Requiring sources
In the "Family Tree" tree, I just noticed that parents have been added to my paternal line 3rd G-Grandparents. I've been searching for this for decades, and had been fairly confident that this information was lost to history. Yet someone linked parents, and did so without adding a relevant source, as none of the listed sources mentioned anything about the parents. I've written the user, but have not heard back anything.
So a couple related issues -- (1) it would be logical to require adding or linking a source related to vital information like linking to new relatives, so that then anyone can see exactly where that link came from... and with a reminder that whatever source is linked should be directly related to the change being made.
(2) In cases like this, where parents that anyone links is automatically a highly questionable change, it would be great if this could somehow be marked such that when linking parents, they could be forced to see a message. This is where I could explain the parentage difficulties in this case, perhaps explaining that some potential parents have already been disproven, and prompt more productive conversation between researchers. As it is now, one person changes it (without a source), the other person doesn't believe it and changes it back. There's no actual conversation as people don't provide contact information or don't respond.
Thank you.
Comments
-
People have been demanding "requiring sources" since the beginning of FamilySearch . . . I dont see it happenning if it hasnt happened by now. . .
I totally understand your point/desire - just doesnt seem to be something FS intends to implement . . .
0 -
One problem (of many) with requiring sources is the basic chicken-and-egg: if you can't add a conclusion until you add a source for it, but you can't attach a source to a conclusion that isn't there yet, what do you do?
0 -
Some of my work in Family Tree is based on notes I made whilst at record offices, some twenty five to thirty years ago. Perhaps carelessly, I didn't even record the reference numbers of the documents or microfilms from which I obtained my information.
However, I do not believe adding this detail to Family Tree makes my inputs any less reliable than if I had added an indexed source. In the case of the latter, these still do not exist in relation to many of my ancestors' "vitals". FamilySearch and other databases still only contain details of a fraction of the world's genealogical records.
The other problem, as I have argued many times in the past, is in knowing some of these sources really do relate to your direct family, rather than more distant relatives with very similar identities and who lived during the same periods in the same areas.
An attached source often looks 100% matching to the individual / family in question, but that does not necessarily prove it does relate to the person to whom it has been attached.
I agree very much in providing reason statements - against the vitals, with added notes in the Collaboration or Life Sketch sections - but feel the provision of sources can lead users into a "false sense of security" when it comes to the evidence or "proof" that they back-up the manual inputs against your relatives' / ancestors' IDs.
1 -
Ray
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
FYI
The suggestion enhancement, that "Sources", MUST be REQUIRED to be attached; especially, for "Vitals", has been long proffered, by many.
I am sorry ...
But ...
'FamilySearch', CANNOT, "Mandate" a REQUIREMENT, that a "Source" MUST be "Attached"; for, submitting; or, editing, "Vital" information.
Please be aware that ...
NOT "All" Events relating to "Vital" information, about some individuals/persons (or, couples), around the World, is available (especially, 'On-Line'); and, therefore, CANNOT be "Attached" as a "Source".
In some, "Countries"; and, Unions, around the World, such "Vital" information may NOT even be accessible.
It is easy, for many of us, from certain "Countries", around the World, to suggest that such "Sources", should be a requirement; for, submitting; or, editing, "Vital" information.
But ...
Such consideration, is 'misguided'.
For example ...
From my 'neck of the woods', such "Sources" for "Vital" information; as, "Sources", in 'FamilySearch', was either, very 'limited'; or, just nonexistent.
I often had to, "Create"; and, "Attach", My OWN "Sources" for "Vital" information, that were "User-Defined", referencing other EXTERNAL websites.
I consider, that I am very lucky NOW; as, I can "Attach" the "Sources", for such "Vital" information, directly from the likes of "MyHeritage.com"; as, they are NOT in 'FamilySearch'.
'NO' ...
The likes of "Sources" should NOT be a REQUIREMENT; for, submitting; or, editing, "Vital" information.
But ...
That said ...
It is would be certainly PREFERABLE to HAVE (ie. include) ANY "Details", of "Vital" information (eg. including, "Documents" and "Reference Numbers"; etc), for an individual/person (or, Couple), in either, "Reason Statements" (ie. "Reason this information is Correct"); or, "Notes" ▬ or, even, for that matter, "Discussions"; or, the "Life Sketch"; when, submitting; or, editing, "Vital" information.
Whereas ...
That said ...
'FamilySearch' CANNOT 'Mandate' such ...
We DO NOT live in a PERFECT World ...
NOT "All" information is available ...
We can ONLY do what we can do ...
Granted ...
Some Users/Patrons COULD, do better; and, do their 'due diligence'; BEFORE, just entering SCANT "Details" (if, much at all) ...
I like to, Teach; or, Train, User/Patrons, to TRY, (1) to find and add "Sources", to confirm information, "IF" such is available; "OR", in the least, (2) provide (ie. "Added) "Details" (from, WHATEVER Records are available), that are NOT available as "Sources", in "Reason Statements" (ie. "Reason this information is Correct"); or, "Notes" ▬ or, even, for that matter, "Discussions"; or, the "Life Sketch"; when, submitting; or, editing, "Vital" information.
I say that, I like to add, 'Flesh'; and, 'Bones', to a "Name" (ie. an individual/person; or, couple), to prove that they did actually exist.
Just my thoughts.
I hope this gives you something to consider; and, also gives your further perspective.
Brett
1 -
@Ray Gurganus you can start the collaboration by writing up the research you did and the families you ruled out. Post that in a note.
Third great grandparents would be 5 generations back? Birth date in the middle of the 19th century? Not likely lost. From the missing link forward in time, how many descendants are there? You all have the same research problem.
0 -
This keeps happening to my family tree and I am so tired of it. All hints are rejected and the family member is deleted by this person. What do I do?
0 -
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
You are not alone ...
Most of us have ... been then ... done that ... still do.
Short Answer: Technically there is no way to STOP another User/Patron working along the SAME 'Ancestral" Lines.
[ ie. Working of the SAME "Deceased" Ancestors ... ]
But ...
That Said ...
Do not disappear ...
There are some, actions that one can take; and, options available ...
Here is one "Knowledge Articles" in 'FamilySearch':
How can I prevent other people from making inaccurate changes to Family Tree?
Now ...
After that ...
As you can 'see', "Collaboration" needs to be undertaken.
But, when "Collaboration" FAILS; and, provided that there is NO "Abuse" ...
This "Knowledge Article" in 'FamilySearch' of:
How do I report changes or problems made by other contributors?
comes to the fore ...
In particularly, the last sentence in that "Knowledge Article"; which, is very IMPORTANT:
Quote
------------------
If you have questions regarding inadvertent, suspicious or potentially malicious errors in records that you are unable to resolve per the instructions above, contact FamilySearch Support.
------------------
Now ...
All that Said ...
IF, you have undertaken "Collaboration" with the particular User/Patron in question, causing concern; and, that "Collaboration" has FAILED; and, provided that there is NO "Abuse"; THEN, there are two (2) options:
(1) First; and, best ...
Contact 'FamilySearch' "Support" DIRECTLY by, (1) Telephone; or, (2) a "Live" 'On-Line' "Chat".
Here is a "Knowledge Article" in 'FamilySearch':
[ With the various "Contact Telephone" numbers, depending on one's location, in the World ... ]
Contact Support
https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/contact-familysearch-support
IF, you DO NOT want to post in the "Public" nature of this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum; THEN, I suggest that you DO NOT accept, if they try to send/direct you back to this Forum, they SHOULD (and, NEED to) be able to accommodate you through the "Telephone"; or, "Chat", in the least, by contacting you "Privately" to address/handle the matter.
(2) Second; and, more "Public", less desirable to MANY Users/Patrons ...
Post HERE in THIS "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, with just a GENERIC precis of the matter, WITHOUT any specific detail about any individual/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch, requesting DIRECT "Contact", PRIVATELY, to address/handle the matter; and, HOPEFULLY, the "Moderators" [ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel)] HERE in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, can TAKE your MATTER directly into the workings of 'FamilySearch' "Support", to help/assist you.
I hope this helps.
Again ...
You are not alone ...
Most of us have ... been then ... done that ... still do.
Good Luck
Brett
0
