How to search only in my family tree
BTW I tried submitting this on two different computers. The error is shown in the attached screenshot. When I clicked on the Continue button it changed to Continue... but nothing else happened. I left this screen open and later noticed it asked if I wanted to continue my post. When I clicked yes I was brought to this screen where I was able to continue.
Case: How to search only in my family tree (05111547)
2018-10-03 21:14::10 GMT
Details: I had shared a name with the temple (Lillian Holt). I wanted to unshare it so that I could do her endowment myself. I accidentally clicked on the Unsubmit rather than the Unshare and now I can't find her again to resubmit her name. I don't see a way to search only within my family tree. How can I find her again? Thank you, Janice Luncford
Response to this case
Dear Janice Luncford, We thank you for your terrific reply. We urge that you give your last message to us as a suggestion to the engineers. It is an excellent suggestion. The attached knowledge article will show you how to get to suggestion via feedback and let the engineers know what you think needs to be done. Again we thank you for working with your ancestors using familysearch.org. Thank you for contacting the FamilySearch support team.
This is your original case description: How to search only in my family tree
It turns out the issue wasn't solvable directly. I accidentally unsubmitted a name for temple work when I intended to only remove it from temple sharing so it vanished. The name is fairly common and had lots of hits in the search. If I could have specified I wanted the search limited to my tree it would have found the person immediately. The chat support person suggested I do a descendency search which didn't locate the person. I ended up clicking on each search hit, looking at the temple work done, and when I found one with only the work completed that I remembered I clicked on "show my relationship" to determine if it was the correct one. I finally found the right record and resubmitted it. I'm a software engineer so my problem solving skills are probably better than most. You really should add the ability to filter a search by family tree/related individuals.
David Newton said: Not possible. This site is a shared tree for everyone. Therefore if you search FSFT you are searching the whole thing and it cannot be limited to your blood relatives. Since there are over a billion entries in the whole tree the resources required to tell which are your blood relatives and which are not would be astronomical.
Consequently what you are after will never happen.0
JT said: David -- you're probably right, but I say "Never say Never".
FSFT knows how to determine if you are related to people within 15 generations up & back down.
So if the user is willing to click some new button to let the Find function run a bit slower, I don't see why the FSFT engineers couldn't or shouldn't provide the ability some day (eventually).0
Janice Luncford said: Of course it's possible. As a software engineer I know this would not be difficult, and as David pointed out, they already have the algorithm to do the 15 generation personal search. At the point they have each search "hit" they would compare it against the 15 generation names and refine the result list that way. It would be a slower operation, but certainly faster than the manual search and comparison I had to do. As with any feature, it's a matter of deciding if it's worth spending the time on and then scheduling it into a development cycle.0
Janice Luncford said: Also, they could use their "show my relationship" algorithm to determine if each "hit" should be in the result list.0
gasmodels said: Are you suggesting that the search should be the domain of anyone who you are related to by the current show my relationship algorithm. That would be a huge demand on the servers to accomplish that type of search - essentially have to start through the current several billion names and determine for each one if there was a relationship to the person requesting the information. I for one do not believe the benefit gained would be worth the effort to program, implement and then suffer the degrading of the system. I understand there are times when it is useful but I see them as very limited. I have never had an occasion to want that type of a search. I would much rather see some improvements in the current search routines that would be really useful. For example - there are many records in the system with just a given name -- say Mary but there is no ability to search for records with a blank surname. If you attempt to search leaving the surname blank it gives you all records with a given name Mary. If time is to be expended on enhancing the search features. Lets makes revisions that will really be helpful not something that will degraded performance and only have limited usefulness.1
Tom Huber said: My solution is free, but requires using an external family tree management program. There are three that have free versions that allow you to download FamilySearch FamilyTree profiles to a local database — Ancestral Quest, Roots Magic, and Legacy. Those are available now, and not something that will likely be developed on the FamilySearch site sometime in the future.1
Janice Luncford said: It was the Family Search staff who asked me to submit this request to the engineers. I'm leaving this discussion.0
Tom Huber said: Janice, this forum is a community support forum for FamilySearch.
As a member of the community, I’ve provided an answer as to what is available now. There is no solution within FamilySearch itself.
Whether or not there will be a solution in the future is something that FamilySearch representatives will need to provide.0
Brian Jensen said: Janice,
Thanks for sharing this feature request. This is frequently asked for but we currently don't have a good design that would support this.0
David Newton said: Can it be done in the sense of can it be programmed? Of course yes. Can it be done in the sense of not overwhelming the database servers? No. Remember you are not the only person running searches. How about determining who the blood relations are for 1000 concurrent searches? For those chiming in about show my relationship, that is one person to one person; a whole different kettle of fish. That algorithm would not scale well.0
Paul said: Here's a suggestion: only allow people to be members of the "FamilySearch support team" if they have taken at least basic training in the use of both the features of the general website and, specifically, Family Tree.
Janice, and many others, are likely to become exasperated by, firstly, not being given basic advice - in this case, "There is no 'my family tree'", then being passed here. Having anticipated a "positive" reply to her problem (from her contact with Support) she is obviously then rather annoyed to hear the reality of the situation.
True, Janice has to accept the disappointing (to her) responses provided here, but the Support set-up - as most of us have found - is really not fit for purpose.0
I have been asking for a way to have a "My Family Tree" option for years. Mainly to keep from having to correct and recorrect bad information and family relationships entered by others. The global "whole World family" design of the database currently makes this seem unfeasible. The world family concept does have some great benefits. If you could persist in a separate database for each account the records attached to (at a minimum) their direct line ancestors, something like a surname search on your family tree might be possible. You could have the best of both worlds.
To me this would be an invaluable tool for people doing genetic genealogy and asking "hey, do you have such and such a surname in your family tree?" I was just asked this question through chat.
The alternative of downloading all of my family tree from Family Search to my Roots Magic database so I can conduct such a search seems rather daunting, time consuming, a questionable use of resources, redundant and prone to perpetuating misinformation.
I, 'hear'; and, 'understand', what you are saying ..
That said ...
Please do not be offended, my comment is not meant to offend ...
Although, you seem to understand the structure of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' ...
You DO NOT seem to have grasped the basic concept of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' ...
We do not have our OWN "Tree" in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
We ONLY have "Branches" (ie. Ancestral" Lines), that are interconnected, in this SINGLE "One" World 'Tree', for all of us, that is "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is NOT like 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
We DO NOT have "Private"/"Personal" 'Trees' in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' like other 'On-Line' "Websites"; and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes.
We do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/persons in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
And, what many Users/Patrons DO NOT 'seem' to understand ...
We DO NOT even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, Our OWN "Deceased" Ancestors in "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'.
The concept, of the 'Model', of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', being a SINGLE "One" World 'Tree', built on a "Open Edit" Platform, IS the very REASON that, so MANY Users/Patrons, both, USE; and, MAINTAIN, their OWN "Private" and "Personal" 'Database(s)' [ or, "Copy"/"Copies" ] of their "Ancestral" Lines (ie. 'Trees') on, 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
We CANNOT expect 'FamilySearch' to HAVE or MAINTAIN a 'myriad' of Private and Personal 'Trees'.
That is NOT the purpose of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
What we must be aware, is that ...
The 'Model', of "Family Tree" (and, its forerunner, "New.FamilySearch"); as, a SINGLE "One" World 'Tree', built on a "Open Edit" Platform, was ORIGINALLY "Created", by the Church, for the use of Members of the Church, to HELP the Members in the furtherance of their beliefs; as, a means to STOP the amount of DUPLIACTION of ("Deceased") individuals/person that was taking place, with ALL the MANY "Private" and "Personal" 'Database(s)' [ or, "Copy"/"Copies" ] of "Ancestral" Lines (ie. 'Trees').
The use of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is, now, FREE to ALL, not just Members of the Church.
The REASON for "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' being a SINGLE "One" World 'Tree', built on a "Open Edit" Platform, is to STOP the DUPLIACTION of ("Deceased") individuals/persons from taking place, with ALL the MANY "Private" and "Personal" 'Database(s)' [ or, "Copy"/"Copies" ] of "Ancestral" Lines (ie. 'Trees'), all around the World - that is just the way it is.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is amiable to "Collaboration", that is part of what "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is all about.
But, "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', is NOT setup/structured for "Genetic" research ...
Remember: "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is a FREE website ...
Lets leave the setup/structure for "Genetic" research to the "Commercial" (ie. Subscription/Paid) websites.
You never know ...
Later on 'down the track', "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', may be setup/structured for "Genetic" research ...
We can live in hope ...
I hope this helps.
Again, this was comment not meant of offend.
Just my thoughts.
Thank you, this was very useful to understand the "one tree".
I do think there as a simpler version of this search feature that would be doable.
I have run across people with last names that seem familiar and want to talk about a possible relationship. These are usually married names joining into my recent ancestry. Wouldn't it be possible to search from me back to my great aunts and uncles and the associated 2nd and 3rd cousins? I think this would satisfy what most people would be looking for in a "local" search function.0