Posts
Note: Please read the comments to this post. They help explain the issues involved with the Family Tree.
It is historically impossible for this person to exist. The first European settlers did not arrive in what is now Rhode Island until 1636 and the other places mentioned did not exist until well into the 1700s. However, under the present restrictions of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, I cannot delete this person. He is a bugaboo. I could try to merge him with someone, but who? What is even more annoying is that this person has "temple ordinances" available. The answer to the question in the title of this post seems to be a resounding no.
The tragedy of the situation is that this non-existent person and the many, many others like him also named William Tanner are like a smoke screen preventing me from making any real progress in extending my verified Tanner ancestral line. The problem is that unknowing people keep attaching this entry and others like it to my verified family line. If I try to merge all these "duplicates" I will be making the same mistake all the other contributors are making in assuming that there is only one William Tanner in Rhode Island in the 1600s and 1700s.
If I did decide to merge these obviously wrong entries, I would end up with one huge wrong mega-person who would still get wrongly added into my ancestral line. I suspect that every former IOUS (individual of unusual size) in the Family Tree is now fully represented by a cloud of unmanageable duplicates.
Any reasonable and logical suggestions would be appreciated.
What record is this? I can't find it in Family Tree and can't give suggestions without looking at the record.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I am trying to find out what to do about all similar records of people who do not exist. There are hundreds of these and at least 100 or so William Tanner records. Getting rid of this particular record is just the bare minimum of a start.
DeleteOh, this record is ID # M3LC-8HB
DeleteThis is a really interesting record when you look at its Change Log. It was originally imported into Family Tree as First Name: (blank) Last Name: Tanner, Birth: about 1834, birth place: Of South Kingsto, Washington, RI. Father: Tanner.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't until June 2017 that someone added a first name, chopped 30 years off the birth year, added a wife, and added a child. That makes it look like someone was trying to get rid of this record by turning it into someone but either didn't finish or didn't do a very good job.
There is an IGI record that exactly matches the original information in this record, so that is where the record was imported from into Family Tree. It was submitted by an rcmiller1807515., probably in the early 1990s since ordinance work was completed in 1993. There are several other records in the IGI with an identical place name, one of them also submitted by rc for a Mrs. Tanner.
Sometimes analyzing the original Family Tree entry and seeing where it came you can figure out who the person is supposed to be. But there is absolutely nothing I can see in this case to lead to anyone.
I have seen some people advocate in this situation deleting as much of the name as possible, changing what has to stay for a name to "No Information," or "Needs to be deleted" and deleting everything else in the record. and all relationships. Then it won't come up in any search, find, or hint routine and is as good as gone. Since no one is watching this record, no one should be able to find it again. I'm not usually in favor of this approach, but in this case, I think it would probably be for the best. I'd do the same for the father from the IGI and the wife that was created.
This is equivalent to sweeping dust under the rug. Yes, it is still in the database but does that really matter if no one can see it?
(The record points out another problem. The wife, NN Hill was created as a new person with no sources, not an import, on June 1, 2017, by one contributor and on July 17 a different contributor printed out cards and started doing ordinances for her. But you've talked about that in other blog posts.)
This is a very good explanation of what can be done to hide the problem, but as you note, it may be the only solution. Thanks for spending the time to explain this side of the problem.
DeleteI had the same problem on wikitree, where we agreed that such a person could be merged with any other person with a similar name, after which all unsupported data could be removed. That worked quite well over there, and I don't see why it can't work on FamilySearch either.
ReplyDeleteFor this person, it would mean merging with other loose Williams, or other suggested merge candidates, and removing all useless alternative names, events, 'sources', etc., either before, or after the merge.
The only drawback may be that if the change history is kept, this may create another IOUS, and I don't know if such persons can be cleaned by Family Tree management.
You are right, there may be some downside that we can't see at the moment.
DeleteIf I'm remembering correctly, your ancestor Francis Tanner has had incorrect parents listed for him for a long time. He had a father named William Tanner, but the information was incorrect and there were actually 4 men named William Tanner living in that area that were merged into one.
ReplyDeleteSo if I'm understanding correctly, then I think all of these duplicated William Tanners were very likely meant to be the father of Francis Tanner though the information was incorrect? If that's the case, then I would merge them all of the duplicates into the correct William Tanner as far as you know who that man was and keep only the information that's correct. I would do the same for the mother of Francis Tanner. In my experience, if I leave all of those stray duplicates out there, some well meaning but misinformed person will come along and try to attach a duplicate and incorrect version to my ancestor. If I merge everything I can find that was intended to be in a particular spot in the tree, whether or not they had the information right, then it's far easier to maintain the correct information.
You remember correctly. I will continue to think about the solution including what you suggest.
DeleteIs there a limit in the FamilySearch Family Tree program to the number of merges you can do for a person? In your case, it appears your William Tanners are true duplicates added by your family over the last 100 years.
ReplyDeleteThere are contemporary sources that mention William Tanner. At this point, you suspect there are multiple William Tanners. Pick a profile and make it the William Tanner for a given source, ie., 16xx deed, add the source, edit the profile to reflect the information on birth, death, and marriage that can be deduced from that record. Then pick another William Tanner for another source, ie., will 16xx, and repeat the process. Mark those profiles for watch changes.
Then unless there is a program limitation start tending your garden and start merging the William Tanners without sources into your anchor William Tanners. When they are linked to your family, just unlink them and send a polite note to the person who made the link.
At some point you will get down to the 5 or more William Tanners with sources in Rhode Island. The fog will start to clear on your sourced William Tanners and perhaps you will start to find some of the sourced William Tanners are the same person and can be merged.
You will have to maintain your watchfulness, because someone will start to merge your sourced William Tanners. As soon as that happens, you will have to unmerge them and perhaps reconstruct the profiles, because the sources will have become mixed at this point, so keep good backups of your William Tanner profiles. Don''t forget to send the polite note to the person who merged the sourced William Tanners.
Good luck and do let me know if there is a program limitation on merges that makes this approach unworkable.
As far as I know, there are no limitations on the number of duplicates that can be merged. You give a very good suggestion of the methodology needed in these complex situations. I think I will follow your suggestions.
Delete