FamilySear as Contributor, possible duplicates, sources, policies
Because temples now take cards after each ordinance, I print out four copies of my cards when I prepare to go to the temple. I pencil in the work that was done. I've been apprehensive about taking these to do work, suspecting that they'll want ones that are officially printed, not penciled in. I am finding that some names from my cards are dropping off my reservations. I have nine that need initiatory that are no longer on my reservations. I think this is because they suspect that they are duplicates. That's reasonable, but they should note that in the reservation area and not just drop them out. Also, when FS enters something in the tree, they don't attach sources, which is both a bad example and bad family history research. Whatever record they use to create pages should be attached to those pages so we can review them. If they want to reduce duplications, they need to do that because genealogists have no respect for pages without sources. Sources are the anchor. We ignore pages that have no sources attached, and familySearch is notorious for this. It invites people to make a mess of these pages created by FamilySearch. Many FS pages are started because of a christening record. It can't be that hard to include an image of the christening record with the page that is created. That's what patrons are expected to do. FS should do it, too, because it will give the page validity and prevent some foolish mergers.
Comments
-
FamilySearch does not create pages. Take a good look where you see that name. You will almost exclusively see a date of 2012. These are records that were imported from previous databases of submitted data. Those old databases, primarily the IGI, having a different purpose than Family Tree, did not retain sources.
To take your example of christening records, what you are describing sounds like you are running into old extraction records. The extraction program started in the 1970s, long before any kind of digital image of any of these records existed. They were all created from microfilm. So, yes, it is that hard to take a record that was created in 1975, put into the IGI or the VRI, transfered into New FamilySearch, then imported into Family Tree and find the exact digital image scanned 45 years later from the same microfilm and connect the two.
For these records that came from the IGI, there will usually be a source that states the record was created from that. Records from the VRI do not. Many of the IGI records are starting to have a link to the microfilm they came from to at least give a starting point for finding the original record.
The only time a reservation is going to drop off your list is when a cousin, near or distant, of yours finds a duplicate who has completed temple work and merges it with the individual you have reserved. When I run into this and someone has printed a card, I message the person to inform them that the printed card can be torn up so that the person knows the work has already been completed. I don't bother if the card has not been printed since the name cannot be printed at that point.
As a genealogist, it is very important to be familiar with the history of records you deal with, whether this is a christening from 1640 or a massive computer database containing the sum of multiple paper, microfiche, CD-ROM, and computer databases developed at various times for various purposes over the past 175 years, starting with the records of the Navuoo Temple up through temple work completed a few minutes ago. If you see a record in Family Tree that looks sub-par, take the time to figure out the full history of that record.
3