Posts
I understand what you are saying, however I have come across several incidents where the data that I entered was deleted or changed without any supporting reasons to make the changes or deletions. I had supported sources, I do not believe that the person who made the changes reviewed my sources. I reached out several times to some of those who have changed the data and they say that they are sorry and still do not give me a reason why they changed the data. For the time being, I have stopped working on the Tree because I feel that I am wasting my time and I do not want to complain. I do appreciate that the Tree is free and the sources are free and very valuable however that still does not mean that people have a right to change the data without even knowing why they are changing the data. I feel that you made excuses for those who change the data and are not understanding that the people who volunteer their time to work on the Tree should be respected also. I understand that it is not "my Tree" and they are not "MY ancestors" it is not my private Tree, I have my private Tree on another site. Again, it does not give people the right to change the data without a good reason. I do enjoy your videos and thank you for volunteering your time to do it. Thank you very much.This comment raises a number of interesting issues that I decided needed a more expansive consideration than a simple reply. Here are the issues with my own analysis and response to quotes from the comment:
Quote #1. I have come across several incidents where the data that I entered was deleted or changed without any supporting reasons to make the changes or deletions.
Almost since the introduction of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, there has been a discussion about the possibility of requiring a source citation for any change made to the information in the Family Tree. The consideration involves the "universal" nature of the Family Tree. There are many places in the world where written genealogies are not available. In fact, there is an ongoing effort to collect oral histories around the world. You can search the transcribed oral histories on the FamilySearch.org website under the "Search Tab" and the further drop-down menu to "Genealogies." In these cases, requiring a source would definitely discourage entering information only known to the person relying on oral histories.
However, I frequently encounter the situation of unsupported changes. Considering the fact that my ancestors came from Western Europe, it is highly unlikely that we need to rely upon any oral history information. In my case, I routinely reverse any changes made without a supporting source. Should FamilySearch change the program so that a supporting source is listed for any change? I am not sure it matters that much. The Family Tree is a user maintained database. It is really up to those who are working on the program to determine if any changes are appropriate or not.
2. I had supported sources, I do not believe that the person who made the changes reviewed my sources. I reached out several times to some of those who have changed the data and they say that they are sorry and still do not give me a reason why they changed the data.
I have had exactly the same experience. In most cases, I can guess that the changes were made to conform to existing, unsupported and traditional information. Families with a long history of genealogical involvement often have entrenched conclusions about their ancestry that are patently false. These false conclusions are extremely difficult to overcome because so many copies of the wrong information have been reproduced over the years. Those making the changes to the Family Tree are simply regurgitating the wrong information. Because the Family Tree is a relatively recent innovation, it is likely to take years before the unsupported conclusions are rooted out of the system.
Meanwhile, from my perspective, we just have to put up with a certain amount of irrational and unsupported changes.
3. For the time being, I have stopped working on the Tree because I feel that I am wasting my time and I do not want to complain.
Giving up is not an option. Complaining about the situation does not necessarily produce any positive results. In one of my recent battles about content in the Family Tree, I received dozens of unsupported changes but over time, I essentially maintained the position I took regarding the information in the Family Tree by reversing the changes long enough to overcome almost all of those who did not have any additional supporting information for changes they had made. Persistence prevails.
4. I do appreciate that the Tree is free and the sources are free and very valuable however that still does not mean that people have a right to change the data without even knowing why they are changing the data.
I am afraid that I cringe at the use of the word "right" in conjunction with the Family Tree. Everyone has exactly the same ability to make changes to the Family Tree. There is no "right" associated with this ability, it is merely a function of the program. We do not need to invent new rights to justify or condemn actions taken with regard to an online genealogy program.
5. I feel that you made excuses for those who change the data and are not understanding that the people who volunteer their time to work on the Tree should be respected also.
Perhaps I did make excuses. Perhaps excuses are warranted. Is the commentator advocating a qualifying test before allowing anyone to make changes to the Family Tree? Does the commentator realized that he or she might fail such a test? Ultimately, following such a criteria leads to the collapse of the Family Tree.
6. I understand that it is not "my Tree" and they are not "MY ancestors" it is not my private Tree, I have my private Tree on another site. Again, it does not give people the right to change the data without a good reason.
There is no real connection between ownership of the Family Tree and the changes made. The idea of "ownership" is antithetical to the operation of the Family Tree. Saying that you understand the lack of ownership and then expressing the idea that you have to keep your private tree on another site simply illustrates the fact that you still believe that you own the data. In addition, referring to a "right to change the data" is a non-sequitur. Obviously, anyone can maintain a separate copy of their family tree on any convenient venue but the existence of those additional copies simply expand the possibility that you will duplicate the work of others. One of the main purposes for maintaining the Family Tree is to avoid duplicate research. Keeping your own family tree only perpetuates the duplication that has gone on for over 100 years.
The issues involving user changes to the Family Tree are really quite complex. Raising issues such as "rights" and ownership in the context of defending your own changes does not contribute anything positive to the discussion. Your own reaction to the changes is really the main issue here.
I agree with your comments, but I feel FamilySearch does need to implement some basic validation checks to flag obviously incorrect changes as they are being input. For example, any change that will trigger a red "data problem" after the information is saved should have a dialog box pop up when the user clicks the save button warning them that the information is potentially incorrect. Users could still ignore the message and click through it if they want, but it might at least cause them to stop and think.
ReplyDeleteStopping and thinking is good. I am all in favor of any kind to warning notices that can be implemented. But warning notices will not confer the ability to read or give a person good sense.
DeleteThank your for taking the time to read and respond to the comment that I left on You Tube and in here on your blog. I have read what you said, I understand what you said, you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to my opinion. Nothing that you said changes my mind.I still feel that my efforts to work on the tree are a waste of my time due to the fact that the rules allow changes to be made without supporting sources. WikiTree.com is a "community tree" also, however there are rules in place for changes. Thank you, Mr. Tanner
ReplyDeleteI had the same experience of entering a lot of carefully documented information into Family Tree that was then changed by others with no supporting evidence. Yes, there were two separate John Kents who lived in Newbury, Massachusetts, in the mid-1600s. I know this after looking at several hundred years of Essex County deeds and probate records to sort out the two Kent families living in early Newbury. Someone decided to merge those two John Kents because she couldn't imagine how two people with the same name could be living in the same community at the same time. And, that's just one example of people without any supporting evidence modifying the Family Trees I was following. As a result, I no longer post information on Family Tree. Yes, giving up on Family Tree IS an option.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree. Giving up on the FamilySearch Family Tree does not solve or help the problem. The Family Tree is not the problem, it is the solution. I have had dozens of people add unsupported data to change one of my ancestors and I have removed all the changes. Finally, I am seeing far fewer changes. If I had given up, the problem of determining the correct ancestor would never be resolved. It would only be passed on to someone else at some other time.
DeleteFamilySearch's Family Tree is not the only platform to share information. I certainly don't see it as "a solution" given all the changes that are being made without any source citations or solid justifications for the changes. And, by ignoring it and focusing on more rewarding and fruitful genealogy pursuits, I don't make all of its inaccuracies my problem. If someone else wants to believe that what's on Family Tree is accurate, well, perhaps they will learn better after they've attended some genealogy conferences and read some of the more respected genealogy publications.
DeleteI love FamilySearch and the Family Tree. I love the web interface better than any of the desktop genealogy programs. The way it is designed makes connecting the dots and seeing the patterns so much easier than any of the other genealogy sites, or any of the desktop software. But I think that the Family Tree is flawed. It is very difficult to get your information out of the tree as a GEDCOM file, you have to use third-party software to accomplish that task. This third-party software is the real problem - it lets anybody upload whatever garbage they have in their personal GEDCOM file with only a few clicks of the mouse. If a person had to manually type all of the information in, they would think twice about changing a fact and perhaps realize the absurdity of their changes.
ReplyDeleteGood point. I do not think that uploading GEDCOM files to the Family Tree is a good idea at all.
DeleteI find the most problems with the Family Tree come from uploaded GEDCOM files. But I persist, change and document because I LOVE the concept of the Family Tree. In addition, I have been fortunate in that when I have contacted someone who has entered information I question, that person has responded with a lot of background information.
ReplyDeleteI respect your expertise and opinion, and I disagree with you on several points. First, I think that Family Search could easily code in that when someone is going to make a change, a note pops up that says "There is a comment about this data" or "there is supporting evidence for the thing you are about to change" so people would at least be reminded to look. Some people aren't familiar enough to know they should look. The merge process is too simple and invites problems.
ReplyDeleteNext, the idea that it is not good to have another tree where you know the data is accurate simply blows my mind. If Family Search is the only place I have information, I would be out of luck, as years of research can be wiped out by a single person with a few clicks. Do you mean on another crowdsourced site? Or do you really mean my own desktop program?
I only work in Family Search when I can steel myself for the task of doing nothing but fixing errors and typing tons of notes in the (nearly always vain) hope that people will read the notes before wiping out accurate information. My job, in my mind, is to be a cleaner-upper. I try to do it an hour a week, but sometimes, to be honest, I simply don't have the emotional energy to spend time doing nothing but undoing what someone will quickly wreck again. That's human nature. I feel like your response doesn't really acknowledge that people by nature don't like to waste their time, don't like having solid work undone, and like to feel like progress is being made. That's normal, and Family Search could easily fix some of these things.
I actually do think it would be good to have some kind of training required for users that would then make it less likely that they will make mistakes that undo years of research others have done.
I have thousands of ancestors. How can I logistically make sure they're all correct all of the time? It's impossible. Saying that "The Family Tree is not the problem, it is the solution. I have had dozens of people add unsupported data to change one of my ancestors and I have removed all the changes. Finally, I am seeing far fewer changes." oversimplifies a very complex issue. You may have the time to keep track of hundreds or thousands of people, but most people do not. If they do have that kind of time, they would rather work where the work actually stays done! I am not seeing fewer changes. I had to make my grandmother alive multiple times because people kept making her dead. That's really annoying. That's just one example. My husband just had two hundred years of a line wiped out by someone in another country who improperly merged two people.
Saying there are ways to make Family Search better and that they are doing things that make it worse does not mean I don't think it's valuable. I do. I just think they are trying to make people work against the basic understanding of human motivation. I also think that it's irresponsible to not keep another tree elsewhere. What if they were hacked? How would I recreate data that's changed if I don't have that information somewhere? I think that I must be misunderstanding you on that point.
I completely agree with Nancy Alex. In my opinion, your discussion of point #6 regarding "ownership" is dismissive of the real issue. What a person "owns" is the effort that they have made in performing research, only to have it obliterated by thoughtless novices. Until FamilySearch requires either qualifications for its contributors or moderated changes, it is, sadly, a waste of time for serious researchers.
ReplyDeleteHi, Thanks for your comment. This blog is clearly labeled as being written from the perspective of a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, although readers of all religious persuasions are welcome. Perhaps I need to point out that one very important reason for the Family Tree is to do temple ordinances. It is the only way that names can now be reserved for the temples. If "serious" genealogists cannot deal with the Family Tree how are they going to do accurate temple work?
DeleteFirst, I want to thank you for your articles. Over the years, I have learned so much from you. Second, the thing I would like to see happen is when someone makes their tree, starting with themselves, then their parents, siblings, children, etc. of their immediate family only, have some way to lock that info down so no change could be made. For example, I know my name, when I was born, etc. The only thing to be added would be a date after I die. But the info on my immediate family I know is correct could be locked. After years of doing this, there would be a ton of verifyable correct information on FamilyTree.org
ReplyDeleteeventually in the future. It won't help the past records, but you have to start somewhere. Just a thought. Thanks.
I have been suggesting exactly that, locking portions of the Family Tree, since almost the day it was introduced. There has been some talk, but mostly the idea of locking some individuals and families has not be a very popular idea.
DeleteI have had the exact same experience as Nancy. I haven't given up on Family Search, but it did emphasize the need for me to maintain my offline static tree. I have taken the time to record PID numbers so I can restore them if needed. In my case, the only resolution to keep the other researcher from undoing all of my documented work was for her to create a duplicate, which she then declared my version not a match. Even though I can prove my documentation with actual research and have the support of at least 4 other researchers on Family Search working on this same family, this one researcher insists she is right, with no documentation. In situations like this, I would like Family Search to become an arbitrator by locking down the person pages and only allowing changes with documentation. Famous people are locked down, why not others? I know this is a pipe dream, but I find that once you get to ancestors born before 1800, there are so many people working on the same ancestor, making changes without documentation that someone has to become the arbitrator or mediator. This problem causes a lot of unnecessary temple work being done, not to mention incorrect family lines. It is concerning and frustrating that Family Search just tells us to work it out among ourselves because it doesn't always work.
ReplyDeleteThe example I mention above resulted in over 1,000 changes to one person on Family Search in a one week time period. I merged, documented etc. This other person came back and undid all of it, disconnecting every member of the family without documentation. We went back and forth several times with the other researcher undoing and me restoring - and with me explaining every time why it was correct and me emailing the other researcher once again with copies of the documentation. If I hadn't recorded the PID numbers in my static tree it would have been an impossible task to restore. The other researcher finally made duplicates, creating an incorrect family line. I could merge those duplicates once again, but the whole cycle would start again. If Family Search was not required for temple work, I wouldn't use it for my tree.