FamilySearch. WHAT'S going on? Attach 1911,England&Wales,Census to Family (Individuals). FIND it att

LegacyUser

Brett said: FamilySearch.

WHAT is going on?

I Attached a "1911, Census for England & Wales" for a Family, to the individuals in that Family, through the "Source Linker" - all good (for that).

NOW, I go and find it ALSO attached to "Couple Relationship" of the Parents; and, the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children, which I DID NOT so attach!

WHY would the "System", through the "Source Linker", go ahead on its own volition and so attach the "1911, Census for England & Wales" to the "Couple Relationship" of the Parents; and, the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children, when I DID NOT, do it; OR, want it, to be done/so?

WHY were we NOT advised/informed of such AUTOMATIC action by the "Source Linker", on its own volition!!!???

WHO is supposed to be DRIVING this "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch", the Users/Patrons; or, the Developers and Designers and Programmers!!!???

==========

Related posts:

Weirder. Attached "1911,Census of E&W" to individual+Family, went OK; but, ALSO finished up being attached to "Couple R/Ship"+NO Event Date! ... 4 Months ago
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

Weird. Attached "National Registration Act,1939" for 'E+W.' to individual, went OK; but, ALSO finished up being attached to "Couple R/Ship"! ... 4 Months ago
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

Neither, of which were ever responded to.

==========

I really would appreciate some sort of respond from an "Official 'FamilySearch' Representative" on this post; and, those related posts.

'Thank You' in advance.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: What is the PID?

LegacyUser

Brett said: Joe

I will sent you directly.
I am still working on all the Family.

Brett
.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Joe

Sent.
Private "Community" Message.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Brett

I know you value your privacy (as indeed I value mine!) but as we have both stressed to other users, FamilySearch and Family Tree are collaborative efforts. Your unwillingness to share IDs is not really helpful to the rest of us. I, too, would rather not give specific examples at times, but feel it worth any possible impingement of my privacy if it means others can see a problem more easily.

Sorry to be critical, as I truly acknowledge the great help you offer on this forum. But, unless it affects the "living", I believe there should be no privacy relating to the IDs / information we have added to Family Tree.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Paul

I understand.
You are certainly NOT being critical.
But, I will not do so.
This is NOT a matter of "Privacy", the individuals/persons are Dead.

This is a matter of NOT posting the "Details" so that NO 'well meaning' regular participant in this Forum, unconnected to the individuals/persons, takes it upon themselves to make "Changes" that THEY think are appropriate, rather just comment on the problem/issue; and, not enact any "Changes" to the individuals/persons.

I do not want my Ancestral lines "Changed" by 'well meaning' regular participant in this Forum, unconnected to the individuals/persons - I have seen it happen too many times in the past.

I always ask if a Poster wants me to address/fix a problem/issue that can be easily resolved, on their behalf - to which the responses have always been: "Yes, PLEASE" and "Thank You". And, I just address/fix the problem/issue; and, DO NOT go ahead an make 'wholesale' "Changes" just because I think they are appropriate. I may give advice/suggest such; but, certainly NOT just go ahead 'carte blanche'.

I have too much experience to want other regular participant in this Forum to do so.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Joe

This is a REAL problem/issue ...

What I find extremely CONCERNING and DISTURBING is that, when I 'dig deeper', it appears (ie. is Recorded) that I (personally) am the User/Patron who INITIATED the 'said' attachment to, both, (1) the "Couple Relationship" of the Parents; and, (2) the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children, when (in fact) I DID NOT; and, did not want to or desire so - that is just pain WRONG.

My "Details" are being 'hijacked' by the "System"; and, used WITHOUT my express CONSENT - is not that a "Breach" of "Privacy" or such like (please excuse me if I am using the wrong terminology) - I think you get the 'gist'.

I NOW feel VIOLATED ... and, worst of all, by the "System" ITSELF!!!???

Brett

.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: If the system wrongly attributes an edit to a person, that is highly concerning. An open-edit tree relies on accurate information about past edits. This feature should be suspended immediately.

LegacyUser

Brett said: A van Helsdingen

I totally agree.
I am waiting for 'Joe' to come back, with analysis as to WHAT happened; and, HOW.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: This is an open edit system. Anyone can make any changes to it. That is both its blessing and its curse.

There are plenty of people who are perfectly well qualified to make changes to the vast majority of profiles in the system. I am one of them. Now I would not go into quite a number of foreign language profiles as there I do lack the understanding of the sources to truly do helpful things. However English language profiles? Can do and have done. I will not confine myself simply to my own lines.

I am not "well meaning". I genuinely know what I am doing and particularly when it comes to England and Wales I would consider myself an expert. There are other people who post here who are also experts in other areas of the world, and some also in England and Wales. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Incidentally I've just noticed an interesting bug with this forum software. Apparently I made the post that I have just posted an hour ago! It appears that there's a bit of a time zone issue going on.

LegacyUser

Brett said: David

Good to hear you back in full force.

I thought that you might 'chime in' ...

I consider that I experienced enough to make "Changes".

But, I do not 'presume' to do so on 'behalf of' others, in their Ancestral lines, unless it is requested.

You said it not me ...

I would never consider myself an expert in anything; but, I do have enough experience to get the 'job done' ...

In this matter, I am happy to "... cut off my nose to spite my face ...".

I would rather not have regular participants (Experienced; or, so called 'Experts') in this Forum, unconnected to the Ancestral lines, taking it upon themselves to make "Changes" that THEY think are appropriate (unless asked), rather than just comment on the problem/issue at hand.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: This goes against the whole concept of an open-edit tree. You do not own any profile. Being related to someone gives no you right to edit (or stop edits) any profile.

If you're concerned about "bad" or what you consider "wrong" edits to your relative's profiles, you should "watch" them.

That said, going around editing random people, especially more recent generations, is not something I endorse.

LegacyUser

Brett said: A van Helsdingen

I am not implying that I "Own" any "Deceased" individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".

I just DO NOT want regular participants (Experienced; or, so called 'Experts') in this Forum, unconnected to the Ancestral lines, taking it upon themselves to make "Changes" that THEY think are appropriate (unless asked), rather than just comment on the problem/issue at hand.

This has nothing to do with the "Open-Edit" nature of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch", this is another matter entirely.

It is not something I endorse, either - in that we are in agreeance.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: The FSFT does not use the "profile manager" model of WikiTree. In that model, those who died in the last 100 years or born less than 150 years ago can be controlled by a "profile manager". The profile manager decides who is on the "trusted list", and only those on the trusted edit can make edits.

I think those timeframes are about right for when it is appropriate/ not insensitive/polite to edit people not or distantly related to you.

But for anyone older, no FSFT user has any right to expect they can make others "ask" before they seek to edit those profiles.

That said, I know others have advocated for a profile manager system (as you seem to be doing right now) on FSFT, and I think it is an interesting topic for discussion on this forum.

LegacyUser

Brett said: A van Helsdingen

I prefer that those who post in this Forum 'ask'/'request' that I address/fix a problem/issue, in their Ancestral lines, that we are conversing on, if I can, rather than doing so on my own volition, 'carte blanche'

Way Off Base.

And, 'No', I am NOT doing so ... advocating for a "Profile Manager System".

Please do not represent me as advocating something I am NOT.

PLEASE, Please, please ... do not 'hijack' this post any further.

'Thank You'.

Brett

.