2019 FamilySearch Year End Review (comparison)

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: FamilySearch 2019 Genealogy Highlights - 2018/19 Year End Review Comparison
The Annual FamilySearch report for 2019 is now available:
https://i1.wp.com/fh.familysearch.org...
Here's a chart comparing 2017, 2018 with 2019, with the percentage change:


The prior year's (2018) report can be found here:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
(2017):
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
(thanks to Joe Martel for reminding me. No guarantee for the accuracy of the data)

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: 32.5 million contributors! That's a lot! Also, it would be interesting to know how many hints were dismissed/used/disappeared in that count. I definitely know a lot disappeared on the Dutch side of things (without being used or dismissed). Also that is a lot of volunteer service hours! very nice.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: But did you notice that in 2018 there were 5.3 million "contributors" and 3.5 "new" contributors reported in 2019, which would seem to indicate a total of 8.8 million?

I'm not totally sure what defines a 'contributor' but did you also notice the increase in "people" in the tree increased by 30,000,000 (1.24 billion - 1.21) that would indicate less than 1 person per 'contributor' (if that's the definition), but that's disregarding the number who may have merged. The article may offer a better explanation.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: Here's the quote from the report on "Family Tree Growth
During 2019, 3.5 million FamilySearch.org users added nearly 47 million people to the FamilySearch Family Tree." ( I'm not sure why that would be just the "New" contributors, and not ALL. The report states 46.9 Million new "people in the Tree.)

Re the number of Photos & Stories: In 2019, 8.75 Million new photos & stories were added by 518,563 (about 17 each) contributors for a new total of 40 million in the tree. Does this mean only one 6% (of 8.8 contributors) or 1.5% (of 32.5, whichever total may be correct??)

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: A bit more analysis and number crunching:
from the report: "Searchable Records
In 2019, FamilySearch added 123.6 million indexed records and over 850 million new images of historical records."

Assuming an indexed record is of an image (page), that would seem to indicate that only 15% of new records might have been indexed.

A couple years, or so, ago it was reported that only 30% (?) of digitized records had been indexed. It would appear we are falling further behind.

Wouldn't it be logical, and helpful, to explain this to FS users and (1) invite more to index and/or (2) remind FS users they may be missing 70% of the digitized sources, by relying on 'record hints' rather that engage in research by looking at the unindexed records themselves???

LegacyUser

TManning said: Robert Wren, I believe it is more a function of experience in research that leads you to be comfortable researching unindexed records. As your genealogical research skills increase, you are better at searching beyond the hints provided. I know it worked that way for me.
And yes, we are falling further behind in percentage of records indexed. That was bound to happen. Digitizing already microfilmed records or photographing digitally new records page by page will always be faster than indexing until computers can accurately index. The current algorithms are not there yet if the computer indexed obituaries I am seeing are indicative of what is possible.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: Can't say I disagree, TManning, but how do the 'less experience' gain research if they are not even made aware of all these digitized uninfected records and are not taught what to do with them. (Rhetorical question)

I think the FHGuide likely has lessons, but FS does not even promote its use to help educate users - I can't even understand why they don't! (My apologies once again for likely violating the Code.)