sources
Some of my ancestors have many sources, and some the same sources are listed twice. Is there a way to merge the sources or do I detach the duplicates? Also, it seems that FamilySearch to giving me hints to sources that are already attached, is that true or am I missing something?
答え
-
@Tanya Kanzig Rabren
.
Tanya
.
Quite a number of my Ancestors have many "Sources" (between 40+ and 70+).
.
And, 'Yes', some of those "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").
.
'NO', you definitely DO NOT "Detach" the SIMILAR "Sources" (ie. being DIFFERENT "Indexings") of the same reference (eg. "Document").
.
- IF, you do so; THEN, they will just reappear as "Hints", AGAIN (&, again; &, again ...).
.
- And, you should NOT / NEVER indicate that they are NOT a "Match".
.
- Doing so would WEAKEN the integrity of the "Hinting" Systems; as, they ARE, in fact, a "Match".
.
It DOES NOT seem like 'FamilySearch' is giving us "Hints" for "Sources" that are already "Attached" - as these OTHER (Similar) "Sources" have NOT been "Attached"; hence, why you are getting them as additional "Hints".
.
It is NOT that you are missing something, it is that, like many Users/Patrons, the aforementioned has not been explained to you.
.
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 ...
.
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 ...
.
Remember ...
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
ps: 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.
.
pps: 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.
.
0 -
Thank you. For clearing that up for me. I have not detached anything; I wanted to ask first.
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 a new member, I worry about "messing up" someone's tree, but also I was thinking, "It is already there, I do not need it again."
0 -
@Tanya Kanzig Rabren
.
Tanya
.
I totally get where you are coming from.
.
Best advice: Just add EVERYTHING; including, similar (all-be-it the same) "Sources".
.
The more, the merrier ...
.
And, 'Yes', taking care is very important; as, one can certainly "Mess" things up in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', if one is not careful.
.
Brett
.
ps:
.
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'.
.
"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'.
.
0 -
Unfortunately, there are very many duplicated source entries (e.g., Minnesota Death Records). Although some appear to be from exactly the same source, you may find that more fields from the original record were indexed on one than another. When I have asked FamilySearch about the duplicates, they have recommended that you enter them all, which I have been doing, as annoying as that may be.
0 -
I've been helping with indexing and then came across this same issue with a tree I was working on so I asked my indexing people. I told them I had found a WW1 record that was indexed twice. There were 2 photos done so that makes sense since no one would ever know that was there twice. Why was it there twice? I was told because the "filmers" sometimes go back through and refilm to get better quality pictures. The end result is the duplicates. One remedy is to go back to the group that did the indexing. They can have the authority to remove the duplicate. So yeah like everyone else I put the source in twice reluctantly.
0
