Family Group tree separate from the public tree
Will there be an option down the track for the Tree created in family groups to be private/separate from the public tree for deceased persons?
My local family history consultant has a tree she is populating/creating in a separate programme while she verifies relationships. She is wanting to be able to do that in familysearch in a private group before the information is linked to a public tree. She is wanting to simplify how many websites she is using to construct trees and keep it in one platform.
She would then like a link function between the family group tree and the public tree to instruct the webiste to transfer names and attached information over like it exists between familysearch and Ancestry.
So that would mean there is a separate software wall between a family group tree and the public tree.
コメント
-
There is no separation of deceased individuals in Family Group Trees. All deceased individuals that appear in Family Group Trees are also visible by the same PID in the main FamilySearch Tree.
She could upload her tree in the the Genealogies section and compare it there or as a member of the Church, she can link her FamilySearch account with an Ancestry.com account and keep her work there and use the FamilySearch button to sync records between her tree in Ancestry and the FamilySearch Tree.
0 -
Hello Anne,
Yes we understand at the moment that there is no separation between deceased individuals in Family Group trees and the public tree.
She was wondering whether Family Search may consider down the track to separate the 2 trees down the track?
This query was nothing to do with Ancestry, I was just providing an example of how linking between sites occurs.
I believe people were hoping that the Private family group tree would be a separate entity from the public tree. For example, people have expressed that they have a verified pedigree and then someone has come in and upset the tree, deleting families, individuals etc and they've had to spend a lot of time re-creating a well sourced tree.
0 -
No. That is not the intent for Family Group Trees. See Todd Powell's comment here.
0
