Idea for living people "promotion" to dead status @110, allowing recorded information from the submi

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Can there be an "automatic" promotion to dead status for any living people who have a birthdate that is recorded that is 110 years in the past?

I record a number of dead people from censuses, who are still living, or from marriages that record birthdates, but I can't find death information.

Rather than have this information "go to waste", can these people be moved to "dead" status AUTOMATICALLY when the birthdate approaches 110 years old?

This can be put into place now, and left, so that records can migrate to dead status, even when the original person is deceased who recorded the information. (Until some other utility or means is developed that allows you to review your recorded people that still show living).

LegacyUser

Merlin R Kitchen said: I have also entered people as living because I did not have a death date, assuming that after they become 111 years old, that they would automatically become viewable to others as deceased. Since you can attach sources to living persons it seems implied that they would become deceased and viewable to all. Please make it so!
I have seen many instances where other patrons have declared the person deceased so that they could enter them and the census record or other documents that they want to attach, and I have found that they are still living and can look them up in whitepages.com; FamilySearch makes it very difficult to change a person from deceased to living.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: My understanding is that you CAN attach sources to living people. They just don't appear to others as attached, given those people are in YOUR PRIVATE SPACE.

So, theoretically, they could attach them to their own versions of the same person.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: I'd also suggest that "living" people (indeterminate birth date), be swept on occasion and scanned for relatives around them and compared with dead people and their families (as submitted by OTHERS), to be statistically compared to see if they're likely to be deceased, then searched for sources tied to their death, and then "promoted" to dead people. (huh... SOME promotion!)

I have entered in LOTS of obituary info, where people are alive, but not dead yet, but no date is recorded. (I've never found myself to be SOOO desiring that they're deceased, so I can "click that switch" and have them be visible, but they're VERY old, and it won't be much longer before they're dead - That's a sad way to think, isn't it? There's just no way I'll know to come back later in 5 years when I'm sure they'll be dead, and click that switch myself.)

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Statistical comparisons leading to transfer to "Dead People"? Um. Just thinking of the number of suggestions that appear for record hints and merge hints that are wrong and I really, really don't trust any algorithm to get it right about transferring them to "deceased". NB I wouldn't trust myself to write such an algorithm and I spent a career writing software.

There are increasing numbers of super centenarians living, some of whom are / were over 110 - I strongly suspect that most really wouldn't care about being visible in the census (we have a 100y cut off in the UK) but recording someone as deceased when they're not, is a different matter.

It's not that I don't think that the logic can be improved - I just don't like automatic algorithms doing it.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Shove the age to 120 and I don't have a problem. 110 years old is too soon and is going to catch some of the super centenarians as Adrian indicates.

So, no on 110 years, but okay on 120 years.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Some examples would be SSDI recording a death. Combine that with a number of different public records sites that might record a death, obituaries that are mined that show absences of children/siblings as survivors, tapping into obituary sites, possible tap into activity related to financial activities, age, findagrave entries with death dates, etc. might all be good indicators when taken into account with one another. And that's not even counting those databases where people are tracked MUCH more closely and show a "decay" of data in the absence of activity,

I'm looking at probabilities and with substantially accurate and large datasets, can very closely approximate what a GOOD researcher can look up. (There are some folks who I wonder about... sometimes me included (when I'm particularly tired, or made a bad assumption as evidenced new info comes to light)

I get that there could be mistakes. Yesterday I came across a family that I was in the middle of linking the census record source to, and I got about halfway down, when I noticed a small discrepency that quickly grew. I was astonished because there were (I think) 5 members in the family, and they were matching the names of the family I was linking to... order of kids, names of adults, etc. But... some of the birth years started to get wider and wider (beyond the "typical" range seen in census records), and then I saw a small state next door to the state of the family I was linking to. It was subtle, but proved enough to differentiate the two families (wow, it was eerily close to one another!)

Now, this sounds like I'm making a case against myself, but I would point out, that it's RARE that I see anything THIS close with this many family members in sequence in a state just next door. (this is not the same family - I thought of that, and was able to build that family as well with other sources, so future people wouldn't consider merging them together..)

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Henry Allingham (1896-2009) was the UK's oldest man at 113 (and a WW1 RAF vet). Harry Patch (1898-2009) was the UK's last Tommy from WW1 when he died at 111. So yes, 110y is too early.

Jeanne Calment (1875–1997) reached 122y, it appears, and she is the oldest verified person known so far.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

So it'll probably need to be 130y. A pain, perhaps, but I suggest that Data Privacy & Protection are not to be messed with, even when we're starting from a solid birth date. (I don't have a problem with an automatic algorithm based on an exact birth date, by the way.)

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I knew that several people had lived past 120 years, but was not aware of any living today. Regardless, I believe that 130 years is a much better breaking point for converting a "living" person to deceased automatically.

I don't remember, but when this was raised before, I believe that someone said that FS cannot search (by law) the private spaces in a user's account. But I do not remember if that had to do with finding duplicates when/if we can shared a living person's record.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: If we're talking about SSDI or FindAGrave, then they contain direct evidence of death / burial, which is less of a problem to me. But wouldn't it be better there for the SSDI, FindAGrave, etc, entries to appear as hints against the apparently living profiles? (Do hints happen like that currently? If not, why not?)

It's the ideas like using the absences of children / siblings as survivors that get a bit problematic if it's just an algorithm. (I'm certain that I've used lack of mention of people as circumstantial evidence for some conclusion or other but only on my home database).

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Hmm. If "FS cannot search ... the private spaces in a user's account" that probably means they can't raise hints against the living profiles (which are in private spaces).

I wonder if that's really "by law" or if it's a commitment made by FS that, once made, is enforceable by data privacy & protection laws? One for the lawyers, I think...

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Yeah, I really don't know. Someone once said that they couldn't search private spaces, and yet we can get hints for those in our private spaces...???

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: I understand some of what I'm suggesting is circumstantial in nature. I was suggesting them as items that can be used to suggest they're deceased and increase the probability accordingly.

It's kind of like how I heard the director of Information Security for Intel once say that a means of processing a correct transaction (and not being fraudulent) would be the correlation of someone's cell phone signal in a location near a gas pump along with an attempted swipe of a financial card there. Sure, someone could have stolen your phone and wallet, but it's very rare, and just those two pieces of information would have a HIGH correlation of accuracy for establishing a correct financial transaction. Adding an additional temporal check of "point of presence" type of sale (again, a gas pump or cash register at a store) within a distance that correlates to a point in time in the recent past where another such purchase was made, could further keep one's card from being used fraudulently at multiple places within a city (even when someone is there themselves - ie, in case someone phones a friend(s) and they try using a card for separate shopping sprees and uses different IP's geographically far apart.)

Is it 100% accurate? No. Is it good enough? Probably, yes. The extremely long living people being mentioned are the rarity, and so infinitely small (amongst a 7.x billion population) that a 110 yr rule can be used. There are mechanisms to reverse the effect of ordinance work done on behalf of those people.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Well... there's an interesting interpretation of law that the US government uses for surveillance of its population while staying within the law (well a few interpretations) and I don't agree with this legal reasoning (btw) because it's still being done at the behest of government organizations and using letters of the law to bypass the spirit of the law for which it was meant (I believe). This has to do with the 4th amendment of the US Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures.

1. The Schroedinger's Cat method - Someone CAN collect the data, as long as nobody has LOOKED at it. Once it's been LOOKED AT, then it's fair to complain about it. (Uh, take a look at #2 and #3 below)

2. Collecting the data of our citizens through the use of an ally OUTSIDE our borders (England is a known ally who has done so on behalf of the US - Canada, Australia, New Zealand are other "Five Eyes" allies).

3. Not allowing the public to know that they're being surveilled due to national security laws and that unless you can PROVE you have been illegally surveilled, you have no standing to raise a case. (sort of like, sneak and peek in your own home, as long as you're not aware that they've done so, you can't raise a legal objection)

They all violate the intent of the law, while using the letter of the law as a boundary for which to step around.

The LDS church obeys laws in other lands similarly (even when they are unjust laws, like those in Russia against any proseletyzing by outside religions.) We have volunteers or service workers. No, they don't actively prosletyze. if someone inquires or asks, well, then we're helpful and answer questions or direct them to resources the inquirer can review for themselves.

LegacyUser

Amy Archibald said: I get source hints for living people I have created. Some of the best hints are Find a Grave hints. So yes you can get death record hints on living people.

I also have created a spreadsheet where I record each living person I enter in the Tree with their name, PID, and birthdate/year (if known).

I also have some living people on my Watch List from when we were able to watch living people.

In the Life Sketch section of the living person, if I can identify them in online directories, like truepeoplesearch.com, I put the the current date and then I copy/paste current address/phone number.

Then about once a year I sort my lists by birth date and check the oldest to see if they are still living. When I find record of their death, I switch them to deceased and add the sources.

***
Mentioned above, it is a very simple process to switch someone from deceased back to living. You click the Living button, then enter a reason and information as to why you know they are still living and submit. It becomes a Support Case. In my experiences, the record is switched to living within a week.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Ah, that explanation helps. What it appears you are suggesting is that a Research Help appear, rather than any automated operation, so that when a person reaches a certain age, a research help suggests that the person is over 110 years and may be deceased, similar to when a child is born to a mother who is past the child-bearing age of 52.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I have thought about setting up an advanced search in my local family tree management program that can produce a list of living persons tied to Family Tree people, and produce a list sorted by date, but haven't done that yet. It would be a very simple task and I've produced lists that depend upon a number of variables before

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Sure... but since it's previously in private space, some mechanism towards linking it to other recorded info that others may have linked in (in their private space), and after determining that there's a high probability that there's a match, and after someone else matches it, it gets "promoted" to public space.

It's kind of like what we're experiencing now, when certain record hint types don't even appear until you have the EXACT date in the birth or death field, along with their name. (SSDI and findagrave come to mind here).

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: But the title you are suggesting that we are dealing with users who have reached the age of 110 and that their status be changed to deceased. But you also go into detail about people you've recorded from census records where they are older and yet you've found no information that they've died.

There you suggest an automatic process. That's where I say no, unless the person is much older... possibly with a 130 year age. I know that at some point, FamilySearch does run a process, but I believe it is closer to (or over) 150 years.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: I'd be interested in learning more about how to do this.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I can't speak for RootsMagic or Legacy family tree management programs, but with Ancestral Quest, it has an Advanced Filter Focus system that works with Boolean Algebra -- I set up the filter with the following FS PID exists AND Death Date does not exist AND Birth Date is greater than 1869. The produces a list of all the persons in my local database that is linked to a person in Family Tree. Then, when I'm ready to print the list, the system allows me to set up a custom list using the results of the filter/focus and set up the fields that I want printed, and the field on which to perform a sort.

In the case where I used this, Illinois death certificates can only be viewed at a FHC, and the certificate range is different for Cook County than it is for the rest of the state. The filter/focus got pretty complex, but I was able to produce a list of all the death certificates that I needed to look up at the FHC and download a copy for me to attach to the person in the local database.

The free version of AQ does not have the advanced filter/focus function, but the $29.95 version (more for a Mac) does and that's what I use.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: I'm sorry if I didn't specify it clearly.

My concern is this. I am recording people in obituaries and censuses, marriages, etc. in which I can't find a death record (for a number of reasons - they don't exist, I don't have enough unique info to narrow it down, they may still be alive, etc).

They show up in my private space.

As I get older, and if I should die, it would be wonderful if there was a way to preserver these relationships, and eventually "promote" them to deceased status. They may be alive now, but they could die in 5, 10, 20 years. Some of these relationships come from newspaper accounts, and in many instances, I can't find duplicates of these people in records. They existed, showed up in newspapers, etc. and I'd like to see that they're "remembered" past my death.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Ah, okay, I understand. They HAVE to exist in your external software to do such a filter/search. I don't want to have many of these people in my software (I use Rootsmagic, and it has similar searching capabilities). The reason is that they are not directly related. I followed some squirrels, fixing records/relationships, adding sources, following more people, etc. (Not doing the temple work, as they're often not yet connected to me via familysearch).

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Amy - thanks for the clarification that you can get hints for living people.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Re the gas station analogy. Isn't the crucial point there that the correlation is only a suggestion that has to be interpreted by a human?

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Not necessarily. The point is that accuracy could be raised to a point where it's nearly impossible to find an exception, if given enough data points. (Is it the same technique that can be applied in our analysis? Yes. We look at various data points such as time, relationships and positions within them, other vital info, etc. to where we make a decision to say "Yes, this is the same person" and we attach a source (or merge people).

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Stepping back a bit - Justin has a perfectly sensible concern that stuff he is capturing from obituaries might disappear after his death, along with the only record that, say, X was a friend of Y.

Isn't this just another facet of the whole concern that work in the private space is lost on the death of the patron concerned? Apart, presumably from the work that the patron did on their own profile if they are an LDS member whose death is recorded by the Church?

Seems to me that a lot of issues re the information in the private space, including Justin's obituaries, would be fixed if someone were able to inherit that private space - then the sort of logic that Justin suggests, could be used to drive hints to the person who's inherited the private space.

Hints I don't have a problem with - it's the automatic transfer to deceased status that I have issues with.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Inherited accounts make the most sense.

If I remember correctly, that was a conclusion I came to in a similar discussion a while back.

I believe that FamilySearch representatives said they were considering that option or planned to implement it.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I will often work unrelated lines where my family lived for several centuries (pedigree collapse) and while doing that will populate FamilySearch FamilyTree folks with sources.

LegacyUser

Ron Tanner said: Related to the original question, yes we are looking into marking people deceased when greater than 110 yrs old.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Thanks Ron.

Any additional tools to be able to look (sort/list) over people in our private space?