Sources attached too many times.

LegacyUser

Allen Joseph Robison said: In the "Research Help" area of Familysearch.org there are often times really good sources to attach to a person. Why does this area often times show the same source 3 or 4 times even after I attach the source to the people in the source? I often end up with the same source attached 2 or 3 or even 4 times. That to me seems like a total waste of time. The page should update and recognize that the source was already attached and than move on to the next unattached source.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The bottom line question is, "Are the sources the same source?"

The only way to tell that is with the URL of the source. If the URL is identical, then yes, it is the same source. Otherwise, no, it is not and needs to be attached.

Note that some records have been filmed more than once and once converted to digital images (and the associate agreement to display them has been made), you can end up with two different sources of the same image. They still need to be attached.

There were some unusual situations where the same source got attached to the same person, but those are not only rare, the problem showed up and was resolved (a number of years ago). If you run across a source (same URL) that was attached twice, there are two suggested solutions -- the first is to detach one of the copies, but it can sometimes reappear at a hint, in which case, both copies have to be detached and then one copy can be attached, taking care of the problem.

Marriage records tend to be notorious for having multiple copies of the couple's record. These tend to be affidavits, marriage licenses, court house indexes (sometimes more than one copy), and finally the actual marriage record and yes, a certificate. A lot depends upon the state and what records have been captured for FamilySearch.

Regardless, not attaching any source that applies to the person (or couple) can result in someone coming along and think that it is for a different couple, thus creating a duplicate.

Therefore, FamilySearch has told us a number of time to attach all sources to the person, even if they are a second filming, or a second index copy -- all having unique URLs.

The URL for the source is found in the source that is attached to the person page. If you look at Sarah Belle Anthony (KLQ9-92T), you will see two entries for her attached to her husband's death record. The first one has a URL of https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619... and the second has a URL of https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619....

Those are the URLs you need to look at and yes, it is a pain, but that happens when there are a lot of records for the same event, some of which are copies and some of which have slightly different information.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Allen

And, from another perspective ...

Personally, I do not care if they ARE the SAME "Reference" (eg. Document) of an "Event", just a different "Indexing" (ie. Different URLs, as 'Tom' indicates).

As far as I am concerned ... 'the more, the merrier' ...

It gives the individual/person some ... 'flesh and bones' ... so to speak.

I would, be happy to; and, prefer to, attach 100 "References" (eg. of a Document) of the SAME "Event", rather than just ONE; and, I would "Add" an "Addendum" to the 'Title' of EACH one, "Reference 'n' of 100", to differentiate each of them.

But, perhaps, that is just me.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I tend to do what you do, Brett -- attach the source and then modify the title to reflect what the source is (even if it is a duplicate index).

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Allen,

The page should update and recognize that the source was already attached and than move on to the next unattached source

In fact, the system already does somethings like this already!

As has been pointed out by Tom, if the sources have different URLs, they are from different places and possibly different document owners from under different copyright licenses REGARDLESS of whether their titles, contents, or images appear to be identical.

When you open a so-called "source" (and I intentionally quote the word source), FS has put all of the information together in a wonderfully nice presentation so that it is very easy to see everything that is going on on the one page. Unfortunately, the down side is that many people don't realize at first that what they are looking at is NOT a single "source".

What they are looking at in that window is usually at least 3 different things:

1. The citation to a specific entry in an index file that was derived from some paper or (more commonly) digital image of the original source. This citation is a source in its own right

2. The actual data from the index file that is being cited. This index file is a source in its own right.

3. The digital image of a document that has been indexed. This image is also a source in its own right.

So you can see that in just this example I've given, you can have three different owners and copyright licenses involved.

For example an Owner who created the digital image from the original paper documents may have allowed a different group to index those images. Later on they may have even arranged for yet another group to image the files. If the quality of the writing on the original paper document was good, and the photograph of the document was easy to read, then it is likely that BOTH index files could have identical content. If not, then the different index files might be slightly (or hugely) different.

Even though the index files have identical or significantly different contents, they come from different origins (i.e., owners)

Anyway, the use of the term "source" on the FS website can be quite ambiguous at times.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Tom

'Thank You'.
It is nice to know I am ... not alone.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Well, I find that distinctly weird, Brett and Tom! A bit like me producing my birth certificate when being asked for ID, then producing a second copy when asked for any further identification!

No, one record / source per event if plenty for me, unless another has some further detail included. I hate cluttered Sources sections and am disappointed FamilySearch engineers never did find a way of retiring sources that contain truly duplicate information.

Something went sadly amiss with the record keeping, which led to multiple indexing of the same microfilms and I still hope to go into Family Tree one day to find all those space-wasting duplicates have disappeared!

LegacyUser

Brett said: Paul

That is disappointing to hear from you ...

That analogy producing a 'Birth Certificate' when asked for identification; then, producing a SECOND "Certified Copy" of that 'Birth Certificate' when asked for any further identification, is NOT, nowhere near, the same as such Records being "Indexed" more than once.

I am sorry you only prefer ONE "Source" representing such an Event.

I do not consider the additional/extra versions of "Sources" to be "Clutter", I consider them more 'flesh and bones'; as I said, 'the more the merrier'.

Organised and Sorted properly in Order (likes together), it looks great.

I on the other hand, are ECSTATIC that the "FamilySearch", Designers; Developers; and, Programmers (Engineers), have NOT tried to RETIRE such additional/extra versions "Sources".

Because, I would have been one of the FIRST ones to COMPLAIN if they did, like I was when they RETIRED the additional/extra versions of the "1851 and 1881, Census' of England and Wales".

'No', NOTHING, went wrong; or, sadly amiss, with further "Indexing" of "Sources", that brought about additional/extra version of such "Sources", nothing at all.

I actually hope and pray that "FamilySearch" DOES NOT / NEVER tries to RETIRE additional/extra versions of "Sources" - those additional/extra versions of "Sources" are certainly NOT wasting any space.

Those additional/extra versions "Sources" are very much appreciated.

Obviously, we 'beg to differ' ...

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Yep, we certainly do, Brett! I can think of no more wasted effort than "true duplication". I don't want anything lost if there is even the slightest chance one indexing project might contain a small piece of extra / different information from the other. But two records with nothing more than a different URL to tell them apart? No thanks!

LegacyUser

Brett said: Paul

The problem/issue is that there is ALWAYS something lost when such is done.

Don't you remember the DEBACLE when "FamilySearch" went and 'Started' to "Delete"/"Remove" those (supposed) "Duplicate" 'Names' - there were MORE than just "Duplicate" 'Names' that were "Delete"/"Remove" - 'Names' that were NOT "Duplicates" - I know, it happened to x32 of my Ancestors/Relatives/Extended Family.

Many additional/extra versions of "Sources" have/contain small pieces of extra/additional/different information; and, they WILL get RETIED in the 'melee', that is a 'given'.

'No Thanks', I DO NOT want such to happen.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Paul, where my version of what Brett does comes in is with multiple sources for the same couple's marriage -- specifically, when two sources are a index of a given marriage or license book. One copy is usually produced at the time the record is made in the "book" and the other is usually produced at a later date so that the original is not worn out/disappears into dust. Generally, the two indexes are identical in what they have recorded, but one is usually much easier to read. When both are attached, I'll add to the title to read -- index only, copy of original index.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: One other thing to consider is that when the sources come from different places (i.e., have different URLs), they always have the possibility of having different content. When the content is the SAME from those different sources, it REINFORCES and confirms the same data. I.e., two different sources that are saying the same thing are always better than ONE source.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Jeff

Primarily, I am talking about identically indexed material relating to an identical source. Multiple sources based on the same original document, and which have been indexed identically, do nothing more to reinforce the integrity of the information than if I were to include two copies of the same document in Memories.

LegacyUser

Katherine Allen said: It can be time consuming to wade through these many sources. BUT sometimes there is additional information that someone has taken the time to write in the notes that can be useful. Therefore, I would be very careful about getting rid of duplicate records without careful scrutiny of each entry.

MaggieModig

First I really like Family Search and really appreciate the work the programmers have done. It is fantastic. BUT I find duplication of the same source with the only differences being different URLs or pac vs. ark to be an annoying source of clutter and a waste of time. Just sayin'. I don't need to see two different indexes or images of the same document to understand what is in the document. I really like Family Search -- except for this.