Reduce frustration by fostering collaboration before changes are made
As a FamilySearch support person I get a lot of calls from patrons who are frustrated that someone made a bunch of incorrect changes to their ancestors´ records.
My idea is to have the system ask the patron making changes if they have collaborated with those who previously added or changed information in the record that they are now changing/merging/deleting. That historical change information is readily available. The system could list the people they should have collaborated with before effecting the change.
Obviously, the changer could blast right through this question and still cause problems, but I suspect this reminder would cause most people to pause and consider if they´re being responsible contributors.
Repetition causes fatigue, so the question shouldn´t be asked with every change being made. I would suggest posing the question a certain number of times, say five, to new users and then again every so often, maybe every 15 changes after that to refresh their memories.
We really ought to do all we can to alleviate the problems caused by lack of collaboration. If not this idea, let´s put something in place to reduce the number of these types of problems we´re seeing. Thank you.
Comments
-
I think working toward collaboration is a great thing! However, if the user hasn't turned on their notifications in settings, other users could be messaging them and they would not know they have any messages. Or many users don't know there is a messaging feature and how it works. Teaching everyone how the messaging feature works is huge in working towards collaboration.
Also, teaching all users that this is a shared tree is also important. It isn't a "my" tree. So my ancestors are also thousands of other people's ancestors or relatives. One can try to reach out to all that have changed something on a person before making any new changes and they may have to wait for weeks or months for any reply. This is not how we should be working in the Family Tree. When we identify something that needs to be changed based a source document, etc, we should make that change and state the reason why in the reason statement. I cannot spend time contacting hundreds or thousands of other users to ask them if I can change something they added to the Tree. That is not how the Family Tree works.
Recently I had a user message me about a minor change they had made to the burial location of a person in the Tree. They messaged the same thing to all the people who had made changes to this person. Though that was a nice thought, it wasn't really needed. If I was concerned, I could see that minor change and if it was a major problem for me, I could change it back and message the user who made the change. But it was extremely minor .... they added the name of the cemetery and in the reason field they included the Find a Grave memorial number. They didn't need to message anyone to tell them that.
I have also had other users keep adding wrong census records and children to a couple. I dug deeper and found that someone had made an incorrect merge months before and so other users kept adding the wrong info to this now merged person that was really 2 different people. Once I fixed all the wrong sources and restored all the wrong merges I was able to clearly see two different families. Then I put them back together correctly into two separate families with separate sources. No one has made the mistake of adding wrong sources since the records were fixed. Did I message all the people who were innocently adding census records to who they thought was their relative? Did I get upset at those who kept adding incorrect children. Nope! I just fixed it so they had their relative correct and I had my relative correct.
Lots of people who are new to the Family Tree don't even know how to fix mistakes they make themselves. Many people don't even know how to edit a name, date, place. So perhaps with the example you used, the callers themselves may not even know how to fix things that are not correct. Or the person that changed something on one of their relatives may not know how to fix something they did in error.
So a lot of effort toward collaboration also lies with each individual to learn how the Family Tree functions. There is ample training materials available to help everyone learn.
And collaboration is all about patience. When I come across a mess that needs fixing, I just assume that the persons who made that mess were new and didn't know how to navigate the Tree.
0 -
I think working toward collaboration is a great thing! However, if the user hasn't turned on their notifications in settings, other users could be messaging them and they would not know they have any messages. Or many users don't know there is a messaging feature and how it works. Teaching everyone how the messaging feature works is huge in working towards collaboration.
Also, teaching all users that this is a shared tree is also important. It isn't a "my" tree. So my ancestors are also thousands of other people's ancestors or relatives. One can try to reach out to all that have changed something on a person before making any new changes and they may have to wait for weeks or months for any reply. This is not how we should be working in the Family Tree. When we identify something that needs to be changed based a source document, etc, we should make that change and state the reason why in the reason statement. I cannot spend time contacting hundreds or thousands of other users to ask them if I can change something they added to the Tree. That is not how the Family Tree works.
Recently I had a user message me about a minor change they had made to the burial location of a person in the Tree. They messaged the same thing to all the people who had made changes to this person. Though that was a nice thought, it wasn't really needed. If I was concerned, I could see that minor change and if it was a major problem for me, I could change it back and message the user who made the change. But it was extremely minor .... they added the name of the cemetery and in the reason field they included the Find a Grave memorial number. They didn't need to message anyone to tell them that.
I have also had other users keep adding wrong census records and children to a couple. I dug deeper and found that someone had made an incorrect merge months before and so other users kept adding the wrong info to this now merged person that was really 2 different people. Once I fixed all the wrong sources and restored all the wrong merges I was able to clearly see two different families. Then I put them back together correctly into two separate families with separate sources. No one has made the mistake of adding wrong sources since the records were fixed. Did I message all the people who were innocently adding census records to who they thought was their relative? Did I get upset at those who kept adding incorrect children. Nope! I just fixed it so they had their relative correct and I had my relative correct.
Lots of people who are new to the Family Tree don't even know how to fix mistakes they make themselves. Many people don't even know how to edit a name, date, place. So perhaps with the example you used, the callers themselves may not even know how to fix things that are not correct. Or the person that changed something on one of their relatives may not know how to fix something they did in error.
So a lot of effort toward collaboration also lies with each individual to learn how the Family Tree functions. There is ample training materials available to help everyone learn.
And collaboration is all about patience. When I come across a mess that needs fixing, I just assume that the persons who made that mess were new and didn't know how to navigate the Tree.
0 -
It is not lack of collaboration as much as lack of knowledge. More education of how the tree works. More before you merge, change etc review sources. Look at Names and dates and locations (even how far away are those locations, people did not move very far before cars!) and compare relationships. Too many use same name and they move forward.
Collaboration is hard when I do send messages and very often I do not get replies. Too many casual users of the website who are not invested. I follow the sources and make the changes that I can prove correct. I have asked questions and been able to learn from others too so there is benefit in collaboration but for improvement of the tree, education is needed over collaboration in my opinion.
0 -
It is not lack of collaboration as much as lack of knowledge. More education of how the tree works. More before you merge, change etc review sources. Look at Names and dates and locations (even how far away are those locations, people did not move very far before cars!) and compare relationships. Too many use same name and they move forward.
Collaboration is hard when I do send messages and very often I do not get replies. Too many casual users of the website who are not invested. I follow the sources and make the changes that I can prove correct. I have asked questions and been able to learn from others too so there is benefit in collaboration but for improvement of the tree, education is needed over collaboration in my opinion.
0 -
Any system that requires you to get someone's "permission" before doing anything will slow everything down considerably, and would quickly be dropped or ignored by many people.
Besides, the best form of "Collaboration" is already there if people would just use it. Any failures are almost ALWAYS due to:
1) People refusing to study all of the notes and Reasons that have been documented in the record to evaluate if the change they are about to make has any justification due to improved reasoning and sources provided.
2) People refusing to clearly document WHY they are making changes to the system. They don't attach sources, and if they do, they don't identify these sources in their notes or reasons for making the changes (too much of a bother).
If a question arises, then messaging can be used. But if the above two rules were followed, messaging would rarely be needed.
This is the most efficient way to do this. But if people insist on not following this path and want to "drive on the wrong side of the road", then there will continue to be accidents and damage that ensues.
0 -
Any system that requires you to get someone's "permission" before doing anything will slow everything down considerably, and would quickly be dropped or ignored by many people.
Besides, the best form of "Collaboration" is already there if people would just use it. Any failures are almost ALWAYS due to:
1) People refusing to study all of the notes and Reasons that have been documented in the record to evaluate if the change they are about to make has any justification due to improved reasoning and sources provided.
2) People refusing to clearly document WHY they are making changes to the system. They don't attach sources, and if they do, they don't identify these sources in their notes or reasons for making the changes (too much of a bother).
If a question arises, then messaging can be used. But if the above two rules were followed, messaging would rarely be needed.
This is the most efficient way to do this. But if people insist on not following this path and want to "drive on the wrong side of the road", then there will continue to be accidents and damage that ensues.
0 -
Paul
.
Continuing on from what has already been proffered ...
.
Unfortunately, although commendable ... in a PERFECT World, so to speak ...
.
Such "Collaboration" and requirements, that you propose would, in fact, 'stifle', most likely, STOP, the USE on "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by MANY Users/Patrons; and, especially, by MANY of the EXPERIENCED Users/Patrons.
.
What you, have to be aware of; and, remember, is that MANY Users/Patrons who are "Contacted" through, either, (1) "User Messaging" of 'FamilySearch'; or, (2) if available, direct E-mail; or, (3) even, both, just DO NOT respond.
.
There are often NO responses to 'Messages' (and, "E-mails") we send.
.
There are many reasons for NO response:
[ some; but, NOT limited to ... ]
▬ User/Patron has Died themselves
▬ User/Patron DOES NOT know about 'Messages'
▬ User/Patron is an infrequent User/Patron of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'
▬ User/Patrons may have STOPPED using "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'
▬ User/Patrons may choose NOT to respond
.
EDUCATION; Education; education ...
.
Most new (and, some old) Users/Patrons DO NOT understand (or, DO NOT want to ACCEPT) the basic nature and premise of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', when they join in.
.
That being that ...
.
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, more IMPORTANTLY, that we do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, our OWN "Deceased" Ancestors in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
"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'.
.
Get that basic nature and premise of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', understood; and, accepted, then, all the rest is that much closer.
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Paul
.
Continuing on from what has already been proffered ...
.
Unfortunately, although commendable ... in a PERFECT World, so to speak ...
.
Such "Collaboration" and requirements, that you propose would, in fact, 'stifle', most likely, STOP, the USE on "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by MANY Users/Patrons; and, especially, by MANY of the EXPERIENCED Users/Patrons.
.
What you, have to be aware of; and, remember, is that MANY Users/Patrons who are "Contacted" through, either, (1) "User Messaging" of 'FamilySearch'; or, (2) if available, direct E-mail; or, (3) even, both, just DO NOT respond.
.
There are often NO responses to 'Messages' (and, "E-mails") we send.
.
There are many reasons for NO response:
[ some; but, NOT limited to ... ]
▬ User/Patron has Died themselves
▬ User/Patron DOES NOT know about 'Messages'
▬ User/Patron is an infrequent User/Patron of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'
▬ User/Patrons may have STOPPED using "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'
▬ User/Patrons may choose NOT to respond
.
EDUCATION; Education; education ...
.
Most new (and, some old) Users/Patrons DO NOT understand (or, DO NOT want to ACCEPT) the basic nature and premise of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', when they join in.
.
That being that ...
.
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, more IMPORTANTLY, that we do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, our OWN "Deceased" Ancestors in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
"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'.
.
Get that basic nature and premise of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', understood; and, accepted, then, all the rest is that much closer.
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
I think everyone makes great points, but I support the original idea and question. Most of the replies just argue why it can’t or shouldn’t be done. I think the original thought and idea were meant to indicate a huge problem and to suggest an imperfect solution that could brainstorm into a great solution.
Here is my offering: If I am “following” an individual, that typically indicates that I am interested in this individual enough that I would like to collaborate on changes. I don’t think everything needs collaboration, but if name, DOB, merges, deletions and relationships are being changed, I should be notified immediately and allowed to accept or dispute the change before that change happens (maybe a 7 day time-limit). If there is no source or info as to why it should be changed, I will reject it - maybe this will encourage better citations and sourcing and overall better research. Further, it will immediately educate people that the changes they make affect other people as well.
I think the idea of collaboration is good… it just needs more work. From what I understand, collaboration was the main ability behind this project in the first place.
0 -
I think everyone makes great points, but I support the original idea and question. Most of the replies just argue why it can’t or shouldn’t be done. I think the original thought and idea were meant to indicate a huge problem and to suggest an imperfect solution that could brainstorm into a great solution.
Here is my offering: If I am “following” an individual, that typically indicates that I am interested in this individual enough that I would like to collaborate on changes. I don’t think everything needs collaboration, but if name, DOB, merges, deletions and relationships are being changed, I should be notified immediately and allowed to accept or dispute the change before that change happens (maybe a 7 day time-limit). If there is no source or info as to why it should be changed, I will reject it - maybe this will encourage better citations and sourcing and overall better research. Further, it will immediately educate people that the changes they make affect other people as well.
I think the idea of collaboration is good… it just needs more work. From what I understand, collaboration was the main ability behind this project in the first place.
0 -
Also, slow is smooth and smooth is fast. If we are finding names and connecting the wrong people, but doing it at the speed of light… is that good? What if we could slow the process down a little and by doing so eliminate 80% of the merging, deleting, and wrong changes errors. Further, it also hampers or could even stop people who are intentionally trying to destroy the work.
0 -
Also, slow is smooth and smooth is fast. If we are finding names and connecting the wrong people, but doing it at the speed of light… is that good? What if we could slow the process down a little and by doing so eliminate 80% of the merging, deleting, and wrong changes errors. Further, it also hampers or could even stop people who are intentionally trying to destroy the work.
0