please stop allowing changes to existing records without documentation
Comments
-
Tom Huber said: Heidi, pointed out that she could see who made the changes. I have updated my report to show what I am seeing, and the operating system and browser.0
-
Tom Huber said: If you can see who made the changes, and the ones that took place about a year or so ago, then I would again send some kindly written letters explaining what you have found and repaired, suggesting that they look at their records and make sure they have sources to support what they have. Since there are some significant issues with spouses, et al, and places, then it is very likely that they are not working with the same person in the tree.
Slap a watch on Susan and then keep an eye on any further changes to make sure the are really for Susan and not some other person.0 -
Tom Huber said: I just checked and there are two people watching Susan. Since FS does not provide us with the names of those watching, I hope you are one of them.0
-
Tom Huber said: A little more on the change long. Heidi reported that the display is intermittent. If you cannot see who contributed the changes, refresh the page (you'll have to scroll back down to the changes) and you should be able to see the contributors' names.0
-
Suzanne M Ballard said: Thank you, Tom. I see that MelissaMcAllister2 made the change to both records on 3/29/19. Merging wouldn't have resulted in Annie being renamed Napoleon. I did write her immediately and her response was "not me - I don't know you." Then I reported her to FamilySearch. I have added a Before date for the marriage of Susan to William James. Thank you for that suggestion. There were further changes before that to Susan's record on 3/6/19 by MaureenWandaPotts. Also, incorrect - re: Susan being born in 1829 and adding a child with the last name of "Penny" who was born in 1831.0
-
Suzanne M Ballard said: I don't see how it was a merge when the name of Annie was changed to Napolean.0
-
Suzanne M Ballard said: My careful research is the result of 4 month-long trips to Ireland spending days on end in various archives. I've also indexed the complete 25 microfilms of Philip & Francis Crossle's genealogical works - just waiting for approval from Ireland to show the images online (FS has been waiting since I finished in 2007!) John Martin was Presbyterian. Again, my biggest concern is that ANYONE can change these records AFTER I DIE and nobody will stop them from doing it. My irritating tone towards people who blatantly change records without looking at all my careful research first will not happen after I die. It needs to be stopped in the beginning. If someone had added Jane Hutchinson (of Pennsylvania) to John's record with proper sourcing required, my suggestion would be that something pops up that says "please add a source for this change" or "there are two wives at the same time in two different continents - please check your work", etc. That, I believe, would stop "innocent change" because people would have to add sources or check out their changes before proceeding.1
-
A van Helsdingen said: I think the records you want are on FindMyPast: https://www.findmypast.com/articles/w...
In general FS is not a good website for Irish research, with the exception of their Irish Deeds collection. Most of the other records are just copied from FMP or the Irish National Archives.0 -
Suzanne M Ballard said: The change by GeorgeDNRobey was on 3/18/19. Thomas Kingsnorth was married in 1761 and this guy added parents William & Susan who were both born in 1560 & 1578. Perhaps this is an innocent change but again, FamilySearch could solve this problem by a simple "error message" stating, "this is an impossible match--there are more than 200 years between the parents' birth and the son's marriage". That would have stopped this from happening. Yes, Kingsnorth was frequently indexed incorrectly as KingsWorth. But, it definitely is Kingsnorth. There are two branches of the family - one in Kent and another in London. My family is the London branch.0
-
Suzanne M Ballard said: Sorry that one was a bit confusing because I didn't give you the number of John Boyd that I UNMERGED - MQ8V-Z8R. I was able to straighten it out. But, again, if I die anytime soon, these records could be messed up by incorrect merges in the future and completely undo my careful research.1
-
Suzanne M Ballard said: Thank you so much, Tom, for all your help in this matter! I like the suggestion of putting my collaboration notes (My PAF Notes) into a document in the memories tab so that it can't be deleted in the future. I need to do that for sure. Great suggestion.1
-
Suzanne M Ballard said: I am ASTONISHED! I spent 8 years doing those transcriptions for FamilySearch and now they are on a subscription service and have been telling me since 2007 that they are awaiting permission to show the images online. Here they are! Astonishing. THANK YOU A. van Helsdingen! I've sent the link to my contact at FS to ask how this happened and if this means we can finally have them on FS!1
-
A van Helsdingen said: FS has partnerships with FMP, Ancestry and MyHeritage, since about 2013
A big part of those deals is that FS has to restrict access to records that are on those websites. They do not people to be able to access records for free on FS and bypass the subscription fees of those sites. Therefore FS has had to restrict records they already had on microfilm as part of the deal. In return, Latter Day Saints get free subscriptions to those three websites.
I wish you success in getting the images on FS, but due to what I said above this may be unlikely.0 -
Suzanne M Ballard said: Well that's completely annoying that my contact at FS never mentioned that. And, since I did the original indexing of the microfilms, using the old Index 02 version, with the written understanding that my work would be available for free on FS, I wonder how this all went down in 2013 when I was done with the work in 2007? Very perplexing. Thank you!0
-
A van Helsdingen said: This was a controversial aspect of the three partnerships. Indexing done by volunteers through the FS Indexing Program is sold/given to FMP, Ancestry and MyHeritage as part of the deal. Indexers were promised free subscriptions to those companies (regardless of their religion), but this hasn't happened.0
-
Suzanne M Ballard said: wow....0
-
Tom Huber said: The error message is one of the things that I suggested some time ago. Years ago, even before the days of the IBM PC, there were several genealogy programs on the market. I happened to work for Heath/Zenith Data Systems at the time and obtained a copy of an updated genealogical program that would run on the Heath/ZDS computers. It contained a number of error checking routines so that when I entered something that was off, like this example, an error would be generated. It has been many, many years, but that was an outstanding early program. I spoke with the developer, who happened to be the son of the person who started Heath Company with surplus parts after the end of World War II. (No relation to the candy bar or company.) Wikipedia has an interesting article about the company's history as well as what is happening today with the company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathkit).0
-
Tom Huber said: Anyway, sorry to drift off course.
The error upon entering a bad date or place has not received much traction, but it is needed and would help in a number of areas, including keyboard entered data, imported data, source processing, and merges.
I suggested that source processing should use screens similar to the screens used with merges, but with some addition capabilities.
Some of the ideas have found their way into the current design, including making reason statements visible during a merge (at least they were there for a while -- its been a while since I had to merge records).0 -
Tom Huber said: One of the features for dates and places was a sliding scale indicating possible conflict with existing conclusions to severe difference. Even a few years difference in birth dates would be flagged (common with family who have a child die and they reuse the name for the next child born (of the ****). Places would be treated the same way with a sliding scale. For instance, when a person is born and dies in Ireland, then an event in America would be flagged as severe.
These would be like the current crop of data problems, except that the messages would have to be acknowledged and if dismissed, a reason statement provided (the man was a soldier or person was visiting and fell in love...).0 -
Tom Huber said: I'm glad you were able to straighten that one out. I went numb trying to come up with a suggestion. Glad you were successful,0
-
In my opinion, until FamilySearch no longer allows anyone to make changes to anyone else's information, you should not use it for your professional sounding research results. Are you keeping track of all this in a genealogical software program also? Or Ancestry.com in a private tree?
I feel that FamilySearch needs to adopt a change approval process that involves proving with sources the reason for the change, and an a professional genealogist confirming the information before changes are allowed. This wonton ability to just change any information on any person with no solid proof or sources is just mind boggling.
I am currently a student at BYU-Idaho online in the the Family History department, and none of the instructors I have had use FamilySearch Family Tree for their research. They only use it for obtaining temple cards.
It needs work for sure.
0
This discussion has been closed.