Living Records
Many account holders add living records to their account which are kept in their private space. They often add sources and memories to these living records. Under current operations, these records are never made public unless the account holder adds a death date and all the work done on these records is essentially lost (i.e. not available ever) Recommend that living records automatically be set to deceased when reaching 110 year of age. These records would then be public and have attached any sources and/or memories that had been attached. I recommend doing this for both member accounts and public accounts. In other words, any living record, regardless of where it is, be set to deceased at 110 years from the birth date.
Comments
-
Currently, the living people remain in their private area until they are over 110 years old. Memories are public and those you have shared with another will still be seen by them. When the 110 years occur for the person, then those memories attached to that person will show on the page. If any private memories have been created they will remain private until FamilySearch provides a timeout requirement for the private memories.
0 -
If you enter just a day and a month for the birth date (i.e., you don't want to add the year), it will automatically assign a ridiculously early date. This error would result in living records being automatically released into the main part of the tree where everyone could see them. Automatic changing of death information by computer is a bit dangerous. It requires Human interaction. That's why putting a lot of data in your private space can get a bit treacherous. I like to spend my time working with deceased records. They are the ones that really need it.
0 -
Jeff Some day the living person will be deceased and really need to have a deceased record. What better record to have than one created by close family members which is usually the case for people in private spaces.
0 -
Amy Are you saying that records are moved out of private spaces at the 110 year mark. That is not what the KA says and when we checked with engineering today, were told that records are never moved out of private spaces. Could you clarify.
0 -
Amy
.
FYI
.
Your FIRST statement that "... Currently, the living people remain in their private area until they are over 110 years old. ..." has the implication/connotation that 'FamilySearch' AUTOMATICALLY changes the 'Status" of "Living" individuals/persons to "Decaesed" after 110 Years has elapsed.
.
I, believe; and, suggest, that such implication/connotation is NOT the case ...
.
As far as I am aware, 'FamilySearch' DOES NOT automatically changes the 'Status" of, "Living" individuals/persons, in the "Private Spaces" of Users/Patrons 'FamilySearch' Accounts, to "Deceased" after 110 Years has elapsed.
.
Unless there has been a "Change", that has NOT been promulgated!?
.
Here is a CURRENT "Knowledge Article" in 'FamilySearch':
.
How does Family Tree determine whether a person is living or deceased?
.
Where it states:
Quote [ with extrapolation ]
------------------
'FamilySearch' DOES NOT automatically mark an individual as deceased when ... [ 110 Years has elapsed ]
------------------
.
'Wayland's' suggestion is quite valid; and, has been discussed and debated, at length, previously, in the OLD 'FamilySearch' ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum.
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
What I posted came from Ron Tanner via an email conversation I had with him about a week ago.
0 -
Amy/Brett I got a similar email from Ron Tanner a few months ago. But when we checked with engineering today, we were told no, it doesn't work that way. The reason this is important is in setting expectations to our patrons. If the records are never moved out of a private space, I would just tell the patron don't waste your time adding memories and sources to living people because it will just be lost. And that would really be too bad to loose the record of a child or grandchild lovely created and memories added by a parent or grandparent. And in a similar situation, we have no process to set a public account holder to deceased (I submitted a separate suggestion for this). So a public account holder at present has no way to self document his/her record and leave a legacy to his/her family. What a shame. And again, it is about setting expectations. I can tell you most users have no idea that their work will never be made public and shared with family.
0 -
Amy
.
I am certainly NOT trying to be antagonistic ...
.
I am well aware of, "Official 'FamilySearch' Representative", (Brother) "Ron TANNER", being a Manager level in 'FamilySearch' ...
.
And, I am very well aware that you were ONLY working with the advice that you received ...
.
But ...
That said ...
.
On the part of 'FamilySearch' ...
.
IF, there has been such a SIGNIFICANT "Change"; and, that "Change" has NOT been (immediately) promulgated, to us (ie. the Users/Patrons); plus, that "Knowledge Article" (and, any other such "Knowledge Articles") has (/have) NOT been updated/corrected; THEN, that is very POOR indeed.
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Wayland
.
My understanding is that 'FamilySearch' is EXPLORING avenues with regard to, "Inheritance"; and/or, "Bequeathing", of the "Living" individuals/persons (and, most likely, the "Memories" of such) in the "Private Spaces", of a recently deceased Family member, to an immediate Family member.
.
And, I also understanding is that 'FamilySearch' is EXPLORING much MORE in regard to "Living" individuals/persons in our "Private Spaces" ...
.
Something that WILL take some time, 'make no bones about' that ...
.
There are a myriad of "Privacy" Laws within the many various Countries and Unions throughout the World - it is a nightmare to negotiate.
.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is used in many Countries and Unions throughout the World; and, as such, must adhere to the myriad of "Privacy" Laws throughout the World.
.
Hence, "Privacy" is one of the reasons that we cannot "Share" the "Living" individuals/persons in our own "Private Spaces" - it is NOT the ONLY reason; but, certainly has a bearing on the matter.
.
And, 'Yes", there are; and, will, be "Living" individuals/persons (and, the "Memories" of such) in the "Private Spaces" of, BOTH, "Living"; and, "Deceased" Users/Patrons, that are, in fact, "Deceased"; but, have NOT been "Marked" (recorded) as being "Deceased".
.
[ We (Wife & myself) have personal knowledge of such. ]
.
Another factor is that such would have to be 'Coded'/'Programmed' into the Programme that is "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
'Yes', these "Living" individuals/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' WILL, in fact, in many (most) cases will be "Duplicated" - unfortunately a necessary situation that currently cannot be avoided.
.
I know that there are "Duplicates" of the "Living" ME - at least, one for my Wife and each of our Children, not to mention my other ("Living") extended Family members.
.
Personally, I totally support your suggestion; although, I would recommend that ...
.
IF, such was going to be, AUTOMATIC; and, "System" actioned; THEN, the 'Bar' SHOULD be lifted from 110 Years, to 120 Years (as a Minimum; but, would prefer 130 Years).
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Brett
Thanks for the input. I think I pretty well understand the private space and the reasons behind it. Heaven knows I have had to explain it numerous times to patrons. I am sure it is a very complicated situation. However, if we turn and face the patrons it is a problem of expectations and long term consequences of private spaces. I think among most user of Family Search, there is the expectation that any work done within Family Search will be preserved and available for the long run. Family Search has essentially been telling us that from the beginning. On the other hand, I think there are few (even among experienced users and our FS missionaries) that understand the impact and consequences of private spaces down the road. And the reality of what happens under the current implementation and the expectations of most users are far apart. We need to close the gap. I have heard the same thing that things are being discussed on how to share private spaces etc. I know that those things could take some time to implement. In the meantime, what do we tell the patrons. Under current implementation we can say don't do any work in private spaces because it will all be lost with the one exception, if you are a member of the church, work you do on your own record will be made public once your death is recorded by the membership department. Other than that one exception, everything else will be lost (read not available) including any work you do on your own record. That is not a very good answer. I would rather have some explanation of what we expect to be implemented so people working in Family Search today understand what will happen. thanks.
0 -
For both new or experienced patrons who use FamilySearch to store memories, it is implied that the public nature of their memories is inherent in their submission, especially since the designation of “private” or “public” is now available. As we add memories to our ancestors' pages, we do so with the expectation that all will be able to share in the memories. When we add memories to our own person pages or other living person pages in our accounts and designate them as “public,” I believe nearly all patrons would expect them to become to viewable by their descendants at some point in the future. It seems inconsistent that we would provide memories in one category of deceased persons and not expect the memories we attached to our own and other living persons' pages during our lifetimes would not also become public and accessible after death.
0
