What to Look For in Cleaning Up the FamilySearch Family Tree: Part Two

When we think about the topic of "cleaning up the FamilySearch.org Family Tree" there is an intial level where the user has to realize that "cleaning up" is even necessary or possible. I need to start by repeating my first rule of accuracy for the Family Tree:

Family Tree Accuracy Rule No. 1:
You and your family are responsible for the accuracy of your portion of the Family Tree.

This leads me to the next rule:

Family Tree Accuracy Rule No. 2:

No one has or will verify the accuracy of your portion of the Family Tree except you and your family.

I realize the rules essentially say the same thing, but they are looking at the issue of accuracy from two different perspectives. Too many people who approach the Family Tree come to their initial experience with an expectation that the information in the Family Tree has been "verified" by someone or some organization. They assume that because the information in the Family Tree is being provided by "FamilySearch" or the "Church" that it is "correct." The real situation is that the information in the Family Tree is an accumulation of over 100 years of unverified and sometimes very sloppy contributions mingled with genuine, highly sourced and well-supported research. The trap is going back to that same unverified, unsupported and sloppily done work of the past to support changes in the Family Tree today. 

Just because you have a venerated family surname book outlining your family's "genealogy" does not mean that the information is correct or even believable. Then again, it might be very accurate. But it important to remember that all of the errors in the present day Family Tree came from people who entered wrong information into a family group record or other method of submitting records that ended up included in the present Family Tree program. Those red icons shown above indicate duplicates but also indicate inconsistencies in birth, marriage and death dates, i.e. children born after their parents died and birth dates after marriage dates. These mixed up dates were not spontaneously generated by FamilySearch, they came from submissions made by your relatives and ancestors and you and your family are now responsible to do the research to correct the mess created by this type of work. 

It is important to realize that these error messages are opportunities. Researching the correct information and then correcting the Family Tree will often result in finding new Temple opportunities.

Look for the previous posts here:

http://rejoiceandbeexceedingglad.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-to-look-for-in-cleaning-up.html

Viewing Digital Record Images on FamilySearch.org -- Part Three

To summarize so far, FamilySearch.org has millions upon millions of records and a huge collection of books and other genealogically significant items. The acquisition of those records began clear back in 1894. Beginning in 1938, the Genealogical Society of Utah, the predecessor organization to FamilySearch, began microfilming records from around the world. Before microfilming was discontinued and replaced by digitization, the effort had resulted in the accumulation of approximately 2.4 million rolls of microfilm. In the more recent past, FamilySearch began the process of digitizing those millions of microfilmed records. In addition, FamilySearch continued to acquire more records from around the world. All of those records as they are digitized, when they have permission to do so, are uploaded to the FamilySearch.org website. The pace of this digitization effort is increasing.

In viewing the FamilySearch.org website, the digitized records can be accessed in two different locations: the Historical Record Collections and the Catalog. Because the pace of digitization has outstripped FamilySearch's ability to process the records for the Historical Record Collections, the records are being added to the website and the availability of the records is recorded in the Catalog by a series of icons next to the previously available microfilm listings. Here is an example from the Catalog:

The icons at the end of the microfilm title indicate that the films are digitized and the little magnifying glass signifies that there is an index listing like this:

In both cases, the little camera icons indicate that there are images also available, such as these:

If you want to see if digitized images are available for a particular area of the world, you need to search in the Catalog. All of the images in the Historical Record Collections are also linked to the Catalog.

To read the previous posts in this series see:

http://rejoiceandbeexceedingglad.blogspot.com/2016/08/viewing-digital-record-images-on_5.html
http://rejoiceandbeexceedingglad.blogspot.com/2016/08/viewing-digital-record-images-on.html

A Public Domain trap

When I use images that are not my own, I either scrupulously abide by the copyright and license restrictions or use image clearly in the public domain. I found a website, Pixabay.com, where the images are clearly marked as "Public Domain." I used quite a few of their images over a period of time and had no problems. Then suddenly, the website retracted all of the images and put up what was essentially an advertisement in the place of each photo and further implied that I had used the images improperly. As a result, I have gone back through my posts and removed all of the photos I could find that came from that website.

If you come across a blacked out photo on any one of my posts, please leave a comment to that effect and I will immediately remove that photo. Thanks for your cooperation.

I suggest that extreme caution should be exercised in using any images that are not clearly marked as in the public domain or that are old enough to be out of copyright.

What to Look For in Cleaning Up the FamilySearch Family Tree: Part One

Those people I talk to about the FamilySearch.org Family Tree have a variety of responses to the content. Their reaction to a first view of the Family Tree depends entirely on the amount of information already available about their immediate family. There are two things that usually become evident. First is the accuracy of the entries and second is whether or not the entries can be edited. Most new users of the Family Tree are surprised to discover that they can "correct" the entries. But it is equally evident that they have no idea as what can and cannot be "corrected" or how to make corrections.

The worst case is when users ignore the problems with the Family Tree and assume that because it is online and sponsored "by the Church" that someone is verifying the accuracy of the entries. This brings up the first important rule about accuracy in the Family Tree.

Accuracy Rule No. 1:
You and your family are responsible for the accuracy of your portion of the Family Tree.

There is also a tendency among new users to avoid making any edits or corrections due to a fear that they will offend someone else. The entries in the Family Tree come from the accumulation of genealogical submissions over the past 150+ years to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints directly or indirectly. During that entire time, there has been no overall way to maintain consistency or accuracy of those submissions. For the first time we have a way to verify and regularize all of the accumulated information.

There are two layers of "accuracy" and "consistency" that need to become a concern of all of the users of the Family Tree. The first is the accuracy of the information. Are all the names, dates and places accurate and supported by documentary sources? The second level is whether or not the entries are consistently entered into the program. The reason for a consistent entry standard is more difficult to understand than the accuracy of the information itself, but in the long run, a consistent entry standard will become more and more important to maintaining the integrity of the entire Family Tree.

We can only tell if the information is correct by reviewing the supporting sources and asking questions. If a name, date or place is inaccurate by correctly entered and formatted, the only way a user can tell if it is right or not is to review the sources and do any necessary additional research. In many cases the accuracy of the entries is obvious.

Here is an example of an obviously inaccurate entry as indicated by the red warning icon from FamilySearch.

These errors include birth after the mother's death and death before marriage. Here is an example what you see when you click on the red icons.

There are, of course, many other less noticeable errors that need to be corrected from additional research and documentation. Sometimes this type of problem is the result of a simple typographical error. In other instances, these errors are due to faulty research and/or carelessness. Whatever the reason, the entries are incorrect and the incorrect entries affect the accuracy of the entire family and any descendants shown for the families involved.

No changes should be made to the Family Tree when such errors appear, unless the person making the corrections has documented sources to substantiate any changes.

Here is another example of inaccurate and incomplete information in the Family Tree:

Here the entry indicates that Joanna Lewis was born before the father listed in the Family Tree could have children. This is a serious problem and taints the accuracy of all of the family information for this family. Interestingly, in this case there are three possible Record Hints that might resolve this issue with sources. In this case, assuming some of the other information is correct, Joanna's son was born in 1748 and there is likely no problem with the age of her father at the time of her own birth. However, in looking at the Record Hints, there are two different dates for the birth of the son and a lot more research on this family is necessary.

However, the formatting issues are still an issue. In this case, the presence of abbreviations indicate that no one has been working on this family since these entries likely come from submitted family group records long before computerization.

The correction of the Family Tree is an involved and difficult issue. This is just the first in an ongoing series where I hope to highlight how the information and content of the Family Tree can be made more accurate and accessible.

Viewing Digital Record Images on FamilySearch.org -- Part Two

FamiliySearch.org has been digitizing genealogically important records for many years now. The most accessible collection of records on the website is in the Historical Record Collections. These records can be viewed for free and new records are added regularly from both the digitization of existing microfilm records and from newly acquired digitized records. There were 2115 collections of records containing billions of individuals records. Presently, most of these records are unindexed and it is necessary to search these records the same way you would search any unindexed record whether on microfilm or on paper.

I have seen a tendency to ignore unindexed records because of the additional effort it may take to find relevant information, but this is a mistake. In many cases an index contains only a selection of the information in the original record and examination of the original record will provide additional information. Indexes make the original and complete records more accessible but they do not replace the originals.

In the Historical Record Collections have icons and conventions that indicate the status of the records. The small camera image indicates that the collection has images of the original records



The larger camera icons indicate that the records have images on another website.



If there is no camera icon, it means that the record is an index with no digital images. Whether or not the collection has images, the name of the collection is followed by a number indicating the number of entries that have been indexed and if the collection is not yet indexed, there is a link that says "Browse Images." Here is a screenshot showing the variations:

The date is the date the collection was added to the Historical Record Collections or the date of the last upgrade. You can sort the Historical Record Collections chronologically by clicking on the column heading that says "Last Updated."

It is important to understand that the number in the "Records" column is not necessarily the total number of records but usually represents the number of indexed records in the collection. In some cases the number of records is a lot larger than the number actually indexed and it is important to search the records manually rather than rely completely on an index search.

To read the first post in this series see:

http://rejoiceandbeexceedingglad.blogspot.com/2016/08/viewing-digital-record-images-on.html

Viewing Digital Record Images on FamilySearch.org -- Part One

This is a screenshot of the images for the Argentina, Córdoba, Protocolos notariales Film #7397619 Índice de protocolos notariales, Registro 1 - Tomo 01 - Letras A-B, 1775-1925. This filmstrip viewer is extremely useful for researchers because navigating through the roll of microfilm is facilitated. You may or may not have found one of these types of images on the FamilySearch.org website, depending on whether you use the Catalog or not.

If you search in the FamilySearch.org Catalog for records, you will find three general categories: books and other printed material, microfilm and microfiche. The microfilm records are starting to be displayed in a variety of ways with the above filmstrip view one of the very most useful for researchers. Microfilm records fall into two general categories: those records that are indexed and those that are not.

The above view, is marked on the Catalog entry for the film and related films. Here is a screenshot of the Catalog entry for the above film from Argentina:

The little camera icon in the Film Notes indicates that the microfilm roll is available in this format as a filmstrip. The main group of records also has a red letter notation about the digitized records as shown by this screenshot:

I am sure there is some system as to which films appear in this format, but to the user finding films that are available in this format seems to be random.

The red link shown in the last screenshot goes to this page.

Browsing through the images from this linked page is not quite as efficient as the filmstrip view, because you can only see one image at a time so you have to scroll through the roll just as you would on a microfilm viewer.

There is an underlying assumption here that indexed records are "useful" and unindexed records are "less useful." I am probably one of the few people in the world that think that I would rather search the original records than rely entirely on indexes. Indexes seldom contain all of the information in the original record or they wouldn't be indexes. Even if I have an index available, I still make it a rule to find the original record and search it if possible. The index becomes a finding aid, but excuse me, I don't assume that the record I am searching for is not in the original simply because it does not appear in an index. Indexes are OK and useful but not infallible.

It turns out that there are now a number of ways to view the digital records on the FamilySearch.org website. This is just my first installment. I also think this will end up being a webinar in the future. So if you are reading this sometime after the publication date, you might want to check the BYU Family History Library YouTube Channel to see if I have done a webinar on this subject.

Is Accuracy an Issue in the FamilySearch Family Tree?

In any engineering project, there is always an allowance for an acceptable or reasonable margin of error. From time to time, I have heard those working on the FamilySearch.org Family Tree refer to this margin of error. There are a lot of different ways that the Family Tree may be subject to error.

As users we focus on the actual entries in the Family Tree and evaluate them according to our personal understanding of the amount of "error" we find. However, our own standard for measuring the error of others is seldom a concern. I constantly find that people assume, rightly or wrongly, that anything they contribute to the Family Tree is "correct" and any variance from their contribution is automatically "wrong." Of course, some of the time, they may be right, especially if their contributions are bolstered by supporting source citations.

When the engineers speak about a Family Tree margin of error, they are talking about something entirely different. They are primarily concerned with programming issues that may or may not produce the results that are expected. For example, presently, FamilySearch claims a high degree of accuracy for their Research Hints, mostly I have heard claims upwards of 98% accuracy. However, this is just another way of stating the margin of error. Assuming you do have a rate of 98%, that means there is at least a 2% error rate. If this 98% rate is correct, then the program is really amazing. But how do you (or anyone for that matter) measure this accuracy? Let's assume that the claimed rate of accuracy is 98%, then we should be able to click on 100 Record Matches and find that they applied to the designated ancestor 98 times. However, that is not how the whole thing works.

Considering the fact that the users of the Family Tree play a major part in assuring the accuracy of the entries, most of the engineering issues of accuracy do directly affect the accuracy of the information in the Family Tree. Even if the search engine accuracy varies and a user gets slightly more or slightly less accurate Research Hints, ultimately, the user is the one who decides whether or not the hint applies or does not apply to the relative.

So, when the user considers the accuracy of the Family Tree, the main and most important criteria is the accuracy of the entries. Even if FamilySearch has made a search and given the user a Record Hint, the ultimate decision to add the information from the Record Hint lies with the user. Therefore FamilySearch in reality  bears no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the entries. Any inaccuracies in the Family Tree were put there by the relatives of that particular person. Any changes to the Family Tree attributed to FamilySearch involve the work done by someone in the deceased person's family. Even in the case of the suggested entries that came from the International Genealogical Index or IGI, the data in the entries came from the user's relatives or from the original records.

When you are looking at the Family Tree and see something that you don't agree with or that you feel is wrongly recorded, you have just as much responsibility as anyone else in the world to correct the entry.