Change photo policy to remove clearly unrelated, unexplained photos
I've encountered photos that clearly have nothing to do with the person they are attached to. Recently, someone uploaded a completely unrelated photo to a close relative of mine. I contacted the poster with no reply. So, reported the image as 'abuse', but it's still is up. The sites 'abuse' policy doesn't seem to actually prohibit this unrelated photo. I understand the need for a lot of wiggle room on a shared-tree, but I think there should be a process in place to remove ridiculous images where the poster doesn't give any reason to connect it with the profile.
The image is attached to a person born in the 1830s:
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/memories/LYF8-FDH
It's a screenshot from the page below- a reference to a Jimmy Buffett song:
Comments
-
The rules about uploading photos are already very strict. Several categories of photos are prohibited or need special permission. See the rules: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/legal/familysearch-upload-guidelines-and-policies?lang=eng
Photos of unrelated people don't seem to violate any of the 15 Guidelines, but may violate the "Heart-Turning" and "Relevant" Principles. But I think those 4 Principles are meant to be a guide to how the Guidelines are interpreted, rather than legally binding rules.
0 -
You can delete a photo by clicking on the photo in memories. After the photo is displayed, click on the down arrow to the right of the persons name. Then click on "Detach from Family Tree" and give a reason to detach (or not). Then refresh the page. The photo should be gone.
Joseph Alexander Jenkins is the husband of my 9th cousin three times removed.
0 -
Mr Roberts method of 'detach from tree' + refresh seems to have worked. I had tried that before on a different image, but without refreshing, and it didn't appear to work - the name-tag and image remained, but just showed as 'unlinked'. So, my suggested 'fix' has already been covered by 'detach'.
Like you say Helsdingen, I don't think there's a need for legalistic rules as long as there's a workable method to solve issues that arise.
0 -
All
.
Wow ... I did not realise that ...
.
That is very, SAD; and, "Disappointing", indeed, to 'hear', that ANOTHER User/Patron, can just come along; and, "Detach" (or, as such, "Delete"); and, that INCLUDES "Removing" a "Tag" of, a "Memory" that you have "Added" (or, "Attached").
.
That is just WRONG ...
.
You should ONLY have the options to, either,
.
(1) "Request" the User/Patron, who 'Uploaded' the "Memory", to "Detach" (or, as such, "Delete"); and, that INCLUDES "Removing" a "Tag" of, the "Memory", that THEY "Uploaded" or "Tagged"; OR,
.
(2) IF, there is NO Response or Action; or, that "Request" is "Refused"; THEN, the RIGHT to ('Officially') "Request", that be done, by 'FamilySearch'; as, the Moderator".
.
There should be NO ability to "Detach" (or, as such, "Delete"); and, that INCLUDES "Removing" a "Tag" of, a "Memory" that you have "Added" (or, "Attached") or "Tagged", by AOTHER User/Patron.
.
Sometimes (more often than not) the User/Patron who wants the "Memory" (or, just the "Tag") removed, is wrong.
.
There NEEDS to be a "Moderator", with the final say/discretion ...
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Brett, I completely understand that the thought of other people being to change photo tags is scary, but I have uploaded hundreds of my photos and have not had a single problem. Putting the decision on a moderator, who probably has no knowledge of the person, seems like a waste of labor better spent elsewhere.
People I've talked to who dislike familysearch seem want to 'own' their tree and the thought of anyone else touching it is horrifying to them. But, those same people build Ancestry.com trees filled with inaccurate photos/facts which then get spread across the internet. A second-cousin of mine on Ancestry.com has one of the biggest and most inaccurate trees for my family group. It contains many photos linked to the wrong people. They will not respond to messages. How would a moderator know that a picture of a gravestone in North Carolina doesn't really belong to grandpa who died in Mississippi? The quality of a community tree depends on the quality of the community - other than malicious vandalism, I can't picture anyone using 'detach' without good reason.
However, I do think photo attachments should be handled like any edit: ask the reason for the change, and make an undo option in the 'edit history'.
0 -
J.Osborne
.
I 'hear' what you are 'saying' ...
.
But ...
That said ...
.
It is NOT 'Scary', it is just WRONG.
.
A 'Moderator' ONLY intervenes, if an agreement CANNOT, be reached between the Users/Patrons; or, if NO contact received.
.
A 'Moderator' has the FINAL "Decision", NOT a User/Patron, about ANOTHERS User's/Patron's "Memories".
.
I have also ADDED many "Memories" WITHOUT any problems/issues - BECAUSE, they CANNOT be, "Deleted"; or, "Changed", by ANOTHER User/Patron.
.
But, OTHER "Details" are another matter, WITH many problems/issues caused by INEXPERIENCED Users/Patrons.
.
Allowing INEXPERIENCED Users/Patrons FREE reign with "Memories", uploaded by OTHER User/Patron, is tantamount to DISASTER.
.
I DO NOT have ANY interest with the 'Trees' on "Ancestry_com", I DO NOT care what OTHERS do with their 'Tree' on "Ancestry_com".
.
I ONLY use "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
I truly hope that 'FamilySearch' NEVER allow "Memories" uploaded by one User/Patron to be, "Deleted"; or, "Changed", by another User/Patron.
.
[ Regardless, of a "ChangeLog"; or, an "Undo"/"Restore" - BECAUSE, such DO NOT work as they should ... ]
.
Brett
.
0 -
Brett
I'm afraid I don't follow your argument here. What is the difference between another user removing a reliable source (or accurate "Vital") I have added to a Family Tree ID and their removing a photo I have added to the Memories section?
I thought I added ANY information to Family Tree IDs "at my own risk" - i.e. the open-edit concept applies throughout the program. Surely it is wishful thinking that FamilySearch would provide resources to allow for moderators to give attention to this type of issue. As you know, there has always been a total disinterest in providing help in resolving issues relating to other users changing vitals details, etc., when this has been done without providing any justification AND the other user refuses to answer your polite messages and persists in changing your carefully researched inputs?
I'm not knocking your thoughts on the issue, Brett, just wanting to know why you think FamilySearch should treat Memories inputs (photos or otherwise) any differently from the other FT sections. And, when you say, "I truly hope that 'FamilySearch' NEVER allow "Memories" uploaded by one User/Patron to be, "Deleted"; or, "Changed", by another User/Patron." - hasn't it just been proved that this already is possible? (As illustrated below)
0
