www.familysearch.org
Guess who I found in my family line!
의견
-
Cool right!
0 -
@Avan Watts
.
'Yes'.
Some of us are lucky enough to have extensive "Ancestral" lines in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' ...
.
FYI
.
Although, it can show some great immediate/close-knit relationships, 'FamilySearch' is not (yet) noted for "Digging" (pun intended) deep, into one's "Ancestral" lines; and, is limited ...
.
As an aside ...
.
Just a thought ...
.
IF, you have not already; THEN, ...
.
You can always try (BYU) "RelativeFinder".
.
(BYU) "RelativeFinder" digs (pun intended) a lot DEEPER in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', than 'FamilySearch' does.
.
(BYU) "RelativeFinder" is one of the "Third Party" Applications that "Certified" to work with "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
BYU = Brigham Young University, in Provo, Utah, USA (ie. the Church University).
.
From the "Family History Technology Laboratory", of the "Computer Science" Department.
.
Here is direct link to "RelativeFibder"
https://www.relativefinder.org/#/main
.
.Give it a go ...
.
There are many 'Bells and Whistles' that you might find useful in "RelativeFinder".
.
Magic.
.
Enjoy.
.
I hope this helps.
.
Brett
.
ps: That Record for "Uther Pendragon King of the Britains" ( 440 to 496 ) is only a recently NEWLY "Created" record, with NO "Sources" attached.
.
pps: That record was only created in 2019; and, was the "Surviving" Record of an individual/person that created a year earlier (2018).
.
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/GMNM-4P9
.
I prefer to make the OLDER records in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' the "Surviving" record, not the Newer ( ie. Later / more recent ) records - but, that is just me.
.
0 -
When we make a connection like that we do need to do our research. Sadly, there is still a lot of misinformation on Familysearch. Someone on Familysearch attached a line of Danish kings to my husband's line and it was all very exciting, and amusing, until I stopped and thought it through. Following the line back down I found that someone had made an assumption on one of the ancestors that wasn't true and was easily misproven. According to Familysearch I'm related to the Queen through her mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon but I have my doubts as Burke's Peerage seems to point in another direction.
*Edit* Many hours later and after extensive research to make sure I was correct, I finally found proof that I'm not related to the Queen. Someone had entered an incorrect a birth date to fit in with the assumption that the royal line came through the 4th wife of a Viscount instead of the 3rd wife. Just waiting for RelativeFinder to catch up now.
0 -
I wish there was a Moderator who would remove it all , and members should only be able to add ancestors when they have accurate proven sources . have a look at this about the Mythical King Arthur ....https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/GS8L-SQP
0 -
Am I really supposed to believe that FamilySearch takes genealogy seriously when you look at stuff like this? Or is it just more numbers on the counters to show how good FamilyTree is?
Shakes head slowly and sadly in disgust....
0 -
It isn't the fault of FamilySearch, it's a problem caused by people desperate to find that they are related to royalty. All we can do is do the research, provide proof and put a watch on the records. I do think that FamilySearch should find a way to block changes that have been proven without doubt though, especially with nobility.
0 -
Agree totally with your desire to see FS find some sort of way to inhibit this stuff. One possibility might be to stop people entering medieval profiles without being members of some specialist community. Moderators with the power to delete garbage are another.
Sadly FS doesn't seem inclined to even think about it, which is why I tend to despair at times.
0 -
I would quite happily volunteer to remove it all as it has no place in real History or our Family Tree .
0 -
Delete person is unavailable despite the record saying he was born before both parents. I guess it's a job for Familysearch Support.
0 -
As I understand it, Delete Person is only available to the person who created the profile and then only until - err, something. Either the passage of time, or until someone else updates the profile. Generally speaking that's fair enough because it avoids the continuing deletion of profiles by people who won't be told that yes this person really existed and no it's not your line anyway....
I suspect that FS Support won't be in the slightest bit interested in that profile for that particular King Arthur - they'll just tell you that you can amend it yourself.
If it really is something that you want to fix, you could try removing the relationship between that Arthur and his parents. I'm sure there are plenty of Uther Pendragon profiles around that you could substitute as a father.
But you're on a Never-Ending Story (reference to fantasy book deliberate) if you want to get involved - Aiden of Dal Riata (the current father) seems like he might very well have been real and one of his (possibly real) sons was named Artur. Which is why, since there was obviously only one person in the British Isles named Arthur between the Romans and the Normans, people have mixed up Artur and King Arthur - despite needing a TARDIS to travel in time. So you would need to ponder whether or not you were leaving Artur in place as well as removing King Arthur. Oh, and did I mention Morgan le Fay?
Somebody has tried to correct Aiden of Dal Riata because there are notes in his Change Log of "Removed reference to Uther Pendragon and King Arthur because there is no data to support this." Good try whoever that was but...
Look at it this way - at least with children born before they were, it is obvious that it's a fantasy.
0 -
I put a comment in the life sketch, amended it and then deleted it. I'm tempted to write something in there again but I've already been like the kid poking the party balloons with a pin in the last 24 hours so I've decided to leave it alone. If any of my grandsons mention the excitement with their mums side of the family again I'll gently tell them, it will be a good lesson about research now they are older. I'm sure there is hilarity in the heavens about some of the things that go on with Familysearch lol.
0 -
For your info - seems like I was overly cynical about FS' commitment.
I found a profile in FS FT for Donald Duck, with parents Mr & Mrs Yogi Bear. When I mentioned this on another message board, the FS Data Admin team (a) read that post (good!) and (b) deleted or otherwise terminated the profile (even better!) They advised that "The best way to alert us to this type of data is to use the Report Abuse feature on the person page. Our data administration team can take care of these and contact the contributor as needed."
So thanks go to that team today, and if any of you do find similar garbage, you know what to do in future.
The warning by the way is that, with some characters, it is not clear whether they are real or fictional or a bit of both - so don't expect automatic agreement!
0 -
Well that's Quackers ,I mean how can a Bear have a duck as a child ....... unbearleavable
Thanks for that Adrian can't wait to rid the Tree of many more Gobbledegooks added by Nincompooks .
LOl you made my day
Regards Pam
0 -
Well I thought I would test the Report Abuse feature ,I came across someone who had put Father Christmas and had him with Mary Berry the famous UK Cook as his wife ,they have a photo of her on the profile , https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/GMX7-PTR
I just received an email from FS as follows Thank you for contacting FamilySearch Support and bringing your concern to our attention.
We have received a complaint about abusive behaviour in Family Tree. Please note that adding erroneous information on Family Tree (or: adding a non-related person to Family Tree; etc.) as such does not constitute abusive behaviour.
Please note, that only the following are considered abuse in Family Tree:
- Offensive or abusive language or content
- Information that might harm or embarrass living relatives
- Links to external web pages with inappropriate content
- Solicitations for businesses or research services
- Harassment
- Political statement
- Copyright infringement
So basically anything goes even the Devil https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/L5TZ-16T
Whats the point ,I may take my Tree down as I for one do not want to be associated with the rest of the garbage that is on there look at this innocent one but look at the dates the mind boggles https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LYFS-G42 look at who changed some of the dates ,so is happening within FS
Befuddled or what
0 -
That's appalling! My friend lost his wife last December and he tried to add a wedding photo where he was kissing her. FS don't allow photos of people kissing, even when they are married. Some of the rules are crazy. Sadly, as members of the church we need to use FamilySearch in order to do our temple work so I don't consider taking our trees down to be an option. I've deleted the relationship and reported the Mary Berry submission as abuse. I also applied to change her status from dead to living and was asked for proof.
0 -
Madness for sure and it will only get worse ,they need to put a stop to all the peculiarities.
They need another category on the list that covers it ie Fraudulent Fabricated Pedigrees
0 -
I guess that all we can do if Familysearch don't remove these pranks is to reassign the record by changing the names and dates. No wonder FamilySearch is seen as a joke in some areas.
0 -
Good Idea ,hmmmmmmm
0
