Reflections on Duplicate Entries in the FamilySearch Family Tree

The new format on the FamilySearch.org Family Tree automatically shows the number of possible duplicates waiting to be resolved. Some or all of these may not actually be duplicates but it is always necessary to start by checking this link. Here is what you might see on a detail page.

Notice the date and the lack of information. There is really no way to tell if you have or do not have duplicates for a person with so little information and so far in the past. An entry like this needs to have more research. But in this case, if the only information available turns out to be the identity of her husband, additional entries showing this person married to Henrie Betts, would indicate duplicates. Here is a screenshot of the results of searching for this person on FamilySearch.org.

If you want to focus the search, you can copy and past the location of the person and add a spouse's name or parents' names. That will reduce the number of hits or results. In this case, interestingly, adding the additional information resulted in no results at all.

You would think that the program could at least find the person being used for the search, especially when there appear to be 11 duplicates. Is there a reason for this apparent contradiction? Yes, but it is very complicated. In this case, the only record that mentions this person is a birth record for William Betts. The reason for the lack of results most likely comes from the limitations of the indexing process. Her name is spelled "Joane" and "Joan" and there are no dates or places associated with this person.

If you want to understand how to find all the duplicates and resolve those ancestors who have interpolated information, you need to begin researching forward in time, that is, starting with people who are well documented and move systematically back in time. Let's look at the duplicates listed for this person.

Can we automatically assume that all these records showing Joane or Jane or Joan are the same person just because they are all married to someone named Henrie Bates or Betts or Betes? If we look at any one of these suggested duplicates, we will see that there is a problem in making that assumption.

Other than the single name, there is really nothing to show us that these two people are the same. Further down in the comparison, we can see that this duplicate actually includes more duplicate entries.

If I were to continue merging the list of "11 duplicates," I would soon see that there were likely many, many more hidden away in the vast cloud of people on the Family Tree.

There is no real way to avoid this issue. Almost every family line in the Family Tree will eventually get to the place where there is a cloud small or large of duplicate entries like these. There are always exceptions, people who have a limited number of entries, will likely not have encountered the duplicates. Additionally, there are many places in the world that are not yet well represented by the Family Tree. Those of us who have been working on our genealogy for years and come primarily from Western Europe or the British Isles will almost inevitably fall into this morass.