Where to find the article that tells when to determine to detach a seemingly duplicate source?
Answers
-
Hello.
The knowledge article "What do I do with record hints in Family Tree that aren't a match?" states:
"Do not dismiss the record hint if you have already attached a similar record hint. Attach it instead. Dismissing duplicate record hints may prevent the hinting system from finding record hints in the future about this person."
Another article, "How do I attach record hints in Family Tree?" states:
- Please attach all record hints, even if they appear to be duplicates.
- Do not mark duplicates as "not a match."
With the understanding that all applicable record hints should be attached, even if they appear to be duplicates, the only way to tell if the source is a true duplicate is to compare the URLs. If the URLs are exactly the same, then the source is a duplicate.
0 -
@Douglas McPhaden, thank you for asking how to find the article about detaching a duplicate source. You can find the article by clicking on the circle with the question mark in the upper right corner, click on "Help Center" and then click in the Search and ask your question or scroll down and click on Family Tree and ask your question or scroll the different topics within Family Tree until you find what you want to learn about. Below I have also copied and pasted the URL for the article. I hope that this has answered your question.
0 -
That knowledge article is not the one I remember. However, it has the statement I am looking for in the second paragraph. I can use it in the statement of another question.
Thanks
0 -
Douglas
Taking another 'tack' ...
I humbly suggest that there is NO need, to "Detach", what you refer to as "...seemingly duplicate source[s]...".
And, that is regardless if there ARE (in fact) OTHER "Indexing" of the SAME 'Event'.
'Yes', there are those SIMILAR "Sources", being DIFFERENT "indexings", of the SAME "Document" (ie. "Event"), no doubt about that, that is fact, that is a 'Given'.
ALL (past) "Sources" (ie. Records) WERE originally "Attached", by OTHER Users/Patrons, 'in good faith', WITH the EXPECTATION that such "Sources" (ie. Records) WOULD remain in place and on record (ie. 'in situ'), attached to one's Ancestors.
I humbly request that you, please DO NOT "Detach" such SIMILAR "Sources", just because you personally, do not like to 'see' such.
NO "Sources" should be "Detached"; UNLESS, a "Source" DOES NOT actually relate to and reference the individual/person concerned.
Firstly, I just DO NOT understand WHY some Users/Patrons, feel that it is so ONEROUS a task, of the extra work required/involved, to "Attach", the SIMILAR (or, what some, refer to; as, SAME) "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event'.
The ADDITIONAL "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event', really provide attritional proof/evidence.
The more, the merrier ...
Secondly, likewise, I just DO NOT understand WHY some Users/Patrons, feel the need to "Detach" (and/or, "Delete"), the ALREADY "Attached", SIMILAR (or, what some, refer to; as, SAME) "Sources", being DIFFERENT "indexings", of the SAME "Document" (ie. "Event").
Again, the ADDITIONAL "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event', really provide attritional proof/evidence.
And, again, the more, the merrier ...
As an aside ...
Some of us in the past, in the older versions, of the Forum(s), have requested that "Sources" (ie. Records) NOT be, either, "Retired"; and/or, "Removed".
NO "Source" (ie. Record) should be, either, "Retired"; and/or, "Removed", regardless is there are OTHER "Indexing" of the SAME 'Event'; but, especially, if such "Source" is ALREADY "Attached" to an individual/person (or, Couple) in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
As, again, ALL (past) "Sources" (ie. Records) WERE originally "Attached", by OTHER Users/Patrons, 'in good faith', WITH the EXPECTATION that such "Sources" (ie. Records) WOULD remain in place and on record (ie. 'in situ'), attached to one's Ancestors.
Now ...
That Said ...
The OTHER problem/issue with "Detaching" those SIMILAR "Sources", being DIFFERENT "indexings", of the SAME "Document" (ie. "Event") is, that they WILL just "Keep" REAPPEARING as 'Hints' to be "Attached".
Again ...
I humbly implore that you please refrain from "Detaching" those SIMILAR "Sources", being DIFFERENT "indexings", of the SAME "Document" (ie. "Event"); as, there is NO need to do so.
'Thank You' in advance.
Brett
ps: I would be, so disappointed; and, thoroughly disheartened, to know, that some of the many ("Valid") "Sources" (ie. Records), that I spent all the time finding and had originally "Attached", Years ago, 'in good faith', WITH the EXPECTATION that such "Sources" (ie. Records) WOULD remain in place and on record (ie. 'in situ'), attached to my Ancestors, are being NEEDLESS "Detached" by ANOTHER User/Patron, simply; because, they DO NOT like or appreciate the similar "Sources", being DIFFERENT "indexings", of the SAME "Document" (ie. "Event").
.
0 -
Douglas,
We did read all the comments from quests regarding 'Deleting a duplicate source '
Excellent comments were made by our previous quest ' why would you want to delete a duplicate source.
If you feel strongly that you would want to delete previous sources. we did attach a 'knowledge article for your review.
You may not be familiar with the Help center.
At the top of any page on FamilySearch.org, click the Help icon (the small circle with the question mark inside of it).
- A drop-down menu appears. Click the option that you think is most relevant.
- Getting Started teaches you basic concepts for using the website and provides you with information in case you'd like to talk to someone in person about any questions you may have.
- Help Center brings you to the Help Center home page, where you can search all resources or browse by topic.
- Contact Us offers a variety of ways to reach FamilySearch Support.
- Community brings you to a place where you can collaborate with others who have similar interests in the challenging but rewarding work of genealogy. You can browse or ask or answer questions. You can also find and join groups on specific subjects.
- Research Wiki allows you to search through the compiled resources of the FamilySearch Research Wiki.
- Helper Resources links you to the Planner and other resources that you can use to help others with their family history.
- How do I change my username and password?
Thank you for the work you are doing in Family Tree and we wish you much success.
0 -
@Douglas McPhaden, often times articles are revamped with small changes or to make the article easier to read. But I also wanted to let you know, which you probably already do know, that there are a listing of "related articles" at the bottom of the articles which can also help you to find the exact article you may be looking for. Again, I am glad you asked how to find the articles. What a wonderful resource we have to draw upon.
0 -
I was told that DM is only visible to the sender and recipient. Is this your understanding? How certain are you?
0 -
Douglas
I am sorry ...
I do not quite understand what you mean by... "I was told that DM is only visible to the sender and recipient."
Brett
0 -
Brett
Each message sent to, say @-Brett, is only readable and visible to you and me. Yes? Others do not know a private message has been sent. Yes?
Doug
0 -
Douglas
'Thank You' for the clarification.
ie. a "Private" 'Message', within this/the "Messaging" System, of this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum
That being a "Private" 'Message' between two (x2) Participants (ie. Users/Patrons).
As far as I am aware (ie. my understanding) ...
And, in particular, as far as OTHER Participants (ie. Users/Patrons) [ ie. general populous ] are concerned ...
Short Answer: 'Yes', ONLY, Accessible; Visible; &, Readable, to; &, by, the two (x2) people (parties), concerned.
WHEREAS ...
Caveats:
(1) ADDITIONAL Participants (ie. Users/Patrons) CAN be ADD to a 'Message' ...
.... By EITHER of the ORIGINAL two (x2) people (parties), concerned
.... ANY additional People, so ADDED to the 'Message', will then be able to, access; view; and, read, 'Message'
(2) As to whether or not, such "Private" 'Messages' may ALSO be, Accessible; Visible; &, Readable to "Admin"
.... ie. "Admin" ===> the "Administrators", of the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
.... That is a very good question ... Hm ... I hope not
.... I am sure that such "Private" 'Messages' WOULD be accessible to (and, by) the "System", if required.
.... ie. Of course, in case of a matter of, "Abuse"; or, "Offensive Behavior"; etc.
.... [ There is ALWAYS a Record, that can be tracked down ... ]
As usual ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
if we put @aname (like I just did for you) in these community posts…it is not private. You have to click on the blue name, then message…that will be private.
in FamilySearch, the messaging system is private.
hope that helps!
1 -
Douglas
Just to be clear ...
'C Lethaby' makes a very good point, a very good distinction.
There is something that I may have 'missed', in your response, when you stated "... sent to, say @-Brett ..."
A 'Post', in ANY of the Sections (ie. Q and A; and/or, "Groups'; and/or, "Idea"), be-it. a 'Question' / 'Post' / 'Poll' / 'Announcement', is (in general) PUBLIC to ALL, Participants (ie. Users/Patrons) in the "Communiy.FamilySearch" Forum.
And ...
In a 'Post' ...
When you 'type' "@"; and, straight after, then start 'typing' the "Contact Name", of a Participant (ie. User/Patron), you want to or are addressing, in the post, that is called, "Mentioning", such DOES NOT make your, 'Post'; and/or, an 'Answer'/'Comment' in a 'Post', PRIVATE. Doing such means that the Participant (ie. User/Patron) that you "Mentioned", is (if enabled) "Notified" (through a "Notification"; and/or, an "E-mail) that they have been referred to (or, "Mentioned") in a 'Post', that is all - nothing to do with making such "Private".
Whereas ...
A 'Post' (ie. in reference to the aforementioned), is NOT, a 'Message', in the sense of a "Private" 'Message', in the "Messaging" System, of this "Communiy.FamilySearch" Forum; as, I referenced above.
Basically ...
They are two (x2) totally separate and distinct entities.
The FIRST and foremost, a 'Post', is (in general) PUBLIC, to ALL.
Whereas, the SECOND, a 'Message', is (in general) "Private", ONLY for the PARTIES involved.
There is a distinction.
Is that what you were referencing?
IF, such is the case; THEN, I can understand the confusion.
I hope this helps; and, clears any misconception.
Brett
0
