Create a way to report miss use( not abuse) Be able to add information, not worry it will be deleted

LegacyUser

sheryl clark said: It would be very helpful to have an area to report miss use of the site versus a report of abuse. because clearly there are many people who do their own policing of sources... if they do not like it , they simply remove the information I am adding... including my sources, stating my source was not a real source.

Along these lines, please make sure anyone can add information, names without the fear of being rejected... by only allowing people to possibly ADD to information versus removing it entirely, perhaps the only way something can be removed is if the input is made by that person., all the rest should not be able to be edited out.( removed)

LegacyUser

Paul said: Many users become very frustrated over this issue, Sheryl. However, Family Tree has an open-edit format, which is unlikely to be changed. I believe Discussions is the one section where only the originator of the comments can edit or remove them.

The only thing that can be done is to try to communicate with those changing your inputs and try to convince them that your sources are accurate and attached to the correct persons.

I imagine you have already tried this but, as many of us have found, if another user (possibly a distant relative) will not listen to reason this can lead to an impasse, which can prove difficult to amicably resolve.

LegacyUser

JT said: If FamilySearch believed in what your antagonist did, they would not be advising to attach Indexes or Find-A-Grave as a source, since it is not an "original" source. I always say the more the sources, the better, as long as they are really a match.

LegacyUser

Chas Howell said: Sheryl, can you give us some examples with the PID numbers and the sources being removed?

LegacyUser

sheryl clark said: what is PID... I was told not to use the Ancestry.com site as source... that it is considered junk information...
I added the following website, to have it deleted by another user , along with the information on the person added:
.genealogieonline.nl/en/payne-family/I1848.php?from=lynx1&treeref=LRKP-HKM

LegacyUser

sheryl clark said: Im ok with open edit... but in reality, what is happening is the information is edited out by a single person, whom discredits all sources but his as legit.
Perhaps it would be a better solution to not have open delete.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Are you using Ancestry trees as "sources"? Are you using links to databases on Ancestry which are not in place on Familysearch (such as Oxfordshire parish registers for example)?

If the former then the other user is quite correct in removing those "sources". If the latter then that use is wrong.

LegacyUser

Juli said: PID is "person identifier" or "profile ID", the seven-character code by which people are uniquely identified on FS FT. For example, Kenelm Winslow's PID is LZ8C-QVG.

As far as I know, the Dutch site you cite is just a place where people can upload and publicize their genealogical files; it's like a no-paywall version of Ancestry's trees. As such, it's not really a source by itself. It can give a starting point for _finding_ sources (since things are much easier to find once you know what you're looking for), but it's not really worth attaching to FS FT unless there's absolutely nothing else supporting a particular conclusion.

LegacyUser

sheryl clark said: why can it not be in addition to the sources, instead of removal... that's what I am eluding to.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Is a family tree site in and of itself a good source to cite? No it is not. Therefore such places should not be cited as a source on FSFT. If that Dutch site is as Juli says then the removal was perfectly correct.

If you don't know why such a site is not a good source then you need to find out. Find out about tertiary sources and their pitfalls.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: To minimize the changes others make to the tree, there are several things that I have found to be largely effective, given the nature that many inappropriate changes are being made by people who are new to FamilySearch FamilyTree, or do not work with the tree on any kind of regular basis.

1. I make sure every deceased person I work with in the tree is fully sourced with citations that can be used to locate original records, not only with sources from FamilySearch Historical Records, but also from other sites as well as material that may not be available online. I also add whatever stories exist about that person and provide sources for those stories. The more information I can include, the less likely someone will come along and make changes.

I make sure that every conclusion (fact) that is in a person's record actually applies to that person and I have included my reasoning why that conclusion is the right one. There is no room for speculation, which is not fact. If I am unsure about some aspect of a person's life, I put that information on the person's page in notes, discussions, or even as a story, especially if an old well-worn family tradition is involved.

2. Every time someone makes a change or merge that I feel is incorrect, I use the FamilySearch message system to leave them a kindly written message that contains the following elements:

-- Thanks for their interest in making the person's record as accurate as possible.
-- The person or family involved and my relationship.
-- My thoughts and sources with respect to the changes they made.
-- The corrections I made to their incorrect changes and why I did it.
-- Request that before they make changes that they study the record, including the sources that are attached, any notes and stories that may be included in memories.
-- Remind them (if they have not provided a source or a reason) that sources are crucial to establishing conclusions and facts, and that a person's reasoning is needed to let others know what research and thinking was done to reach those conclusions.
-- What I did to correct what I perceived to be incorrect material.
-- Thank them in closing for their interest in making the record as complete as possible.

3. I am prepared to not receive a response from the person. They have the choice to respond or not respond. Many times, they respond, indicating that they are beginners.

4. I am well aware that not everyone works with FSFT every day or extensively, so there are many different levels of knowledge and experience being applied. I try to help others understand things like the differences between primary and secondary sources and that published family and locality histories often contain errors and are not sourced. I let them know that unsourced material needs to be treated as hints, not as facts. If a faulty record may have been involved, I let them know about the problems.

By taking an active part in working with a few of my relatives, I have found that bad changes either stop, or slow considerably. To track what changes take place, especially with critical persons in the tree, I put them on my watch list.

The most gratifying part about taking an active role, I receive thanks from those who made changes, especially since I go into great detail about what I know of the person and their immediate family, the area, and the families who were neighbors to our common relatives.

BJC1234

Is oral history a approved source? Because it is not always accurate or agreed upon.

If yes, than someone's family tree on ancestry or Findagrave would fall under the same category,

It's what they believe to be true.

In my personal family tree I wright down everything no matter how hokey.

I have seen legitimate birth and marriage information that I consider hokey.

Death and census that are very in accurate. I include them.

There are accurate sources, sources to be considered and sources that exist.

I like to include everything and make notes on each with my opinion.