Over the past few years, I have written several blog posts about the problems associated with the green icons, previously the "green arrows" and presently the "green Temple icons." The problems centered around the fact that many of these "available" people were actually duplicates and the ordinances had already been done for a duplicate copy.
As the FamilySearch.org Family Tree matured various checks were put in place to prevent duplication. For example, the green icons shown above show the following message when they are selected:
These green indicators of availability are presently rapidly disappearing. Most of the users of the program who are adding new names to the Family Tree are immediately reserving the names of those they add or find. My experience is that for at least the past year, I can search for a considerable period of time without finding even one green icon and even if I do find some, such as the ones above, there are limitations imposed on their use by me. There are still some available, but to find any usually requires going back further and further on the Family Tree past those parts of the Family Tree that are reliably documented.
This observation certainly does not mean that there is no work left to be done. To the contrary, there are potentially billions of names that could be added to the Family Tree. But focusing on only those that are clearly marked by Family Search and still available and unrestricted will become more and more frustrating. The time when the challenge to "find a name to take to the Temple" involved a series of clicks up and down the Family Tree is rapidly coming to a close.
I have used this analogy before. The Family Tree is like a bank account. You can only withdraw what you put in. Unlike a bank account, however, you cannot borrow for present use and go into debt. There is no untapped source of "names" that we can draw upon. The time has come to begin prospecting for new names through careful, systematic research based on the Record Hints and using the Descendancy View to find candidates.
Here is how it can be done.
Step One: Follow a family line back in time verifying the existence and reasonable accuracy of each generation.
Step Two: Choose an ancestor who was born in the early 1800s or even into the 1700s. If you come to the end of the family line entries in the Family Tree in the 1900s or the 1800s, there is very likely further research that needs to be done with that particular line. It is entirely possible that further progress in any particular family may be limited by the availability of the records, but barring that possibility, there are usually a large number of records available back into the early 1800s. Now, there are dead ends to certain family lines, but this should not be an excuse for failing to focus on other lines. I go by the adage that the exception proves the rule. There are those who are orphans with unknown parents, but this certainly an exception and not the rule.
Step Three: Switch to the remote ancestor's portion of the Family Tree by clicking on the View Tree icon under his or her name on the detail page. See this screenshot.
Clicking on this view will put the person in the center of the pedigree or landscape view. Then switch to the Descendancy View and begin to exam the descendants by generation.
Step Four: Look for the following individuals who are your cousins;
- Couples who have married and have no children
- Families with multiple children who show no spouses
- People who have a blue icon and a purple icon. This usually indicates that they have no sources and yet, sources are suggested by the Record Hints.
Step Five: Research names you find to add family members to your Temple Reservation List.
It is really not quite that simple, but the basic methodology does not change. The idea is to add new people to the Family Tree not merely to do the same people over and over again.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou raise a number of issues. If you like, I will answer them in a blog post, if not, I would be glad to address the issues directly with you.
DeleteI notice your email address posted with your comment, if you like, I will remove the comment and answer you by email.
DeleteThis is the comment that was lost due to the email address issue.
DeleteThis does not need to be public, unless it has general applicability.
We have corresponded about this before, but I am finding that practice does not conform to church teaching.
What brought this subject to the fore, again, for me was your statement, "Then switch to the Descendancy View and begin to exam the descendants by generation." An implication of this statement could be, take your distant ancestor, find all descendants and then add to your Temple Reservation List. Many of my distant ancestors have been sealed, let's assume by their descendants which I accept as a legitimate exercise of their religion, how far forward are you recommending they carry out their religious duty on the descendants of their ancestors?
I have added extensive amounts of information, sources, and documents to FamilySearch Family Tree and I guess my question still is, as a practical matter "is the price of admission for a non-church member to FamilySearch Family Tree that their ancestors and relatives will be sealed in Temple ordinances?
Ric Tobin
Is the price of admission for a non-church member to FamilySearch Family Tree that their ancestors and relatives will be sealed in Temple ordinances?
ReplyDeleteI see the permission is required for persons born within the last 110 years and it is my understanding that church members are supposed to restrict themselves to their relatives, however we are all related in some manner.
What brought this subject to the fore, again, for me was your statement, "Then switch to the Descendancy View and begin to exam the descendants by generation." An implication of this statement could be, take your distant ancestor, find all descendants and then add to your Temple Reservation List. Many of my distant ancestors have been sealed, let's assume by their descendants which I accept as a legitimate exercise of their religion, how far forward are you recommending they carry out their religious duty on the descendants of their ancestors?
Also I have found well meaning people cannot suffer blanks in family data. I cannot see "green Temple icons" to know if my recent ancestors and relatives have been sealed. However I have had the following experiences. My great-great-great grandfather (I understand he does not meet the definition of recent) had an illegitimate daughter. He did not marry the mother. A church member added an estimated marriage date and place. When asked about her source and relation, she stated she was related, but she had 1,000s of relatives and did not know how and the date was added based on common-sense. The point being while probably not related, she thinks she is and if the Temple work has not been done, she or another well-meaning person who is gathering names will insure that it is done. (Another correspondent wrote I am taking 1000s of names to be sealed that I know I am related to, however the names she gathered from my family she was not related to. Her family with the surname lived on another continent and mine had changed their surname from a different surname when they got to this one.)
While it is tangential to this post. A week later "Family Search" entered an estimated marriage date and place, the United States, for the same ancestor mentioned above. The fact that my ancestor had the illegitimate child was a recent finding and posting by me, so I am fairly confident that this was not a newFamilySearch artifact. Is "Family Search" crawling FamilySearch Family Tree to fill in blanks with estimates base on information that is posted on the page?
I am not opposed to people fulfilling their religious duty.
FamilySearch Family Tree is touted as the world's family tree, but it is not the world's family tree if the result is that all those that are entered are sealed in a religious ceremony of the L.D.S. church.
Ric Tobin
Thanks for you insightful comment. I responded to you by email.
DeleteThank you for taking the time to respond by e-mail in a manner that led to my better understanding of the issues involved.
ReplyDelete