Unhappy Family Tree user

I have been having quite a few challenges with the FamilySearch.org Family Tree lately concerning access and linking with partner programs and it now appears from this reader's comment that the problems extend quite a bit further to some of the other products and features. Here is the unedited comment:

The FamilySearch feature with the English Parish maps is down, and has been down for at least 24 hours now. 
This is linked from the labs.familysearch.org or the direct address is maps.familysearch.org.
 I do a lot of English research, so I constantly use this feature to find where a specific parish is in England. If my relatives are from Dudley, Worcestershire, and I type “Dudley” into the search box, the maps page brings up Dudley parish, with a note on when the parish records for that parish were kept, and which registration district the records should be in. I can also see the surrounding parishes of Halesowen, Rowley Regis, Tipton, Oldbury, etc. This maps feature is invaluable. For instance, If I find a potential marriage record, I can type that parish name into the maps.familysearch.org search, and the map will show me how far that parish is from the one where my ancestor lives. I can see how realistic it is for that to be the correct marriage. Never heard of Handsworth? It’s two parishes over from Dudley.
This maps feature went down sometime in the last week or so, and apparently no one at FamilySearch noticed. 
Right now, when I type in any location for a search, I just get an error stating “Error 500: Could not connect to database.” When I contacted FamilySearch, the agent was unable to find any reports of this problem. Not sure if they’ll care if they ever get my report. I can’t possibly be the only person who uses this wonderful feature, since I’ve heard about it in classes, and seen posts about it on your blog. I’m not holding my breath for them to fix this connection to their database, but I can always hope.
The information contained in this English Parish maps feature is available elsewhere online, but is not easy to find. And google maps doesn’t help much with parish boundaries.
English research just got a lot more difficult, if they don’t get the maps.familysearch.org back up! It was already programmed and working. Just re-connect the database, please, and leave it alone!
Grr.That’s my rant for the day. Actually, I might have another one, since FamilySearch is no longer recognizing pre-1752 Julian Calendar dates as such. Ugh. Never mind about Rant #2.

I wish I had an answer for this user, but I was able to verify the inaccessibility of the English maps. Perhaps we are in a time of transition with the Family Tree. I can only hope that these problems are good news and that we are getting closer to a complete separation from new.FamilySearch.org.

Thoughts on the Program Dilemma

Which program should I use as my primary genealogical database? That seems to be the most re-occurring issue for the past few years. I must say that my response to that question has changed considerably over the years as the programs, computers and the Internet have changed and evolved. The question is usually phrased to me as to which program I use as my primary database. I used to avoid taking sides and answered by saying that I used all of them. That is no longer true.

The crucial issue with genealogy programs in light of the huge increase in online data is connectivity. The main challenge today is to keep up with newly added online records and other resources. For example, in the past few days, FamilySearch.org has added millions upon millions of new records or newly indexed records. MyHeritage.com recently upped their online collection of fully indexed digital books to 450,000 and applied their Super Search capability to finding content applicable to our ancestors in our family tree on MyHeritage.com. Findmypast.com has added some invaluable Irish records and continues to add millions of records to the British Newspaper Collection. Ancestry.com also continues to update and add content to its vast collections.

Each of these online programs has a well-developed family tree. Of course, because of my background, I am partial to the FamilySearch.org Family Tree and I am focusing on putting as much of my information as I can in that program, but I find the others immensely useful and I am delighted to benefit from their huge resources.

Because of the huge growth in online resources, my work flow has changed considerably. In total, right now, I have literally thousands of records hints waiting to be processed on all four of the large online database programs. I often find crucially useful information by using the record hints. I view the incomplete and sporadic connectivity between these online programs and the other desktop programs to be the greatest obstacle to efficient research. There is currently no "one way" to move information efficiently between programs. So to a great extent, I now judge the value of the programs by the ease of entering sources and other data.

I must say that some of the programs with the best user interface have cut themselves off from consideration because of their lack of connectivity. If I have to make multiple copies of every single piece of information added to the program, I will simply move on to a more efficient system. Most of the programs still require multiple steps to add a source or media item and I simply do not have time to bother with that process. Secondarily, if my ultimate goals require moving all of my information into the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, then the ease of moving information in that direction also becomes a major consideration.

There are certainly a large number of very good genealogy programs out there on the market. Apparently, some of them see no reason to become involved in the wealth of online records because they have made no accommodation for adding records from online sources. For example, some of my entries on the FamilySearch.org Family Tree have dozens of source citations. Do I really want to re-enter all that information into a desktop program one entry and field by field at a time? Not really.

At the same time, I recognize that there are still people out there who have everything on paper. Essentially, they are running the risk that all of the information they already have and all of the "new" information they find has already been found and processed by others. I am drawn to the FamilySearch.org Family Tree because, at least, I can see what all my relatives have done and what they think. As an example of my own personal problem, I have over 100,000 Smart Matches on MyHeritage.com. That means that MyHeritage.com has found about that many people I am related to. There only way I can work with numbers that large is to have unified family tree such as the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, where I can see what everyone thinks about all of my ancestors and relatives. Don't get me wrong, the information provided by MyHeritage.com is immensely valuable but I need a way to manage the huge amounts of information available.

If I were starting out as a newly minted genealogist today, I would subscribe to all four large online database companies programs and put begin my family tree on each of them. I would then let them find all the sources for me and add people to each of my family trees. I would then consolidate all of the people and sources to one family tree. If I got to the point where I was actively doing research, I would evaluate what I needed and choose one program to be my primary one.

From my perspective I think the issue of "changes" to the FamilySearch.org Family Tree is trivial and transitory. But I do recognize the need for some way to anchor my information and hence, I am adding all the sources I can accumulate as I make additional discoveries. That is my bottom line.

Comments on FamilySearch's Success Disaster

Can success be a disaster? In my own experience, it certainly can be. From the perspective of FamilySearch.org, success means that we sometimes suffer from a slow and unresponsive Family Tree program, especially on Sundays when we need the program the most. Perhaps you have wondered whether or not FamilySearch is aware of the problem. Uncharacteristically, FamilySearch posted an article entitled, "FamilySearch Working to Avoid 'Success Disaster.'

If you use the Family Tree regularly, you do not have to be told that FamilySearch is laboring under a huge burden of trying to keep up with the growth of the program and the amount of data being added every day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The post outlines a few of the statistics that indicate the scope of the problem.

Over the past two years, FamilySearch has experienced faster-than-anticipated growth due to the phenomenal success of our marketing, genealogical-record acquisitions, partner development, and product-software improvements. In 2015, 1.6 million members visited FamilySearch Family Tree, and nearly 430,000 submitted names for temple work—approximately 27 percent growth over 2014. This growth pattern has continued into 2016. Since 2015, we have seen Family Tree database transactions increase from less than 200 million to more than 630 million a day on Sundays. Records are also being viewed and attached at ever-increasing rates. The number of names being added to the tree each week has nearly doubled when compared to a year ago.

My guess is that the FamilySearch engineers don't use the program that much and so they don't have a feel for what some of use do with the program. I use the program multiple times a day and my guess is that I see problems with the program about at the rate of two or three a week. One of the areas where the problems occur most frequently is in connecting to the Partner Programs such as Ancestry.com. I assume that the Partner Programs are also experiencing their own growth problems.

Another issue I see from my own experience is that some users are not just adding their ancestors and relatives to the Family Tree but are extracting records and adding unrelated people wholesale. I have absolute confirmation that this is happening. I am aware, for example, of a very small group of people who have added over 27,000 names in the past year. I am not sure which of the people in the group are doing the extraction, but the number of names added is way beyond anyones ability to do research and adequately document entries. In one case, a patron at the Library I was helping noted that the youth in his area were being told that they could add anyone in an English County with their same surname because they were related to all those people. I would be glad to do this if it is being allowed, since, for example, I have approximately 190,000 "Parkinson Relatives" in Lancashire County, England, i.e. people with the same surname and that is just one surname. I suggest that activities such as these are artificially adding a lot of unconnected and unrelated people to the Family Tree.

You can also add a lot of "names" by going to the end of every line and adding in a "Mr. Surname" and a "Mrs. Surname" with the location and dates estimated from the last entry. If you do not think this is happening, then you do not look at the data much.

Of course I am not disparaging the huge increases in names being added to the Family Tree. In fact if you think about it, if only 1.6 million members visited the Family Tree, then that is only about 10% of Church's population and they probably can imaging what happens if that percentage were to grow to anything like a reasonable percentage of the entire population of the Church.

We certainly appreciate the wonderful Family Tree program, let's just say that those of us out here using the program are not surprised at their Success Disaster.

In the FamilySearch Family Tree, Deleting is a last resort

I have had a few comments recently about deleting individuals in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. Deleting individuals is a serious issue on the FamilySearch.org Family Tree and not to be done except in very limited situations. We do not delete duplicate individuals, we MERGE them. However, we do "detach" inappropriate sources and delete relationships that are also inappropriate. These actions do not result in losing the existing data. The Help Center notes the following about deleting people.

Only the patron who creates a record for a person in Family Tree can delete the record. If another patron makes changes to the record of the person, the creator of the record cannot delete it. If another user makes changes and you attempt to delete the person, you see Delete Person Unavailable in Family Tree (362110).

The Help Center article entitled, "Deleting a person from Family Tree" also states:

Notes:

• If you delete a person, you also delete the relationships to other individuals in Family Tree.
• If you delete a person by mistake, you can restore that person. See Restoring a deleted person in Family Tree (57078).
• It is also important to note that patrons cannot merge records of living individuals. They must delete a duplicate living record.
• You cannot add to, change, or modify a deleted record.

If you create a duplicate record for a deceased person by mistake, merge the two records rather than delete the person. See Merging duplicate records in Family Tree (53952).

 The articles entitled, "Delete Person Unavailable in Family Tree (362110)" suggest these alternatives:

Instead of deleting a person, consider the following alternatives.

• Edit incorrect data.
• Merge duplicate records
• Delete relationships.

If this person never existed, contact FamilySearch Support to have the data removed."

I think this is a rather clear and simple solution.

Discover Your Relatives in Obituaries

FamilySearch.org is making a huge effort to add obituaries to its already massive collection of digital records. When I accept this invitation to view the obituary list, this is what I found when I clicked on the above link that appeared on my startup page:

I'm not exactly sure how to get to this page if you still are using the standard view of the startup page other than using a link on the still Beta version of the startup page.

The obituaries should be searchable in the Historical Record Collections, but the question is how would you know to search for one? I have yet to see any of these obituaries show up as Record Hints. This is a very valuable feature for just the reason that I would not be likely to go out and search for all these people's sources without this kind of suggestion.

The Historical Record Collections contains the following list of obituary collections:

In my experience, most of the online obituaries up until now, have only gone back a few years. It is extremely helpful to have obituaries that are from older newspapers especially when they are indexed.

When will merging be completely possible on the FamilySearch Family Tree?

The last time I checked the calendar, it was April, 2016. FamilySearch.org introduced the Family Tree program at RootsTech 2012, now more than four years ago. From its sort of rocky beginnings, the Family Tree has grown into a huge and valuable resource. But it is a resource with a basic flaw. As shown by the notice above, there are still a huge number of duplicate entries that cannot be duplicated. As shown by this explanation from the Family Tree Product Manager, this inability to merge some duplicate records is a symptom of a deeper issue: the conversion of the data from the older, new.FamilySearch.org program to accommodate the expanded functions of the Family Tree.

Let's suppose that you encounter a duplicate such as the one above marked with the "Can't Be Merged At This Time" notice. What are you supposed to do? The answer is essentially nothing. There is nothing you can do. This is an especially interesting problem when you find the following notice and then can't merge the people found.

To discover a more complete explanation of the merging process and its limitations, you can view "Merging duplicate records in Family Tree." This and other interesting instructions are found in the Help Center located on a pull-down menu from the Get Help link in the upper right-hand corner of every screen. There is, at least, one other extensive explanations of the problem: "Cannot merge duplicate records in Family Tree." In this article, there are five reasons given for a failure to merge two records:

• The individual is identified with two genders
• A living individual cannot be merged with a deceased individual
• Two living individuals cannot be merged
• One of the records for the individual is restricted
• One of the records for the individual is too large

Ultimately, the solution is to contact FamilySearch with the issue and let them deal with the situation and usually resolve it. But what about this issue of duplicates?

In fact, there are more than 200 duplicates for Nathaniel Potter and I also get the following for the same person, in addition to the the 99 results shown.

Now, what can I do with this tangle? Nothing. There are others of my ancestors that are equally as tangled more recent than Nathaniel Potter on my ancestral lines. 

This merging issue is really merely a symptom of a much more complex issue that has captured FamilySearch's attention for the past four years. Progress has been made, but the final resolution of the issues is still an elusive goal. 

In my case, I can concentrate on those portions of the Family Tree that do not have these particular problems. But, ultimately, in many cases, I am stopped by the Cannot Merge At This Time wall. Like many of you, I am still waiting (rather impatiently) for the solution. I will certainly write about the solution when it appears. 

The Key to Advancing Family History Participation in the Wards and Stakes

Involvement in family history is highly personal. The Doctrine and Covenants, Section 128:17-18 says:

17 And again, in connection with this quotation I will give you a quotation from one of the prophets, who had his eye fixed on the restoration of the priesthood, the glories to be revealed in the last days, and in an especial manner this most glorious of all subjects belonging to the everlasting gospel, namely, the baptism for the dead; for Malachi says,last chapter, verses 5th and 6th: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. 

18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. (emphasis added)

However, support for the individual's search for his or her kindred dead is supported by the huge and ever expanding resources of the greater genealogical community. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, through its wholly owned subsidiary, FamilySearch, International, provides access to over 4,600 Family History Centers worldwide. In addition, the Church has provided an ever increasing number of online resources through FamilySearch and its partner programs, that make finding your kindred dead more possible than it has ever been.

Despite these fabulous resources, the level of individual family history activity in the Church remains vanishingly low. Why is that? Of course, those of us who are more completely involved in family history on a daily basis have our opinions. But the real reason is that the support program, as outlined in detail in The Leader's Guide to Temple and Family History Work: To Turn the Hearts, is not even partially implemented in many Stakes and Wards around the Church.

Great steps have been taken recently to implement the outlined organization but I still see Wards and Stakes who have made no significant effort to even call High Councilors to supervise the work or provide training to High Priests Group Leaders. There are notable exceptions and in every case where the organization and principles outlined in the Guide are followed, participation in family history activities increases. So, the answer or key to participation is rather simple: follow the Guidebook.

Even if the average member of the Church was motivated to "do their family history," how would they begin without support on the local level from trained and capable Ward Family History Consultants and actively involved High Priests Group Leaders? Too many times, these local individuals are called without being trained. I constantly hear of Ward Family History Consultants who are called only to be ignored by Ward leaders or even in some cases, actively opposed. If we are to turn our hearts to our fathers, we need to begin by following the Guidebook.