I think the bigger question is why are you following so many people? The FamilyTree already links you to every one in your tree and you can navigate up and down the branches manually. You can not 'split' your tree - as FamilySearch is not any one persons' personal tree, rather a representation of the world tree of mankind - your login (and the private living people entries you've created) are your personal onramp to the public tree.
The Following list is an additional sub-routine within FamilySearch where by you can track people and projects that you have a special connection to, or are coming back to for further research. Another group I 'follow' are my 3-4 generations of near relatives that I have a personal connection to - These are the folks I am most concerned with if others make changes.
One last suggestion: When I follow a person, I also create a Note under the Collaborate tab with instructions for myself or the next researcher to find the person. i.e.: "No good link to the currently connected parents. Suspect wrong set linked. (Father deceased 3 years at her birth). Good sources for Husband & kids!"
Here's some more good info on organizing your Following list --
December 08, 2020
Labels help you remember why you put a person from Family Tree on your Following list. After you apply labels, you can filter your Following lists to a specific group of people for research or review. You can use one of several predefined labels or create a custom one to suit your own needs.
To use labels on the Following list, visit the FamilySearch website.
How do I follow or unfollow a person in Family Tree?
Can I follow living people in Family Tree?
How do I view all the records in Family Tree I am following?
You can easily follow people in Family Tree and be notified when another user changes the information. Here's how it works:
The Following list suggests close relatives that you may want to follow.
Currently there is no option for using the Watch feature on Family Tree lite. For now, you must use either the FamilySearch.org website or the Family Tree app.
How do I view all the records in Family Tree I am following?
How do I find out who else is following a person in Family Tree?
I had to reduce the number on my list, to make things more manageable. I don't think I could cope with the work generated by following anywhere near 4,000 IDs - let alone more!
Maybe you are just fortunate not to have careless users constantly making ridiculous changes / merges involving your relatives and others in whom you have an interest. Some of these take me days to untangle / clear up.
As I doubt you will find some of the comments here will be of help in addressing your needs, I can only suggest you might collaborate with another family member (or a friend), who doesn't have the need to follow many individuals, so will be able to "follow" additional IDs on your behalf. I don't think you are "allowed" to have multiple accounts, although I believe some users employ this as a workaround to deal with problems like yours.
I follow that many people because changes get made by others that are incorrect. By seeing the changes I can fix the incorrect changes, I fix these on a weekly basis. If I dont follow them then I would never know about these incorrect changes.
If you have more than one account, you could follow different individuals in each account. But that could be even more confusing, trying to keep track where you were working, I would think.
@LindaSparks2 you can make a second account and use it to watch 4000 more PIDs.
But I'd like to suggest reframing the problem. If you look at it differently you may see a different and better solution. Is there something about the PIDs that makes them attract changes? Are dates and place names not standardized? Are historical records not attached? Very often, doing that work fixes the problem.
If you would like to share a few of your problem PIDs, we could take a look and suggest what steps to take.
I dont have one specific PID as it varies weekly. I find that people merge they think are duplicates and they are not along with other major changes that are incorrect.
My Grandmother's side of the family is finished. I am currently working on my Grandfathers side of the family. I would have to create a new account just to work on my fathers side of the family.
Linda, You would not need a second account to work on your father's side of the family.
Simply add your father and his ancestors to the tree in your current account. The deceased people who have already been added to the Family Tree will show up for you.
Picture it as one big fishing net where people are connected by relationships. The living people are the glass bubbles attached to the edges. You can only see the living people that you add yourself and they are invisible to everyone else.
Your father's ancestors are probably already in the Family Tree. You just need to connect to them in your account by adding your relationships on that side of "your" tree.
Hope this helps.
Could you share the last 2 or 3 PIDs changed?
@886EZL, the poster wants to follow all PIDs on a large ancestor tree.
@dontiknowyou, Yes, but she mentioned needing to create another account in order to work on her father's side of the family and I wanted to make sure she understands that another account is not necessary to work on different parts of your family tree. Thanks.
Since you can only follow 4000 people and I am currently maxed out just on my mothers side of the family. In order for me follow more people for my father's side of the family I would have to create another account since I cant follow anymore. I am currently going through all the ones that I am following and unfollowing certain ones.
As an aside ...
There have been a number of previous requests in the, both, the OLD 'FamilySearch' ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum; and, the PREVIOUS "Ideas" Part of the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum (on the OLD Platform), to INCREASE the LIMIT to the number of individuals/persons that we can, "Watch" (Oops, sorry, 'old school' ...), "Follow", beyond that of 4000.
If I recall ...
IF, my memory serves me correctly (which it often does not); THEN, I think, that one of the main reasons given, as to why such LIMIT would NOT be increased, was to do with, doing so would SLOW the "System" down to a CRAWL - as too much 'Computing' power/energy would be required.
Things may have "Changed" since then; but, I suspect, not that much.
Many Users/Patrons would just LOVE for that LIMIT of those that we FOLLOW to be significantly INCREASED well beyond the current 4000.
I just though that I would pass this on.
I apologise from the outset, as I do not intent/mean to offend ...
Purely, in relation to your opening 'Question'/'Comment', in your 'Answer'/'Response' ...
"I think the bigger question is why are you following so many people?"
I was very surprised; and, somewhat bemused, to have such a 'Question'/'Comment', floated by one, such as yourself.
Being, both; as, a "Moderator", in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum; and, what appears to be, a 'FamilySearch', "Employee" - (from your Profile).
That said ...
Then, when I noticed that you only "Joined" the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, Last Year; and, your 'Avatar'.
I wondered; and, thought that, just maybe, such was not much a surprise, after all.
There is NO 'Big' question as to WHY Users/Patrons "Follow" so MANY people ...
Do you NOT understand WHY User/Patrons "Follow" so MANY "Deceased" individuals/persons in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'?
Have you NOT, had the 'misfortune' to have had the Problems/Issues, that MANY of us have had, with OTHER User/Patrons, messing around with; and, ruining, the EXISTING (often, well, "Documented"; and, "Sourced") "Profiles", of those "Deceased" individuals/persons, in YOUR (specific) "Ancestral" Lines, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch?
I do not "Follow" as many as x4000 ... whereas, I do "Follow" quite a few ...
But, I should; and, in fact, many more than that ...
I am one of the few, that is luck enough, to have some quite EXTENSIVE "Ancestral" Lines in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
[ Mind you, certainly, the majority, NOT All put in by myself, I just happen to belong to some extensive "Branches" ... ]
In the forerunner to "Family Tree", "New.FamilySearch", I had a "Line" that went all the way back.
That 'Line" even quite SUCCESSFULLY 'Transitioned', from "New.FamilySearch", to "Family Tree".
Such "Line" was quite 'legit' (ie. reasonably well, "Documented"; and, "Sourced") ...
In the OLD Days, when we COULD, "Download" our "Ancestral" Lines, from 'FamilySearch', I tried ...
After x6 to x8 Hours; and, 200,000+ (or, it could have been x10 or more times that - I cannot recall), "Deceased" individuals/person and couples, the "Download" ... FELL OVER ...; and, later, never the opportunity to be resurrected.
Unfortunately, due to the actions of some 'wayward' Users/Patrons, that "Line" of mine is now NO LONGER what it was.
The Church ('FamilySearch') even had Personnel trying to resurrect the "Broken" links of that "Line"; but, sadly, alas, to no avail - it was too badly 'mangled'.
Some Users/Patrons, not only work in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; but, also, maintain their own ("Private"/"Personal") "Copy" of their "Ancestral" Lines on Databases on, 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'Standalone' Personal (Computer) Programmes (eg. some STILL use the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
I used to do the former; but, I no longer do; as, I found it to time consuming to maintain, such; and, work in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
Whereas, some Users/Patrons (like me, now) ONLY just use "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
IF, one has extensive "Ancestral" Lines in "Family Tree" of 'Family Search'; THEN, that LIMIT, of 4000, to "Follow", is a mere 'drop in the ocean'; especially, when one wants to 'keep an eye', on ALL (well, the majority of) the 'wayward' "Changes", by some Users/Patrons that, 'mess'; and, 'mangle', some of the EXISTING "Profiles" in "Deceased" individuals/persons in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; NO MATTER, how well, "Documented"; and, "Sourced", those "Profiles" may be.
Been there, done that ... still do ... each and every day
I "Check" my "List", of those that I "Follow", on a "Daily" basis (sometimes a couple of time a Day) - just to keep on top of any 'wayward' CHANGES .
All that said ...
There is NO 'Question'; as, to WHY Users/Patrons, "Follow" so MANY, "Deceased" individuals/persons in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' ...
That is a 'Given' ...
Just my thoughts.
ps: Again, I apologise, as I do not intent/mean to offend ...
@LindaSparks2 I am still wondering why you see changes weekly. I currently watch 1600 PIDs and often go months without seeing any changes by anyone else, and most changes are correct. I am working on several trees of over 10,000 PIDs but I watch only PIDs with problems.
It would be nice to go months without seeing changes. Your followers are better then mine. lol I see changes on a daily basis. I get about 2 to 3 errors from others that I have to correct every week. Some post photos or documents or sources that don't even match the person they attached it to. There are several people that are also following what I do that constantly make changes good or bad.
Consider why the errors are happening. Sometimes it is because some historical records of your family have been attached to another family. The fix then is to work a little on the other family, sorting out the records.
The errors stem from the fact that people think records should be attached to your ancestor but it does not belong to your ancestor. People get merged when others think that their person and mine match but they dont and not even their birth/death years dont match. Census records get removed or other census records get added causing multiple census records for that same year which also causes your ancestors to have 2 separate parents, which takes quite a while to put back to where it was from. People who make changes like these are the reason that I follow so they are not screwed up.
Spot On ...
It is NOT so much the SUGGESTED "Record Hints", that are the real Problem/Issue ...
It IS the INEXPERIENCE of MANY of the Users/Patrons, that is the real Problem/Issue ...
The latter is VERY hard to address/fix.
It ALL comes down to "Practice"; and, 'small steps' ... start easy, bit by bit ... hence, experience.
I know ...
I have been at this (BOTH, my Own; and, Helping/Assisting Others) for, MANY, Many, many, YEARS ...
As a "Programmer" once said to me ...
"You CANNOT make a "System" FOOLPROOF; as, "Fools" are so INGENIOUS" ...
NO MATTER how much INFORMATION, by way of "Knowledge Articles", that is provided/available ...
ps: I mean to say, come on ... "Merging"/"Combining" TWO (x2) individuals/persons with the SAME "Name", when they were BOTH, Born; and, Died, in DIFFERENT Countries and on DIFFERENT Continents ... Seriously
You should feel very fortunate that you don't experience the pain received by @LindaSparks2, myself and many others.
I had to cut my Following list (currently about 1400 IDs) as I could not cope with the remedial work required: due to the incorrect merges, additions of wrong relationships and other errors, as described by Linda.
This had nothing to do with any lack of back-up (sources, notes in Collaboration and against the vitals, etc.) that made the identity of those individuals I am following to be in any way unclear. A major problem still relates to the crazy suggestions produced by FamilySearch algorithms - possible duplicates and sources (especially for an individual's "children") that could not possibly match. Regularly, inexperienced / careless users confirm to me that they have carried out their (incorrect) changes based on these so-called "Research Helps". However, many users (seemingly having no idea of the geography of England) just assume any person of the same name (and whose spouse and children had the same / similar names) must be a match, regardless of whether they lived at the other end of the country and events took place in the same time period.
If I come across so many messed-up relationships and identities in the Family Tree branches of interest to me, I dread to think how many more I am missing by keeping my Following list "relatively low". On the one hand, I would love to be keeping an eye on thousands more distant relatives, etc. to ensure the integrity of their inputted data is retained, but (as stated) I feel I would just not be able to set aside the necessary time to enable me to maintain these records.
The low frequency of changes on my trees is nothing to do with luck. It is a result of my work process.
When a PID is a magnet for attachment of other PIDs, I work on those other PIDs too. Usually they need dates and place names standardized and/or have source problems. It is fast, easy work and goes a long way to preventing future bad edits on my tree.
The errors stem from the fact that people think records should be attached to your ancestor but it does not belong to your ancestor.
Look deeper. Why are other contributors thinking that? What is misleading them?
People get merged when others think that their person and mine match but they dont and not even their birth/death years dont match.
Almost always that is happening because dates are not standardized on either or both profiles.
Unfortunately, there seems no way of convincing you that I am taking every step you suggest. I have been working in Family Tree for ten years and can assure you my problems are not related to non-standardized dates and places.
Recently, a user completely changed the names and vitals details on IDs I had created and used the IDs for three generations of her own branch of distantly related persons. Fortunately, she left all sources attached, so I could identify the IDs for whom they had originally been inputted and (a day or so later) got everything back to how it was.
You say, "Look deeper. Why are other contributors thinking that? What is misleading them?"
I have already advised you what is misleading them: in the main, FamilySearch "Research Helps" that are way off the mark, but are being accepted as being applicable by inexperienced users because they believe what "FamilySearch" suggests must be right!
I do not want to turn this into an argument between us, but I can assure you there are also some completely reckless users of Family Tree: two of whom make the exact same, incorrect changes repeatedly. They are always very polite and apologetic in their responses to my messages. However, this does not compensate for the hours of my time spent on "remedial" work that could have been far better spent in doing things there were making a positive contribution to the Family Tree project.
@Paul W are you also @LindaSparks2 ? My comments in this thread are directed to that contributor.
@LindaSparks2 , something else I do:
In my personal space I have several profiles for "living" persons that are not persons at all, they are just anchors for ancestor trees I am working on. That is one way I can watch for new FT hints on a lot of profiles without following them. I am more interested in new hints than in edits by other contributors, since most edits are perfectly okay and I am not in a hurry to revert erroneous edits. There is so much else to do here that is more fun than edit warring.
There seem to be common features for problems with repeated incorrect changes to profiles including certain common names, certain locations, and certain time periods. Figuring out what types of people attract problems and watching primarily them can cut down the length of a watch list. Also, I've found that that when I am watching a person, I also get notified of the worse changes to the children and parents attached to that person because of the effects changes have on the person. In addition, personally I have decided to ignore anyone born before about 1750 which cuts down on the number of people to be followed, I have too many other more important, to me, things to worry about here.
As far as why clearly incorrect changes get made, the worst ones seem fall into two categories: Controversy and Carelessness.
The controversy comes in when two different people insists that that one Mary is their great-great-great-grandmother when she cannot possibly be that for both of them or when people just can't leave well documented historical figures alone. James Tanner talks about this type of thing in an old blog: https://rejoiceandbeexceedingglad.blogspot.com/2018/
But there is too much just plain carelessness.
Recently someone attached a 1950 Church census record for a Jimmy Featherstone born in 1932 in Salt Lake to my uncle James Featherstone born in 1932 in Salt Lake. He did not attach the widowed mother and sister that also appeared in the census, probably because that mother and sister did not match the Family Tree record. He apparently did stop to think that if Jimmy and James had two different mothers, had living and deceased fathers in 1950, and had different sisters, they were evidently two different people.
My uncle was thoroughly sourced and all information carefully standardized.
When I detached the census record, it immediately popped back up as a hint that I needed to mark as "Not A Match."
A recent change that should help with some of this trouble which Ron Tanner announced in his June 17 Q&A session is that the possible duplicates and hints routines have been reigned in and will now only show 5 star matches which they are hoping will cut down the error rate to about 2%. They are also thinking about ways to allow people who do have sufficient experience and have shown they know what they are doing to have possible duplicates and hints with lower match ratings appear.
Keeping the watch list narrowed down does make it possible to keep the number of uncorrected erroneous edits and incorrect sources to a minimum which is important because bad information and bad sources tend to attract more bad data so that things just get worse.