Probably An Unpopular Comment
I am a professional genealogist with 54 years of experience. What I see on Family Search is NOT genealogy. It is a collaborative nightmare done by many people who have no clue about genealogical work and standards and often do not put in any sources or the ones they do put in are so off the mark you have to wonder.
In my Ward, I have gotten them to wean people off of Family Search, except for Temple Name submissions, and that is done via connecting via Ancestry.com. Ancestry.com is a stable platform. Nobody is going to change your work and destroy it. It has more sources than Family Search and is far easier to navigate.
If the Church wants to reduce duplicate ordinance work, they need to require sources for the data. Gedcom was created by the Church and why they do not require the data tags to be supported by sources is beyond me.
I was a beta tester for the current Family Search, and I told them at the time, the way they were going to do it was making Family Search a place where genealogy goes to die. Even the staff has agreed with me multiple times.
My advice, use one of the sites that have partnered with the Church and leave Family Search for just Temple Name submissions. Anyone who does their primary tree work on Family Search is wasting their time.
Comments
-
I believe the majority of people using FamilySearch are not LDS.
6 -
In spite of all my moans and groans (on this forum and elsewhere) I have stuck with Family Tree since its introduction - and I'm not LDS, either!
Sources are fine - but only if they are attached to the individuals to which they apply. Many users add multiple sources (relating to BMD and census records) - probably in a hope that at least some will actually relate to their relatives. So sources "in themselves" don't establish anything.
If FamilySearch users want to keep their records free from interference, but still use this website, they can always add them to the Genealogies section. Otherwise, fine if they choose ancestry.com - as long as they are aware this contains as many works of fiction as some of the branches within Family Tree.
Whilst it is a constant pain to keep reversing incorrect changes to ones original inputs, the whole site (including the "main" FamilySearch and Family Tree) has a mass of information one would find difficult to locate elsewhere (especially subscription free). The problem is, the thing that makes it so good (the collaborative aspect, whereby we give help and receive it, one way or another), also has the negative effect of others being able to so easily mess-up ones carefully researched inputs.
My advice would be (whether LDS Church member or not) to go on using Family Tree as long as you feel (as I do - at present!) the benefits continue to outweigh the negative aspects.
8 -
I have only sporadically been a subscriber on Ancestry (when they had particularly good promotional deals), so I'm sure part of the problem is lack of experience and user error on my part, but I find it vastly easier to cite my sources on FamilySearch than on Ancestry.
Yes, on Ancestry you can tag sources to any conclusion -- but as far as I've ever been able to figure out, you have to re-type your citations individually on each and every single profile that they apply to. There is no Source Box, there is no means of attaching unindexed images (and their transcriptions) to multiple people, and the citations I do manage to enter eat my whitespace/formatting for breakfast.
I've been lucky: the few of my distant cousins who use FS are basically competent, and none of them have done anything bad to my relatives' profiles. The same cannot be said of Ancestry's users: the trees there copy and re-copy each other's errors in an endless cycle that Ancestry's processes reinforce at every turn. This is especially annoying for my spouse's side, because of the Famous Relative; people all want to be related to him, and enter all sorts of nonsense in order to make it so, and then the total fiction propagates all over Ancestry and beyond. Knock on wood, but this has not been a problem here on FS; I think such wishful thinkers are intimidated by my contributions to his family line. (It's one reason I use my married name on FS.)
Luckily, the only place where the "separation of church and state" is ever a problem on FS is here in the Communities; working with historical records and the tree, no LDS voodoo ever comes up. This is exactly as it should be: the LDS aspects of FS are an invisibly tiny portion of the whole. I find it odd that starcaster99 is apparently advocating that the entire website be shrunk down to just this blip. What is it about collaborative genealogy that has so antagonized or soured you?
4 -
My Great-Great-Grandfather is in 894 public trees on Ancestry. I have no idea how many private ones he might have. Scanning through the first few pages of the listing of them, the number of sources range from 0 to 53. On the tree where he has 53 sources, the majority of the sources from Ancestry are in databases that Ancestry obtained from FamilySearch and have exact duplicates there. Several of the sources for him on that tree have very familiar titles and I am pretty sure that they are memories that I posted to his Family Tree profile. Their links don't work right so I can't open them and see for sure, however.
I certainly don't have the time, energy, or desire to go thorough those 894 trees looking for errors, trying to get errors corrected, or looking for that one unique source that is missing from Family Tree. By the way, also from scanning through the first few pages of the listing I see that they all have the same error in his birth date that has been corrected in Family Tree.
His Family Tree profile is extremely stable. The 113 past contributors to his page have done very good work. His page has 89 sources and 64 Memories.
I'll stick with Family Tree, thanks.
3 -
The goal for FamilySearch as a whole has NEVER been to create a tree where every single fact (or even the majority) is backed up by primary evidence. THAT is not their goal and I dont think it ever has been. (though they are indeed happy when users have high research standards)
BUT just because that is not their goal - doesn't prevent individual people from doing their best on THEIR particular branch of the tree - to source it out as best to their ability,
if a person is totally focused on a perfectly sourced tree - it is usually best for them to maintain their own database with programs like FTM, AQ, Roots Magic, where THEY are in total control and can apply what they consider to be the correct and best sources and research methods.
FamilySearch attempts to welcome all its users - even the ones who dont always understand how sources are needed - or don't have high research standards and may not have the desire or time to work their family history so seriously as compared to people like you. but FS still tends to be inclusive and want to get as many people involved in Family Tree work as they can - even if they don't fully understand how genealogical research should be.
From a professional genealogical researchers perspective - FamilyTree;s database has some massive incredible flaws and shortcomings ( I agree) - but trust me - they aren't trying to draw in the professional genealogists nor compete with them.
Rather - they are trying to reach out to the masses - to get as many people involved in FamilyResearch as possible - - and the vast majority of those people - will NEVER have the high research standards that you have - that is a given - -- But FamilySearch Leadership - has a very different VISION - than YOU DO as a professional genealogist - - - its apples and oranges - - because the vision of what they are ultimately trying to accomplish isn't always what we think and may be totally different at times. They are seeing things from totally different lenses - than a professional genealogist.
2 -
again - it totally depends on what ones goal is
what you envision as the goal for FamilySearch - is totally different than what FS Leadershhips actual goal is . . .
0 -
. . . Maybe the Lord wants to get more people involved in Temple Work" rather than less. . .
I dont think the Lords wants to restrict it just to those who are professional genealogist - or even those that have the same skills.
I think he wants to ensure people from every single family are involved - even if at the moment they dont understand the rules and protocols of high quality professional genealogical research.
even if so doing - today - results in temple duplication and some inherent messy databases - that will utlimately be cleaned up in the Lords due time and in his own ways.
0 -
Although most of us that are not members of the LDS Church readily understand and accept the prime connection between Family Tree and ordinances, we obviously cannot go along with your comments here.
The FamilySearch organisation ( as a part of the Church) has made Family Tree open for the use of the general public and, in doing so, appears to have now attracted users that outnumber LDS Church members. I have no objection whatsoever to your making comments from the point of view of your beliefs, but please accept that genealogical accuracy in Family Tree is probably more important to a majority of its users than its original purpose (or main purpose, of course, for those who are "LDS").
2 -
I would guess that the NonLDS usage of Familysearch has almost always been the majority. . .
( a least a very very significant portion if not always the majority)
either way - LDS or not - Im just pointing out that the vision of FamilySearch Leadership is not and will not always be aligned with individual users - especially since it is not a "for profit" business.
FS - cant be compared to companies like Ancestry who are beholding to the paid membership.
FS is virtually 100% subsidized by a single entity - to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars - and yet provides free services available to the entire world.
that entity has the lion's share of deciding the vision and goals of FS - and I feel quite confident that in their eyes - FS has NOT "run amok" -but is very much in line with what they envision - though surely there is always the need for course correction in some way or the other in an ever changing world..
On the other hand I don't mean to imply that they totally close their eyes to the voiced concerns and wishes of its millions of users - I dont think they do - but certain guiding principles will remain dominant.
1 -
"FS is virtually 100% subsidized by a single entity".
Not true. Many non-Latter Day Saints index and volunteer at FHCs. If they make up the majority of the users, then in the absence of any other information it is only reasonable to assume that they also make the majority of the indexers.
And whenever non-LDS donate to "FamilySearch", the money actually goes to the charity LDS Philanthropies, which is owned by the LDS Church. And so the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims the donation as having come from them and their members. That is incredibly dishonest.
0 -
Most of us live in free countries where we are all free to choose - - If FamilySearch doesn't meet your goals or expectations - there are plenty of other options out there (though not many of them are free like FamilySearch)
but there are literally many millions around the globe - who do have a vision of what FamilySearch is, how it benefits them, and how it will continue to grow and improve in the years ahead.
-1 -
Its like a box of chocolates . . .
-1 -
Some parts of Family Tree are of extraordinary high quality. Other parts are just starting. Some parts are tangled mess. It is all good.
0 -
Ancestry is a nighmare for me. I much prefer FamilySearch. In Ancestry you have a dozen entries for the same person ... with some information the same and some very different, and some with people who won't share their information. It is a private little cashe of data. In Family Search everything is open. You can see the sources, or accept that some person has manually entered what their family believes is true for the individual.
Taking pride in moving a Ward off of FamilySearch is not necessarily a good thing, though claiming to be a profe$$ional genealogist means you might have too much interest in the profession and not enough in the people.
Regardless, FamilySearch is my tool of choice, and I find more than enough to do in FamilySearch in creating cou0ples, families, and individuals.
5 -
I am not a member of the LDS Church, but I find the genealogical activities fascinating. I've been with My Heritage for a decade now and also wandered through Ancestry as a guest courtesy of a family member.
My people emigrated to the country where I live in in the mid 1860s. So most of my genealogical activity has centred around finding more about my ancestors in the U.K in that time range- i.e. mid to early 19th century.
Then- THEN- all of a sudden, I stumbled across a tree in Family Search taking things back to the 1500s! I was stunned and amazed (and still am!) At last I can tell the grandkids that all that time granddad sits in front of the PC and goes on at them about their ancestors this, their ancestors that, was worth it!! And I then started down various avenues heading in a different direction towards France and the Norman Conquest. And the Family History data fitted with my research as to where we originated in the U.K.- so far, so good!
Then I thought, hang on, for something to be meaningful and true it has to be valid and reliable! So WHERE'S THE DATA..! That's when things started to go downhill a bit. I have been unable to determine who and where the information about my grandparents x10 came from. I did meet one other person going down the same trail but like me, he had just picked up on work of someone else and accepted it as fact. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions..
So my task now, before I broadcast what I've found to the rest of the family (!) is to do some more research on the origin of Family Search information. This includes visiting a nearby LDS Temple which I understand also has Family history facilities and consult with them.
2 -
some links of possible interest:
WHY USE FAMILYSEARCH FAMILYTREE
0 -
@JohnHansen-Beadle you are right that there is a lot of inaccurate genealogical information on the internet. You need to look for reliable sources that back up assertions rather than blindly copying the information.
The place to go for more help from FamilySearch is a Family History Center (FHC), see this map: https://www.familysearch.org/centers/locations/ Note that Latter Day Saint temples are open only to members of that church: non-members are strictly prohibited from entering.
0 -
Yes - but depending on his specific location - its possible there could be a Family History Center very near (if not next door ) to a temple. but yeh - that locator you supplied would be the way to go for him to know for sure. And various temples have visitors centers - where non LDS would be more than welcome - depending on the location again.
John: LDS chapels - used for Sunday Services and open to the public (not the same as temples) - often have a Family History Center (usually week days and best by appointment).
There may have been some confusion over the term "Temple" vs "Chapel" - which are two different things.
Let us know - if you find the specific address of the FHC / chapel nearest you - where you will surely be welcome. use the link A van Helsdingen provided.
0 -
starcaster99 I do lineage research for a lineage society and I spend quite a bit of time in both Ancestry and FamilySearch. In Ancestry I am completely restricted to looking at sources on trees and searching for sources myself. In FamilySearch, when I verify generations, I spend the time to update the tree. I add my sources and add to or correct the line I am working on. It is a very productive environment when my research can impact other people. FamilySearch is one of the very few environments where the world tree concept really works. I have made a point to keep my own ancestors up to date with all sources and memories that reflect not only my research but what I have inherited. The thing about my tree in Ancestry is I can't really add family friends, acquaintances, or business clients of my ancestors. I can do that in FamilySearch. I can link my gx2 grandfather's sister 's record to her beau's record because I inherited her autograph book where she pasted a black ribbon on the page where he wrote to her. He died in 1863 and I linked him and her to the image of that page. My grandmother graduated from nursing school in 1922 and I was able to link all her classmates to the graduation program image because their names are listed. I have an ancestor who owned a store until his death in 1848. I have inherited his business contracts ledger. I am linking all the images I've made of that ledger to the proper people.
Do you really want to exclude all of us who are using FamilySearch as it was intended? I have to tell you I have very few messes in my portion of the tree and I have not seen very many messes in my lineage research. And I love how convenient it is (compared to Ancestry) to set up multiple parents and document adoptions, step parents, foster children, and unknown relationships. The end result of a family group with completely correct relationships is beautiful. Notice I never brought up any Church issues. That is because it is irrelevant.
When you say you are weaning people off this system, you are degrading the value of FamilySearch.
2 -
It is a collaborative nightmare done by many people who have no clue about genealogical work and standards and often do not put in any sources or the ones they do put in are so off the mark you have to wonder.
Ouch.
I have attached over 190,000 sources. In the process I seem to have found a clue or two. So can everyone else, and without spending a lot of money.
The learning curve here is very long, very high, and the view from the top is immense. This is the place for me.
4 -
Ancestry seems almost intentionally designed to spread misinformation. Actually, to be clear: Ancestry seems designed to massage their customers' reward centers by helping them fill their trees quickly, but is unconcerned that they're filling it with garbage. The mere idea that Ancestry treats user-generated trees as "sources" should make any genealogist want to puke. Here we risk allowing sloppy editing, sure, but we gain a lot in having other editors to fact-check our work.
Their ThruLines feature is a decent idea, but unfortunately helps amplify the misinformation spread in their trees. Their DNA integration is OK, but hasn't progressed in half a decade, and it's almost criminal that they won't show exactly what DNA segments match and don't have any kind of DNA painting capability.
Both FS and Ancestry suffer from a lack of functionality when it comes to how certain the information and relationships for each person are. WikiTree has it, but is a UI nightmare. Though WikiTree at least has the right idea by making some basic effort to limit editing of pre-18th century records to what can be backed with sources, even though it's not really enforced. Blocking GEDCOM import and third-party modification for profiles of popular pre-18th century here is horrifically overdue.
2 -
RTorchia Your comments on Ancestry have a lot of merit, but I continually shake my head and ask "why do you care about other people's tree?" Stop looking at other trees and stick to your research. Ancestry has a lot of advanced functions that most people don't have a clue about. It is NOT suffering from any lack of functionality that I can see on how to evaluate information and relationships. I guess you have never used member connect which lines up all the sources in a list view that other people are using for a given ancester. (Not the same as browsing through their trees, by the way.) You can get to member connect from the profile view of an ancestor, which is a single click from ThruLines. Also, it is much easier to do surname research in Ancestry, than FamilySearch with multiple ways to go about it. And, by the way, while I agree whole heartedly about the DNA integration, you are wrong that they haven't progressed. The most recent change to show ethnicity by parental inheritance (the so called SideView) indicates they are inching their way to rebuilding the DNA makeup of your ancestors by looking at the shared DNA with your matches. While the ethnicity estimates are of little interest to the work of genealogy research, this is a step. Ancestry's press release indicates more is coming.
1 -
"why do you care about other people's tree?"
Why I care a great deal about other people's trees on Ancestry is because the AncestryDNA ThruLines, a potentially very powerful tool, are based not on DNA but entirely on user trees. And there is no evaluation of which user trees are consistent with DNA analysis and which are not.
I build trees here on FamilySearch precisely because I care about trees on Ancestry. Trees built here very soon turn up on Ancestry. Bwhahahaha.
1 -
dontiknowyou I hardly ever look at trees. Do I look at particular ancestors in trees? Yes, and that is not the same because I'm looking at the sources. I'm not looking at the mothers, fathers, siblings or photographs. There are some messed up spots on my trees - they are messed up in FamilySearch and Ancestry (and probably everywhere), because there are insufficient sources to work with OR insufficient time has been spent sorting out 10+ people of the same name. Everyone has those spots most likely, and all the hot headed people gravitate to those ancestors but I stay out of the fray. I don't care. Thrulines - again - provides me quick access to sources listed in a very organized way. FamilySearch lets me see the list of changes, and occasionally that is a good lead. Try not to be bothered by other people's trees. If it's Ancestry, they pay their money and should be able to do what they want.
0 -
The reason people care about other people's trees on Ancestry, @Gail Swihart Watson, is that Ancestry foists them on you at every turn. They screw up ThruLines, they clutter your "leaf feed", and just generally make it Really Hard to avoid the errors that people have made.
The same thing applies to MyHeritage, too, with the added, um, benefit of that system's penchant for trying to charge you money for information from FamilySearch. (With the same total disregard for the vast difference between records and trees that Ancestry shows.)
I must admit to being hampered in my use of the pay sites by being a cheapskate: I've only occasionally been a subscriber on Ancestry, when they've had particularly good promotional deals, and I've never paid MyHeritage for anything. This means that I often don't find out that I can do something, because I get so tired of running into the paywall that I don't even try to click things any more.
One of the great advantages of the shared tree concept is that when you encounter an error, you can fix it. The fact that two of the three major players in the genre (FS and WT) are free, not-for-profit sites certainly doesn't hurt in this. (Geni is -- or used to be -- the other one, but it has retreated so far behind its enormous paywall that I'm not even certain what model it follows, any more.)
0 -
I couldn't agree more with your statement. The site is riddled with errors not to mention the vast number of entries being deleted, merged and changed by a few trouble makers at least in my neck of the woods. Almost every page you go to entries have been re-edited, changed or merged. Not sure what they're hoping to achieve by changing the info of the original entries. Someone should tell them that an award has never been given out for Genealogy. As a side note 'Find A Grave' is not much better. And I agree Ancestry is much better. There at least you're not getting other members messing up your tree on an hourly basis. Great post!
0 -
I am an ordinary customer, not a FS staff member (nor an LDS member)
As long as you abide by the Code of Conduct (https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/community-code-of-conduct), you are free to criticize FamilySearch and to make constructive suggestions for improvements.
Note however that your comments on the finances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are likely to be considered a violation of rules 6 and 10.
1 -
I have noticed that the original poster starcaster99 has changed their name to HeadKangaroo.
0 -
Perhaps not necessarily "changed" their username, but might have multiple accounts and is now using the one with HeadKangaroo as the user name. I have queried the whole implication of users being able to hold multiple accounts (security, causing confusion to others, possible abuse, etc.). I understand the "need" for Church members to hold a Church and Public account, but can see no reason for allowing anything more.
The more people who agree on a particular view (either on this forum or in Family Tree) the more convincing it can make their argument. Yet these apparently different contributors might all be the same person! I don't know of anywhere else where you can hold what is effectively multi-membership of a society or group.
(I am not disagreeing that, in this case, it is possibly a simple change of username involved.)
0 -
@Paul W you are correct, and I agree that the "normal" person doesn't need multiple accounts. But even when the individual creates a new account with the same device, there is not really any way to detect that it's really the same person, is there? Two accounts using the same IP address is not a red flag as most of us live with other people. I'm not sure what the Church could do to detect and stop multiple account holders with out affecting innocent people by mistake. I would hate to be shut down as a multiple account holder just because my nephew came to visit and wanted to work on his family while I worked on mine.
I am also very distressed at the level of negativity in this thread, going all the way back to the poster. Certain things are universal and should be accepted: there is always room for improvement with any product, everyone starts as a beginner using that product, no one is always right and anything can change with the advent of new information. Welcome to the world of collaboration. I like the FamilySearch world tree and I like Ancestry. I work daily in both systems on my ancestors, my family's ancestors and on people who are not my ancestors at all. Only in FamilySearch can I update records and attach sources to people who are not my ancestors.
1
