I did extensive searches at the end of 2018. Now I find that there are discrepancies in very recent
I would understand that maybe more than 1,000 years, or even 2,000 years would be a little iffy, but then again not so. Are People able to change this around willy-nilly, and who is it that confirms this? This should have already been established and undeniable, should it not, if it is reliable at all? There seems to be some BOGUS BS going on here. Is this site and system that unreliable, that one day you connect to something the next you don't? I will expect a reasonable answer. I would expect that would be due. Thank You.
Answers
-
DevonDrake1,
I am just another user on the system like yourself. Here is some information:
The answer to most of your comments is Yes (unfortunately).
You only have to go back 300-400 years before you start getting into records where direct sources aren't as easily available, lots of people have the same name, and everyone and their dog wants to just guess at things without documenting anything (I think you used the term willy-nilly). This is exacerbated by the high number of novices, youth (we have 10 year olds on the site that have accounts), and some rather senile senior citizens who have not learned many of the nuances of doing this kind of collaborative work.
Lineages going back 1000 years should ALWAYS be suspect due to the lack of reliable sources which are that old. And if you don't have any sources documented, then all of your data is a myth at best.
And you only have to go back the 1700's to find persons who have 10's of thousands of descendants, many of which may have accounts on this website and are all interested in that same ancestor. So they will keep changing the ancestor's record to what they believe is "right".
FS themselves create promotional programs that use the data in the tree to exclaim to people that "We found your ancestor". Nearly all of those they send to me are wrong because you have to go back so far to find the common ancestor that it takes me though a series of generations that I know are wrong. So the promotions give the impression that everything they say is fact.
On the other hand a large chunk of the 1.3 billion name records in the FSFT have pretty solid documentation that has accumulated over the years and can be trusted. But unfortunately there are a large number of people working in the FSFT who rarely add documentation to justify the additions and changes that they make.
And records that have been incorrectly recorded based on what appears to be an "Obviously good" source have the issue that when a skilled researcher discovers them and corrects them while adding all the necessary documentation showing why the original data was wrong (e.g., "Fake" genealogy-it is a problem), people will repeatedly come along and change the record back to the incorrect values because they refuse to actually read the existing documentation that shows why what they are doing is wrong.
So it is not really "quite extraordinary that this would be this unreliable" as you put it. However, part of this comes from the reasons this database exists in the first place. Although you always will find those who want to "punch their tree through to Adam" for bragging rights, the intended use for the FSFT is more for people learning about their families, both recent and distant but have no need to go back 1,000 - 2,000 years.
In fact the original reason this database was formed was to just reduce the amount of temple work that church members were doing that was being duplicated. By having a single shared tree in the database that everyone can access to and improve, duplicates tend to get merged away so that the single record for a given individual will not get its temple work done multiple times.
So basically, those discrepancies that you are talking about are left for FS account holders to correct as they are found, but in general, they will not interfere much at all with the main intents of the database.
I hope this answers your question.😎
0 -
@DevonDrake1 DevonDrake1
.
It happens ...
.
I totally understand were you are coming from ... been there
.
It has happened to me, in fact, it has happened to MANY of us ...
.
Short Answer: To most of your 'Questions" is 'Yes'.
.
FYI
.
Most new (and, some old) Users/Patrons DO NOT understand the basic nature and premise of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', when they join in.
.
Please let me explain ...
.
We do not have our OWN "Tree" in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
We ONLY have "Branches" (ie. Ancestral" lines), 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 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
.
We DO NOT have "Private"/"Personal" 'Trees' in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' like other 'On-Line' "Websites"; and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes.
.
We do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/persons in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
And, in fact, we do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, our OWN "Deceased" Ancestors in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
We can certainly "Watch"/"Follow" them in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; and, address/fix any 'wayward' alterations; but, that is it.
.
"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'.
.
Furthermore ...
.
Most Users/Patrons are NOT lucky enough to have their "Pedigrees" go back 'countless' generations. Most are NOT directly linked (or, I should say, have NOT found a link/connection) to Royal/Noble/Important "Blood-Lines".
.
IF, you do have "Ancestry" that goes back 'countless' generations; THEN, please, consider yourself, one of the lucky few ...
.
So, many Users/Patrons have not/do not experience what you are referring to ...
.
I, like a lucky few, HAD well "Documented" and "Sourced", "Ancestral" lines in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' going back 'countless' generations ...
.
Unfortunately, due to the nature and premise of "Family Tree", over time, those well "Documented" and "Sourced", "Ancestral" lines were RUINED/ DECIMATED by (in most cases, 'well meaning'; but) 'wayward' Users/Patrons.
.
At one sage 'FamilySearch' had Personnel trying to "Resurrect" some of those "Ancestral" lines; unfortunately, they could NOT; as, they we so BADLY "Damaged" (RUINED/ DECIMATED).
.
That said ...
Regardless ...
.
I still use "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' ...
.
I just "Watch"/"Follow" as many of my DIRECT "Ancestral" lines that I can; IMMEDIATELY, addressing/fixing any ('wayward') "Changes", as they occur, by 'well meaning' Users/Patrons.
.
I check my "Watch" List/those that I am "Following", at least once or twice, each Day, to keep on top.
.
Many Users/Patrons, who use "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', STILL maintain their own SEPARATE personal/private "Database(s)" of their "Ancestral" lines, well away from "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; so that, they CANNOT be access by other people.
.
I know that this does not help; but, I hope this gives you some perspective.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Thank you for the response. I truly appreciate it. Was very frustrating to find these links cut. But I have found other links that go way back. I had found some that went back to Noah, believe it or not, and EVERYTHING in between. Once you connect to certain lines, they ALL connect, it appears. I have the screen shots still. Would you guys be interested in my looking back through and supplying you with those disconnects? Some of it is a little hard to read due to the size, but most is decipherable. Thanks again.
Devon
0 -
Thank you. I truly appreciate the time you spent to patiently explain this to me. It was very kind of you. Devon
0 -
@DevonDrake1 DevonDrake1
.
Devon
.
'Yes,' mine are the same; except, that some of mine go back further than "Noah", all the way back.
.
And, 'Yes', if you are lucky enough to connect/link up to a Royal/Noble/Important "Blood-Line"; then, they do often ALL connect up.
.
There were "Records" kept for the Royal/Noble/Important "Blood-Lines"; but, unfortunately, not so for the 'also-rans', such is life.
.
In relation to "Still" having the evidence/proof of the ORIGINAL connections/links ...
.
Can I humbly suggest that you submit a "Support" Case, advising of the Problem/Issue (ie. BROKEN "Lineage"); plus, supply "Digital" Copies of the ORIGINAL connections/links; and, "Requesting" that the BROKEN "Lineage" be "Re-Established".
.
But ...
That said ...
.
IF, the response to your "Support" Case is, a 'stock standard', polite, 'Thank You'; but, 'FamilySearch' CANNOT do that, usually with 'stock standard' (ie. 'Cut and paste') reasons; THEN, "Request" your "Support" Case be forwarded to a "Higher" Level of "Support" (ie. "Supervisor"; or, "Line Manager") for further consideration.
.
Often, for such matters, they need to go further than the "Lower" Levels of "Support"; as, it is NOT in their 'purview'.
.
I certainly cannot guarantee that anything will be done, to address/fix those ORIGINAL connections/links.
.
But ...
That said ...
.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
.
Give it a go ...
You have nothing to lose; and, everything to gain ...
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0
