Attention: This site does not support the current version of your web browser. To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version or install another browser
Can somebody explain to me why someone is adding people to my tree? Who gave them access to my tree? This is a serious error in judgement by the managers and owners of this site. The people (yes there is more than one) who have added hundreds of people to my tree have added them without any proof they belong; have no proof they are related to me in any way and are so randomly picked it is unbelievable that anyone with any common sense would add them. I have the records so I have the proof that those people do not belong. How these contributors are selected and given access to peoples trees is a serious error in judgement, a serious lack of care for the truth; plus how do I put into words the fact that this error in judgement has created how many public trees so full of errors (like mine) available to the Public who will also be affected by these errors? How will the Public know what is true from what is false. People will also see me as the person who created these errors. Who In familysearch.org gave random people free rein over everyone's Family Trees without any regard or respect for the truth of other peoples lives? I want to discuss this with management, owners and the people who make these decisions at familysearch.org to explain the depth of the problem in more detail so it can be corrected. Without fully understanding the many types of errors being made the problem will never be adequately corrected. There are so many errors being made and so many things wrong with this practice. Firstly, no one should have access to someone else's tree. They should only be allowed to message suggestions to the owner of the tree and only if they provide proof that has been thoroughly researched to prove it is the correct record; and definitely not from someone else's tree. That practice is how errors snowball and is the worst practice in genealogy and one that you recommend. That practice is so bad in judgement that there should be a HUGE WARNING against it. I do not want my tree nor my account deleted. This is the only proof I have to show you the errors so yfamilysearch.org can fix this and their credibility.
Unfortunately, you are completely misunderstanding the whole concept of Family Tree. There is no "my tree" or anyone else's tree - it is just one, huge open-edit tree, with none of us having any more "ownership" of its branches than the next person. Most of us have come up against the problems you are experiencing. Sometimes it takes me two or three days to sort out the mistakes other users have made: usually in their adding completely unrelated individuals to a branch, just because they have the same surname. For some, the effort gets too much, so they leave and just keep their records in their personal software, where nobody can interfere. However, there are great benefits in a collaborative program like this - without which I would have never discovered many of my distant relatives, or even some ancestors. It can sometimes be really good to find another user has got there before you and already added a whole branch of your (shared) relatives to the tree, saving you much time and effort.
Incidentally, FamilySearch employees are not going to make any corrections to your relatives' records, including incorrect relationships that have been added by careless users. That kind of effort has to be borne by "us", I'm afraid!
Hello @VenaasFamily,
It can be frustrating when others make changes to the tree that may be incorrect. However, Family Tree is different from other similar genealogy sites in that it is a single, public tree linked together in families, rather than a site that only allows users to create and manage their own private trees. This distinction means that everyone works together on the same data.
Any errors you may find can be corrected. But many people like to keep their own personal trees, that others may not touch, on sites such as Ancestry or MyHeritage. We do not suggest any in particular. You may find these and other sites in our Solutions Gallery which is at the bottom left of any page.
To review the FamilySearch Terms of Use that everyone agrees to when joining, scroll to the very bottom of the page and click on FamilySearch Terms of Use (Updated 2021-09-27) on the left. Here is the link:
We hope you will continue to use FamilySearch and find it's services useful in your family history endeavors.
Best Wishes!
Hello @VenaasFamily,
If you need any help in making corrections, please let us know and provide the Person ID of your ancestor so we can walk you through it.
Thanks!
I was not implying FamilySearch moderators (employees & volunteers) are not willing to help in putting matters right. It was just that, in this example, there was the mention of hundreds of individuals being incorrectly added to a branch. I just couldn't imagine how someone "at FamilySearch" could have the necessary spare hours (possibly days) to be able to address an issue like this.
Often, when it looks like a major disaster has occurred in Family Tree, our joint tree where we all work together, such as hundreds of people added to our lines by dozens of people or hundreds suddenly vanishing, that usually indicates that one person made one wrong merge. Finding and correcting that one merge will often solve 99% of the problem.
One very helpful practice is to follow everyone in your direct ancestral lines and everyone who you have recurring problems with other researchers confusing your relative with their relatives. Then you get prompt notifications when anything is changed on those people.
Everyone does come at Family Tree with different perspectives. You concerns with its basic philosophy, regarding which you want to "explain the depth of the problem in more detail so it can be corrected," is exactly the reason why Family Tree is the only online tree I work in.
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Further to what 'Paul' has already proffered ...
You are not alone ...
Many of us ... have been there ...
And, we totally understand your frustration ...
Many of us have had 'wayward' "Changes" made to our "Ancestral" Lines ...
But ...
That Said ...
Technically, there is no way, to STOP, other Users/Patrons, from working along, the SAME 'Ancestral" Lines.
Unfortunately, such CANNOT be prevented.
As, basically, we are all related.
Your "Ancestral" Lines, are most likely ALSO another User's/Patron's "Ancestral" Lines, in fact, probably, that of quite a few other Users/Patrons.
Now ...
That Said ...
Basically, you DO NOT have, a "Tree", in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', than is common misconception.
And, OTHER Users/Patrons, DO NOT need/require, your "Permission", to "Change" the information/details of "Deceased" individuals/persons, in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch'.
Here an old 'standby' of mine, that I have previously proffered on occasion ...
------------------
Most new (and, some old) Users/Patrons DO NOT understand the basic 'nature' and 'premise' of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', when they join in.
Please let me explain ...
We do not have our OWN "Tree" in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
We ONLY have "Branches" (ie. Ancestral" lines), that are interconnected, in this SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is NOT like 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
We DO NOT have "Private"/"Personal" 'Trees' in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' like other 'On-Line' "Websites"; and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes.
We do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/persons in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
And, most importantly ...
We DO NOT even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, Our OWN "Deceased" Ancestors/Family/Relatives in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why any registered User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
------------------
Now ...
That Said ...
Hence, why MANY Users/Patrons, of the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', (STILL) maintain their OWN "Personal" (and, often "Private") "Database(s)", of their "Ancestral" Lines, on the likes of:
(1) 'On-Line' "Websites"
..... (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or,
and/or,
(2) 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes
..... (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
As an aside ...
Please be aware that ...
We ALL make MISTAKES ...
NONE of us are PERFECT ...
[ Plus ... we were ALL NEW once ... ]
None of us want to have our "Ancestral" Lines 'messed up'; but, unfortunately, it happens.
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', like it or not, is a "Collaborative" effort.
[ Although, unfortunately, "Collaboration"; and, "Co-operation", DO NOT, always work, 'hand in hand' ... ]
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', just does not suit, ALL Users/Patrons ...
As an aside ...
Sometimes, it is a matter of "Watching" (oops, sorry, 'old school', "Following") our MOST important Ancestors.
Just to keep on top of any 'wayward' changes.
One can "Follow", up to a Maximum of x4000 individuals/persons, at any given time.
'FamilySearch', sends one, a 'Weekly' NOTIFICATION, of ANY "Changes", that are made to those individuals/persons one "Follows".
Better still, I DO NOT 'Wait' for that 'Weekly' NOTIFICATION ...
I check, the "Changes", to those that I "Follow", on a "Daily" Basis; so that, I can keep on top of things.
More often that not, nothing needs to be done; but, at least, I have the opportunity, to be abreast of things; almost as, they happen/transpire/unfold.
Such is not the best; but, certainly better than nothing ...
I know that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I hope that this might provide you with some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
I want to thank everyone who answered my questions. I was aware of the 'One World Tree' concept but never read anywhere that personal trees where open to the public to do whatever they decided should be done to your tree. I only put three names up to do searches for records that were not forthcoming on Ancestry but now there are over 1500 (at the very least) names on my tree. There is no way I am going to attempt to correct the number or errors in it. I was not aware that by putting 3 names on a tree attached to my account would place my history at the mercy of others' idea of what it could or should be. Now I know. My personal takeaway from this is that the 'One World Tree' isn't a reflection of reality. I just wish familysearch.org made more of an effort to inform members/subscribers of this fact and make it more OBVIOUS. I feel like I have been misled by the site and made to look like an idiot for asking and expressing my thoughts about what I felt were shortcomings of the site.
I agree, I do not like other people changing OR adding to my family. I see that your point that is not MY TREE. but it is my family. so i don't change my tree here, i keep MY FAMILY IN REUNION. I DONT CHANGE ANYONE'S INFO I SEND MESSAGE AND ITS UP to that person to change based on research efforts I send to them. And (bad grammar) an infinity of miss info going in a circle.
My experience is just the opposite. Once I get the family topology correct and attach all valid sources plus extra documentation, the tree becomes rather difficult to change by anyone other than a destructive person. It's simply a fait accompli... I have written a technical guide on how to use FamilySearch I'm happy to share if you message me a request.
Hello @VenaasFamily,
You are always welcome to post your thoughts in the Ideas section of the Community where it will be looked at by the engineers at FamilySearch. You can also see if others have already posted on this issue and add your vote if it fits your situation.
Thanks so much for your comments!
@crhanse based on your comment I decided to look at or try to correct 1 error on what appears to be my tree only to find out that I cannot delete a person who doesn't belong there is not an option to me. Under the Tools section it says "Delete Person Unavailable" so that leads me to the conclusion that it is not my tree but that I am now part of someone else's tree or part of the One World Tree and that I have been added even though I am a "living" person. Dare I suspect what that implies?
@VenaasFamily , First, Living persons do not show on the public/deceased area of Family Tree. The only Living you may see are the Living you created in your Living area and they are only visible to you, not the public. Second you do not generally Delete people, you delete the Relationship if that relationship is incorrect.
@VenaasFamily, based on what you've written, you're still operating under an incorrect impression of FamilySearch's Family Tree.
There is only one tree on FamilySearch. There isn't a separate "One World Tree". Everything in Family Tree is the one, single, open-edit, communal tree. There are no private trees here.
I suppose people can gain an impression of private trees if they enter a lot of living people, since living people go in the creator's private space and cannot be seen by anyone else. However, private trees is not the intent of each account's private space. It exists so that we can connect to all of our deceased relatives, conveniently and easily. I don't believe the private space has any utility beyond this "connectors" or "placeholders" function. The best way to protect the privacy of the living is to not put anything about them online unnecessarily, not even in a protected space.
Because this is a communal tree, profiles can only be deleted if they have not been collaborated on. (Otherwise, you'd be allowing people to delete other people's work, without a means of reversing it.) If a profile is wrong, then the method of fixing it depends on exactly how it's wrong.
If the person existed, but did not have the relationships it currently has, then revert the edits that created the incorrect relationships, or if that becomes too convoluted, just edit the relationships.
If no such person existed, then the best way to remove it is usually a merge. For example, if May was misindexed as Max and someone made a brother for May named Max based on the incorrect index, the easiest fix is to change Max to female and merge him with May.
There is also nothing wrong with simply detaching an incorrect person (by editing the relationships) and just leaving him "floating". This is probably the best route if the reason someone got attached cannot be figured out.
I totally get where @VenaasFamily is coming from. The introductory verbiage that FamilySearch puts out is all about inputting your own family tree. And then if the little piece of the tree you just entered into the void connects to anyone else's piece, you find yourself riding a runaway horse off a cliff. It is a big shock and it feels very personal and invasive, if you have not been prepared for it by anyone you know.
So, @VenaasFamily, the tree is wrong. That usually means someone in your family has the same name as someone else. There is no need to fix hundreds, thousands, millions of pages. Most likely those pages are correct; all that is wrong is their attachment to your family member. Just find the incorrect attachment and detach it. Perhaps also fix up the other family a bit, so it is clear how the families are separate. If you want help doing this, you can get a brief free private consult from FamilySearch or you can share here a person ID of your deceased family member who now has the wrong ancestors attached and someone might take a look.
Hello again @VenaasFamily,
When you want to take someone off of your tree, you will need to disconnect the relationship. You cannot delete a person that you did not create yourself. Here is information on how to delete the relationship. If you need help, please let us know the Person ID so we can assist.
Hope this helps!
the tree becomes rather difficult to change by anyone other than a destructive person.
Exactly. Once the tree is 'essentially complete' any further edit is likely 'incorrect'.
It's simply a fait accompli...
No. It's still open-edit - awaiting mentioned 'destruction'.
@dontiknowyou - well said but if you are a horseman and train horses your first thought is "this horse needs help" so you look into what you can do. When you have been given this horse to ride and it has a problem the first thing to do is to find out where this problem came from, how long it's been going on and what the best recourse should be. When you find out it's not your horse after all, that 'given' means 'loan' then the problem isn't yours. And to try to help a broken horse that so many inexperienced people are riding, you soon realise it is a lost cause. The problem is up to the Owner.
@bathompson - This is not made very clear by familysearch.org in any of their communications promoting their site:
Licenses and Rights Granted to Us
In exchange for your use of this site and/or our storage of any data you submit, you hereby grant us with an unrestricted, fully paid-up, royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable, sublicensable, and perpetual license to use any and all information, content, and other materials (collectively, “Contributed Content”) that you submit or otherwise provide to this site (including, without limitation, genealogical data, images, writings, documents, materials, recordings, discussions, information, and data relating to deceased persons or anything else) for any and all purposes, in any and all manners, and in any and all forms of media that we, in our sole discretion, deem appropriate for the furtherance of our mission to promote family history and genealogical research. As part of this license, you give us permission to copy, publicly display, transmit, broadcast, perform, distribute, and otherwise use (and allow others to use) your Contributed Content throughout the world, by any means we deem appropriate (electronic or otherwise, including on the Internet). You also understand and agree that as part of this license, we have the right to create (and to allow others to create) and use derivative works from your Contributed Content by combining all or a portion of it with that of other contributors or by otherwise modifying your Contributed Content.
Collaboration with Others
You acknowledge that a primary purpose of this site is to enable collaboration between users of this site and other sites who wish to expand their genealogical databases and knowledge. You acknowledge that we may utilize Contributed Content, including any personal information of living individuals, that you submit for the purpose of collaborating and sharing with other individuals and organizations (including commercial genealogical organizations) in order, for example, to create a global common pedigree for the purposes of increasing participation in family history and preserving records throughout the world. You acknowledge that collaboration between multiple individuals and organizations allows us to obtain additional data that we may provide to users of this site—thus allowing users to extend their own ancestral lines. Our Privacy Notice provides more details regarding our use of your Contributed Content.
@bathompson, @dontiknowyou, @Julia Szent-Györgyi, @Chas Howell, @crhanse, @Brett ., @Gordon Collett, @Paul W, @Jennifer Lee Amador - The little blurb I just posted to "bathompson" is a copy & paste from this site's Terms and Conditions with "including any personal Information of living individuals" in bold print for any and all persons who missed this part. I don't think many people realise what that truly means in legal terms. It means that Users and Contributors to the site cannot see 'living' people through the 'owt' but the site can give permission to anyone they choose to see all the info they have on living persons as well as deceased persons. How many of you knew this is what you agreed to? I know by some of the comments, some of you may not know this. I hope this helps explain some of my shock at what happened to my 3 names put on what I thought was my tree and private from the site and world. The rest of the shock is all of the errors in my so called heritage that also belongs to thousands of other descendants and ascendants, possibly hundreds of thousands of them. One erroneous person leads to 10, 10 leads to 100, 100 leads to 10,000 - you get the picture, especially when no documentation is attached, as in proof of that one person. dontiknow said it best when they called this "riding a runaway horse off a cliff".
@VenaasFamily , "in legal terms. 'it means...", really that's what you think? I would like to see your legal citation on that. First you left off the second part of that sentance you bolded. Only that information that, " you submit for the purpose of collaborating and sharing with other individuals and organizations" comes into play. You did not submit or add your living for the purpose of collaborating and sharing with other individuals, right?
@Chas Howell - if you read it here instead of looking it up then I put it there for you to see. Lawyers get paid by the hour and would not take the time to prove to you, in a social context, their legal credentials. If you haven't noticed arguing legal matters costs money and this platform is to inform, not argue, but still a valid point.
So, @VenaasFamily, what person IDs have been attached that do not belong? Help us help you. Most helpful would be the person ID of a proximate person, meaning someone attached to a person ID you created for a deceased person. You can find the person IDs you created on your own FamilySearch account, web interface, under Family Tree : My Contributions.
@dontiknowyou - the first person that doesn't belong is my paternal grandfather's mother. Since this is beyond the 3 people I submitted (me, my father and his father) and has 4 record sources; 1 with her correct maiden name spelled incorrectly (english spelling based on the scandi pronounciation), 1 with her father's anglicised, scandi surname spelled incorrectly and 2 with her married name. Now only someone with knowledge of the scandi naming format coupled with the english phonetic spelling errors of scandi names would know this and correct this Which I have already done on Ancestry so there is no excuse for other people collecting these records to make the mistake on her last name. And because of this it leads me to believe that the contributor on fs.org has copied their info from those trees that have these errors and not by doing actual research themselves. I can not make any changes without doing all of this work all over again on fs.org. I am not going to correct records that I have already corrected for someone else who can't be bothered to look closer at the info. I have a private tree on Ancestry with all branches going back to the late 1700s with all birth, marriage, death, baptism, burial, Land Grants, etc attached. And 3 branches going back to the 1600s and one branch going back to the 1500s. Very few people added to the familysearch.org tree have birthdates, death dates or records, which only my tree does, so where did the contributor get the info without records? And if they have the records why didn't they attach them? The curious thing is: the info the 3 main contributors have has cap letters where I have placed caps which is only on persons in my direct line back in history and my Ancestry tree is PRIVATE. A little bit too coincidental for my liking and looks like a copy & paste action. Since there are people added who don't belong it appears there may have been some effort to add to the copy & paste find.
I hope this gives you a bit of the picture of why there is no way I am going to do anything to the errors on fs.org. It's not me who needs the help. It is the contributors that need it. I have helped them enough already and they haven't paid much attention nor learned anything about the reality or the idiosyncrasies of genealogy.
These problems have been experienced by everyone including myself. Although I greatly appreciate additions, if they are valid and provable.
I would like to suggest a change to the site that allows a place for people to ask open questions to contributors about additions that are unreferenced or that run contrary to your data. The biggest problem I run into is unreferenced information. I have been writing notes and questions under the top box "Life Sketch" for lack of a specific place to comment rather than just changing their inputs. That seems rude. Sometimes I will pose questions directly to the contributor, but that does not become public for the thousands of people viewing these additions, particularly when you get back a few centuries.
I think it is important for the information on this site to be as historically accurate as possible, which is often difficult with so many contributors. :-)
@JoeRexroad, on the Family Tree web interface each person page has a Collaborate tab: under that is a choice of Notes and Discussions. Notes are seen also on the mobile app; Discussions are not. Notes are editable by others; Discussions are not, but can be commented on.
I use Notes very often to leave questions and remarks about content for any future contributor, including myself.
@JoeRexroad, as dontiknowyou said, the Collaborate tab is the place for questions and discussions about a profile. (I have the Life Sketch section closed by default, so I never see the things that people dump there. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.)
@JoeRexroad - thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate you sharing your experiences and solutions. It helps me get a better glimpse of how this site works.
@VenaasFamily You are not alone. I could have written your original post almost verbatim earlier in 2020. As a longtime family historian, I could not in good conscience have my name attached to a tree built mostly by other people with no documentation to back the "research." I decided to open an account with ancestry.com which I had wanted to avoid because of cost. In the end, it was worth it... peace of mind along with the website's bells and whistles.
Suggest that you contact the person who made the changes/additions. As pointed out above, it could be someone with same name who didn't check carefully, or it could be someone who has erroneous information, somebody got confused, made a mistake, etc.
Look on the right side of the person's record for "latest changes" and click "show all." This will being up a list of all changes and the contributor who made them. Click on that contributor's user name and either use their email if posted or just click "send a message." Ask them their relationship, what their documentation is, where they got their information, etc.
There are sites with free entry level versions, you can save a GEDCOM, or use a paid site, if you want to store a version of your work.
Regards,
MLV
Thank you all for the feedback. I was unaware of what the collaborate tab was for and it seems that it is rarely used. The problem with its obscurity is that the vast majority of viewers will see the information that is always visible on the person page or family trees and take it as proven. And if that information is incorrect, hundreds of people will be misled to believe something of their history that is untrue.
As I went to explore this new found tool, I discovered someone had put a portrait of John Wesley the Methodist scholar in to represent my 14x Great Grandpa John Wright of Ploughland Hall. I can only imagine, as we speak, how many people are copying this false imagery and spreading it around the world.
Is there a way to manually flag information that is known or suspected to be incorrect?
:-)
