Elias Spry KH7Z-ZSM has 45, TOO MANY DUPLICATE SOURCES
I finally GAVE UP trying to delete DUPLICATE RESOURCES because there were sooooooo many. It's a growing problem and will only get worse by ignoring it.
#1 Let the system notify the user when a source is being duplicated!!!
#2 Have the system sort the sources "by date" so we can see the duplicates and delete them.
Unless something is better managed, this person will have 60, then 80, then 100 sources listed. After a while it just becomes overwhelming and redundant redundant redundant redundant redundant!
#3 Secondary sources (listed on a sibling's marriage record) should be a SUB-CLASS or Class B source. Please create a sub-section at the bottom for secondary sources.
Comments
-
Ditto. :-)
I would add the need to merge sources.
Otherwise, researchers are in an awkward place. Do we delete another researcher's source?
0 -
Do we delete another researcher's source?
Are these sources in collections indexed by FamilySearch, or are they user submitted?
0 -
Dan
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
As, I have already recently advise, '.. ..._1' ..., in his recent post ...
Firstly ...
Please be, aware; and, advised ...
IF, the "Sources", DO NOT have, the EXACT Same URL; THEN, they are NOT "Duplicate" Sources" ...
That is a common misconception ...
DO NOT, "Detach" any "Sources", that DOES NOT have the EXACT Same URLs.
Secondly ...
"Sources", MAY, in fact, be ANOTHER "Indexing", of the SAME "Event".
But ...
That Said ...
That DOES NOT, make the those "Source", an EXACT "Duplicate", of a "Source" ALREADY attached.
And ...
As Such ...
The "Sources" SHOULD, most DEFINTELY, be attached.
And, in fact, LEFT so attached - ie. NOT "Detached".
Furthermore ...
To labour the point ...
There are MANY occasions, when a "Source", is simply ANOTHER "Indexing", of the SAME Event.
In such cases, they are NOT "Duplicates".
IF, "Sources", have "Different" URLs; THEN, they are NOT "Duplicates" ...
Unfortunately ...
It is a common misconception, that "Sources", are "Duplicates"; when, in fact they are NOT.
Plus ...
In just about, every case ...
They are simply DIFFERENT "Indexing", of the SAME "Event"; and, SHOULD be attached.
Too many User/Patrons, DO NOT understand, that there can be a number of "Indexing", for the SAME "Event".
Sometimes:
▬ There is a "Re-Indexing" of a "Event", at a LATER date; where, MORE "Data" has been "Indexed"
.... [ BOTH, "Indexing" are valid; and, SHOULD be RETAINED ... ]
.... [ As, many of the EARLIER "Indexing" (ie."Sources) have ALREADY been attached to individuals/persons ... ]
OR ...
▬ Different "Organisations" (eg. FamilySearch; Ancestry; FindMyPast; etc) often "Index" the SAME "Event".
Thus, we have MULTIPLE "Indexes" (ie. "Sources"), of the SAME "Event.
And ...
They SHOULD "All" be attached ...
Plus ...
I have NEVER had (well, not that I can ever recall), "Sources", also being "Record Hints", that are attached (or, for that matter "Dismissed") appear AGAIN.
UNLESS, of course, those particular "Sources", that WHERE previously attached, HAVE subsequently been "Detached" by, oneself; or, ANOTHER User/patron ... that is another matter ... where, they WILL "Reappear" ...
As far as I am aware ...
Such will ONLY generally "Reappear", if those "Sources", were NOT attached; or, "Ignored".
[ or, have subsequently been "Detached" ... ]
Finally ...
I like to say ... 'the more, the merrier' ...
I have Ancestors, with, x40+; 50+; 60+; and, 70+; plus, one with x90+, "Sources".
Some; but, very few, of those "Sources", relate to the SAME "Event"; but, the odd one or two are ...
Why User/Patrons, get so concerned, that there are SIMILAR "Indexing" of the SAME "Event", which exist; and, that such, should not; or, need not, be "Attached"; and/or, should be "Detached", astounds me.
I actually LOVE, that there are SIMILAR "Indexing" of the SAME "Event" ...
To me, it is 'proof positive', that the "Event" actually took place; and, is being confirmed, so many times ...
Genealogy/Family History, is NOT a "Sprint".
Genealogy/Family History, is "Marathon".
The MORE that one can, find; and, attach, the better ...
[ Even if, such may be SIMILAR, from somewhere else ... ]
[ eg. 'FamilySearch'; Ancestry_com; FindMyPast_co_uk ( FindMyPast_com ); MyHeritage _com; WHEREVER, ... ]
Just my thoughts.
Brett
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this certainly may not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
0 -
FYI
It's 'Brett'.
Just in passing ...
I have responded, to '.. ..._1', in his recent previous post, on the matter.
But ...
That Said ...
In relation to the individual/person, that was the subject of the ORIGINAL post ...
Currently for Elias SPRY ( KH7Z-ZSM ) ...
There are some x53 "Sources" attached.
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/KH7Z-ZSM
ONLY One (x1) of those "Sources", is User "Defined"/"Created", way back on 6 September 2013.
Whereas ...
The OTHER x52, are ALL "Sources", from 'FamilySearch', itself.
And, in a quick 'look', I could NOT find, ANY attached "Sources", with the SAME URLs.
I hope, that this may help/assist, somewhat.
Brett
0 -
I see that much of the problem you have here can be attributed to multiple indexing of the same film. Another common problem is when the exact same records have been filmed twice and each of the microfilms indexed.
Whilst I can understand there being multiple sources that need to be attached when the original source / document is completely different, I get as exasperated as you at having to attach records that are identical in all but one way: they have a different URL reference!
Some years ago, there was an exercise undertaken to reduce the number of "unnecessary" sources in the FamilySearch databank, but this was found to create too many difficulties. It appears it was too difficult to create a program that could determine which of the "duplicate" sources could be safely retired. Indeed, a close comparison between some of the seemingly identical records does sometimes show a slight difference - as found in your "Iowa, Grand Army of the Republic Membership Records, 1861-1949" sources, for which there are two or three different images connected.
Sadly, however, at least part of the problem you are finding has been down to FamilySearch not logging details of their microfilmed material adequately enough to prevent the otherwise unnecessary duplication described above. In the past, recording of material already indexed and copied relied on paper records, of course, so it is perhaps understandable that duplication of the same records could occur. Hopefully, computerised records should now help to prevent this unnecessary work.
The results of the record-keeping issue have not only produced at least part of the problem experienced, but has probably led to the delay in filming / indexing completely new material - i.e., pushed further down the line work on new material, whilst existing microfilms were unnecessarily indexed twice (or more) or - as suggested - a further filming (of identical material) was not recognised as such.
In summary, much of the "duplication" in your example has not been a bad thing - as the records might contain slightly different / additional information - even involve a different page. On the other hand, you are right to say some of these records could (in theory!) be dispensed of, as their content is truly identical and causing a lot of unwanted clutter in the Sources section(s) of our relatives' IDs.
0
