Gedcom Challenge: Show Us The Data
Comments
-
Tom Huber said: That is correct, but one can find potentially matching records by using the Find Similar People in Tools on the details page. That appears to ignore the previously presented possible duplicates that have been declared, Not a Match.
At least I think that is what happens.
Not all Not a Match records will be found, largely because many of the possible duplicates are often brought up after being restored or a previous merge, unmerged. And that can include records that should not have been merged previously. I have on more than one occasion had to watch for the possible duplicates to bring up restored records that should not have been merged for one or more reasons.0 -
Carolyn Wheeler said: Thank you, that is good to know.0
-
rotkapchen said: It's also far more simple when key relationships are still in place: the records show up together in the list of siblings, duplicate spouses or duplicate parents show up. No need for the automated duplicate finder.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: Being logical about it - which may not be a good idea - if X and Y are dismissed as Not A Match, if either gets a massive amendment subsequently, there is a case for saying that the Not A Match no longer applies as it's based on a different view of the world. Conversely, the massive extra data might be such as to persuade the algorithms that these are 2 different people anyway.
Removing the Not A Match after a massive amendment would sound like a hostage to fortune and I wouldn't recommend it. Better to rely on the Find Similar People option. I only mention it for completeness.0 -
MAC said: I now have a boilerplate message I send out to users once I start seeing duplicates en masse (I've messaged 3 of the users you cite above). I've been noticing a trend lately of users deliberately creating duplicates because they perceive (probably correctly) that the data in Family Tree is of poor quality, and then incorrectly conclude that it would be better to create a new person with the "correct" information than to fix the original record. Some of these users are also deliberately adding "Not A Match" to dissuade other users from deleting their unambiguous duplicates. I've tried to get FamilySearch to address some of these issues on a user-by-user basis, basically to no avail.
Notwithstanding all of that, I assume that FamilySearch is doing nothing about this because this is not affecting all users equally. At one point, I had watches on all of my ancestors (which I've since deleted), and I would estimate over 90% of all of the changes came from New France (only one of my grandparents has roots in this area). Even Pilgrim ancestors had fewer changes than practically anything from New France. I am not a member of the Church and do not have Utah roots, but I assume ancestors of individuals who migrated early to Utah likely would show similar patterns. In contrast, I have a number of lines in Germany that go back to the 1500s, but the quantity of users working on them is significantly less, so they barely change.
If FamilySearch could come up with an algorithm that can assess the probability that a new person being created will eventually be merged based on the general time and place where they lived, instead of trying to actually match the person to someone in Family Tree, and then block users from creating that person except manually in Family Tree when the probability is sufficiently high (which it would probably always be in New France), this would be of great benefit. I've greatly curtailed my participation in Family Tree due to these data quality issues, and lack of responsiveness from FamilySearch regarding standards questions that lead to users working cross purposes (excepting the Places Team, who are very responsive).0 -
Tom Huber said: Dealing with records in America during the colonial period can be a major problem. Part of the problem has to do with some of the lines being included in one of Gustave Anjou's fraudulent genealogies, and part of the problem has to do with inconsistent records, using unsourced histories, and so on.
I don't have a good answer other than fully sourcing a person, placing a watch on it, and checking periodically to see if it changed. My end-of-line ancestor from the Netherlands colony gets a lot of duplicate entries created all the time. Most of them are based upon the bogus work produced by Anjou and so I will send the contributors are message about the problem and that they need to spend time going through all of the information for this ancestor. Unfortunately, I have not done anything with any of his descendants to fully flesh out their record(s) with solid sources.0 -
David Newton said: Require a simple genealogical competence test to be passed before users can edit those profiles before 1800. Poof the problem largely goes away.
If someone does start doing things like creating massive numbers of unlinked duplicates then there should be procedures for reporting them and if they have passed the test having the restrictions reimposed on them. If such a reimposition of restrictions were to take place it would have to be made very, very clear why the decision had been taken and that the person would need to improve the quality of their work on the system.
However given the philosophical blindness that is suffered by those running the system I doubt we will ever see these steps taken.0 -
rotkapchen said: A trifecta of fabulous perspectives!
I keep praying for intelligent life to see the light. I keep working my way up the chain of command through leadership and I'm sure the issue gets explained away to those who truly do not understand the gravity of the issue. The explanation is believed without further investigation and we are simply written off as insensitive.
Kinda like the dementia research I'm doing. No one wants to believe that all the daily things they expose themselves to or the Standard American Diet (especially a 'healthy' one) is slowly robbing them of their health (worst is most of the foods found in 'storage' which should only be used in cases of starvation). There's a reason Adam lived to almost 1000 (not that we want to hang around here longer). But we need the energy and brain power for our remaining years of 'Earth School' to be effective.0 -
David Newton said: There's a reason that no one takes people seriously who refer to "Adam lived to almost 1000" outside of a very narrow religious context. That is myth both in scientific and genealogical terms, so any dementia "research" based on that myth is worthless in scientific terms.0
-
rotkapchen said: Oh, David. And I was so impressed with your first answer. It showed real promise. Your latter answer suggests there are sources of information you have not yet had the privilege of tapping into. Also suggests that you've not quite yet learned the special art of being able to use your spiritual eyes - far more powerful and effective than our inferior human eyes. We all will reach that level once we die, but it's way more useful to leverage those skills while we're still on the earth.0
-
David Newton said: There are lots of people who subscribe to the narrow religious context. That's their business and their right and their prerogative.
However to claim that "Adam lived to almost 1000" outside of that context is an utter nonsense. There is no evidence for it outside of Genesis which cannot be a contemporaneous source. Where is the evidence humans can reach their 123rd birthday? There is none because so far as we know no one has ever done so. To go beyond that to 930 years or even 969 years is so ludicrous in non-religious terms that it must be dismissed outright. Religion operates on faith. Outside of having faith such a position cannot be supported.
Science and indeed genealogy do not operate on faith. They operate on evidence and logic. Dementia research as you describe is scientific research if done properly. What is your null hypothesis? How have you structured your study? How have you controlled for confounding factors? Do you have any study members besides yourself? Have you got proper, informed consent from any such study members?
That is nothing to do with our "spiritual eyes". It is everything to do with not being a quack and a fraud.
Similarly with genealogy anyone who claims descent from Odin or Adam or Shiva or King Arthur is at best a delusional quack. They have no evidence to back their claims because none exists. Spirituality doesn't enter into it. Religion doesn't enter into it. Evidence and logic are all that enter into it.
Ordinances are a different matter. They move into the religious sphere again. However the genealogy underlying what ordinances a particular person may perform is not a religious matter. It is undertaken in furtherance of a religious purpose, but it itself is not religious.0 -
rotkapchen said: In the case of Wilfred G. Leblanc, since it was posted elsewhere, let me dump a list of dups I merged long ago for her. I'm sure I could merge more if I just knew where they were. But, of course, this isn't a problem... (not sure the Lord would agree). And then there's the many more I did that I did not record.
G9HH-714
G9H8-812
G9HQ-QP4
G9HQ-HN5
G9HH-M54
G94P-RJQ
G9H3-GVT
G94P-FPW
G94V-V64
KH83-88K
G9HC-GQ1
G9HQ-ZJX (B/C completed), G9HD-HMT same woman
G9HH-ZPY
G9H3-B39
G9H4-17P
G9H9-F4J
G9H9-2W2
G9H9-PXD
G9H9-LHN
G9HC-2H5
GMGQ-BR7 (wrong gender)
G94Y-R4C
G94Y-FRK
G94B-7LG
G94L-PNL
G9H8-VMD (wrong surname)
LZZM-WFG (wrong surname)
G9HD-VQQ (duplicate of LZZM-WFG with correct surname, a new load on March 1, 2019)
G9HD-Z39
G94T-D2M (wrong surname)
G94T-3R6 (wrong surname)
G94T-K5F (wrong surname)
G94T-DKT (wrong surname)
G94T-F8P (wrong surname, wrong gender)
G94T-3R8 (wrong surname)
G9H8-XRK (wrong parents)
G94L-GNW + G94J-YQP (same person)
G9HD-S38 + G9HH-43B (same person)
G94T-QCX
G94T-29V
G94T-6PW + G94T-GHV (same person)
G9HD-ZK2
G94T-NJP + G9H8-VMQ (same person)
G94T-BTB + G9H8-J6V (same person)
G9H8-DV1 + G94T-8SF (same person)
G94T-8S6 + G9H8-R3G (same person)
G94T-PB4 + G9H8-VNG (same person)
...
G9HD-V5Y
G9HD-ZD5
G9HD-LN7
G9HD-BMB (introduced bad data)
... [Reported to Wilfred]
G9HD-47B + G9HD-CZB (same person)
LB4Z-TR40 -
Juli said: Surely Wilfred is a "he", not a "she"...0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Probably true, but obviously very trivial compared with what rotkapchen is dealing with :-(0
-
rotkapchen said: Thanks for the gender clarification. While versed in German, I guess I was over-influenced by the many number of female Willifreds in my family.0
-
rotkapchen said: Just for the sake of 'one location', here are a collection of other notes I made when I stumbled onto a large number of loaded duplicates that I had to work on. For many of these I did not keep the individual PIDs.
This does not include the 18 months I spent in 2012/13 removing over 2000 duplicates that were released directly to the temple, by the same person, for which I contacted and notified Support about repeatedly and they refused to do anything .
Also, there is a 'hint' of the abject disdain that is sent my way when notifying individuals of these 'errors' that they are responsible for. I am repeatedly asked not to contact them again - to which I reply that the messaging system is so deplorable that I cannot in any way know who I have contacted, nor am I going to take the time to keep a list of same when there are so many messages that I send out in a given day.
Occasionally, there is the rare 'thank you' and apology for the problems caused. Those I cherish, and tell them so.
GEDCOM Loads
New Duplicates, Bad Data, Unmerged
August 2, 2019
Multiple GEDCOM dups by Thomas Ogletree
jpbmass June 14, 2019
Sent message 7/2/2019
michelew8019 20 June, 2019
Sent message 7/2/2019
Timothy LBoudreau March 18, 2019
TedSarvata April 14, 2018
LBNN-L4T
AdamsShepardAlfred1
shepardaadams@yahoo.com
I begged him on 2/6/2019 for an email and a copy of his load so I could directly go in and correct all of his errors. The problem is that he not only did the load but then proceeded to align the wrong spouses directly to records. I have found hours and hours of work that he has done that I have had to strip.
GMMR-6P7 (wrong gender record)
L4SL-HVR (see changes in log file, all wrong)
L1TW-KGP
GM31-ZXY
L1B9-79K (comingled the data of two different women)
L11B-7J1
L1RB-CTS
L1GF-2CW
L1TW-CF5
L1TW-GHD
GeorgeThibodeau
September 6, 2018
Made a huge mess and then left
"I ask to remove my family tree. Therefore you do not have to contact me anymore" 3 December 2018, 1:36 PM
L1GV-ZHV (wrong gender record)
L1GV-PD2
L1GF-2CW
KarenShowell1
23 November 2018
GM8T-8V2
GM8B-22Y
GM8T-833
John William Gaudette
December 27, 2018
GMKG-BMY
13 May 2019 by kwh
April 18, 2019 by MaryMcBride40 -
rotkapchen said: 9/27/2019
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... oddly, this one I had merged previously, yesterday someone unmerged it and a sealing was immediately picked up and printed.
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, work reserved, B/C/I completed
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, printed B/C/I/E completed (if only I'd been given a list I could have prevented all of this work)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, B/C/I completed
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, B/C/I/E completed
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1, B/C/I/E/SP completed
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by tonilouise
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by by RichardHoward70, released to temple for work (record aligned to wrong parents initially, corrected)
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new record by SherryBeasley, she was personally duplicating the work in the temple, B/C completed
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by NancyMcBride7, she was personally duplicating the work in the temple, B/C/I Completed
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Patrick Walstead, released to temple for work
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Patrick Walstead bad data, printed for work
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by by RichardHoward700 -
Robert Wren said: Rotkapchen, I'm so thankful to YOU for doing this massive reporting (and, of course for all of the repairs).
It's great that our user advocate, Joe Martel, did make a comment above a month ago.
BUT as you commented when posting the topic: "I’m waiting for someone to really understand the negative impact of GEDCOMs and DO something about it."
I, too, am awaiting something to be DONE (or at least provide an answer to):
"Would Someone in Upper FS Management Please Explain WHY it is Necessary and/or Desirable to allow GEDCOM submission to the FSTree? "
-----------------------------------------------------------
I recently encountered MY FIRST GEDCOM problems . (I have VERY few LDS ancestors.) Both were duplicates and I recieved ZERO responses from two FS messages.
So, I'll make a meager addition to your topic:
"Name Added June 16, 2019 by ArielmMead Name Susanna Seely
Reason This Information Is Correct: GEDCOM data"
AND "Name Added February 15, 2019 by ArielmMead Name Rachel Lounsbury
Reason This Information Is Correct: GEDCOM data"
Both duplicates.
(However I DO spend HOURS repairing other FS Tree messes.)
I don't have to tell you to keep up the GOOD WORK, as I'm sure you will. Incredible patience & diligence!!!!!0 -
rotkapchen said: Robert: The encouraging words are much appreciated. I am intrigued as to your lack of GEDCOM problems in general but also your participation in the conversations without the imminent pain.0
-
Robert Wren said: I FEEL your pain, as I experience it also with a multitude of other types of duplications requiring resolution. I'm guessing that the GEDCOM issue is primarily in LDS lines; but you can likely determine that better than I.0
-
Robert Wren said: I notice that Ron Tanner (& Joe Martel) are frequent responders today (six of the last 7, within one hour); but they seem to be skipping THIS one.
I wonder why? Too much info herein?0 -
joe martel said: I haven't skipped it - see my post early on. To be honest, I'm getting over a hundred feedbacks a day and I read every one. That means even the threads that have lots of back and forth have to be read. That takes time and reflection time to decide what to do with them - ignore, reply, investigate, forward on...
I love this input in this thread but I can't spend much time drilling into the details. I hope I or someone else can investigate this. But in the hopes someone can dive in, please continue to provide these concrete examples. When I unbury my self from all the other thread responses I hope to dive in. Thanks.0 -
Robert Wren said: I assume, or hope, you are referring to another FS employee. I did see a "Joe M." comment early on???
And I commented on it:
"It's great that our user advocate, Joe Martel, did make a comment "
I DO appreciate your input. and recognize the difficulty keeping up with this discussions.0 -
Tom Huber said: I also have few (but there are a few) GEDCOM ingest issues, but I also have almost no LDS ancestral lines. The one place where I see problems is with those persons that lived more than two centuries ago and again, they are few and far between.0
-
rotkapchen said: I can't imagine with this many issues that I'm the ONLY person having these issues with my family. What gives?
9/28/2019
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by tylerhallett4, typo in birth
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by tylerhallett4
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... new dup by PeterSchuelke1, reserved for temple work
10/10/2019
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc with errors, released to temple, B/C/I completed
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc, released to temple, B/C/I completed
10/17/201
9https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy, dates way off (bad sources)
10/18/2019
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Wilfred G. LeBlanc with errors, released to temple
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy with bad dates
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy with bad dates
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy with bad dates
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy with bad dates
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by jpbmass, fortunately he put the wrong death so only the SP w… [truncated]0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Yea, you're not the only one. See
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Seems many people are learning how to get around the Shared Tree limitations by intentionally creating strings of duplicates. They bring "Their tree" in from somewhere else MULTIPLE TIMES (either by GEDCOM or directly, then do all the ordinance work for THEIR own entered records, in spite of the fact that the work is already done on the records that they've just duplicated.
And What Gives? What gives is that it is plainly obvious over the past few years of observing this identical behavior, that FS has no ambition whatsoever to do anything intelligent about this problem. Don't expect anything to happen because the decisions to ignore these things appear to have been made a long time ago.
FS has created a great model for supporting all of this work, but they seem to be their own worst enemy. A large number of the problems reported here are of FS's own making.
They never have time to get it right the first time, and yet they always have time to attempt multiple fixes afterwards.
We have perpetual campaigns to get people to use the tree, and yet nothing at all in the line of campaigns to instruct on the proper managing of the tree other than the occasional blog entry or highly hidden KA.
There are some fundamental priorities that appear to be totally out-of-whack at the moment.
In fact, although they do nothing to censor individuals from corrupting the tree in this fashion, this posting of mine will likely get removed due to it's negative, but true content. It's really sad.0 -
rotkapchen said: 10/19/2019
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by LindaFranks1
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by JosephDaly2
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1 with errors, shared with temple, B/C/I completed
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by AdamsShepardAlfred1 with errors, shared with temple, B/C completed
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by Marlene Anne Weekley
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by DennisDupay, printed for temple work
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GS43-NS3 GEDCOM dup by Paul Leger
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Suzanne Jewell-Burns
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy with errors
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy with errors
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... dup by TerryMcElroy
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by Paul Leger, all ordinances duplicated
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/mer... GEDCOM dup by jpbmass, errors, release… [truncated]0 -
rotkapchen said: Let me be VERY clear. This exchange illustrates one of the BIGGEST issues that is ENTIRELY correctable by better UI -- explaining to people the fundamentals of the system. It can be done in one or two sentences as is illustrated here:
About: Madeleine Blanchard (1736–1814) | Person Change Log | Family Tree | FamilySearch
19 October 2019
7:00 PM
In this system only 1 record per person -- not like Ancestry. Putting your relationship in the name is totally unacceptable.
Suzanne Jewell-Burns 7:06 PM
I found that out after it was already up. I had no idea and I copied the ged from my ancestry as that is where my dna and everything was done.
Why can we not just fix that first? Need an explanation.0 -
rotkapchen said: In a separate discussion she replies:
19 October 2019
Suzanne Jewell-Burns 7:04 PM
I just wish I could get this whole GEDCOM thing out of here. No one tells you how or what to do.
And THIS is really the dilemma I've been trying to draw attention to in the GEDCOM discussions - to no recognition or resolution.
It CAN and MUST be solved. This cannot be a matter of time -- you've already had years. This is a matter of incorrect priorities and bad problem solving.0 -
Robert Wren said: Gee, that sounds so SIMPLE, that it should be easy for FamilySearch to implement -
or, better yet, simply STOP allowing changes being implemented in the FS Tree through a GEDCOM import to "Genealogies," WITH THAT EXPLANATION of why the 'change was made'!
But, I think this suggestion has been "Under Consideration" for quite some time!!0
This discussion has been closed.