Gathering in the First Four Generations

https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/safely-gathered-generations/

In this blog post, Kathryn Grant has highlighted one of the most obvious issues facing FamilySearch and genealogy in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: a significant number of the members of the Church have yet to enter their first four generations into the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. This is not just true outside of the United States, but many wards in the United States have less than half of their members with four generations in the Family Tree.

Involvement in family history would increase dramatically in many areas of entering the first four generations in the Family Tree was emphasized. Presently, local leaders do not have a way of determining who does and who does not have their first four generations on the FamilySearch.org website. Active Temple and Family History Consultants can begin the process by contacting the members of their ward and inquiring about their access to the Family Tree.

In many cases, those without four generations in the Family Tree are either new members or those that are less active. In both cases, participation in family history activities with benefit these individuals. As Kathryn Grant states at the end of her blog post:

Completing their first four generations in Family Tree can be a beautiful, heart-turning experience that helps members feel closer to their ancestors and ensures that all are safely gathered in.

The role of family history in missionary work

https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/power-family-history-missionary-work/?cid=email-MC_TFHC_0817CTA1

We have recently been discussing the role of genealogy in missionary work done by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not too long ago, I was talking to the mission president of one of the Church's missions. He unequivocally stated that he did not want his missionaries doing genealogy. I can certainly understand his point of view. Especially, if you think there is an artificial boundary line between missionary work and Temple and family history work. But as Elder David A Bednar, of the  Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, is quoted above saying:

The artificial boundary line we so often place between missionary work and temple and family history work is being erased; this is one great work of salvation.

Kathryn Grant's article, shown above, summarizes some of the ways that full-time missionary activity can incorporate temple and family history work. Personally, I presently live in an isolated microcosm. We have only about six families in our ward that are not members of the church.  I spend my days either writing at home or volunteering at the BYU Family History Library. So my interaction with those who are not members of the Church is quite limited. But most of the members of the Church come in contact with people outside of church every day. Talking about families and family history is a very easy way to begin a gospel conversation.

I do think that drawing an artificial boundary line between temple and family history work and missionary work is a tragedy. Not only for the missionaries who never learn how closely intertwined the two actually are but also for those that they contact and fail to introduce to temple work which of course includes family history. But as long as an artificial wall is created between young full-time missionary service and teaching and inviting people to do genealogy (i.e. a family history) and temple work, we will still be teaching senior missionaries how to do genealogy before they are called on their own full-time missions.

If you read Kathryn's article above, you will see many suggestions where the full-time missionaries work in tandem with the local Temple and family history consultants in the wards. This cannot happen if the wards do not have Temple and family history consultants who are prepared to help and teach investigators and new members. This responsibility now lives with the stake Temple and family history consultants. So, if the stakes do not have Temple and family history consultants who are teaching the ward consultants, then again there will be no support for the full-time missionaries.

I certainly realize that this emphasis on the relationship between full-time missionary activity and temple and family history work may seem innovative and new to many members. But for those of us who have been doing genealogical research for years, we have always seen the relationship.

The Reality of the Microfilm Issue

https://archive.org/details/MicrofilmShelvesInTheFamilyHistoryLibrary

Microfilm has been a part of my life for many, many years. However, I am not one to grieve over changes in technology. Since the announcement by FamilySearch about the discontinuance of microfilm shipments to the Family History Centers around the world, I have been ordering and viewing more microfilm than I usually do. The very recent announcement of the one week or so extension to the cutoff date did not surprise me much. For the past month, after the announcement, I have been asking those attending my classes and presentations about their use of microfilm. I have found only a very small number of people who have used microfilm in the last year.

Apparently, people like me who are involved in doing research that entails little-used records are rare. The most important part of the press release of August 30, 2017 is the statement that all of the microfilm rented by patrons in the past five years have now been digitized by FamilySearch – over 1.5 million microfilms or about 1.5 billion images. The next statement is also equally as important: the remaining microfilms are being digitally scanned at a rate of 1000 films per day and are projected to be complete by 2020. If you think about these statements, you will realize that FamilySearch waited to make its announcement until the impact would be minimal.

For me personally, it will probably mean that I will take a few more trips to Salt Lake City, Utah to the Family History Library. But those trips were inevitable anyway because of the need to look at "restricted" records.

What I am also finding is that few people, even those who should know better, know how to access all of the digitized images. For that reason, I made two videos which are now posted on the Brigham Young University Family History Library YouTube channel. Here are the links to those videos:

No more microfilm rentals? Where do I go to see the digital copies? - James Tanner

Where are the Digitized Records on FamilySearch.org - James Tanner

These two videos summarize the present situation regarding the availability of microfilm and the images that are being digitized and uploaded to the FamilySearch.org website. Now to the question of those who are researching areas that they believe will never be digitized. My experience so far is that many of the microfilms that they believe will never be digitized have already been digitized. But for those films that are relatively obscure and have not been ordered in the past five years, FamilySearch has announced that after film ordering ends, if customers need access to a particular film yet to be digitized, they can express interest to have it added to the priority digitization list by contacting FamilySearch support. Here are the contact links:

FamilySearch Support (Toll Free: 1-866-406-1830).

As far as I'm concerned, but pretty much answers any questions that I have.

Notice from FamilySearch on Microfilm Availability

The following is a press release from FamilySearch. I will be making my own observations and comments in my next post.

Salt Lake City, Utah (30 August 2017), Thursday, September 7, 2017, marks the closing of an 80-year era of historic records access to usher in a new, digital model. FamilySearch is discontinuing its microfilm circulation services in concert with its commitment to make billions of the world’s historic records readily accessible digitally online. (See FamilySearch Digital Records Access Replacing Microfilm). As its remaining microfilms are digitized, FamilySearch has provided additional information to users of its historic microfilm program. Find and share this news announcement easily online in the FamilySearch Newsroom.

FamilySearch, a global leader in historic records preservation and access, began microfilming historic records in 1938. Advancements in technology have enabled it to be more efficient, making an unbelievable tide of digital images of historic records accessible much quicker online and to a far greater customer base. 

FamilySearch released a list of helpful facts and tips to help patrons better navigate the transition from microfilm to digital. 

QUICK FACTS AND TIPS 

• Patrons can still order microfilms online until Thursday, September 7, 2017.
• After film ordering ends, if customers need access to a particular film yet to be digitized, they can express interest to have it added to the priority digitization list by contacting FamilySearch Support (Toll Free: 1-866-406-1830).
• All of the microfilm rented by patrons in the past 5 years have now been digitized by FamilySearch—over 1.5 million microfilms (ca. 1.5 billion images).
• The remaining microfilms are being digitally scanned at a rate of 1,000 films per day and are projected to be complete by 2020.
• New digital images are available as they are scanned in the FamilySearch.org Catalog.
• Films currently on loan in family history centers and affiliate libraries are automatically granted extended loan status.
• Affiliate libraries now have access to nearly all of the restricted image collections as family history centers.
• Visitors to the Family History Library in Salt Lake City will still be able to order needed microfilms to use during their research visits.

HOW TO FIND DIGITAL IMAGES ON FAMILYSEARCH

• Digital image collections can be accessed today in 3 places on FamilySearch.org, all under Search.
• Catalog. Includes a description of all the microfilms and digital images in the FamilySearch collection. This is where all of FamilySearch's digitized microfilm and new digital images from its global camera operations are being published. A camera icon appears in the Catalog adjacent to a microfilm listing when it is available digitally.
• Records includes collections that have been indexed by name or published with additional waypoints to help browse the unindexed images.
• Books include digital copies of books from the Family History Library and other libraries, including many books that were previously copied to microfilm.

For additional help, see Finding Digital Images of Records on FamilySearch.org, or watch this how-to video “Where are the digitized records on FamilySearch?” 

“FamilySearch is committed to meeting customers’ needs as much as possible during this transition to digital access,” said Diane Loosle, FamilySearch’s Director of Patron Services. “We really appreciate the wonderful feedback we have received since the initial announcement. It is helping us better facilitate customer experiences during this next phase.” 

Loosle said FamilySearch's over 5,000 family history centers will continue to provide access to relevant technology, premium subscription services, and digital records, including restricted content not available at home. Centers have the option to return microfilm that is available online or otherwise not needed. As more images are published online, centers may reevaluate whether to retain microfilm holdings. 

See Frequently Asked Questions: Digital Access Replacing Microfilms for more information.

More about duplicate ghosts in the FamilySearch Family Tree

I've been waiting for some time to discover another set of "duplicate ghosts" in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. Some of us have been finding these long lists of duplicates regularly. At the same time, representatives of FamilySearch are making comments about how the duplicate issue has been "resolved." The screenshot above shows an individual married to one of my distant cousins. There was the original entry from the Family Tree.

This project started with a routine correction of the entry for Mary Tanner by standardizing the entries of dates and places. That action started a cascade of changes resulting in obvious duplicates. Here is a screenshot of the 32 steps I have taken up to this point.

One of the interesting results was this second entry showing a number of children.

Bear in mind, that when I had reached this point the entry showed only one duplicate for John Briggs. I had already done only one merge. Before doing any more work, I decided to check for another duplicate. The screenshot at the beginning of this post was the result of that search. I did one more merge and when I returned to do a search for more duplicates I got the following list:

 The number of duplicates had increased from 5 to 8. This is what I mean by cascading duplicates. To trigger this kind of response in the Family Tree all you have to do is add a source and look for duplicates or make any other change and start looking for duplicates. Each time that you merge an individual, more duplicates appear. I have had this situation continue while I worked for four hours straight merging duplicates. At this point, a search for duplicates for Mary Tanner shows the following:

In short, there are currently 12 duplicate entries that need to be merged. However, as I proceed to do the mergers it is inevitable that more duplicates will appear especially for the children in this family. Past experience indicates that I may end up with dozens of mergers for this one family. None of these entries of duplicate individuals is shown initially when the user searches for duplicates. These are not hypothetical duplicates, they are real. Here's a screenshot showing the first merger screen:

I recently mentioned a post that I found 106 potential duplicates of one of my direct line ancestors. From my perspective, the duplicate issue is far from resolved. In fact, when I did the first merge listed above, I got the following additional duplicates for each of the children. This raised the number of duplicates needing to be merged to 20 after I had already done three merges.

In my experience, each succeeding merge will create additional merges for some time until this particular block of duplicates is exhausted or I am exhausted whichever comes first. The mere existence of these cascading merges indicates that there is a substantial reservoir of duplicate entries still waiting in the Family Tree.

I decided to do all of the merges before finishing in publishing this article. I kept track of the number of merges necessary, but after about two hours of merging records, correcting entries, standardizing dates and places, and adding in Record Hints, I did approximately 54 merges.

 When you encounter such a situation, you need to be careful to reload the pages constantly and recheck every time for more duplicates. In many cases, the duplicates are not found by the FamilySearch Possible Duplicates. You need to search by ID number and the duplicates are obvious. I am certain that it would take someone with less experience doing merges much longer to get through this morass.  I'm also certain that FamilySearch is vastly underestimating the number of duplicate entries left in the Family Tree. Here is what the family look like after all of the merges:

There were record sources for each of the children. There really were two daughters named Mary Briggs. After writing the above about the number of merges, I added a surname to the first entry for a child named Hannah and found one more duplicate.  The total number of duplicates turned out to be 55.

The FamilySearch Family Tree is the Gateway to Temple Work

I have received several interesting comments to my recent blog posts about the subject of changes made to the data in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. I might point out that this blog is clearly labeled as being written from the perspective of a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereinafter "the Church"). I certainly do not wish to do or say anything that would limit those who read this blog to those who are members of the Church. But I also do not wish to equivocate concerning the importance of temple work to those who are members of the Church and literally to everyone who is presently living or has lived on this earth. My position concerning the importance of temple work should be clear from what I have written on this blog.

Some of the comments made about the FamilySearch.org Family Tree are taking the position that "serious" genealogists should not be involved in the Family Tree for the simple reason that "their data" would be compromised by changes made by less experienced or less sophisticated users of the Family Tree. May I remind those members of the Church to take this position that they are essentially abandoning the "Gateway" to temple ordinances which is presently established by the Church. Your attitude towards the Family Tree influences those around you to depreciate the need to become involved in this important work. You're essentially saying, that taking the time to make corrections and maintain the integrity of the Family Tree is not worth the effort. I want to be perfectly clear. I believe that all of my effort with the Family Tree is worth the time it takes to perform the temple ordinances for our kindred dead.

You can use any program you wish to use to do your own personal research. But ultimately, if you wish to participate in the salvation of the dead you will need to become involved in the Family Tree or whatever program becomes available from the Church to advance the vast work of family history. Putting up with a few changes or even many changes in the Family Tree is worth the effort.

Please remember Section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants at verse 15 which states"

15 And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers—that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect.

I would further quote from a talk given by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the First Presidency who stated in a talk in April Conference of 2009 entitled "We Are Doing a Great Work and Cannot Come Down:"

The tendency to focus on the insignificant at the expense of the profound happens not only to pilots but to everyone. We are all at risk. The driver who focuses on the road has a far greater chance of arriving at his destination accident free than the driver who focuses on sending text messages on his phone. 

We know what matters most in life—the Light of Christ teaches this to everyone. We as faithful Latter-day Saints have the Holy Ghost as a “constant companion” to teach us the things of eternal value. I imagine that any priesthood holder listening to my voice today, if asked to prepare a talk on the subject “what matters most,” could and would do an excellent job. Our weakness is in failing to align our actions with our conscience.

We cannot and we must not lose focus on the things that matter most. The FamilySearch.org Family Tree is one of those things that matter most.

Let me reiterate clearly. My experience with the Family Tree is that by making an effort to make the changes and corrections, watch the entries, contact the people who make changes and ultimately add sources with citations random changes are virtually eliminated. I certainly think that it is important to use the Family Tree and I will continue to advocate in favor of using the Family Tree.  The potential of the Family Tree is to dramatically decrease duplicated research and ultimately to decrease the loss of genealogical data that constantly occurs when "serious" genealogists die. Do we want to encourage duplication of effort and encourage loss of genealogical data?

Important Discussion about the FamilySearch Family Tree

I have been thinking about and writing about the FamilySearch online family trees for about 10 years now, ever since new.FamilySearch.org was introduced. I would guess that I have heard and discussed almost every positive and negative comment that could possibly have been made about the FamilySearch products. I have spent days discussing aspects of both the old new.FamilySearch.org program and the most recent FamilySearch.org Family Tree program with representatives of FamilySearch, with patrons at the Mesa FamilySearch Library, at the BYU Family History Library, both online and in person and in locations across the United States and into Canada. As I have recently pointed out in previous posts, the main issue revolves around the collaborative, unified nature of the Family Tree.

Genealogists as a group are extremely possessive and have the tendency to think in terms of "my data" and "my family tree." Changing this attitude requires an entire paradigm shift. One of my recent blog posts, entitled "User Changes to the FamilySearch Family tree: A Touchy Subject," is an example of the types of responses and discussions that I have had over the years. After spending 39 years as a trial attorney, I have no illusions about my ability to change anyone's mind on any given subject, particularly when they are certain that they are correct. Decisions made by judges and juries after lengthy trials where days of evidence have been presented by both sides do not usually change the litigants' minds.

The FamilySearch.org Family Tree addresses some of the most basic issues confronting genealogists today. It is an evolving product based on a fundamentally sound idea. As I've said in the past and as I will continue to maintain; the Family Tree is the solution, not the problem.

I recently posted another rather long comment to the blog post link above. There are several issues and that comment that need to be addressed. I am not going to reproduce the entire comment because it is available attached to the blog post. I am selecting specific portions of the comment as I did with the earlier blog post.

1. Adding pop-up warnings to the Family Tree will assist the users in making "correct" decisions about entering inaccurate data or making unwarranted changes.

 From a programming standpoint, pop-ups are a detraction from the overall purpose of a program. It is true that they may possibly assist novice users but they become bothersome to those who use the program regularly. If there was a way to turn off the pop-ups then everyone would turn them all off. The Family Tree is open to all levels of genealogical expertise. Believe me, this frustrates the novice users as much as it does the experts. Novice users are overwhelmed with the "requirements" imposed by those with more expertise. Those who assume themselves to be experts are frustrated and annoyed by having to share the space with the unwashed masses. It is the self-appointed experts who are certain that everything they put in the Family Tree is absolutely correct that need to be educated as much or more than the novices.

The Family Tree is a universal tree. It is available to users around the world who find themselves in many different circumstances with differing levels of access to the Internet, to computers, to genealogical resources, and genealogical literacy. The Family Tree is designed to accommodate those who are entering the first few generations of a pedigree as well as those who are working back into the 1500s. Making the product more complicated does not solve these problems. Educating both ends of the user spectrum is the answer. Those who have been doing genealogical research for years probably need more orientation and education about the nature of the Family Tree than to the novices.

2. The problem of a separate family tree program is very complex.

Computer programs come and go. I have spent untold hours helping people retrieve information from their outdated Personal Ancestral File (PAF)  program files. Likewise, many other individual desktop genealogy programs have disappeared over the years. The data accumulated in those programs has in many cases been lost. In many cases, the developers of these programs have not provided a way for the users to preserve their data. It is also extremely common for dedicated genealogists to spend years accumulating piles of paper records about their families only to have those records discarded by their heirs upon their death. I could spend many blog posts writing about the programs that have been lost and the paper collections that have also been lost.

The issue of whether or not to maintain a separate program from the Family Tree simply because of the possibility of changes in the data of the Family Tree seems to me to be focusing on the wrong issue. I have never told anyone not to have their own program. But I am always mindful of the inevitable issue of how the information is going to be preserved when the genealogist dies. How are you going to preserve your data? That is the real question. One of my friends, an accomplished genealogist, died recently. None of her family members were at all interested in preserving her vast collection of records. It has only been through the dedication of a close, genealogical friend that some of that information is being preserved.

The comment is made about the Family Tree that "years of research can be wiped out by a single person with a few clicks." This statement is wrong. No information can be deleted. It can be changed but all of the changes are preserved in the change log and can be restored. This is always one of the arguments for maintaining a separate program. If you want to spend the time, there are many options for maintaining separate databases, but remember that what is not preserved in the Family Tree will likely be lost.  On the other hand, there is no way to restore paper documents that are thrown in a dumpster or information locked up in an outmoded, abandoned genealogy program.

Maintaining the integrity of the Family Tree is not nearly as difficult as the critics try to maintain.

3. The Family Tree is the accumulation of over 100 years of genealogical contributions.

The simple statement addresses the issue of the need to "clean up" the data. Genealogists, like everyone else, are convinced that they are absolutely correct and the rest of the world is absolutely wrong. The collaborative nature of the Family Tree allows all of us to work together in correcting these years of submissions. If you are maintaining an entirely separate program without consulting the information in the Family Tree you are laboring under an illusion of progress. For example, one ancestor that I am currently working on in my Tanner line has the incorrect parents and literally thousands of online family trees and I assume privately held programs also. All of these people accept the traditional Tanner genealogies written over 100 years ago that are simply wrong. How can all of this inaccurate information be corrected? The simple answer is it cannot. But there is a place where I can put the correct information and begin the process of educating the Tanner family members. It is the Family Tree. Will my information be changed by all those people who believe that their own version is correct? Absolutely and I will change it back. Is there somewhere else I can go to publicize the correct information? How would anyone know what I had discovered if I maintained it in my own private, personal, desktop genealogy program?

Genealogists have previously never been faced with the prospect that their work would be subject to review by someone else. In many cases, whole families have relied on the accuracy of one "expert" genealogist in the family. Sadly, much of the information passed down has not been accurately recorded. Further, family members have the tendency to defend the accuracy of the inherited data despite additional research that shows that the information is inaccurate and incorrect. This is particularly true for those who have "pioneer" ancestors. Many of these people are devastated when they find out that the information they have relied upon for years is simply wrong.

Likewise, many researchers take the attitude that their research is correct in all aspects. I have done enough of my own research to realize that my own conclusions have not always been correct. The Family Tree is difficult because it highlights our limitations and errors.

4. Training for FamilySearch users?

The conflict here is whether or not there should be some threshold requirement of competency before allowing people to enter information into the Family Tree. The real consideration is whether an individual living in an undeveloped country who wishes to preserve their family heritage should be required to learn how to read and write before entering information into the Family Tree. I certainly am an advocate of training for all of the users of the Family Tree. My wife and I are both very much involved in The Family History Guide website. Have you considered how well the Family Tree works for someone who is entering in their first four generations?

5. You have thousands of ancestors. How can you logistically make sure they are all correct all of the time?

You can't. That is why you can't have your own family tree on your own program and assume that everything is correct. That is also the reason why the Family Tree works. Because "your" ancestors are the ancestors of thousands of other people all of whom can assist in making sure that the information is correct. If you think only of your data and your efforts, that idea excludes the possibility that other relatives may make positive contributions. You're setting yourself up as being the only person who does anything correctly. Rather than criticize the system how about enlisting the help of your relatives in correcting and maintaining the integrity of the Family Tree?

6. Who do you think will make more efforts to preserve their data than FamilySearch?

We are back full circle. Over the years as I have watched programs come and go, the only constant in the genealogical community since 1894 has been FamilySearch and its predecessors.

Of course, this is an ongoing discussion. It will probably continue until all of us have passed from this earth to our eternal reward. You are certainly welcome to make any additional comments you wish to make on the subject and you can expect me to respond when appropriate.

By all means, keep "your" data anywhere you wish, but think about what happens when you die. What will happen to all your work?