Accountability & Merges
Like everyone else, I get so frustrated with merges!
But I do wish that the merger's name was not automatically attributed to much of the information on the survivor's profile page.
Many descendants have done a lot of research and have really studied in order to provide the best details for an ancestor. In many cases, their names completely disappear during a merge. If I did the merge, I get the "credit" for most things on the survivor's page. In many cases, that's not fair to the descendant who worked hard to supply the original information.
In other cases, I don't even want the credit for information that comes over in a merge when that information is something that I can't confirm. I don't want that responsibility for information that might not even be correct. Likewise, when someone merges an ancestor that I have spent 70 or more hours studying, my name disappears, and their name automatically appears on most of the details. I often think about how that patron can't possibly respond to questions and concerns that I could readily answer. But descendants no longer know to contact me because only the merger's name appears.
The same kind of thing happens when anyone adds something to an ancestor's Life Sketch, I might have spent hours creating a Life Sketch for an ancestor. Someone else might make a very small and insignificant change, but now their name appears as if they are responsible for all the information, and yet, they may barely know anything about the ancestor.
Would it be THAT difficult to allow patrons to have credit and responsibility for appropriate changes?
Comments
-
FYI
You are not alone ...
Many of us wish the same ...
This has been raise before ...
I cannot recall the exact reasons as to why not ...
But ...
That said ...
I believe that it is to do with, the fact that, it is NOT, the ORIGINAL User/Patron, doing the "Merge"/"Combine"; as, it is the CURERENT User/Patron; and, the "Surviving" individual/person may have NO association to the the ORIGINAL User/Patron.
Whereas ...
To some degree, I understand that reasoning ...
But, I wish such was NOT the case ...
My preference is (ie would be) that the DEATILS of, the ORIGINAL, User/Patron; 'Date'; and, PID (of a "Deleted" individual/person ), be recorded, WITH, a cross-reference, to the User/Patron doing the "Merge"/"Combine"; but, just as a consequence of the "Merge"/"Combine" - just TOO complex/complicated for 'FamilySearch' to tackle - easier NOT to.
I ALWAYS include (ie. reference/associate) the DETAILS of, the ORIGINAL, User/Patron; 'Date'; and, PID (of a "Deleted" individual/person ), on ANY details/records brought across from ANY "Merges"/"Combines" that I do - but, that is just me.
I agree with you ...
But ...
That said ...
I DO NOT think such will ever happen ...
It certainly would be great if it could ...
Brett
1 -
Someone will probably come here and say, "Well, everything is in the change log", but I have frequently had experience of this issue, and finding the originator of an input is not always so straightforward. The length of some of the change logs makes building up a picture of who originally contributed what very difficult to ascertain.
Only yesterday, I was about to send off a firm (but polite!) message asking another user why she had ever come to such conclusions over the events relating to an individual I was working on. Then I realised that she might have just made minor changes to some of the fields, and not been at all responsible for the main detail!
From explanations provided by FamilySearch employees in the past, there is a "logical" reason for this happening, but - even without the issue of the original inputter losing recognition for their hard work - it certainly makes finding and collaborating with the "correct" person very difficult.
2 -
Totally agree, Paul. This is exactly why many more experienced researchers no longer contribute to the FS tree, which, sadly, removes a lot of well researched and documented data.
A sad circumstance, when a little education could rectify a lot of these problems.
0 -
I like to attach a lot of sources and I have found that if I am transcribing something I need to put my name at the bottom. Maybe it will stay with the source?
Michelle
0 -
Bonnie
FYI
I would suggest that "... a little education ..." would NOT "... rectify a lot of these problems ...".
A LOT of 'Education' and 'Training' is REQUIRED ...
As stated, some time ago by 'FamilySearch' ...
"Merging is a complex process in which you decide if two people are the same person. If they are, you choose which information should be kept. Please take the time necessary to carefully review each possible duplicate."
Users/Patrons should NOT even begin 'tackle' a "Merge"/"Combine", WITHOUT, being a reasonably proficient User/Patron of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; or, in the least, having worked through ALL the available "Training" within 'FamilySearch' (and/or, Externally - eg. The Family History Guide).
And, I still have problems/issue with Users/patrons being able to "Transfer"/"Update" individuals/persons from "Third Party" Applications that are "Certified" to work with "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
I have to admit, that SOME are O.K.; and, seem not to cause problems/issues; but, there are some that, can; and, have, caused 'havoc' (eg. "MyHeritage.com" - on more than one occasion)
But ...
That said ...
The latter 'pales into insignificance', with regard to the "Uploading" of GEDCOM Files, into "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' - such should be STOPPED "Immediately"; and, should NOT be allowed.
As I suggested ...
A LOT of 'Education' and 'Training' is REQUIRED ...
Brett
2 -
I totally agree, Brett.
it is hard to understand how the Mormons who so diligently rescued, in some cases, the documents, papers, images, maps, artifacts and more around the world, be so utterly careless and indifferent to the proper application of those historical records of peoples and the times they lived in.
Is anyone from FHL monitoring these discussions of ideas as well as concerns? It would seem not, but be good to know. It is baffling why the FS Family Tree page for an individual, contains a most instructive "source/documentation " form which very much promotes proper documentation, but then allows Gedcoms and Ancestry Tree to be used on the Details section as a reason for entering a fact as valid, which then takes the place of someone else’s entry.
there is so much good, even great about the FS site, FHL, etc. many of the Groups educate about process and research itself, for example, but then ........
1 -
Bonnie
Members of the Church ...
I am a Member of the Church ...
A 'Convert', to the Church, of many years now ...
Plus, I have been interested and doing "Genealogy" since I was a child.
Well BEFORE, I had any association with/to the Church.
I was doing so; because, although I had a large extended family, I, knew; and, saw, very little of them.
As such, when I joined the Church, I considered that I had the best of BOTH Worlds, 'so to speak'.
But, I am NOT a "Genealogist".
Whereas, I do have quite some years experience, BOTH, without; and, within, the Church.
.
As such ...
I suggest that ...
One should NOT 'lump' ...
▬ The 'Church' (in this case, "The Genealogical Society of Utah"; now, 'FamilySearch'); and,
▬ Members of the Church, who can also be Users/Patrons of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch',
As ONE ...
Many Members of the the Church, who can also be Users/Patrons of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', are ceratinly NOT experts at "Genealogy" (or, "Family History"; as, we tend to refer to it).
Many of such Members of the the Church, have NO training or experience in "Genealogy" (or, "Family History"), we get help from other Members in our local Wards/Branches/Stakes; especailly, from those with 'Callings' as (Family History) "Consultants".
As I say ...
We ALL make MISTAKES ...
NONE of us are PERFECT ...
And ...
When it comes to "Genealogy" (or, "Family History") ...
Least of all, Members of the Church ...
.
What you have to note and always remember ...
'FamilySearch'; especially, "Family Tree", was 'Created' for the Use of Members of the Church to further our beliefs ...
'FamilySearch' is FREE to Everyone.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', is NO substitute, for have one's OWN, "Personal"; and, "Private", Database(s).
.
Monitoring of the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum ...
'Yes' ...
I can assure you that ...
this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, that being,
▬ "Q and A" [ ie. "Questions and Answers" ]; and,
▬ "Groups"; and,
▬ "Ideas" [ ie. "Feedback" ),
IS definitely "Monitored" by "Official 'FamilySearch' Representatives".
.
GEDCOM Files; and, 'Trees' ...
As I stated (to you) in another post ...
I totally agree ...
GEDCOM Files are NOT "Sources" ...
Just like, OTHER 'Trees' in the likes of, "Ancestry"[.com]; and/or, "MyHeritage"; and/or, etc, are NOT "Sources".
I would suggest that the "Uploading" of GEDCOM Files, into "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', should be STOPPED "Immediately"; and, should NOT be allowed.
'FamilySearch', DOES NOT promote; and, can hardly stop, Users/Patrons, from referencing (their OWN and) OTHER 'Trees' in the likes of, "Ancestry"[.com]; and/or, "MyHeritage"; and/or, etc, as "Sources" - that is just what some people do - that is human nature - they think/believe that; as, such, is on OTHER Websites it MUST be CORRECT (without doing any 'Research' or 'Checking') - when far from such is often the case; and, when in many cases, their OWN 'Tree(s)' (including those from such Websites), are more often than not, WRONG.
.
Another thing that you should to note and always remember ...
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is NOT a "Commercial" Website ...
[ Like, "Ancestry"[.com]; and/or, "MyHeritage"; and/or, the likes ... ]
'FamilySearch' has very limited resources.
Yet, 'FamilySearch' is FREE to Everyone..
Just enjoy ...
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; and,
The Other "Parts" of 'FamilySearch'
Certainly better than nothing ...
.
just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
Thank you, Brett, for the distinctions, ie Family Search vs GSU, good clarification. Please know that I intended no offense whatsoever to LDS. I greatly appreciate the valuable contribution of invaluable research resources provided by the Mormons.
No, FS Tree is not commercial as so many others, but like the commercial trees, accuracy in documentation is, like the others, not present. I don't know about the commercial trees, but I don't believe one can "erase" another's contribution in those "trees", nor replace a source with "Gedcom."
0 -
Bonnie
No offence taken ...
I well understand where you are coming from ... in more ways than one ...
I know, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', for some (in fact, many) "Deceased" individuals/persons (seeing as there is well over 1 BILLION individuals/persons in "Family Tree"), that there IS "Accuracy"; as, they are WELL, "Sourced"; and, "Documented".
Whereas, I also know, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', that for some (in fact, many) "Deceased" individuals/persons, that there is NO "Accuracy"; as, they are NOT, "Sourced"; or, "Documented".
The latter is what we are hoping, to try, to fix/address ...
The REAL problem/issue is that MANY Users/Patron DO NOT do their 'due diligence', that being, thoroughly, 'checking'; and, 'researching', individuals/persons (and, their Family members); BEFORE, taking action.
That is a problem/issue that CANNOT really be fixed/addressed.
And, you are quite correct ...
Those (sperate and distinct) individual "Private" 'Trees', in OTHER 'On-Line' Websites; and, in the many 'Standalone' Databases, CANNOT be 'hijacked' (eg, "Changed"; or, "Erased"; or, etc) by OTHER than the PERSON who MANAGES them.
But ...
That said ...
Those aforementioned (sperate and distinct) individual "Private" 'Trees', in OTHER 'On-Line' Websites; and/or, in the many 'Standalone' Databases, are NOT / NOTHING like the MODEL of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
The "Open Edit" PLATFORM; or, MODEL of, the SINGLE "One" World 'Tree', that is "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', has inherent issues, we are all vey well aware of that; but, such is NECESSARY, for what we, as Members of the Church, are try to achieve; so, we just have to work with that.
But, despite that, many Members of the Church, also have a PRIVATE "Copy", of their "Ancestral" Lines, in the various OTHER 'On-Line' Websites; and/or, in the many 'Standalone' Databases.
You might say that, "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', is our "Communal" Working Database, that connects/links us together; as opposed to, the Other PRIVATE Working Databases, that are NOT connected/linked.
No matter how well we try, someone will ALWAYS a MESS ... that is a 'given' ...
As, a "Programmer" once said to me ...
You CANNOT make a "System" FOOLPROOF; because, 'Fools' are so ingenious ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
I have a working tree on Ancestry--it is private and will remain so. The tree is there only as a convenience when researching and saving docs. In early days, my tree was not private and was, thus, copied by another, changed to show an incorrect relationship of some value to the hijacker. That hijacked tree was copied and again changed many times.
Ironically, years later, I found myself on a project with the original hijacker, who, with great embarrassment, apologized for what he did....30 years ago!
Whatever the tools are on Ancestry, My Heritage et al and FamilySearch, the results are the same....very erroneous branches, misplaced persons, historical changes.
To be honest, my own genealogical work is safely held on my own software and I really have no need to put any of it on public trees. I truly regret putting some documents that I did share on FS in Memories as I've seen those attributed incorrectly!
There are, as I've said before, many resources on familysearch.org that are tremendously useful to my or anyone's research. The Groups also provide excellent, professional guidance. I truly appreciate the generosity of FS in sharing these resources.
1
