Trees created in ancestry.com can "sync" with my the tree in FamilySearch.org. This is a terrific f
When using the "Sync" feature, many ancestry.com sources now show the description as "[No source tile]" and the URL.
If you proceed to sync with FamilySearch.org, those wouces will appear that exact way in FamilySearch.org tree [No source title].
Things were working GREAT before the changes were made by ancestry.com in early November. Unable to contact ancestry.com since the "specialists" are not church members and are unfamiliar with the ability to sync ancestry.com with FamilySearch.org.
How can ancestry.com be informed of the computer programming problem?
Respuestas
-
That's a great question. First, there is little that FamilySearch can do either. You will need to bring it to Ancestry's attention as you are planning. It does seem that there is no way to put through just suggestions or ideas. It might be worth your while to visit Ancestry's facebook page and bring up the subject there, as I don't see anywhere directly through Ancestry's Contact Us link to just submit an opinion or suggestion.
The other possibility is Ancestry's Support Community.
0 -
FWIW, I just forwarded it to a very active Latter-day Saint member of the Ancestry team (and equally active genealogist/family history researcher that I happen to know who lives near their HQ in Lehi, Utah. I asked her if she could perhaps get it to the right person internally. Hopefully that will be more direct than message boards, etc.
--Chris
0 -
Wow! I hadn't heard that the process to sync sources had changed. I'm actually really glad it has changed so that the user has to evaluate each source. I have a distant cousin who uploads all the sources from FamilySearch into Ancestry and then adds more Ancestry sources and then syncs back to FamilySearch. This then dumps all that was already in FamilySearch back into FamilySearch again. One week she did it 3 times to thousands of relatives that I share with her. Sources were duplicated up to 6 times within FamilySearch and she had no idea that this syncing process was causing all these duplicate problems. I'm glad that something is being done to slow that sync process down to make sure the user evaluates each source for potential duplication.
0 -
Not only are duplicates created, but information is overwritten when someone uploads a GEDCOM of their tree. Under reason the information is correct, whatever was there is gone and the entry simply says GEDCOM.
This is not really an Ancestry, or any other program, issue, rather it is FS which must determine how and what can be uploaded, and then create the rules.
I too hope that whatever the changes are, there really is a more rigorous and less simple process, both for uploading data and duplicate checking. People I contact tell me they had no idea that duplicates were created or information was overwritten. If a name is spelled somewhat differently, or there are different dates, etc., potential duplicates likely are not identified. Too many people blithely assume that if it is published in another program it must be correct and should be uploaded to their FS tree, and heretofore that has been too easy to do.
0 -
This is really important information!
I've been of the opinion for some time that there needs to be far more stress placed on what constitutes adequate documentation in FamilySearch, especially because of the nature of the "one worldwide family tree" concept, compared to other services such as Ancestry. Within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we quite appropriately encourage our members to "do their family history." But I think we could do a much better job, at the local levels, of teaching our people about what real sources are - and Ancestry.com (or other similar sites) are NOT data sources. They're just information sources that may or may not have any basis from a true primary source of documentation. An excellent piece on this topic can be found at:
Let's all do better at introducing new family history researchers to this concept. This latest discovery (problem) is an(other) excellent reason to do so. Temple and family history consultants are in an excellent position to do so, having access to many members of the Church who may just be starting their journey into family history research and compilation (such as on FamilySearch). The questions immediately arise: how well do I really know my ancestor, if I don't really know the sequences of what happened in his/her life, and am I merely filling genealogical squares to satisfy some perceived goal, or am I really coming to know my ancestors and keep their memories as real people alive?
The example of "Jimmy" in the above genealogical proof standard article is a good example. Questions should begin to arise about what happened between the various conflicting dates in the example - events which may even change what we know about "Great Uncle Jimmy" if we know the actual sequence. Those answers may provide information about why or how certain things happened in his life. It's not just about technical accuracy, it's also about truly knowing them. And it's about not becoming a source of future errors to others who may be less concerned about accuracy.
--Chris
0
