Is there a way to merge duplicate sources? I've come across sources that have been retired because t

EricShelton

Is there a way to merge duplicate sources? I've come across sources that have been retired because they are duplicates, so I know it can be done.

Similarly, it would be nice to have retired records flagged in the list of sources for a person's record.

Brett .

@EricShelton EricShelton​ 

.

Eric

.

Short Answer: 'No'; as, there is NO need to do such.

.

Some of "Sources" are "Indexings" of the SAME reference (eg. "Document"); but, in fact, in most cases, they are NOT, what you might say, EXACT "Duplicates"; as, they have totally "Different" URLs.

.

Many references (eg. "Documents") have been "Indexed" MORE than once not only by 'FamilySearch'; but, ALSO by other websites (eg. "Ancestry.com"; "FindMyPast.co.uk"; etc), which ALSO now appear in the Records of 'FamilySearch'; and, hence, there is MORE than one "Source" for the same reference (eg. "Document").

.

The other thing that must be noted is that the various "Indexings" DO NOT always include the EXACT same information for the same reference (eg. "Document").

.

Some "Indexings" have ALL the information/details on the reference (eg. "Document").

.

Whereas, some "Indexings" ONLY have certain parts of the information/details on the reference (eg. "Document").

.

Due to aforementioned, it would NOT be advisable (or, advantageous) to "Merge"/"Combine" SIMILAR "Sources" (ie. being DIFFERENT "Indexings") of the same reference (eg. "Document").

.

Now ...

That said ...

.

The next part of my answer is not directed towards you personally, it is just my thoughts ...

.

I DO NOT understand why so many Users/Patrons are concerned about having TOO many "Sources" attached, whether or not, they be SIMILAR "Sources" (ie. being DIFFERENT "Indexings") of the same reference (eg. "Document").

.

As far as I am concerned ... 'the more, the merrier' ... so to speak ...

.

Quite a number of my Ancestors have many "Sources" (between 40+ and 70+).

.

I like to have as MANY "Sources" as possible attached to those individuals/persons (and, "Couples") in my "Ancestral" lines in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' to PROVE that they REALLY did EXIST, to give them some 'flesh and bones', so to speak.

.

And, most IMPORTANTLY, the "Sources" provide EVIDENCE that can be used to SUPPORT the RESAONS why certain details/information/fields are recorded.

.

They can be used in any (lets say) "Concerns" that may arise with another User/Patron; especially, when the other User/Patron can supply NO "Sources".

.

Some Users/Patrons simply go on what has been passed down through the Family 'grapevine', without researching or obtaining the facts and "Sources".

.

Of course, there are some Users/Patrons who like (ie. prefer) to look at Genealogy/Family History through 'rose coloured glasses'.

.

But, you CANNOT 'whitewash' HISTORY, 'it is what it is' ...

.

Please DO NOT concern oneself with SIMILAR "Sources" (ie. being DIFFERENT "Indexings") of the same reference (eg. "Document") - just "Attach" then.

.

And, 'Yes', due to the various "Changes" and "Upgrades" to 'FamilySearch' over the years, there are SOME "Sources", that are ALREADY attached, that are the SAME "Source" (with the same URL) ...

.

This DOES NOT happens much any more ...

.

Personally, I consider a "Source" that is attached that is a real "Duplicate" (ie. attached twice) to be an added BONUS.

.

Most times such have been attached at DIFFERENT times.

.

Often the one that was ORIGINALLY attached (by date) had a very old URL, that has been updated with the NEW version of the URL.

.

The NEW "Source" version was generally attached BEFORE the ORIGINAL "Source" version had its URL updated.

.

Certainly NOTHING to be concerned about - as I suggested, 'the more, the merrier'.

.

I am certain other Users/Patrons will have a different slant on this matter than I do ...

.

What really disappoints me is that 'FamilySearch', has been; and, is, "RETIRING", MANY of the ORIGINAL "Sources" that are (were) ALREADY attached (ie. attached in the FIRST instance) in favour of the later (ie. NEW version) of a "Source" (often from another, later, "Indexing") that are attached LATER - personally, I think this is WRONG - WHY not just leave BOTH versions.

.

MANY of the ORIGINAL "Sources" that I attached, YEARS ago, with due diligence; and, in good faith, have been summarily "Retired", in favour of later ones - just WRONG.

.

Remember ...

.

Just my thoughts.

.

Brett

.

John Dyson KS

Brett, although I generally agree that the more the merrier as long as all sources actually pertain to the principal, I do wish that there was a way whereby I could sort sources. For instance, in my British history, I may have four sources for the same christening. For a family with 12 children, each parent may have 48 sources showing the 12 children. And there may be five sets of censuses covering 50 years. Now, I want to look at the parents, and not necessarily their children, to see if I can figure out whether I have conflated two families. It would be nice within the source for a principal to be able to temporarily hide all christenings, for example, or all childrens' marriages where the parents are listed, but are not primary sources for the parents. With 50+ sources all visible at once, it is hard to get a picture. The time line (with the map) then helps analyze the family, but the sources is often a better visual for me, at least if I can see the pertinent sources and temporarily mask the impertinent duplicate sources.

CynthiaVanDam

John Dyson,

This is only a partial help. You can create sources such as births for family A. Marriages of the children of Family B. Just click the Create a Source button to create a source with whatever title you want. Then drag the sources under the appropriate titled source.

 

I know that doesn't really solve your problem, but it might help some.

Brett .

@John Dyson KS​ 

.

John

.

There IS a way to you can SORT the "Sources" in an individual's/person's "Sources" 'Tab' ... 

.

I do it ALL the time ...

.

But ...

That said ...

.

It is NOT automatic; and, takes some work ... a manual process

.

Firstly ...

.

I NEVER use the "Chronological Order".

I ALWAYS use the "Custom Order".

.

Secondly ...

.

I ALWAYS have, the earliest dated "Source" at the BOTTOM of the "Sources" 'Tab'; the latest sated "Source" at the TOP of the "Sources" 'Tab'; and, with ALL the other "Sources" in-between, from earliest to latest (ie. Ascending, upwards from the bottom).

.

The reason being, is that; as, "Sources" are added later (either, by myself; or, another User/Patron), they are always placed (appear) at the TOP of the "Sources" 'Tab', in/with the 'Custom Order'; and, thus, very easy to "Move" into the correct place in the ORDER.

.

Thirdly, 

.

For:

.

(1) the EXACT Same (ie. "Dupliacte") "Sources"

.

[ which can happen through "Merging"/"Combining", when the "Source" was on one individual/person was attached by 'FamilySearch' (usually, dated 2014); and, when the "Source" on the other individual/person was attached by a "User"/Patron" (some times, pre.2014; or after) ]

.

(2) Different "Indexings" of the same Record

.

[ which can be by, 'FamilySearch'; and/or, another Website ]

.  

I group the SAME or Similar "Sources" together; and, at the END of the Title for each, add, Reference "x" of "n", depending how many are the same/similar.

.

Generally it is only x2; but, often x4, sometimes more, I have had up to x6 or more.

.

And, some have slightly different "Titles" (for example); as, "England, Christenings"; as, opposed to, "Parish Registers, Baptism, England" - they may relate to the same Record; but, are slightly different - NOT exactly the same.

.

But, I have 'Grouped' them together as one; but, not always.

.

Been there, done that ... still do ...

.

As I said, I have MANY Ancestors/Family with between 40+ and 70+ "Sources" attached ...

.

A Family of ONLY x12 Children, I have had a number with x16+ Children (ie. a number of Children who died as infants).

.

On many occasions, I have had to separate two (x2) Families that were INCORRECTLY joined together into one, by other Users/Patrons.

.

One that my (late) "Father-in-Law" did, took me x2 whole Weeks to SORT out - I had the benefit of, more; and, better quality, Records (and, Images), than he did.

.

[ But, he did that a number of years ago; BEFORE, we has such great access to, more; and, better quality, Records (and, Images); and, it was an easy mistake to make; BECAUSE, most of the Family members had the same names; and, were in/from the same locality, close by - so much easier for me, of late ].

.

The best we found, was when we spent about x6+ Months in County Archives (England; Scotland; and, Wales) - looking through all the "Parish Registers" (eg. Hard-Copies; Books; Fiche; Film; etc), where we could 'See' the Families evolve - the Births/Christening; the Marriages; the Deaths; and, then follow through with the later generations - seeing them, the line, evolve. 

.

Personally, I just DO NOT understand WHY so many Users/Patrons are so concerned about having TOO many "Sources" attached, whether or not, they be SIMILAR "Sources" (ie. being DIFFERENT "Indexings") of the same reference (eg. "Document") - more 'Flesh on the Bones', as far as I am concerned.

.

Personally, in this day and age, too many of the younger generation want to RUSH through their Genealogy / Family History, NOT bothering to do ALL the necessary Research ('hard work') and gather EVERTHING they can - everyone is in too much of a hurry; as, it is so much easier now, with so many more Records, now available on-line.  

.

Genealogy / Family History, is a "Marathon", NOT a "Sprint".

.

And, I am more concerned with QIALITY, rather than "Quantity".

[ Hence, why I dislike, "Indexing, "Competitions"; and, "Statistics" ... ]

.

Just my thoughts.

.

Brett

.

John Dyson KS

Brett, thanks for this info on custom ordering sources. I will have to try this​ as I was only aware of the chronological ordering. Do you ever rename the sources? I am hesitant to rename sources other people have posted, but I can see a benefit in renaming, such as, Marriage of son George Albert or Christening of daughter Phobe Anne.

Paul W

Brett, you state (as in the past):

 

"I DO NOT understand why so many Users/Patrons are concerned about having TOO many "Sources" attached, whether or not, they be SIMILAR "Sources" (ie. being DIFFERENT "Indexings") of the same reference (eg. "Document")."

 

Simple answer: CLUTTER. Many of these "sources" are truly identical in nature and content and only exist due to FamilySearch not keeping adequate records to ensure, say, identical records (just different film number) were not indexed twice, or more. What a waste of time when other, previously unavailable material could have been indexed by hard-working volunteers instead.

Brett .

@John Dyson KS​ 

.

John

.

The "Custom Order" is the way to go ...

.

I see the "Chronological Order" as the easy way out; and, do not like it; as, some (perhaps, many) "Sources" DO NOT have a 'Date" in that 'left-hand-side' date field (used to do the chronological ordering) - and, that even includes some 'FamilySearch' "Sources". Plus, "Sources" with ONLY a 'Year'; as opposed to, a 'Day, Month, Year' or just a 'Month, Year', DO NOT necessarily Sort chronologically, in the right place. I like to have more 'control' over where a "Source" should 'fit' into the order. But, that is just me.

.

'Yes', to some degree, I do "Change" the "Tile" of "Sources"; but, only, to a very minor degree ...

.

That said ...

.

Well, I DO NOT really change the basic 'Construct' of the "Tile" ...

.

I DO NOT make "Changes" to the ORIGINAL wording of the "Title".

.

I ONLY really "Add", both, "Prefixes"; and, "Suffixes", to the basic 'Construct', of the "Title", sometimes BOTH; and, those, "Prefixes"; and, "Suffixes", are ALWAYS "Enclosed by (usually) "Square Brackets" ( ie. "[ ]"), to distinguish them, from the actual "Title".

.

Those, "Prefixes"; and, "Suffixes", are usually points not covered in the "Title"; and/or, those references (eg. Transcription Error; Retired Record; Records Extraction; Reference "x" of "n"; SAME as Reference 1 = for the EXACT Same "Duplicates"; Attached First; Attached later; ETC; Etc; etc)

.

Not only for that ("Sources"); but, for many things (eg. "Reason Statements"; "Other Information"; Notes"; "Discussions"; ETC; Etc; etc) I have a LOT of Basic PROFORMA "Text" Files, WITHOUT the details of the individual(s)/person(s); dates; places; Etc; Etc; etc. This saves a LOT of time, I just "Copy" and "Paste"; and, then "Fill-In" the "Blanks" (ie. the "x's") with the particular individual(s)/person(s); dates; places; Etc; Etc; etc.

.

I hope this helps.

.

Brett

.

ps: I have been doing (at) this for a very long time ...

.

M G Thomsen

One of the best ways to get support / feedback from experienced users, product owners and engineers is FamilySearch GetSatisfaction site: https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch

If you don’t get a response there could contact Brian Jensen <JensenBL@familysearch.org>

who was over merging duplicate sources.

When I find a duplicated source that keeps coming up in hints, I report it and it does get resolved.

EricShelton

Thank you! This finally answered the question that was asked.

Paul W

The first link provided is no longer active, as it has been replaced by the "Ideas" section at https://community.familysearch.org/s/idea/Idea/Default.

 

Incidentally, the retired source / record CAN sometimes be identified in the Sources section of individual IDs. For example, I have found the date inserted for a census record disappears for a retired record, whereas the "active" one still retains the date.

 

One piece of advice: do not detach a retired record. I have found the retired record to be reactivated in rare cases and the one that originally replaced it to then be retired itself!