait some indeterminate amount of time to make the correction when the truth is found. If you need copies of documentation so your staff does not have to spend any time checking the facts, I will be happy to send you copies.

If the good Samaritan had stopped to ask if he was related to the Jewish man injured by bandits before he gave him assistance, then Christ’s bible parable might have been quite different.”

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: Thank you Lee. It gives me no end of comfort to know that I am not alone in this, and yet, to know that this has been a serious and unresolved issue since NFS (which is partially why FT was created) leaves me disappointed and peevish.

I, too, do a great deal of work for people I am not directly descended from. I've come to understand that this is frowned upon, but for what reason I cannot fathom, since we are all genetically related to some degree, and beyond that (and more importantly), we're all children of the same God.

I am still upset over this issue and suspect I will be for some time. But I've learned that one must never give up, never give in, only change tactics. And now I'm changing tactics.

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: That makes no sense. They knew they were working on this partnership with Ancestry and FindMyPast. and they knew they were integrating NFS, to terminate staff immediately prior to all of that is incredibly poor business practice.

LegacyUser

Jade said: The 'partnerships' with the other websites involve sharing indexes and allowing LDS members to have access to the sites from home. Demand on FS-employed staff would not be very great. FS "support" have been volunteers for a long time.

LegacyUser

Lee Grant Porter said: Joleen, I am happy to be in your camp on these issues some of which have been carried over from nFS days. But having said that let me assure you that I think the basic philosophy and the user interface in Family Tree is far superior to that in the nFS arena, and in general it is far easier to make corrections, and to navigate through the records than it was in nFS. The prominence of sources and the ease with which they can be attached to the records, I hope will do much to curb the careless submissions that plagued nFS. In fact I am so happy with the progress that has been made, that I almost feel guilty complaining. But complain I will until the last few impediments to expeditiously getting all tares out of the wheat which came over with the nFS data base are removed, and protocol is in place to minimize the planting of new tares in the field, and the program is made fully collaborative by having all active submitters and editors fully responsible for their actions in the program, each having valid contact information. I think most of the programmers and engineers are sensitive to our issues and some efforts are being made to resolve them and maybe sometimes I am turning the heat up to high with my remonstrances, but like you I do not intend to turn the heat down completely until the needed changes are made or until I can be convinced that I can live with the few inconveniences that may remain. But conspicuously false data and blatantly impossible relationships being displayed in the records, I will never be able to passively ignore, and when unreasonable policies block speedy corrections of such, I will complain loudly.

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: And you assume that doesn't involve actually doing anything?

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: Lee, you are a man after my own heart! I agree that FT is a marked step up from NFS and I hope that things get ironed out with haste, but like you, I won't simply go quietly into the night when I see issues that need to be addressed. What seems to get lost in translation is that we're dealing with real people here, not simply names, dates, and places. The people I do work for/on are very real to me and that's why I will fight to make sure their information is a accurate as it can be.

LegacyUser

Lee Grant Porter said: My perspective, exactly. Lets keep correcting the records and politely lobbying for perfection in the program features and tools. It may be the impossible dream, but as close as we can get is the only thing that is acceptable.

LegacyUser

Jade said: I don't see where my statement relates to your contention that I make such an assumption. But where the partnerships are involved in church member enrollment and integration into the sites, where the partner sites upload indexes from FS, and where the partners prep their database indexes for upload to FS, most of the work is by partner-company staff.

I don't have any information about what went into allowing linkages to FS-FT where members set up accounts in partner sites. Possibly no more than sharing part of the platform program, which is supposedly public (open source) anyway. But this would not appear to me to be labor-intensive.

LegacyUser

Heather McPhie said: Some of the problems with these locked records will dissipate when NewFamilySearch is shut down. Right now some of the FT features are being fed through NFS, so while FT has great potential, it is limited by NFS.

I remember reading a statement by Ron Tanner on this forum that indicates that when NFS is shut down, they'll be able to lock records differently and correct them more easily:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
"You should be able to submit a case for these changes. Admins will review and do the changes if necessary. Realize that right now locked records exist only in new.familysearch.org so some fixes cannot be done until we move these records over to Family Tree. This will be happening early summer. Then the admins will have a much easier time modifying these records. We will eventually allow requests for changes through Family Tree or allow discussions to happen on these and have admin watch the persons."

LegacyUser

Lee Grant Porter said: Just recently I submitted a case involving locked records, in which a false relationship had been put into an ancestors records. I was not allowed to fix it.
I received the generic, fill in the blanks response concerning this special cleanup task force and was ask for my understanding while it was being done.

My response had to be:

Dear Family Search Data Administration,

Thank you for your response, but I am sorry this situation is beyond my understanding and patience. Here is the picture that I see, a special task force has been created to correct the records of my ancestors who were in any way associated with early LDS Church leaders, but to whom they may not be related at all. I see them sifting through the morass of false and true data in the nFS records separating, combining, restricting, deleting , all wasting their time sorting through the nFS debris when the correct data could be put into the Family Tree Records with very little research into the source documents now freely available, and the process could be trusted to the descendants of those people.

Since when does the process of cleaning up the records include even for a moment publishing false information and showing false relationships in the public records.

If You are concerned with an unknown someone tampering with these records. The correct way to address the problem is to require all submitters and editors of information in this cooperative program to have and display with their contributions a username and valid contact information, without which they can see but not change any information in the records. A username of “fsdataadministration1” with no contact information does not meet that requirement.

Dear Lee Grant Porter:

LegacyUser

Somebody Who Cares said: Heather McPhie,
In theory, you are correct, in practice, you are dead wrong.

Lee,
Isn't it funny that an "unknown someone" (meaning Joe Average-Family-Tree-User) isn't allowed to correct a record but a known someone (FT data admins) are allowed to leave them incorrect? *sigh*