Link library books to Tree profiles (in addition to letting them be used as sources in Tree profiles

LegacyUser

Brian said: I have searched the FamilySearch Library for several scanned family genealogies. Once located, I went through great pains to find the author and central figures in the online Tree.

It seems like it would be worthwhile if there was a reciprocal indexing feature to make this Tree information more discoverable when starting from the Library.

As an example, take the following 1989 genealogy ... which was a work of my great uncle & (postumously) of my grandmother:

Title:
The ancestors and descendants of Edward Traill Horn (1850-1915) - Harriet Chisolm (1861-1946), Henry Eyster Jacobs (1844-1932) - Laura Hewes Downing (1852-1936)

Digital Library URL: http://www.familysearch.org/library/b...

Subjects referenced in the title are the authors' grandparents:
Edward Traill Horn
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...

Harriet Chisolm
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...

Henry Eyster Jacobs
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...

Laura Hewes Downing
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...

The creators:
My grandmother was Ruth Marguerite (Horn) Thompson 1910-1988 KLLH-YYB ;
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...

My grand-uncle was John Chisolm Horn 1915-2000 LTH4-PM1
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...

Each of the 6 profiles has had a Source created ... which is this book. But there is no reciprocal linking in the FamilySearch.org/library/books listing... neither in the Creators nor in the Subjects.

That means that the people who find the book scan have no clue whether the book has been processed. They don't know about the existing profiles and may undertake re-indexing material that is already (partially) in the system. (Particularly since searching for Profiles in the Tree often fails to find even EXACT matches. This leads to creation of duplicate profiles until a hint happens to discover a match as the Tree is built out. Leading to a massive undertaking of merging all the new duplicates.)

So I suggest it would be beneficial to associate the Tree profiles for the authors within the Library's Creator info. And, in this case, the genealogy title list their 4 grandparents as the focal subjects. So, add those 4 profiles to the genealogy's Subjects.

This genealogy is only an example. It seems like is a similar opportunity exists for all scanned genealogy authors... the subjects are more problematic since the focus may not be a few particular person but entire lines or regions.

BTW, a side-benefit of this indexing would be to have built-in lookup of the relationship of the author(s) to their subject(s). All the persons inline between are prime candidates for Hints.

If the source isn't already attached to the Profile, it would be great if adding a reciprocal link in the Library automatically created source links in the Tree, labeled with "Creator: " + title or "Focus person: " + title.

Analysis of reciprocal links will lead to better sourcing hints. Say that the focus subjects are not the endpoints of the research. Instead the genealogy is of their ancestral lines & their descendants. As more profiles of the lines are linked to the source book, there is an implicit likelihood than the people inbetween extants will also be in the genealogy. They become prime Hint opportunities.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Not to disparage the idea, very few published histories (family and/or location) are properly sources and as such, make very poor sources. At best, they are guides to help the researcher find original records (if they exist).

There is a saying that genealogy without documentation (meaning sources) is mythology. That is somewhat true, largely because so many of these books are not properly sourced.

In addition, an entire book should not be used for a single individual, but only those pages in the book should be cited that contain information on the person. In many cases, biographical sketches are great and can provide a lot of information, but like the entire work involved, are seldom sourced.

I have come across more than one published history that contained incorrect information. In addition to the genealogies produced by Gustave Anjou (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave...) at least one more recent history contained information that a relative provided whose memory was rather faulty.

The FamilySearch (and Family History Library) contains a surname search feature when provides links to all publications that have lineage information about the family, even though the family is not mentioned in the title. This listing of surnames and the associated publications has been part of the Family History Library going back many decades and has been carried over into the online facilities for FamilySearch.

While your idea has merit, because of my experience, I cannot support it, largely because these works are not properly sourced to supporting sources. Where they are, the original sources should be cited, not the family "history" or "tree".

LegacyUser

Brian said: Properly, genealogy books are not Primary Sources for the majority of the persons mentioned. They are, however, Secondary Sources.

And FamilySearch does not currently support distinguishing between Primary & Secondary nor reliability of a source.

Still, they can be considered a Primary Source for events the authors would have witnessed in person. Although even for those, they remain as questionable as to their veracity as any other human testimony. Authors will lie for reasons of vanity, ego, and self-deception.

It is up to the researchers to make that determination without excising sources wholesale. Then for other researchers to assess the accuracy of the 1st reasesrcher's determination with full access to the offending source & countering sources.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: There is an excellent FamilySearch Wiki article on Genealogical Proof Standards at https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/... that discusses the difference between original sources and derivative sources. I have found that over the years, the definition for primary and secondary sources has become badly watered down and confused.

I cannot support the notion that a published history makes up an original source. It is, at best, derivative in nature, but when it is not sourced or attributed to specific authors, then it becomes less than an ideal source. It is no better than an Ancestry tree that has no sources attached.

There are, in both Ancestry, and now in FamilySearch, compilations of collected data and usually identified as "Public Records." Ancestry's first collections Public Records 1 is good because it contains more than just names, but also dates with the places. Public Records 2 is horrible because there are no dates associated with the names and as such, I have problems connecting the source to the person for whom it was suggested.

Reliable sources are at the heart of any record for a deceased person. If a source is cited, such as a published family or place history, then it needs to be clearly reliable.

I have in my ancestral research run into several very unreliable published histories. The bigger problems are those histories that are taken literally when a reading of the material suggest that the material is speculative in nature or simply mentions possibilities.

By the way, there is nothing to stop you or anyone else from citing a published family or place history as a source. There is nothing wrong with that, either, since even those kinds of sources can lead others in their own research efforts.

LegacyUser

Brian said: Proof Standards are irrelevant... as is the quality of the source. FamilySearch provides no provision for storing nor grading by these attributes. That 'lack' is appropriate since it is not the mission of a Library to review or assess, instead they are to facilitate free access and assist in discovery of resources.

It is the Researcher's lot to spread the widest possible net to capture data, to assay, synthesize, prove & disprove. Every cross-reference helps the Library patron spread their nets more effectively.

It is a counterproductive to compel any Library into a censoring role.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: "Every cross-reference helps the Library patron spread their nets more effectively."

"Proof Standards are irrelevant... as is the quality of the source."

With those two quotes you prove yourself to be a hinderance, not a help to other users of this site.

"It is a counterproductive to compel any Library into a censoring role."

With this quote you just jump off the deep end. Strawmen do not help your argument.