An Analysis of the Weekly Change Reports for the FamilySearch Family Tree: Weeks Seven and Eight

It seems like FamilySearch.org is only sending out an email with the report of changes to the Family Tree every other week. But, I can still go to the list of changes on the website and see all the accumulated changes since my last blog post. Please note, that I now have 302 people on my watch list. I count 146 changes listed on the FamilySearch.org Changes to People I'm Watching list and 158 on the email so the email list is now likely for two weeks. The total shown on the list from the website included dates that I have already tabulated.

I should mention that since this post is cumulative, there is no real reason to go back to the previous weeks. By the way, tabulating over 100 changes takes a considerable amount of time, not to mention the time it takes to correct any of the changes that have been inappropriately made. Assuming that a person was actively trying to maintain his or her portion of the Family Tree, they would spend a considerable amount of time spent just reviewing and correcting the unsupported changes. It is a pity that FamilySearch can't simply increase the requirements for making changes to include a mandatory source or reason statement. That alone would greatly decrease the number of changes.

Another major issue can be noted from the following report. The majority of the changes are to only a very few individuals. There should also be a warning level that when a certain number of changes are being made to an individual, that further changes are either slowed with more warnings or stopped until the person is examined by someone competent to manage that person.

Here is the latest report that only took a few hours to produce. The most recent changes are now in red.

Out of now 410 consequential changes there have been 356 made without a source or explaining why the change was made. The percentage of changes without supporting sources is holding steady at 87%. This means that if you are watching any number of people on the Family Tree you can expect to have changes made at that rate. Think of the huge waste of time involved.

The Family History Library Restricted Records

For the past few years, FamilySearch.org has been digitizing its microfilm collections. The idea was to replace the physical circulation of microfilm rolls. The distribution of microfilm has now long since been terminated. Apparently, the effort to digitize all the records in the Granite Vault in Little Cottonwood Canyon outside of Salt Lake City, Utah is still ongoing. In addition, there are just over 300 digital cameras operating around the world digitizing millions of additional records.

Somehow, I got the idea that by digitizing the records, the images would be available on the FamilySearch.org website. It is true that millions upon millions of those images are now available and some of them are even indexed. Back when I was ordering microfilm, ultimately, I could order it online and have the film shipped to a nearby Family History Center where I could go and view the microfilm. Apparently, this system, in some cases, has just substituted the digital images for the microfilms and I still have to go to a Family History Center or even to Salt Lake City at the Family History Center to see the digital images.

For example, some time ago, I made a long list of all of the records I am searching in the state of Rhode Island. I recently went back through my list of microfilms and have found almost all, but not all of the microfilm rolls, have been digitized. However, with only the exception of the few Rhode Island records that have been indexed, every record I checked in the catalog has been restricted. Apparently, FamilySearch has been unable to obtain permission from the original record-holders to allow the now digitized microfilm records to be viewed on the FamilySearch.org website outside of a Family History Center or the Family History Library. This is especially true of the very old records going back into the 1600s. I might mention that the books that contain compiled records are more accessible but the books do not have copies of the original records.

I fully realize that I am in a vanishingly small minority of researchers who are searching unindexed records from the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. So I decided to look at the old records in Massachusetts in the event that the issue was only with Rhode Island records. There are exponentially more records in the Family History Library Catalog for Massachusetts than there are for Rhode Island. I found many of the older Massachusetts records freely available online from home. Too bad my ancestors lived in Rhode Island.

Maybe the problem is Rhode Island, but it does seem that we are still in the transitional period when many of the records are still being processed and some are only going to be available in Family History Centers or at the main Family History Library. It would be very helpful if the FamilySearch.org Catalog showed the availability of the images in the catalog listings. As it is, I have to click on each entry to find out if the records are available online or only in a Family History Center or Library.

It's not too early to start thinking about RootsTech 2020

https://www.rootstech.org/

There are actually two upcoming RootsTech Conferences to think about and plan for: London from October 24th to the 26th, 2019 and Salt Lake City from February 26th to the 29th, 2020. I have personally attended every RootsTech conference since its inception in 2011 except in 2018 when we were serving a FamilySearch mission at the Maryland State Archives in Annapolis, Maryland.

You might be interested in this history of the RootsTech Conference from the Wikipedia article on RootsTech:

RootsTech is an outgrowth of a conference started at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. The manager of Conferences and Workshops, Bob Hales, noted that their long running "Annual Genealogy and Family History Conference" held at the end of July each year was experiencing incredible interest in a track devoted to technology in genealogy. In 1997, Hales met with a local accredited genealogist and technology enthusiast, Alan Mann, to ask for his help in creating a new conference, breaking it off from the Annual Conference. They decided to hold this new conference in March of each year so as to avoid conflict with the July Annual Conference. The first event was held March 1998 and drew 400 paid attendees. By 1999, the second Computerized Genealogy Conference drew more attendees than BYU's Annual Genealogy and Family History Conference, coming from 49 states and 3 countries. Several strategies were employed to accommodate more attendees, including offering the same classes in evening sessions, expanding to other buildings (one of which involved transport by vans), and freeing more meeting rooms by moving exhibitors out of meeting rooms into the hallways. By 2001, the conference organizers turned away hundreds of registrations each year. In 2003, the only national competing event, GenTech, was cancelled, leading to further demand for the BYU Annual Computerized Genealogy Conference. 

Over the years, other events were organized to be held a day or two before this annual conference to take advantage of the attendance of exhibitors and developers from around the world. This included the Family History Technology Workshop which displayed and discussed developments in technology for genealogists and the FamilySearch Developers Conference. In 2008, the LDS Church's Family History Department became co-sponsor of these events and the search began for a new venue. The 2010 National Genealogical Society Conference was scheduled to be held in Salt Lake City. With cooperation from the local Salt Lake City NGS sponsor, the Utah Genealogical Association, the Family History Technology Workshop, and the FamilySearch Developers Conference, the Computerized Genealogy Conference organizers met with NGS and proposed a combined NGS conference and Computerized Genealogy Conference, which was held in April 2010. The event was highly successful, and led to plans to move the Computerized Genealogy Conference to Salt Lake City for future events. The name of the conference was changed to RootsTech. 

The first RootsTech was held in February 2011, drawing around 3,000 people. It was held again in February 2012, drawing 4,500 people. It was decided to move the event for 2013 to late March, and it drew 6,700 registered attendees and over 13,600 remote attendees. RootsTech had become the largest genealogy and family history conference held in North America. Many attendees and vendors came from other countries around the world. The 2014 event was moved to February, at the Salt Lake City Salt Palace. Nearly 13,000 attended the 2014 RootsTech Conference in person, with over 100,000 remote participants. 

The 2015 RootsTech was held February and Laura Bush and her daughter were keynote speakers. Over 25,000 people were reported to have attended the 2016 RootsTech from 50 US states and 30 countries. In August 2018, RootsTech announced they would also hold a RootsTech conference in London, UK, in October 2019.

By the way, Brigham Young University also holds a Conference on Family History and Genealogy every year in July.

https://familyhistory.ce.byu.edu/

I will be teaching three classes at this year's BYU Conference. There is also a BYU Family History Technology Workshop which is usually scheduled the day before RootsTech on the BYU campus.

https://fhtw.byu.edu/

The Workshop really is for technology and I have presented at several of the Workshops in the past years. You have to watch carefully to see when the call for papers and other information about the Workshop shows up on the website.

You also need to be aware that there are a number of one and two-day conferences in the Salt Lake and Utah County area every year. Some of them have been held for many years in the past. You have to search carefully to find out about these local conferences. 

Significant changes to the FamilySearch Family Tree Memories App

There have been quite a few changes made to the FamilySearch.org Memories app and I decided to make a short video to introduce the changes. I will be following up with more in-depth videos about the Memories app and other parts of FamilySearch.org.

Come to the BYU Family History and Genealogy Conference

Add caption

Registration is still open for the 51st annual Brigham Young University Conference on Family History and Genealogy from July 30th to August 2nd at the BYU Conference Center in Provo, Utah.

I will be teaching three classes (up from two) at this year's conference. Here are my classes:

James Tanner, MA, JD A Step by Step Approach to Using Genealogical Cluster Research
Wednesday, July 31st at 1:30 pm

James Tanner, MA, JD Finding the Family Farm: Using Maps and Gazetteers to Find Your Ancestors
Friday, August 2nd at 2:45 pm

and a new class for The Family History Guide substituting for Bob Ives, on Friday, August 2nd at 8:30 am.

For a while in the past, the BYU Conference Center was under construction. If you came to the Conference during the construction period, you will be relieved to know that the construction is all finished and there are no parking or construction problems. The new addition is public transportation almost to the front door of the Conference center in the form of the UVX Bus line that connects to the Provo Central FrontRunner station.

Here is a link to the schedule:

https://familyhistory.ce.byu.edu/sites/familyhistory.ce.byu.edu/files/fhgc_2019_final_program_draft_as_of_may_16th_.pdf

If you have been overwhelmed by RootsTech, I suggest that this is a more personal and manageable Conference plus you get the benefit of being on the BYU Campus and could visit and research at the BYU Family History Library in the evenings. If you need help at the Library, you could always find or call or email me and I could help you.

Even if you don't attend any of my classes be sure to say hello.

Still Waiting for those Golden Years: Organic Gluten

I recently ate in a restaurant that had a long list of options for food allergies and preferences. Each option had its own icon and each menu item was marked with a string of icons. The list ran the gamut from gluten to peanuts and some that I had never heard of. I once took an entire family out to dinner and one of the children had several severe food allergies. It took us quite a bit of negotiating to arrive at a restaurant that was acceptable to the family. Well-meaning friends in the past had given the child food containing peanut products and that oversight had landed the child in the hospital. It was interesting to see the contrast between the restaurants that were entirely unaware of the problem and the one with the long list of options.

Having helped raise seven children, I am well aware of food preferences. We also have first-hand experience with lactose intolerance and some food allergies. But I am concerned that the appropriate reaction to some real and serious food allergies and intolerances are being clouded over by inappropriate adoption of fad intolerances. Two terms that have become overworked are "gluten-free" and "organic." Here is a short summary of the first issue with gluten:

Gluten intolerance is often mistaken for celiac disease, but they are separate conditions. Celiac disease is a severe autoimmune disease, and it can damage a person's digestive system.
Unlike celiac disease, however, it is unclear why the symptoms of gluten intolerance happen, but it does not appear to involve the immune system or damage the gastrointestinal or GI tract.
People also, sometimes, mistake gluten intolerance for a wheat allergy.
A wheat allergy can be life-threatening, as some symptoms can impair breathing or cause a loss of consciousness, which is not the case with celiac disease or gluten intolerance.
The symptoms of gluten intolerance are less severe than celiac disease or a wheat allergy, and people know much less about the condition.

The problem with self-diagnosis of gluten intolerance is that the symptoms all have other very common causes. Deciding you have a medical condition after reading a list of symptoms is a dangerous practice. One basic way to determine any type of food intolerance is to keep a detailed food diary that lists all of the foods eaten and any adverse symptoms. Because the symptoms are common and both gluten intolerance or celiac disease are relatively uncommon, it is important to seek medical attention before automatically eliminating gluten from your diet. Meanwhile, the labeling appearing on almost any kind of food stating that it is "gluten-free" is creating a false impression of the incidence of the problem.

I am guessing that most people do not know the technical and medical reasons for "gluten-free" labels and this is especially true when the labels are on products which could not possibly contain gluten such as rice or beans. The problem of having a proliferation of labels saying "gluten-free" is that people begin assuming that the condition is more prevalent than it is in reality.

One other new alarm is even less defined than gluten-free and that is labeling various foods as "organic." The term itself is meaningless. All plant and animal-based foods are organic. What the term has come to mean is a bundle of assumptions that do not necessarily have to be at all consistent. However, there is a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) definition that is scattered over a number of publications. These various rules and statutes are summarized as follows:

Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods. The organic standards describe the specific requirements that must be verified by a USDA-accredited certifying agent before products can be labeled USDA organic. 

Overall, organic operations must demonstrate that they are protecting natural resources, conserving biodiversity, and using only approved substances.

The requirements and regulations vary from product to product. The real issue is that there are no regulations for using the term "organic" in advertising or labeling. The real issue is whether or not the product has a USDA Organic Label. If you want to start learning about the meaning of the organic label, here is a good place to start: "The USDA's Meaningless Organic Label."

If you believe you have a food allergy, get proper medical evaluation. If you think it is worth spending more for organic food, take the time to learn about what you are really getting for your money. Here is a statement from the above-cited article to get you thinking:

At the release of the final national organic standards, then–Secretary of Agriculture Dan
Glickman declared, “Those who want to buy organic can do so with the confidence of knowing exactly what it ist hat they’re buying.” But a few sentences later in the same speech he emphasized
its meaninglessness: 

Let me be clear about one thing: the organic label is a marketing tool. it is not a statement about food safety. nor is “organic” a value judgment about nutrition or quality.

 

 

Your work on the FamilySearch Family Tree will never be "Done"

Some processes and activities and our lives on earth all have a definite beginning point and an end. Genealogy changes with every new birth and never really ends. I suppose you could take an apocalyptic view and claim that genealogy would end if the world were destroyed but that is not something that I can integrate into my plans for the future right now. Of course, this topic comes from so many people who say that their family history is all done. 

The answer to the assertion that the work in the Family Tree is all done comes from a simple geometric progression: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc. Whether or not you can individually identify a certain ancestor, even a parent or grandparent, is immaterial to the reality that everyone has two parents. As far as identifying close relatives, DNA testing has added a new dimension to the age-old genealogical problem of adoptions and foundlings. The DNA experience now entails finding connections with relatives we never knew existed.

Of course, the geometric progression of the number of our ancestors is dwarfed by the number of their descendants. Even allowing for pedigree collapse, the number of potential relatives is immense. 

But the true issue is a practical one: how far is it realistically possible to extend a family line? All record streams ultimately end. Governments cease to exist and records eventually disappear. In working with people over the years I have heard claims of family trees with tens of thousands of individuals and even hundreds of thousands. After spending almost 38 years examining, researching, correcting, standardizing, and working over my own family lines, I find it harder and harder to believe any verified claims to huge pedigrees. I also commonly find such claims to be, for the most part, founded on name extraction methods, where the "researcher" copies names by surname from records without regard for establishing documented relationships. I have yet to examine any family tree with verifiable extended pedigrees in Europe going back before 1500 A.D. I do know of individual Chinese or other Far Eastern genealogies that go back over 2000 years, but these genealogies usually fail to record any female names and have limited references to descendants.

One good example of the overwhelming number of possible relatives is the number of my DNA matches on the MyHeritage.com website. As of the date of this post, I have 8,485 DNA matches and I do not know more than a handful of these living people who are apparently related to me. In addition, most of these people do not have a family tree on the website that would enable me or the program to identify even our common ancestors much less all of those relatives we have in common. In fact, the number of potential DNA matches is more than double the number of people I have in that particular MyHeritage family tree.

My portion of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree has one or two verified family lines back 13 generations to where I would have 4,096 potential grandparents. We can only guess at the number of descendants those 4,096 people might have today.

OK, here is my challenge, if you want to know if your genealogy is all done and you doubt my explanation of why that is not possible, I suggest you give me about half an hour of your time examining your pedigree and I will show you where your lines realistically end and where you could do more research. Simple.