Questions and Ideas, in trying to develop a not so (open edit) FamilySearch "Family Tree."

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Can the computer be designed to know if one is working on an ancestor related to them, and lock out any people that are not related to them? Seems the Temple database is asking restrictions to only do Temple work on family lines, why not restrictions to only do genealogy on family lines.

Can the computer be designed to have an “Edit” list, similar to the watch list for each person in the database, allowing only those who apply, edit privileges to people not related to them? Computer making automated editing application to work other family lines.

Can the computer be designed to where only the majority on the “Edit” list, will decide how the family or ancestor will appear or show in the “Family Tree?” This will take collaboration. If only one patron showing editing, they are the administrator.

FamilySearch's open edit database needs not to be totally open edit.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: "Can the computer be designed to know if one is working on an ancestor related to them, and lock out any people that are not related to them?"

It should not be. People who make changes to a profile are often related to that person. Very few changes are ever made by people not related to the person in the profile.

The restrictions on temple work have to do with a number of factors, not necessarily related to what has been entered. Those restrictions include not enough information to establish that the profile belongs to a real person, no possible duplicates, unresolved data errors, including standardized places, born before 1500 (for Western civilizations, historical persons, and so on.

"Can the computer be designed to have an “Edit” list, similar to the watch list for each person in the database, allowing only those who apply, edit privileges to people not related to them?"

The task of managing such a list, even if the idea was accepted would require more resources than FamilySearch has available.

"Can the computer be designed to where only the majority on the “Edit” list, will decide how the family or ancestor will appear or show in the “Family Tree?"

This requires that more resources to just set up the "majority" on any edit list than FamilySearch has available.

FamillySearch, in setting up the open-edit system back with newFamilySearch and its tree, believed then and still believes that this is the best solution. They have repeatedly said that they will do nothing to discourage people from participating with the system.

The solution is to fully "flesh out" a person's profile and then when a person makes a bad change, send them a message and first of all, thank them for their interest in your relative, what change was bad (it could be a bad hint or a merge with a profile that was clearly not related to the person in the surviving profile. Explain what you did (usually detach the source or reverse the merge and correct any changes they made as a consequence of the source or merge. Then thank them again for their interest.

That takes work on our part and I have found it is quite effective (no method is going to be 100 percent perfect, even the suggestions you made.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Computer software can be written to do just about anything. The tradeoff is always "at what cost?"  When you have a hierarchical/relationship-based database structure with billions of entries, walking the tree takes a lot of horsepower, and traversing the tree to ensure relationships and proper privileges would have to be done regularly and often for what you are suggesting. Many of the changes and re-writes that have occurred happened because we needed to be more efficient in what we were doing and how we were walking the tree and how often we were doing it--because we were already noticing significant deprecation in performance. So the short answer is to do what you are suggesting would require a lot more servers, a lot more bandwidth and a lot more money. We chose instead the route of promoting collaboration and goodwill.

LegacyUser

Cindy Hecker said: Can I offer another perspective. I help a lot of people both as a consultant and I volunteer in a Family History library. Your idea of closing open edit would prevent me from helping others.

Also, I also tend to help add any sources beyond my direct lines. I will add a spouse, then his/her parents then even build that family out with sources so it is more complete. It helps someone else and they are not exactly related to me. I am leaving the tree in better shape then it was before.

I need to be able to edit non related people, when a wrong merge or change is made I can edit both the the 2 individuals (one related and one wrong) to prevent them from being mistaken as the sam person again.

I know it can be frustrating but I believe just more training and education in what to do and how to make good changes and merges is where time should be spent rather than limiting the great power of working together in a collaborative tree.

LegacyUser

Juli said: What you're proposing would make it impossible for anyone to fix conflated/mis-combined families.

It would also make it very difficult for people to work on their in-laws: if the connection is all through living people, then it's invisible for most intents and purposes.

Also, I have more than once attached sources I found to the famous people I recognized in them. I've also put in dead-to-living requests on an uncle and aunt of friends of mine who just lost their dad (brother of said uncle and aunt, entered on FS FT by a semi-clueless family friend).

And then there's the chicken-and-egg problem of connecting to a "floating" branch on FS FT: say I find a profile that I recognize as connected to me. But it's not currently connected, so it's not in my family lines. If I can't edit it because it's not connected to me, then I can't ever fix it. If I can edit it, then I can edit anything, and we're back at the properly-open tree.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: Sometimes when there are two families similar to each other, I research both families and attach the appropriate sources to each. One of those families could very well not be attached to my part of the family tree (at least not currently).

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Restricting people to work on profiles with which they have a connection sounds attractive. Unfortunately, as well as the sheer horsepower to detect such links (as referred to by Jim) there are at least 2 cases I can think of, where I regularly work on profiles who aren't connected to me.

1. They are connected to me in reality (i.e. on my home PC), it's just that sometimes it's easier to create and "prove" some of the relationships in FSFT by working from the "far end" and coming forward in history. Depends on what the sources are.

2. Suppose (to take up a thread that Juli mentions) someone has been merged with, or married to, one of "my lot". I unravel the connection, perhaps recreating the unrelated people and, to emphasise that they really, really are not mine, I might add some further sources and data distinguishing them from "mine".

So, a good principle - except that the detail lets it down.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Very good point, Jordi. I have three instances where one or more of my ancestral families lived and still live today after 300 years. I will often chase back families that marry a known relative, because at some point, they may be the descendants of my known ancestral family. I've discovered several myself over the years I've been researching my family.

On more than one occasion, the collapsing pedigree took place, where cousins married each other. The most apparent is a direct-line pedigree happened when third cousins, once removed, married each other. Both were descended from two sons of my immigrant Huber ancestor.

What is being proposed is going to be a nightmare to administer -- where does one stop when a given person is identified and semi-locked with administrators, and so on. With the parents? With the children? With all of the descendants?

It is, as others have pointed out, an impractical suggestion, at best, not only because of the computing power, but because of the administrative nightmare.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Perhaps, from all who have replied to this "Feedback," the open edit system is best for working in the FamilySearch "Family Tree."

The reason for this "Feedback" was to maybe find a way to address the fact that the open edit system is changing our historical accuracy.

Must we always in an open edit system, turn our heads, when it comes to the changing of our historical accuracy?

When will we finally address the fact that an open edit system is not good in saving historical accuracy? - Never?

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: I would beg to differ Don. As I have read books about the open edit system, about wikis, and about Wikipedia, it is quite the opposite. As participants increase, knowledge, information, and sources also increase until the best conclusions, the most accurate information, and the best results are established. I do understand your frustration as changes are made. I personally have had to undo and redo a certain part of my tree at least 2 dozen times in the last 6 months. Most of the change is due to legacy sources, from well-known and well-intentioned researchers whose work itself has become a primary source over time, but about which modern sources such as DNA have proven wrong. I would never be able to convince others that these time-proven and near indisputable sources are actually inaccurate and wrong, were it not for an open-edit tree, where I can put the new DNA findings, attach an analysis of the old incorrect sources, and propagate truth to literally millions who have only the old sources.  Do I get tired of having to undo these changes? Yes. I have to pause and let my patience catch up with my zeal, and then I make the same correction for the umpteenth time.  Over time the need to do this has decreased in frequency. The open-edit tree is working, it is increasing historical accuracy, and like Wikipedia, the quality of the information is getting better, at least in my line. I am convinced it can in other lines as well.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Like in the past, and now into the future, I see FamilySearch is NOT going to address that fact that an open edit system is not good in saving historical accuracy.

Yes we have the watch list and Tom Huber's "very effective in reducing the number of changes" in the "Family Tree," but still changes are made to our ancestors records (daily).
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

Hopefully in the future there will be some smart person, or some smart group that can device a way to have an open edit system that also saves our historical accuracy.

The FamilySearch "Family Tree" is still not a "perfect tool," but it does function in getting peoples names to take to the Temple, therefore, (for now), I will stop talking about saving our historical accuracy.

LegacyUser

terry blair said: Jim, wonderful using DNA to disprove long held beliefs. But, how are you including this information in the tree in such a way that it propagates through your lineage so that all members of your family, both near and far have the benefit of the information?

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: I am adding it to the sources in the form of PDFs attached to the key disputed ancestor(s), and including it in discussions and notes. It would be better to have a way to make it visible in the tree, but we have not invented that way yet, so folks still have to take the time to open the person page and examine it. I also send them messages (nicely worded) telling them why I have undone what they just did.