People messing with family trees.
Amy Archibald said: FamilySearch Family Tree is all about change. It is OUR Tree. The goal is one record for every person who ever lived on the earth and together as a human family we make it the best record for that person.
Which means that the 10,000 descendants of one of my 4th great grandfathers all have the right to make any changes to his FamilySearch Family Tree record if they so choose to do. And so do the millions of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th .... cousins. Hopefully everyone is making changes that improve the record. Sometimes some will not and others rush to the rescue to fix the record and improve it again.
If this is the type of tree you don't want, then I would suggest that you utilize personal tree software where you maintain your family tree isolated from the rest of your distant living family members. If you want absolute control over your own family tree, then the only way to do that is to not participate in FamilySearch Family Tree and use personal tree software only you can access.1
Dian Price said: Thank you Amy. You are so right. It is frustrating to have people make changes without sources but we can change it back. I recently made a fabulous family connection by e-mailing a person about her incorrect information. She was so appreciative that I could give her information she never had.0
Don M Thomas said: I would continue to work with both the FamilySearch "Family Tree" and your own personal "Family Tree Management" genealogical database at home. This is what I do.
Go down to the "App Gallery" and find a genealogical "Family Tree Management" program to you liking, and start your own computer Tree at home. You can then download data and Temple Ordinances from the FamilySearch "Family Tree" to your own personal genealogical program at home and keep track of both.
All three "Family Tree Management" programs, showing in the "App Gallery" below, show that they have free or purchased versions.
Later you can upload your personal genealogical "Family Tree Management" Tree to the FamilySearch - "Genealogies" section, where it will be "preserved indefinitely" and unchanged by others.0
Gordon Collett said: See:
Don M Thomas said: I disagree, the program is the problem. How could the data be the problem? The only way data can become a problem is if data is deleted or moved around in the (program).
The open editing, (Wiki), of the program is both a blessing and a curse.0
Robert Wren said: The 'Rejoice' blogger stated: "the Family Tree is the solution, not the problem."
Concerning the data, he said: "If you think only of your data and your efforts, that idea excludes the possibility that other relatives may make positive contributions."
He does NOT seem to be saying 'the data is the problem' but that it should be made as correct as possible, through the refining crucible of open editing.
Perhaps it might be more correct to have said, "the Family Tree CAN BE the solution, BUT IS NOT the problem."
The willingness to analyze and consider and, then, to make and/or accept needed changes can lead towards a tree "worthy of all acceptation."
Open Editing can be a true blessing - if understood and used properly. As blogger Tanner also states re 'my tree': "Changing this attitude requires an entire paradigm shift." That shift needs to be towards a greater emphasis on proper and adequate sourcing rather than on green icon collection.0
Don M Thomas said: Adding as your "Source" a GEDCOM file, or a FIND A GRAVE, really makes a statement for the future, and where we are headed in this FamilySearch "Family Tree."
Not saying all FIND A GRAVE are bad, in that I use them also, but there are some real bad FIND A GRAVE out there. Anyone can make up a FIND A GRAVE. And how does one dispute a GEDCOM file?0
Robert Wren said: Don,
Hence my comment, "proper and adequate sourcing." I believe GEDCOM is what FS assigns to uploaded PRF, et al genealogies, not the patron.
I agree with your Find A Grave comments, but is a source, maybe tertiary and gravestones can be secondary.
Personally, I find the most egregious "sources" are the ones credited to "FamilySearch" which are mainly migrations from nFS reporting someone's 4 gen imagination.
You don't 'dispute a GEDCOM, you replace bad info with good sourced info.
We, the users, have been given the "opportunity" and responsibility to clean all this stuff up by working together (aka collaboration) though Discussion (which FS defaults to the obscurest portion of the person page. Adding a Forum for an individual or family name might create more discussion, comparison and a united family effort to achieve the 'worthy' record.
It's neither the data, nor the program (in and of itself) but the explanations, teaching and understanding of the users, IMHO.
I don't think we are really too much in disagreement with each other or the 'Rejoicing' James Tanner, who has some great blog posts - subscribe, it's worth reading.
Regards, and welcome back!0
Sue Marvin said: what a snotty attitude you have! Guess you wouldn't care if someone stole the info you had worked years to find.1
Ben Strubl said: When I was first introduced to Genealogy I was 10 years old. I had an assignment to do my family tree of 3 generations. At that time I never saw the importance as I have today and at the time. But as I grew my interest in history grew. In the late 1980's my interest in genealogy finally took hold. Luckily on my Paternal and Maternal side I had Grandparents, Aunts, and some Cousins who had lots of the information on the family tree and was lucky to share with me. I later digitized the records on my 246 computer. I transferred to a 31/2 and passed it onto my mother to submit to the LDS to gedcom into the database.
That original gedcom has had many changes thanks to family collaboration and family search. Errors have been found and corrected not only by my efforts but other family members. Duplication has been merged and in that process maybe some data may have been lost in the process but it can always be added when some sees what is missing. True it maybe disappointing to see some of the work disappear but it can be replaced to the present record.
The one thing that should be passed to others to those that have submitted a gedcom that is duplication of an existing record that if to merge it is well mannered to merge the gedcom to the existing record and note any conflicting information and research for the correct version.0
Amy Archibald said: Sue, I have spent more than 30 years doing family history research and have shared all of it in the FamilySearch Family Tree. Something that took me weeks and months to research in the 1980s and 1990s, I have been able to find digital copies of those records in hours if not minutes recently. Even though it was hard work to find it years ago, some of those record collections are available online and quickly I have been able to recreate months if not years of research within hours and days.
I really do not want my children, grandchildren, nieces/nephews to have to start over again, like I had to start over again. If I choose to collaborate with others, there is no need for me to not share what I'm learning about my family. I want my children and grandchildren to pick up where I have left off and add more people to the Family Tree. In fact, any of the millions of cousins can use my research today to pick up where I have left off and build on what I have contributed.
There are approximately 1 Billion people recorded in the Family Tree currently. And there are estimates that 109 Billion people have lived on planet Earth so far. Where are the other 108 Billion people - why are they not yet in the Family Tree? Their names are locked in digital records and we need to add them to the Tree; instead of continually going over the same people.
I know that some people do not want to collaborate with others and want to keep their research to themselves. They are welcome to do that. FamilySearch Family Tree is not the place for them - because it is a collaborative tree and if they do not want to collaborate, it is not the tool they need. There are other software solutions that allow them to maintain a personal tree where their research is not shared with anyone else.
So in response to you ... I guess you can have your opinion that you think I have a snotty attitude. And no I don't care if others use my 30+ years of research, because I have chosen to give it to them freely. By participating in this site ... no one is stealing anything from me. I have seen huge progress on some of my family lines from the research I have shared and others have shared.
This may not be the place for everyone. Those who want to collaborate with others will find this is the place for them.0
Sue Marvin said: I very happily have had my tree deleted here and I will continue to use Ancestry where I can control who sees my work. I've connected with many honest people there too. Thanks for sharing your snotty attitude with the world. Buh bye.0
David Newton said: "what a snotty attitude you have" "stole the info you had worked years to find"
So firstly Ms Pot, I suggest you look at your own attitude. Secondly I suggest you cure the severe case of ignorance you appear to have contracted. You have not been stolen from. Plagiarism might have occurred, but that is NOT theft. As for "your" tree being deleted here, if you mean that you have been into the main FSFT tree, found correctly entered information about deceased individuals and proceeded to remove that infomation, there's a word for that: vandalism.
I'm not trying to antagonise you either: it's just that I may well succeed at it rather better than Brett does. If you are not going to change your attitude then please feel free to go away and never use this site again. If you want to become a valued contributor to FSFT then you are also more than welcome. Your choice.0
Juli said: David Newton, I wish I could put stars on comments, because yours needs one.0
Tom Huber said: Disputing a Find a Grave entry (on their site) is easy.
Create an account, and then you have editing rights.
In the process of editing, you have the option to leave notes about the information you have. The person controlling that memorial has the option of accepting, rejecting, or modifying that published memorial data accordingly.0
SonOfThunder said: Well, I popped over to this topic in the hope of learning about how to deal with a matter that has adversely affected me on FamilySearch. Several times. Now, after reading several of the comments herein, I see I that it was not a good idea for me to drift into the war zone unprotected. Lot of love happenin' over here.
So, I will just dawn my flak jacket and pose a question or two for whomever should care to offer a suggestion. IF I am mainly interested in reserving temple ordinances for my family, can this be accomplished without using FamilySearch's facility to generate "Family File" name slips/cards to take to the temple, and, if so, how may that be accomplished? Thank you in advance.0
Tom Huber said: I don't know of any way to accomplish that. The profile must exist in Family Tree with a minimum of identifying information. Only then can that person have their ordinances reserved.
The fully certified family tree management programs can reserve temple ordinances, but again, they do it through the API (Application Programming Interface) which needs Family Tree to have the same qualifying information.
Sorry, but maybe someone else will know.0
Ben Strubl said: Individuals with attitude such as Paula and Sue I often referred to as the Old Guard. I've had some family members who feel into that category. I was blessed to have elder family members who shared and supported, and cultivated my enthusiasm to further research and upkeep of adding the generations that followed.
One thing I've pointed out out to others, family search has its redundancy. If that statement is not true why do some families have duplicate records? No one can possibly claim ownership but yet can claim the contribution in helping it's development.0
Dave Harris said: Can I comment in this thread as a beginner to Genealogy and a couple of years with ancestry, my case from day one some information in my tree hung together to a point, then as my experience of Genealogy grew I re-visited that data by now I'd joined FamilySearch and had a short tree completed. on requesting full birth information for three siblings to the suspect marriage, then everything changed one marriage became two plus an 'adoption'. when ever I tried to change this link that 22 other people where watching the programme stopped me by giving grave messages of what could happen. By raising a case I was advised how to get to where I wanted to be without causing chaos to others.
From now 'Merge and Delete' will be the last resort for me without having good research first.0
Ben Strubl said: I can relate I've had some experienced almost become rabid. Even though documentation supports your research. I come across people with same name and nearly same date of birth + or - a day or two. Some of those in trying resolve the confusion I found different races black and white, or they were cousins of similar family but father was a sibling to the others father and they both gave same names to their issue. In such confusion censuses and death certificates listing the parents are helpful in resolving such and issue. Can some of these example be such a case and notation to a personal record explaining the confusion?0
Ben Strubl said: In the case two cousins with same name can create lots of confusion and have ran across this way more than really like. Because to correct the error one has to almost do two trees at the same time and get and adjusting the correct sources to the family group.0
S. said: SHOUT LET IT ALL OUT! their is ways to accomplish to a personal tree online and
at the same time you also can have a world tree for ever body to see! Many of the other web sites have figure that out, if People were to brain storm and combine as one site, it could happen. For example in Ancestry allows people to have a personal trees and people can decide who they want to view it. Wiki tree and Geni have a world semi tree where certain people must have rights to change it. yes these features are great, some what. MyHeritage also has trees, geneanet they also have trees, and some People have trees on a blog or a personal website. so their is many people are trying to build a one world tree. I WISH FAMILY SEARCH WOULD STUDY AND LEARN FROM THEM, AND ADD MANY OF THEIR FEATURES OR I WISHED THEY WOULD COMBINE WITH THEM TO MAKE A TRUE ONE WORLD TREE.0
Ben Strubl said: S.
In a perfect world I agree. There has been some although few great people with great ideas and accomplishments that has helped humanity accessible to all. But then there are those that was some control and profit that's why such things as patents, copy write and other things protecting intellectual rights and development.
One thing to appreciate Family Search so many volunteers working for common goal their Family heritage.0
Tom Huber said: I've just glanced through the replies above (not thoroughly read for content).
I'm an old guy (though I do not like to admit it) and have been involved with researching my family for over fifty years. So I've seen a lot, done a lot, and started over a number of times with new methods, including computer software and online facilities.
To say that genealogical research is easier today is an understatement, but there are still some records that are not available online (in in a few cases, even in person).
Anyway, I suspect I'm also part of the "old guard".
I have a response posted elsewhere that deals with minimizing errant changes to the data in our relatives' profiles. It has been effective for me, but there are always exceptions.
In my research, I use three tree tools:
1) A local database under the control of a very mature family tree management program that largely meets all of my needs. I record all of the information I find and most of the time, where I find that information (the sources).
2) An Ancestry tree, largely to take advantage of all the Ancestry databases that are out on that website. Even though I am LDS and have free access, I also maintain a paid account that gets me to all of those records that are not free for LDS.
3) A limited set of profiles (compared to my entire data base) on FamilySearch. When I have fully "fleshed out" a relative in my local database, then I work with the same profile on FamilySearch, So far, I have only about half of the people in my local database linked to FamilySearch profiles.
Beyond the trees, I maintain membership (subscription) with several genealogical/historical societies, subscribe to several newspaper archives, and have an extensive list of where I find valuable information about my relatives.
As I mentioned, not everything is on line and as such, my wife and I take trips to visit those areas where our relatives lived or currently live.
One area that I've recently started exploring are the Polk City Directories. Ancestry has only a limited number of these directories, but by visiting local libraries, I've started finding those that are not online. Almost every city of significant size (10,000 or more) had at least one directory published. Not only are the persons named, but their home address, where they work, and their occupation. Sometimes, spouses and kids in school are listed, as well.0
Ben Strubl said: Tom from your post I've not seen with the Old Guard attitude, but a person without a personal agenda that you've mentioned mentioned in other postings. The Old Guard doesn't want to share or admit to any errors. That's why I've ask we have email contact. I need a un bias voice, wisdom, collaboration possibly. I do not claim to be expert but a student for I'm always learning. Please let me know if we can email one another.0
David Wynn said: And then you start running into profiles on WikiTree that you'd *like* to update, but an unresponsive person has locked up. While you'd rather not create a new profile, WikiTree does not even allow you to connect your branch of the three to the parents unless the person controlling the parents grants access to update (or makes the update for you).
As nice as it is to retain control over who can update, the flip side can be extremely frustrating -- knowing that you have valid sources, yet unable to make the updates because the person who controls that profile will not respond (maybe inactive, maybe passed away, who knows?).
I like what WikiTree is doing in many respects. They put up challenges to their editors to connect unconnected branches, or to add sources to profiles, or to review the backlog of potential merges, etc. But FSFT is much, MUCH easier for adding documents.
I'm sorry for what seems to be rampant issues of people trampling certain profiles. I haven't seen such abuse in my own areas of concern -- and I very much appreciate the ability to freely update profiles -- and allow other contributors to also expand, grow, improve, prune, and contribute to the tree.
Eventually, we may yet build a resource that will allow the freedom of FSFT and its ability to quickly add sources, coupled with the ability to make corrections to the document indexes like in Ancestry, and the heart for pruning the tree and correcting errors like in WikiTree. Someday ...
But to ask for the tree to be locked down, creating an opening for profiles to be abandoned and not updatable? No, I can't support that. Have you ever found an existing profile that had a mistake? Or a pair of profiles that needed to be merged? Or an existing profile where you *finally* found the grave memorial or the marriage information and wanted to add that information? What if the overseer of that profile had locked that profile and abandoned their work on FSFT? See? You really don't want that situation either.0
WikiTree (wikitree.com) is a one-tree concept site that allows contributors to register surnames and control edits by other contributors.0
"WikiTree" is just as you say ...
That said ,,,
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is NOT "Wiki Tree" ...
Vice Versa ...
"Wiki Tree" is NOT "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' ...
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why any registered User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
"Wiki Tree" is NOT built on such an "Open Edit" Platform.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; and, "Wiki Tree", serve DIFFERENT purposes.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; and, "Wiki Tree", may BOTH be a SINGLE "One" World 'Tree' concept; but, they operate differently.
There's not too much difference between the FSFT and WikiTree open-edit policies. WikiTree allows any person to create an account. Profiles who were born more than 150 years ago or who died more than 100 years ago are required to be open-edit, for all other profiles the profile manager(s) can restrict editing rights to a 'Trusted List'. Merging does however require the permission of someone on the Trusted List, but if they fail to respond then consent is assumed.0
Here's a huge problem: many of us have family histories that didn't get the usual documentation because of family scandals. For example, those cases where teen pregnancy is involved and the child winds up being adopted by another relative. In my case, an ancestor who had and raised 6 children in spite of having never married. We have it on good authority who the father was, at least in my family branch, and so I made the connection and added notation. One of his descendants from his formal marriage deleted the connection.0