I'm new to this and found family info on another persons and tagged that info to my tree not realizi
답변들
-
Cindy,
Welcome to the FanilySearch Community.
The group where you posted your question, Indexing Chat, is focused on the process of indexing records. Your question sounds more like a question about Family Tree. There is a group @FamilySearch Family Tree that focuses on that area of FamilySearch (since I have tagged that group this response will appear in that group). It is highly likely that some in that group will be better equipped to help you with your question.
0 -
@CindyMullin1 CindyMullin1
.
Cindy
.
DO NOT panic ...
.
Just "Delete"/"Remove" the 'link' to that incorrect individual/person.
.
It depends on whether it is in, a "Couple" Relationship; or, a "Parent-Child" Relationship, on how you do such.
.
.
Here are some "Knowledge Articles" in 'FamilySearch':
.
A person in Family Tree has the wrong spouse
https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/a-person-in-family-tree-has-the-wrong-spouse
.
How do I correct parent-child relationships in Family Tree?
.
I hope this helps.
.
Brett
.
0 -
I think I did not explain this well. Nadine Martin has her own tree of the Ducharmes. I saw she has the same Ducharme clan as me. So I tagged what she has onto my tree not realizing that if I change something it also changes the info on her tree. How do I I Un tag from her and manually put Ducharme clan into my own tree
0 -
Oh and thank you for your help
0 -
Thank you for your help Brett
0 -
@CindyMullin1 CindyMullin1
.
Cindy
.
I am still confused ...
.
When you say " ... Nadine Martin has her own tree of the Ducharmes ...":
Where, are you referring to,
▬ Individuals/Persons in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'?
▬ The (seperate) "Pedigrees" in the "Genealogies" Part of 'FamilySearch'?
OR, with the reference to "Tag" (eg. "Tagged"; "Tagging"; etc)
▬ "Memories" attached to individuals/persons in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'?
.
Brett
.
0 -
CindyMullin1,
I think that the thing causing some confusion here is that you are making references to "your tree" and that "Nadine Martin has her own tree".
In the FamilySearch FamilyTree database there is only ONE tree and it is owned by FamilySearch. We are all allowed to contribute to and improve that one tree. But NOBODY has their own private tree the way they do in other sites like Ancestry or MyHeritage. The FamilySearch FamilyTree (FSFT) is totally different in that it is a single shared tree. If you change anything in it, everyone else with an account on FS will see it.
So your question sounds more like you are talking about an account in Ancestry.com or something. The terminology of "your tree" or "her tree" usually makes no sense when discussing the FSFT. That's why folks here are a bit confused with your question.
0 -
Well there’s my confusion answered. I thought each persons account and Tree were their own. I wasn’t aware that we are all working off one tree. Thanks for clearing that up.
0 -
Thank you Brett , Jeff wisemen explained to me we are all working off one tree, not each person having their own.
0 -
That's right. But remember that any person records that you create that are LIVING persons (including the record of yourself), are kept in your personal "Private Space". They can not be seen or touched by anyone else with accounts on the system. Those types of records are truly "your records". When displayed on the screen they show up with a yellow banner identifying them as Living persons.
This image sort of illustrates this:
Notice how FS uses the term "Your Tree" in a way that is kind of ambiguous. This is a common thing that people misunderstand about the FSFT. I wish that FS could make it more obvious for folks just starting here as this is a very common misunderstanding.
Also, now understanding the single shared tree concept, you might also be able to see that when FS talks about uploading a GEDCOM file, that is ALSO something that gets massively misunderstood. Confusion around these two points occurs repeatedly.
0 -
CindyMullin1, "I wasn't aware that we are all working off one tree"
To help FamilySearch improve, how could that fact have been communicated more effectively to you in the beginning?
0 -
I think the way Jeff explained it made sense to me, however, it doesn’t make sense why people cannot each have their own tree to work on. My reasoning to that is I have found mistakes on some other persons tree and I know I have the right info. So I guess having the same sharing tree doesn’t make sense. Yes I know it’s not ancestory. com
0 -
Chas,
There are many ways that this could be accomplished. Since there are only 2 or three concepts that are repeatedly missed by folks, a very short and terse message could handle it very nicely.
Over 6 months ago I provided one suggestion for how to handle this and some other related issues in the GetSatisfaction feedback forum topic:
There are some that don't want an extra click of the mouse during logins, but I think that the number of confused users that would be mitigated would be worth it.
0 -
CindyMullin1,
In fact, for the theological purposes of the Church, having the shared tree is genius. It allows the most number of names to be collected in the most accurate way in the fastest manner possible.
When your GGG Grandfather's record is recorded in the FSFT, there will be MANY patrons like yourself (both descendants and kindred relationships) that will have interest in it. With all of those eyes on the one record, time is not wasted in maintaining slightly different "duplicates" elsewhere in people's own private trees that may or may not ever be copied to the single shared tree.
So when you see data that someone else has entered that appears at first to be incorrect, this is how you would handle it:
- First examine all existing sources, notes, discussions, etc. related to that data that are already in the person's profile. Confirm whether or not the value that is recorded is logically viable given all those attached records and reasons.
- Examine all of the NEW sources, notes, or discussions, etc. that YOU have relative to that same existing data. Confirm that the new value that you think should be there is justified when considered against ALL of the pre-existing documentation as well as anything new that you are bringing to the profile.
- Based on the above, decide whether or not changing the existing value to something different is justified by all of the documentation available. If it is, then change the value of the data and enter a reason for the change referencing any new sources that you've added.
The issue is that when you make any change in the tree, you need to provide evidence in the form of sources, notes, discussions, etc. to justify the change that you've made.
For example, say a person record has the 1900 US Census attached as a source. Let's say the Census shows the birthdate of the person as being in May 1825. Because of this, May 1825 has been entered in the person record as the birth date.
But now let's say that you find an Ohio County birth registry that shows that person as being born on March 1820. This record is likely to be more accurate than the 1900 Census. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which seniors back in those days would frequently forget when they were actually born! In any event, you would go ahead and change the birthdate recorded in the person record to March 1820, you would attach the Birth registry with this information to the source list of the person (tagged to the birth date), and then when making the change, you could fill the "Reason this information is correct" box with text something like the following: "Month and year taken from Ohio County Births Registry 1792-1890. This is considered more likely to be accurate than the date of May 1825 as shown in the 1900 US Census"
Obviously, if your justification for change is not as good as the justification that is already recorded against the pre-existing data, then obviously you might need to reconsider the accuracy of your conclusions.
Anyone entering data for vitals on a record without any sources, notes, or other justification should fully expect someone else coming along and changing the data they entered into something else.
"GEDCOM file" or "Ancestry trees" are NOT legitimate sources. They cannot be traced or verified. Having these listed as "Reasons" is the same as having no reasons at all.
"My Great Aunt Mildred Smith verbally gave these dates to me in October 1996" *IS* a legitimate source, although it may not be as reliable as digital images of paper documents.
If this approach is always used, every time a piece of data is changed, the record becomes more accurate.
There is a problem with inexperienced users sometimes going in and just changing a piece of data due to a source that they found without first examining all of the other documentation already attached. Frequently records that are the results of decades of solid research get blown away by someone basing changes on only what a single grandparent that disagrees with it all has told them.
You can also run into the situation where you change a value and accompany it with loads of sources just to have someone comeback in and change it back to the original incorrect value without providing any justification at all. In fact if you message them asking why they feel the value you had there was wrong, they frequently will not reply.
So there can be social issues with some folks being real stinkers about things, but normally if you record all the justification for values you are entering, they will stay the the same unless someone finds a reason that you may have made a mistake (I've had that happen and was appreciative of the contribution made by the person correcting my mistake)
So anyway, there is essentially a large "team" of your relatives that are currently working on the same records that you are, which SHOULD work better for achieving an accurate tree.
0 -
Wow thank you for the explanation to how this works very informative, just made my life easier. Thanks again. I’m sure I will have more questions down the road.
0
