Person G311-683 called "Common Ancestor"
A person whom I am helping has another person working on their common tree. This person has gathered all the people in the area that share the same last name and regardless of the individual family has put them in a "family group" with the father called common ancestor. I had removed the known ancestor of the person for whom I'm helping because in this family group are 44 siblings ranging from a person born 1667 to another born 1918. But the name was again added to this "family group". Is there someway to clarify that this is not the way the tree should be?
Regarding, you are the question about common Ancestor or starting person.
May we recommend the following knowledge article
The first person you enter is yourself, than parents, then grandparents.
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
We looked at the record you describe and agree that this is not how to organize a family in FamilySearch Family Tree.
We suggest that you contact the contributor and voice your concerns. You will once again need to remove the individual that is in the sibling group and make it very clear in your reason statement he does not belong.
You might also start a discussion, make a note or otherwise indicate in the life sketch that common ancestor is not a real person.1
When I am working on detangling a big mess on Family Tree I make this kind of list. One place where such a list can be shared is in a Note on the profile. I had not thought of doing it like this, using a PID as a dashboard, at least not in the public tree space. I like the idea, but I wonder what a huge set of pseudo-children does to the FT hints system.
The default parent-child relationship is biological. There are other relationship types, among which Guardianship might be more useful for this purpose. A Guardian should not deform the biological tree for other contributors.
I see the contributor created this set in December 2019 and ever since then has been systematically working through all the Rottau "children" and detaching them when done. It looks like a surname study in progress. Nice!
[Edit to add: the contributor is doing great work. Look in the Change Log. Do you see all the sources attached to the PIDs that get released from the set?! And all the place names and dates are standardized. This project PID gathers the heads of all the fragment trees. When the actual parents are found the "child" gets released from the set. I like it!]
@Sunnie , thank you for bringing attention to this interesting use of a PID as a project dashboard.0
There are many (hundreds? thousands?) of these project pages on FT. Do a Find search on "ancestor" (not exact).
I played with one built by another contributor on FT and found it has so many benefits, now I want pages like this for all my projects.0
I think it would be much better to do this type of activity in Beta and then when the appropriate relationship of child to parents is determined from sources - re create that in Family Tree. There are some issues with beta being refreshed every 3-6 months but I think it would be workable and would not have so many temporary incorrect linkages in Family tree.3
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
As I have commented previously, I believe ones personal databases are the best place to store this information. By all means, add these individuals to Family Tree (using the "Add Unconnected Person" provision, under "Recents"), but then make a list of all these individuals in Excel (or similar), showing the Family Tree ID reference alongside their name.
The "Beta" suggestion (made by gasmodels) could work, but - as mentioned - the Beta version is somewhat "unstable". Also, to avoid crashing out of either program, when switching between Beta and the production version, one needs to be using one with one browser and the other version on another browser!
I can genuinely understand the advantages of this "workaround", with regards to easy accessibility to members of the same "family group", for which positive relationships have yet to be established. However, it might play havoc with the algorithms and (possibly a personal matter) I just feel uncomfortable with Family Tree IDs being used in this manner.2
IF, the use, of these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', is NOT considered an UNACCEPTABLE use of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; THEN, I am afraid, I DO NOT understand what is!?
I am aware of, Participants (ie. User/Patrons), in this very "Community.Familysearch" Forum, that these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', have caused much concern (and, considerable, real, upset); and, reeking 'havoc', with their, Genealogy/Family History work, for their "Ancestral" Lines, causing much, UNNECESSARY Work, to TRY, to rectify.
The use, of these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' should NOT be allowed to continue.
ALL the individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', that have been "Merged"/'Combined", with these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', SHOULD be reverted, to their state, before the "Merged"/'Combined".
Submitted for your immediate, information; attention; and, consideration.
MAY THE LORD BLESS YOU IN THIS IMPORTANT WORK
I have been thinking about the pros and cons of such "dashboard" use in FamilyTree and while I can understand the attraction of being able to set the fake Common Ancestor person as the root person in Family Tree so that one can jump right there whenever getting back to work in Family Tree, I agree with Paul W that the appropriate place for creating a list of unrelated people who just happen to share the same surname is in a spreadsheet on ones own computer. It is simple to copy and paste the URL of each individual into a spreadsheet so one can click in the spreadsheet and jump right to the person in Family Tree.
My overriding concern with the practice of doing this in Family Tree is what this could do to all the Family Tree routine that make use of relationships. I doubt that that those routines take into account the marker of type of relationship that might be set. These would be such things as View My Relationship, Hints, Possible Duplicates, and Ordinances Ready. I'm also concerned about the confusion this practice could sow in the Change Log.
IF someone insists on using this technique, they really need to put in the Life Sketch exactly what they are doing and why, they need to use a term different than "Common Ancestor" such as "Place Holder to temporarily link together these 44 unrelated people while I figure out who they are," it needs to be very short term, and they should certainly respect the desire for real descendants of these people to pull their proven ancestors out of any such project.1
A user can create a source, add it to the source box, and attach the source to multiple individuals.
Reason statements can be added for each person. This allows those IDs to be viewed as group without a relationship being necessary.0
I agree that the labels "common ancestor" and "ancestor" is not appropriate. Many surnames have more than one origin. However, many surname tree fragments can be connected to each other.
Why make these artificial pages here in FT? Because they engage so many FT finding aids! The cons mentioned in this thread are also pros.
FT is a work in progress. Premature locking in impedes progress. Premature attachments to incorrect parents arguably is much worse than attaching to a page that is an obvious placeholder.
A project page won't get an Ordinances Ready flag because it won't have any vital data on it. Giving ordinance hunters pause, when pause is appropriate, is a good thing, yes?0
GHPX-1JK shows all his ordinances as ready to request. This means than any living male descendant of any of his 43 "siblings" could be presented with his name via Ordinances Ready because they share the common ancestor "Mr. C.A.W.I.P Rottau."1
Or, only any living male descendant who has an LDS member account on FT...? Being presented with a name would generate interest? Perhaps increase engagement? Sounds good to me.
I found 40+ siblings a little unwieldy, so have been splitting the list by century.0
'No', the use, of these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', DOES NOT increase participation; especially, for the Users/Patrons who are Members of the Church.
The use, of these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', ONLY causes, CONCERN; and, ANGST, (and, UPSET); especially, for the Users/Patrons who are Members of the Church.
The latter is borne out, in a number of recent 'Posts', in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, by, concerned; and, upset, Participants (ie. Users/Patrons) in this Forum.
"Family Tree" (and, is forerunner, "New.FamilySearch) of 'FamilySearch", was created and established, by the Church, for Members of the Church, to follow the tenets of the Church, NOT as a 'work area' (or, 'playground').
The research work such, as these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, should done be 'outside' of (and, away from), "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
I hereby, implore you, to please STOP creating, these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
Do you understand the real, concern; and, angst; and, upset, that you, yourself, have caused for Participants (ie. Users/Patrons) in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, alone?
I have been a participant in 'Posts' (and, 'seen' other 'Posts'), where your "Contact Name", has been mentioned/referenced in relation to such, concern; and, angst; and, upset, relating to these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
And, yet, you contend "Vandalism", when another User/Patron, tries to ADDRESS / FIX, the 'nightmare', that has been IMPOSED, upon their Ancestor, through, these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
Again, please STOP creating, these, so-called, "Project Pages", of NONEXISTENT individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
'Thank You' in advance.
PIDs are tokens, tools used in a sacred task, not sacred objects.
I am finding project PIDs very useful. When used to gather and sort out duplicates, they mostly disturb no one because few duplicates have substantial dependancies. In some cases the project PID may lead to discovery and delight! Here is a massive duplicates clean up project in process. The one "child" with descendants has been a mystery for centuries: a female ancestor with a maiden name but no link to her family of origin.0