FamilySearch Community https://community.familysearch.org/en/ Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:03:12 +0000 en FamilySearch Community Correcting an index does not seem to make any difference https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/152220/correcting-an-index-does-not-seem-to-make-any-difference Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:42:51 +0000 Social Groups Gordon Collett 152220@/en/discussions On this summary: https://www.familysearch.org/service/tree/tree-data/labs/person-scores/K2V3-5N6/summary

Screenshot 2023-10-13 at 7.23.42 AM.png

The first line I've discussed the issue.

The second line brings up an issue regarding spelling. The routine is pulling out the name wrong. It should show høyland, not hoyland, and the routine is not recognizing that Høyland and Høiland are the same name and used interchangeably in the sources for this person.

The third line is due to an indexing error:

Screenshot 2023-10-13 at 7.25.41 AM.png

Screenshot 2023-10-13 at 7.25.59 AM.png

I corrected the error:

Screenshot 2023-10-13 at 7.28.07 AM.png

But that third consistency problem did not go away:

Screenshot 2023-10-13 at 7.23.42 AM.png

no matter how many ways I used to force the page to refresh.

Does the routine only look at the original indexing and none of the corrections that might have been made to an entry?

]]> Include Reason statement being recorded in score. https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/158351/include-reason-statement-being-recorded-in-score Sat, 02 Mar 2024 03:19:59 +0000 Social Groups krlaw 158351@/en/discussions The research process is as follows:

Gather -> Choose -> Find -> Evaluate -> Share

Family Search Family Tree was created by AF, PAF, and other sources. Sources have been attached for a lot of the records. The community has done a great job of gathering and more has and always will need to be done.

The statement from the profile quality states the following:

"This profile is well documented. Consider spending time documenting other profiles."

When this is not correct. In a lot of profiles with "High" we have only gathered, in some cases chosen, and found more record. Completely skipping or providing no evidence that evaluate was done. A lot of profiles are completely skipping the evaluate step to come to a conclusion to share. Evaluation may be done in a single source. But the proof statement or reason statement for the vital information, event, or relationship is never recorded. So how are we to know that evaluate was done?

I think part of a good profile would be to have reason statements for all vitals, other information, and relationships. Perhaps as part of the tool it can link to documentation on how to write a good reason statement. This is especially true when some sources may not agree.

Perhaps link to the following:

]]> Consistent with Sources https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/158770/consistent-with-sources Thu, 07 Mar 2024 19:31:22 +0000 Social Groups normabybee1 158770@/en/discussions Edith Ashby Reid in household of Wesley Alexander Reid, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church Census Records (Worldwide), 1914-1960" has a date of 1922 for birth, which is different from 23 December 1911.

In the source it lists her date of birth as 1912, not 1922 as stated above. Since those are generally estimated dates it is not inconsistent.

This person's sex does not match the information found on Bryant H Ashby, "United States Census, 1920".

Name Edith Ashby Sex Female

It is consistent. Do you need to know these things or should I simply dismiss it?

]]> Algorithm updates coming soon https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/159117/algorithm-updates-coming-soon Wed, 13 Mar 2024 03:18:16 +0000 Social Groups roberthparker3 159117@/en/discussions Our team has been hard at work and have a few algorithm tweaks we will plan to release tomorrow March 13th:

  • No longer raise an issue when males father a child later in life
  • Bug fix around source comparison when FamilySearch genealogies are used as a source
  • Bug fixes around dismissing issues (dismissing one issue would sometimes dismiss multiple issues)
  • Bug fix allowing scoring of persons born in British Colonial America between 1800 and 1867
  • Important code refactors to support future functionality.

One unhappy side effect of this upcoming update is that some of the issues you have dismissed will re-appear. We are hopeful that we won't have to inconvenience you with this problem again.

Thanks for everyone's feedback so far. We continue to work on improving the algorithms and the interface.

]]> What is the routine suggesting we do? https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/152330/what-is-the-routine-suggesting-we-do Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:42:39 +0000 Social Groups Gordon Collett 152330@/en/discussions My great-grandmother has nineteen sources tagged to her birth information by various users.

  • Eight have her correct birth date.
  • Two are indexed sources that do not include a birth date.
  • Five of them are user created sources and so do not show a birth date.
  • One of them is apparently close enough that it does not trigger a flag.
  • Three of them disagree with her actual birth date so are flagged as inconsistencies.

Is the routine suggesting I untag those last three sources? I would suggest it would be better to leave them tagged but be able to dismiss them.

]]> Visibility via APIs https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/158297/visibility-via-apis Fri, 01 Mar 2024 14:26:11 +0000 Social Groups MandyShaw1 158297@/en/discussions Is there a plan to add these scores to the APIs so that third party products can show them, take them into account when ranking matches, etc.?

]]> Data Is Conflict https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/158817/data-is-conflict Fri, 08 Mar 2024 18:18:13 +0000 Social Groups Mark Peoples 158817@/en/discussions This seems like a great recourse, it was very intuitive to use and the suggestions given for improving the information about the individual were surprisingly detailed, e.g., missing a death month. Well done! However one surprise was when I looked at the information about the difference in data and it identified the age of the individual in relation to the age of the children. The surprise was that this was for father child relationships - is this actually necessary when there is not a biological restriction to the age at which men can father children? This was the case with this person, there are supporting sources that his age and the age of his children are all correct.

https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/9KDT-BNM

image.png

Kind regards,

Mark

]]> Error in description of issue https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/158243/error-in-description-of-issue Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:13:25 +0000 Social Groups Áine.ní.Donnghaile 158243@/en/discussions On PID 9J27-DJS for my great grandfather, the error is shown as a difference in FIRST name, when the difference is poor spelling by the census enumerator on the SURNAME:

image.png


]]> Performance of screens - slowness and Ancestor record not displaying https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/158416/performance-of-screens-slowness-and-ancestor-record-not-displaying Sun, 03 Mar 2024 04:57:45 +0000 Social Groups byublue 158416@/en/discussions I went to my ancestors (grand parents ) and clicked on person from both the fan chart and the landscape views. Out of the 4 ancestors that I tried , only one of them actually displayed their Person Details Page. The page would just be blank and I could not see any details about the person, or any of the menu items. I waited to see if the page would display and it did not. I tried to refresh the browser and it did not display. I tried going back and selecting the person again and still did not display, but the 1 ancestor that did, always displayed. I have to go back and disable the lab in order to see my ancestors' details again.

]]> Lack of Sources for first 45-50 years of persons life should decrease the score https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/158363/lack-of-sources-for-first-45-50-years-of-persons-life-should-decrease-the-score Sat, 02 Mar 2024 13:41:01 +0000 Social Groups M.H. Kecko 158363@/en/discussions I have a g-g-grandfather whom I have been trying to find documentation on for his first 45--50 years of life. Anything that actually proves who his parents are and actual place of birth. In the new Profile Score feature he is given a HIGH score which I think is wrong. He was born in 1808-1809 and died in 1891, yet his 'sources' only begin in 1860. None of the sources actually prove his parentage, how can this profile receive a HIGH score?

Benanuel Salisbury, 1809 – 1 April 1891, KJPB-9T9

]]>