Give control to original poster of family tree
edited March 3, 2021 in Suggest an Idea
Gary said: I will no longer Use or recommend FamilySearch.org because I have NO CONTROL over my family tree information. Other people can edit/change my family information at will. There are so many errors that's it's even worse than copying trees from Ancestry.com.
Brett said: Gary
You DO NOT seem to have understood the premise of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
We do not have our OWN "Tree" in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
We ONLY have "Branches", that are interconnected, in this SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
"Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is NOT like "Ancestry.com" or the like.
We DO NOT have "Private"/"Personal" 'Trees' in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" like other "Web" Sites; and/or, 'standalone' personal programmes.
We do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
"Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why any registered User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
Here is a good place to start, with how things work in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" (and, other programmes as well):
Introducing The Family History Guide
Introducing The Family History Guide
The Family History Guide
I hope this helps, to put things into perspective ...
Jordi Kloosterboer said: You are listing the possible cons of a collaboration project. There are also pros.0
Don M Thomas said: And what are those "pros.," - Jordi Kloosterboer? Seems to me the only positive I see in a collaboration, - or open edit "Family Tree," is that it allows us to enter data into the database. I feel that I give, a lot more than I get. I will say though, that the few things that I gotten has given me pleasure though.0
Jordi Kloosterboer said: Off the top of my head, here are some: Seeing pictures of your relatives that you do not have access to otherwise. Ordinance data for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (lessening the duplication too). Easy attaching of sources and seeing if a source has already been attached to someone else. People working from one way and other people working the other way of a line and able to attach like from England to America or America to England migrations (not easily done going just one way). Relationship viewer to other people and able to connect to them easily to collaborate more. One person does not know everything and won't be able to do as much work on their relatives on their own.0
Don M Thomas said: Thanks Jordi Kloosterboer, I guess those are some good reasons.0
Cousin David said: With the continued growth of FamilySearchFamilyTree, I believe it is inevitable that some plan be approved for classification of more "Read Only" entries.....
The system is also conflicted with experienced and long-time Users and "newbies". It is becoming increasingly complex. Teaching the program is becoming more and more a "one-on-one" situation that classes can't cover.0
Cousin David said: Continued harshness (ALL CAPITALS) is not an appropriate way to deal with someone's frustration. Please see my comments below. And, ICYMI, been doing this for 45 years - starting with PAF 1.1.0
Brett said: Cousin David
There is already clarification for "Read Only" individuals/persons ...
Here is a "Knowledge Article" in "FamilySearch" on the matter:
What are read-only records in Family Tree?
Read-only records show a gold banner and allow no additions or changes. In addition, for read-only records, the Discussions and Latest Changes features are unavailable. These records often have a notification that the record is confidential.
FamilySearch is a unique genealogical experience. It has a single tree of individuals linked together in families. We rely on a large amount of collaboration to form a single tree instead of individual private trees. Our focus is to connect the entire human family. When we mark records as "read only," it prevents collaboration. Consequently, we do not accept patron requests to mark a record as read only.
Reporting an error in a read-only record
If you find an error in a read-only record, please contact FamilySearch Support. Due to the specialized work required to resolve this type of issue, you will receive the fastest response if you submit your request using our online form. In your message, provide the following information:
• Category: Family Tree
• Subject: Read only
- Your FamilySearch username and helper number. This information is in your FamilySearch Account settings.
- Your relationship to the individual needing attention.
- The case number. If you previously contacted us about this problem, the case number helps us find the information you have already provided to us.
- Information to help us find the person whose record is in question. Include the person’s name, birth date, and ID number. Also include the ID number and birth date of any other individuals involved.
- An explanation of what is wrong.
- Correct data. Explain how the data should read and why we should change it.
- Supporting documentation. Documentation is helpful and very often necessary.
I hope this helps.
Juli said: One joy of a collaborative tree like FS or WikiTree is when you "hook up" with a twig or branch that you didn't even know existed. I've only had it happen once so far, but it was a thrilling discovery.
Another fun part of collaborative genealogy is discovering cousins who share your hobby.0
Cousin David said: I was referring to “making” records “Read Only”; not correcting then. I have already done that on occasion.0
Tom Huber said: There will have to be an overwhelming supporting reason to make any record read-only.
The biggest problem will be the likelihood that duplicate entries will be produced.
Once a record becomes read-only, nothing more can be done with the locked record.
And that is a greater problem than dealing with... or more properly said, working and collaborating with others who believe that they are related to the person.0
Brett said: Cousin David
Like I responded in a recent post ...
If a User/Patron believes that an individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" should be "Read-Only" status; then, the User/Patron needs to submitted a 'Support' Case; but, there would have to exceptional grounds for such.
I would suggest that "FamiySearch" would not make an individual/person as 'Ready Only' or 'Confidential' except in ecceptional circumstances.
Jordi Kloosterboer said: Haha yes I agree with discovering cousins who share this hobby too It's fun!0
Cousin David said: Dear Brett (and Tom);
Your tone and advice continues to be patronizing. You do not make the rules at FamilySearch FamilyTree. I am not going to dignify the conversation further by playing ****-for-tat. I do NOT agree with your reasoning nor comments.
The idea that "nothing can be done" with a "Read Only" or "locked" record cannot be modified is incorrect. I have done this on a number of occasions. You contact Administrators, create a case (this forum is not the place for that) and wait.
As FamilySearch Family Tree grows, there will be more and duplication on a large scale. This will have to be addressed.
I directly addressed Family History Ron (Tanner) a few days ago when he requested Feedback from the Forum on this topic. Hopefully, between my comments and those of others, a Beta test can be arranged (I have participated in many) and a solution found.
Tom Huber said: There is no need to denigrate either Brett or me if you disagree. I do not make the rules — yes, that is true, but I am conveying what has been reported to us users in the past by FamilySearch personnel.
Ask yourself if a FamilySearch Representative had written the same thing I did, would you have written that they were being condescending?
Both Brett and I have a lot of experience in this forum. Brett is especially adept at citing previous discussions as well as FamilySearch articles.
FamilySearch personnel simply do not have the time to respond to everything that is posted and as such, they depend upon us users who are part of the community for which this forum exists.0
A van Helsdingen said: Certainly I agree with Cousin David that unfortunately some forum users are rude or use inappropriate formatting. I agree with him that the two people he names sometimes make posts that run afoul of the Code of Conduct. But they often make some very valuable contributions, and I don't agree with singling out just them.0
Don M Thomas said: Cousin David you are being too thin skinned. Look at other comments Brett has made to other users in this forum. He uses capital lettering a lot.
No judgement here in this forum of ideas, that sometimes are good, and sometimes are bad.
This is a community forum for ideas, and all should have the right to say and judge if the idea is a good one or a bad one. Not everyone is alike, and sometimes someone will like the idea, and sometimes someone will not like the idea, but whatever judgement they make of the idea does not reflect what they think of the person. I have had some ideas that others have thought were down right awful, but I took no offense.
Please take no offense, and continue to submit you view points and ideas to this community forum for ideas.
Gary, sorry to depart for a moment from your Feedback idea. I like to say "shared" Family Tree.0
Don M Thomas said: Gary, I was like you, and still am to a certain degree, but I have learned to accept the open edit or shared "Family Tree." It will always be a tug of war for me.
Go into the "Family Tree" and add your correct data. Correct it all. Give it some time. It will take some getting used to. Remember this is a one person database, meaning that you will have to merge duplicates. Correct it all, and give the concept a try for 6 months. Then ask yourself what your thoughts are then about the "Family Tree."
My thinking is, if you are a true genealogist you will stay and continue to use the FamilySearch "Family Tree."
Good luck and take care in whatever decision you make.0
Donald Drennan said: I really like the way this works. On Ancestry.com, it's profit based, so they want to keep you in the dark until you pay them more money. In the early 2000s I had done extensive work on my tree on Ancestry.com, but then I quit working on it. Now, my Ancestry tree is just gone, and it asks if I want to start a new family tree!
Coming to FamilySearch, I found most of my whole family already entered by other people, probably all distant relatives. All I had to do was connect my mother and father, and merge some duplicates. It's great!
I believe corrections can be made even if someone added wrong information, it can be undone. But look closely at the sources, maybe they aren't mistakes.0