Posts
Note: Please take time to read the extensive comments to this post. I am also writing another post to answer the issues raised in the comments.
Here is a long comment I recently received by email.
At one point I hoped to clean up my pedigree in FamilySearch and retain all useful information--even potentially useful information.
For instance, in merging duplicates, I would copy to the preferred record all worthwhile and unique information from the less-preferred record--including details, sources, notes, discussions, memories, relationships, and ordinances--so that no valid (or even potentially valid) information would be lost.
But crowd-editing has prevailed and I am really too late at this point to save the information. I fear that MUCH VALUABLE information has already been lost through merges, deletes, detaches, and other editing. And this by people who have very little understanding about what they are doing.
There are many who just want a name to take to the temple, including young people. They often do not check for duplicates and may take the name of a duplicate person for whom there is very little information, when the ordinances have already been completed and there is much more information for the same person, but under another FS ID.
While the addition or attaching of pictures and stories gets some degree of scrutiny before becoming part of FamilySearch, there is no scrutiny that I know of for merging, deleting, and detaching. While a providing a "reason" for a change is suggested, I often see that no meaningful reason has been given.
And I don't know how one might recover the information lost through such merges, deletes, and detaches.
Is there any way that the bar might be raised for and scrutiny applied to actions resulting in loss of information (or loss of the attachment of information to a person), and thus minimize loss and damage by the inexperienced and uninformed?
In one case that seems especially bad ( LLC9-JYG), I believe that a person was morphed completely into another person through a long series of uninformed removals of information, one piece at a time, with frequent uninformed replacements by other quite different information. These changes include baptism, christening, father relationship, mother relationship, residences, and sources for vital events..Is there really some fundamental issue with the way the FamilySearch.org Family Tree works that is losing "MUCH VALUABLE information?" Can a person on the Family Tree "morph" into another person?
Let's see if I can answer these questions and the rest of the questions from this comment. Here is a screenshot of the person mentioned by ID number in the comment.
James Mellor, Jr. LLC9-JYG is apparently the son of James Mellor, Sr. KWJW-2HG. To become familiar with these entries, I through the sources listed for both and the entire Change list for both. From the comment above, it would seem that I should have found that the information concerning James Jr. to be substantially inaccurate. However, almost all the sources about this individual who was born in England are from his time in the United States. It also appears that both James Jr. and his father designated James Sr. (These designations do not seem to appear in the records and have been added by the contributors) came to America as a family. However, the sources attached to James Sr. with a few exceptions, also pertain to his time in the United States. My first question is where are the sources about this family from England? By the way, I find this to be a common issue with early immigrants. Sources easily obtainable from US sources are attached but little information is provided about their origins in Europe.
Despite the designations, is James Jr. the son of James Sr? The main, and seemingly only record attached is an 1851 English and Wales Census record leading us to believe that these to people are related. I am sure that other documentary evidence such as a cited diary and biographies etc. may add further support for the relationship, but it is interesting that all of the other English records are missing. There is a copy of the 1841 English census attached to James Sr. but that was taken before James Jr.'s birth.
Now, I can see the origin of the comments cited above. There is some dispute over the parents and place of birth of James Jr. When doing research in England, it is very important to specifically identify a location associated with an event in a person's life. It may seem surprising, but James Mellor (with spelling variations) is not a particularly uncommon name. However, there seems to be no particular issue with the identity of James Sr. here in the United States. Also, both the 1841 and 1851 English and Wales Census records attached as sources agree on James Jr. being part of the family. What is missing is a birth record for James Jr. But he might not have been baptized in the Church of England and there may be no baptismal/christening record. Other missing records include the English Mission records although the immigration records, including the Church records, confirm the identity of the family.
I note that there are 4 people watching these individuals. This means that there is a substantial interest in maintaining the accuracy of the records and maintain scrutiny. It is the nature of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree that there will be additions, changes, and the need for corrections. The Family Tree was specifically designed to allow user changes and contributions. I see these two individuals in transition. They both need substantial additional research especially in England, but I fail to see that anything in the Changes made to them is out of the ordinary of what I encounter repeatedly and correct repeatedly. The best way to proceed is to enlist the help of all of those who are watching this record and find others in the family who are willing to watch and help maintain the entries.
I suggest that it would be appropriate to provide more specific information about the family in England and then respond in a positive way to those who try to make changes with non-existent, contradictory, or inaccurate information. That is the purpose for watching the entries. In my experience, the number of changes declines dramatically over time except for very prominent people.
If any pertinent information has been lost through merges or otherwise, it is always a good idea to maintain a separate program containing all of the pertinent information that can then be restored to the individuals if lost through changes or merges. There are several programs that work well and synchronize entries with the Family Tree. See RootsMagic, Ancestral Quest, and Ancestry.com for examples. Failing to back up vital information always runs the risk of loss.
It is also a good idea to attach copies of specifically important records in the Memories section. These cannot be deleted or modified by anyone except the person who uploaded the information.
In summary, there is nothing dramatically wrong with the Family Tree program that needs to be fixed. Issues with the data or information in the program can be corrected, modified, or replaced if lost. Defending the integrity of the data in the Family Tree is the responsibility of those who enter and maintain the entries. There are already several major program innovations, such as watching the entries, that assist the users in maintaining the integrity of the entries.
There will always be those who negligently or ignorantly enter inaccurate information, but the Family Tree program provides a way to safeguard the information without creating another "supervisory" level of people who do not really know anything about your particular family members, ancestors or relatives.
Here are some links to some of the videos I have made for the Brigham Young University Family History Library YouTube Channel on this subject.
Key thing that you appear to have missed in this case is the obituary citation. It explicitly says that James Mellor was born in Leicestershire in 1848. Looking at FreeBMD there was only one James Mellor born in Leicestershire in the 1840s, let alone 1848 so I'd say the association is pretty solid if the obituary is correct.
ReplyDeleteHowever there are some ridiculous elements of this profile. As is usual with a Mormon profile it has accumulated a good deal of cruft. I have detached a completely empty source, and re-attached a number of US census entries to actually get the associated residences in place. Another particularly ridiculous thing is Jr as a "Title of nobility"!!
Thanks for the additional sources and comments. I did not have the time just now to do any more research.
DeleteRegarding James Mellor Jr. starting out as one person and morphing into another with the loss of information, and the other concerns raised by the letter you received, I view this as a good illustration of some common reason why collaborative work in Family Tree is hard for many people.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion is that much of the trouble people have stems from a lack of historical background, a lack of understanding of parts of Family Tree, a tendency to assume the worst of other people, and refusing to ask, “Why?”
These difficulties are summarized in the added comments “However there are some ridiculous elements of this profile. As is usual with a Mormon profile it has accumulated a good deal of cruft. I have detached a completely empty source, and re-attached a number of US census entries to actually get the associated residences in place. Another particularly ridiculous thing is Jr as a "Title of nobility”!!”
First off, why did it have a complete empty source? If the first assumption is stupid carelessness, then one has already taken a step in the wrong direction for working in Family Tree. You have to ask “Why? Why is this empty source here?” History provides the most reasonable answer. With Family Tree originating from multiple different databases created from multiple different computer programs from multiple different decades for multiple different reasons with the goal of not losing any information it was inevitable that a certain amount of static would accumulate through the multiple conversions of the data. The empty source could easily come from someone accidentally typing a blank space in any number of places in an old genealogy program that was later used to generate a file that was submitted to the Ancestral File or the Pedigree Resource File where the only place that blank field could go was as a source.
Considering history, would one rather have no sources transferred, trust an automatic, illiterate computer routine to discard certain sources, or have all the sources transferred and need cull them oneself? I think the third was the only viable option and I’m glad FamilySearch programmers choose that.
Secondly, calling the title usage “particularly ridiculous” without asking “Why? Why is Jr. sitting where it is?” not very useful or kind. It appears to have come from New Family Search, having first been added with the creation of individual KWZ7-M9D in Family Tree in 2012. Either someone used a PAF field long ago for their own purposes never thinking anyone else would ever see it there or a conversion process put it in the closest similar field available.
Third, the concern for lost information reveals a misunderstanding of FamilyTree. Nothing done since complete implementation of the Change Log is lost. Every bit of information the person ever had and everything ever done to the person is there. Admittedly, it is not always the easiest document to wade through but the information is there.
See my note below, I will be glad to add one or more additional posts on this subject. Thanks for your knowledge and all the background you can provide. I always enjoy receiving your comments.
DeleteWhen was the Jr as a "Title of nobility" added? 16th June 2018 according to the changelog. So no it's not from NFS, nor is it a legacy thing from long ago. Moving onto the empty source, it was added 30th October 2017. So no it is not from NFS nor is it a legacy thing from long ago.
DeleteI called adding Jr as a title of nobility ridiculous because that is what it is. It is not a title of nobility, it is suffix to the name. Even those who don't speak English as a first language would know that most likely since suffix is Latin-derived and thus present as a word or similar word in many languages. I'm not a particular fan of the title of nobility implementation in FSFT anyway as to me it is clumsy and clunky and doesn't really allow capturing important information about such events such as the type of title, the date of granting and similar. Regardless to confuse earl or baron or graf or grand duke with junior?!
As for considering why, I most certainly know why most of the rubbish that ends up in FSFT ends up there.
1. Naivité of the user;
2. Stupidity of the user;
3. Dreadfully written things like the GEDCOM import and comparison routine and a refusal to disable those dreadfully written things when presented with compelling evidence of the problem;
4. Combination of the above;
As I have said elsewhere, naivité can be fixed by education and tools to slow the naive down so that they do not do too much damage. Stupidity cannot be fixed. It can only be mitigated and the really bad cases banned from editing FSFT.
You might not like the fact that profiles of those who were Mormons tend to be the ones with some of the worst problems, but it is a fact. Non-Mormons who use FSFT tend to have a much, much better chance of knowing what they are doing. I believe that I know what I am doing, and the statements of others about my work tend to back up that belief.
I am quite prepared to spend a considerable amount of time teaching people how to do proper genealogical research. What I profoundly dislike however are people who despite you saying again and again and again to them about a fact will not accept that fact. Probably one of the ultimate expressions of bluntness was found in that Getsatisfaction post the Familysearch staff member deleted a few days back. I understand why it was deleted, as my reply to the member of staff says, but to my mind sometimes that level of bluntness and even harshness is necessary to get through to people.
My primary concern is not being kind. One of my primary concerns is making sure that those using FSFT understand what they are editing at the paradigm level. It is a shared tree, and so many users seem to have a mental block to understanding that. Another of my primary concerns is trying to reduce the amount of avoidable junk that gets added to FSFT. Unfortunately, partially for resource reasons but even worse for ideological reasons many avenues of reducing avoidable junk addition are not pursued or ignored by Familysearch. Many impractical suggestions are made on this front, but many practical and necessary suggestions are also made. I reference the GEDCOM import and matching debacle earlier in this post, and that is a prime example of what I mean about ideology interfering too much with practical website design.
WRT this particular PID, the sources appear to refer to one individual at the moment. If there were others who were merged into this individual then they were subsumed long ago and should be re-created from scratch. Ordinances don't concern me: I can't see them and thus they are irrelevant to my take on the discussion.
If you look at the Change Log for KWZ7-M9D, you will see that the very first entry, dated 20 January 2012, is the creation of two "titles of nobility," JR. and Jr. One would have to track through all the Change Logs to see where to were removed and ask the gentleman whose name in on the 30 October 2017 record how it came back. I suspect one reason might be a sync through Roots Magic or Ancestry with a non-cleaned up record. Or you might find someone that has a strong opinion that that "title of nobility" should just be "title" and that all titles should go there. I will freely admit that a lot of people seem to have trouble with the concept that Family Tree is not their personal property and that you have to work with others to come up with a joint consensus on how records should appear.
DeleteI also freely admit that LDS records tend to have the most significant problems. Again, history explains why. They tend to be compilations of many different genealogical submissions to various FamilySearch databases. For example, the first record for your James Mellor added to a Church database would have been his church membership record created in 1877 when he was baptized. This would have been copied by hand for many years until finally computerized and then eventually being added to New Family Search. It's impossible to tell now how many copies of him were first added to New Family Search from all the other submissions for him. My great-great-grandfather had well over a hundred duplicates when New Family Search first opened.
The other reason for messy records for LDS individuals is that the early members tended to have a lot of descendants. James was one of twelve children and he, himself, had seventeen children. That adds up quickly over 200 years. All of them would have been taught that it is a responsibility to be active in family history but some would have better than others at it.
Fortunately, the programmers at FamilySearch are aware of the problems in Family Tree and have expressed many times they are working on how to protect good data and prevent bad data. For example, in New Family Search you could, as happened to James at one point, make someone his own father. That is impossible in FamilyTree. Much more does need to be done, but good programming takes time.
So has James Mellor, Jr., morphed into someone else from whom he was? His change log shows that his current record is a combination of six records:
ReplyDeleteLLC9-JYG - Created 22 June 2016 with name James Mellor, born 8 Oct 1848, Leicester, parents James Mellor and Mary Ann Payne, no wife originally added. (This one has a very long Change Log)
KL1Z-GWW - Transferred from New Family Search 30 April 2012 with name James Mellor, born 1867 Audley, parents Samuel Mellor and Harriet Dykes, wife Mary Ann Curry
M1KT-FWK - Transferred from New Family Search 14 July 2012 with name James Mellor Jr, no birth information or parents, wife Eliza Elvira Bartholomew.
M4PR-4YK - Transferred from New Family Search 13 July 2012 with name James Mellor, no birth information or parents, wife Eliza Bartholomew.
9V3D-HVV - Transferred from New Family Search 24 June 2012 with name James Mellor Jr., born 8 October 1848, All Saints, Leichester, no parents or wife listed.
KWZ7-M9D - Transferred from New Family Search 9 January 2012 with name James Mellor Jr, born 8 October 1848, All Saints, Leicester, parents James Mellor Jr and Charlotte Elizabeth Dack; second set of parents James Mellor Sr. and Charlotte Elizabeth Dack; third set of parents James Mellor Sr. and Mary Ann Payne; fourth set of parents Mary A; wives Anne Marie Larsen, Charlotte Elizabeth Dack, and Eliza Elvira Bartholomew. This record also has a very large Change Log.
So this record does have two red flags, a man merged in with different birth year, birth place, and parents, and a record that was a mess in New Family Search with dozens of alternate names, a multitude of marriage dates, and four sets of parents, one set being himself and one of his listed wives.
The man with the different information can easily, because of the functions of Family Tree, be separated back out.
The last record illustrates nicely that Family Tree is the solution to the problems that New Family Search caused that we can now fix, as people have been trying to do with James Mellor, Jr.
Looking at the Change Log, it does appear that after any information from KL1Z-GWW is removed (start by restoring him so that he gets put back in Family Tree properly and any ordinances associate with that ID are applied correctly to him) the rest is all intended to be for the James Mellor Jr now in the tree and he is just himself, assuming he really was married to the three wives listed with him, without any concern for him being morphed from one person to another.
It looks like I need to write another supplement to the comments I already made. But I suspect that my conclusions will not change. Collaboration is the answer, as you write, but much of what you observe dates back to all the submissions made before Family Tree.
DeleteRegarding the the concern of information being lost after the initial creation of an individual, do be clear over the fact that information is never lost. If it is removed, it is still in the Change Log. Help fix the record, put a watch on the record, then whenever notice is received that something changed, review the change, discuss it with the contributor, and restore it if appropriate.
ReplyDeleteWow, what an interesting post! Thanks for this, Gordon and James
ReplyDeleteIn addition to "watching" people, I also find that leaving a note can be helpful. When there is something about a person that might be confusing, it's helpful to acknowledge that and share why you think you're correct about the way that it is. It's not foolproof, but I've had some success with it. It wouldn't solve this situation, but it can prevent some issues.
ReplyDeleteWe write extensive notes explaining the research that has been done and suggesting that they look at the sources and the Memories. It usually helps and stops the irrational changes but not always.
Delete