Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > england.genealogy.misc > #75

Re: FamilySearch comes of age

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:34:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <pb22k0$6h5$1@dont-email.me>, knuttle 
><keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>On 4/16/2018 12:47 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>[]
>>> it would be wrong. For some examples, see Jane Ellwood and the perils
>>> of online family trees, and Three Agnes Ellwoods -- Tombstone Tuesday.
>>>  FamilySearch still lets you have your tree, which no one else can
>>> alter. But the place for your tree is on your computer. You alone
>
>To be fair, (a) you can have a tree on Ancestry - public or private - 
>which no-one else can alter; you control who can do what when you give 
>others access to it. And of course any genealogy prog. (that I know of, 
>anyway) lets you keep your tree on your computer (I use BK); perhaps 
>what you mean is that FamilySearch more closely integrates a local tree 
>with a tree on their site, if it does.

I think I'm being quite fair when I say that the FamilySearch model is
better, though I have read recently that a new version of RootsMagic
integrates with Ancestry. But even if that is so, it does not make the
Ancestry model the same as the FamilySearch one. 

The Ancestry model is of multiple public and private family trees on
their site, which may or may not be connected with your private tree
on your computer. 

The FamilySearch model is to have ONE public tree, to which all users
can connect, and their private tree (or trees, if they have several)
is kept on their own personal computer at home. So the FamilySearch
tree gradually becomes more accurate as more people contribute to it
and correct errors. 

>>> decide if you want to copy information from FamilySearch to your
>>> computer, so nobody else can alter your tree. But you can also share
>>> your research with others by copying information from your tree to
>>> FamilySearch.
>>>  So this is what I do now.
>>>  I look at my "Research" file on my computer, which is a copy of my
>>> "Main" file (where I keep mainly verified information). The Research
>>> file is more speculative, where I add possible links to be followed
>>> and verified later and so on.
>
>So do you have to maintain the two separately? For example, when you add 
>a fact to your Main tree, because you've satisfied whatever criterion 
>you have set, do you have to separately add it to your Research one? I 
>can see the other way round - you'd add a speculative "fact" to your 
>Research tree that you wouldn't put in your Main; I was just wondering 
>about the other way round.

Yes, if I'm satisfioed that it is accurate, I add it to my main tree,
and then to my Research tree. 

But the way I do it is to copy the new info from my Main tree to
FamilySearch, and then copy it back from FamilySearch to my Research
file. It makes it much easier. No retyping. 

And also, while it is on FamilySearch, I can check for other sources
and add them as well. 

>>>  I find a family that I have not looked at for some time, and check 
>>>it
>>> with FamilySearch, comparing the two records side by side.
>>>  Sometimes I find someone has added information that I did not have 
>>>--
>>> parents of s spouse, for example. If they look likely I copy them to
>>> my Research file (not to my Main file at this stage).
>>>  I then click on the link to FamilySearch in my genealogy program and
>>> log in to FamilySearch on my web browser. That brings up the same
>>> family. For each member of the family there FamilySearch may bring up
>>> "Research Hints". These are the best research hints in the business.
>
>Certainly, Ancestry's "Hints" often make me wonder what algorithm 
>they've used to suggest them. (I've even suggested/complained/whatever 
>that they show _why_ they're making any given hint/suggestion, but so 
>far it's been like banging my head against a brick wall. Or rather, 
>against a marshmallow.)
>
>>> The suggestions are not always accurate, but in my experience they are
>>> right about 80% of the time.
>
>I'd say maybe 55-60% for Ancestry ones, maybe a bit less; just often 
>enough for them to be worth pursuing, which makes it all the more 
>frustrating when they aren't any good, especially when they _obviously_ 
>aren't.

There are two kinds of suggestions or hints in FamilySearch.

1. Suggestions for sources to attach. I've found that these are 80% to
90% accurate and helpful. 

2. Suggestions of a person already in the database. I find these are
only about 30%-40% helpful, though the accuracy does seem to be
improving. I am very wary of these, because often they do not give
enough information to determine whether it really is the same person.
So if I have the slightest doubt, I add a new person, and then merge
them later if they prove to be duplicates. It is far easier to merge
people than to separate incorrectly merged ones. 

So, for example, I find someone as a child in a census. I add the
child. Then it offers to compare the others who appear in the census.
If there is a discrepancy, say in dates, it may offer to add a new
person. It will then offer hints on each of those persons in other
censuses, and sometimes their baptism records as well. 

One of the examples I gave in my article was John Ellison and Jane
Ellwood. In the original blog post there is a link to another article
from 7 years ago, saying how we had determined that three Ancestry
trees had the right Jane Ellwoood while more than 10 had the wrong
Jane Ellwood. 

I had taken care to enter this into Family correctly as far as we had
it. 

John Ellison and Jane Ellwood's eldest daughter was Nancy, who married
Thomas Percival. We had had five children for them from a couple of
English censuses. When I went to check there were another 5 children
that someone else had added last week. They were born after the family
had emigrated to Canada. And FamilySearch offered me two hints, both
of which I accepted. One was the eldest child, born 1880, in the 1881
English Census, and the other was the same child, aged 11, in the 1891
Canadian Census (the Canadian Census, presumably for copyright
reasons, doesn't show the rest of the family in FamilySearch, but my
wife has a workaround for that, which I'll try some day -- I think it
is doing a search for the surname at the address given for the member
you already have). 

That is one of the advantages of collaborative tree building. And I
know who added the Canadian kids because FamilySearch shows me that,
and if I have any queries about them, I can ask right there in the
record, so anyone else who is interested in that family can also
contribute. 

Whereas if someone copies something from one Ancestry tree to another,
and you ask them where they got it from and how they knew it was true
they just say that they got it from another Ancestry tree, and can't
remember which one, so you can't find who originally added it, and so
can't ask them why they did so. 

I recall someone not long ago strenuously objecting to giving their
name and contact info to FamilySearch for "privacy" reasons -- but I
think it is a heck of a lot better than the anonymous irresponsibility
of the people who add dubious information to their trees on Ancestry.
If you're collaborating in genealogical research, then you must forego
the pleasures of anonymity and be willing to say who you are and how
you know what you know. 

>[]
>>> to is a duplicate of the person you want to attach it to. If that is
>>> the case, FamilySearch offers you the possibility of merging the
>>> duplicate people.
>
>Certainly, Ancestry's system makes it very easy to unintentionally 
>create duplicates (IME, anyway): I've often found a couple to have two 
>identical children, if not several sets of them. And Ancestry's merge 
>facility - they do have one - seems to me both awkward to get to, and 
>awkward to use.

There are lots of duplicates in FamilySearch too -- for example,
they've entered people from CofE baptism records they've filmed. That
means that if a couple had five children, there will be five copies of
each of the parents. And sometimes the same register was filmed twice
or three times, so you can find 15 copies of the parents. 

When I find one of those, I try to get the family constituted (from a
census or two) under one set of parents, and then set about merging
the duplicate parents from within RootsMagic (it's much easier doing
it there than on the web site itself). It needs some care, especially
with common names, but I consider time spent on doing that part of my
contribution to genealogy. Others have made their research and data
available to me through sites like FamilySearch, so it's a way of
giving back. 

>>>  If you are sure that they are the same person, merge them. If you 
>>>have
>>> doubts, you can contact the person who attached the record to discuss
>
>My experience with contacting people through websites has been poor - 
>not the responses when they come, those have usually been fair to 
>excellent; I just mean that I generally find people don't reply at all.

When you register on FamilySearch, they ask for your e-mail address.
Many people don't give theirs, for "privacy" reasons, but I give mine.
Yes, you can also contact people through the site via their username,
but what if they don't log in for a year or two because they are busy
doing other things than genealogy? An email might reach them (if they
haven't changed their address), but a message left on the web site
will wait unread until they log in again.

Of course commercial sites, like Ancestry, (and Facebook) want to keep
people coming back to their sites, so they discourage people from
sharing e-mail addresses. A few years ago Facebook unilaterally
changed everyone's e-mail address on their system, without telling
them. And they keep nagging me to put their "Messenger" on my phone. 

>>> it with them. FamilySearch has a research trail, showing every change
>>> made by anyone, so that you can contact other users (sometimes a
>
>Does the "every change by anyone" log ever get into a feud, where two 
>individuals are repeatedly changing some "fact" back and forth, or is 
>there some way to stop that happening?

Not that I've ever seen. 

Once someone changed the name of the father of one of my ancestors on
the basis of a census record, and I changed it back on the basis of
his marriage certificate and other census records, and wrote to her
and told her why. But it was quite amicable. 

>>> long-lost cousin). When you register to use FamilySearch, your record
>>> contains your contact information, which can include your e-mail
>>> address. I recommend that you include that, so that people can contact
>>> you about shared family members.
>
>(Ancestry's system of course allows you to communicate, but only via 
>them - though you can include your email address in messages. DNAmatch 
>shows actual emails.)

Aye, being commercial they want to lock users into using their site
and system, and to be dependent on them in order to communicate. As
people who run theatres measure things by bums on seats, so people who
run commercial web sites measure everything by clicks on ads. 

>
>>>  There is also, both on the FamilySearch web site and in the programs
>>> that link to it, a place where you can have discussions about problems
>>> relating to a particular person in your tree. Thus you can query
>
>Ancestry has the facility to add comments to a person in a tree, though 
>I don't think there's any pooling (i. e. comments on the same person in 
>two different trees don't I think get copied across).

That's why I prefer FamilySearch's "one tree" model. 


>[]
>>> cousins. I am also organising scattered individuals on FamilySearch
>>> into families, which helps make it more useful for other members. And
>
>That - helping others - I also like to do; sometimes I'll submit a 
>correction for a howler I see, even if the person is no relation to me. 
>(Depends how well the correction mechanism is working that day. Often it 
>won't work with my browser. Or - often on Ancestry - the 
>error-submission mechanism isn't offered for externally-sourced 
>material; fair enough they can't correct others' databases, but they 
>ought to allow correction of their own indexes.)

Some people contribute to FamilySearch by volunteering as indexers,
and I've sometimes thought of doing that, but I think sorting out
families is a better use of my time and experience. Not only does it
directly help my research, which indexing often does not, but after
more than 40 years of genealogicval research I've gained some
knowledge of the families I'm researching and the places where they
live, including geography and social history, and that helps me to
assess the value and likely veracity of the information I find online.

So I quite enjoy following up the "niece" in the census, and often
find her in my database, or discovering that the "visitor" or
"servant" was perhaps a fifth cousin that the family perhaps didn't
even know was related. 





-- 
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

Back to england.genealogy.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-16 06:47 +0200
  Re: FamilySearch comes of age Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) - 2018-04-16 11:36 +0000
    Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-17 07:48 +0200
      Re: FamilySearch comes of age Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) - 2018-04-17 12:24 +0000
        Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-17 17:40 +0100
          Re: FamilySearch comes of age Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) - 2018-04-17 18:12 +0000
  Re: FamilySearch comes of age knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-16 07:49 -0400
    Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-16 17:34 +0100
      Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-17 09:25 +0200
        Re: FamilySearch comes of age Jenny M Benson <nemonews@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-04-17 10:38 +0100
          Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-17 11:11 +0100
            Re: FamilySearch comes of age Jenny M Benson <nemonews@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-04-17 12:17 +0100
          Re: FamilySearch comes of age Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) - 2018-04-17 12:38 +0000
          Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-17 19:33 +0200
        Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-17 10:59 +0100
          Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-17 19:53 +0200
            Re: FamilySearch comes of age Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) - 2018-04-17 18:19 +0000
              Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-18 05:34 +0200
            Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-17 20:36 +0100
              Re: FamilySearch comes of age Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-04-18 05:43 +0200
  Re: FamilySearch comes of age Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-04-17 13:14 +0100
    Re: FamilySearch comes of age "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-04-17 17:40 +0100
      Re: FamilySearch comes of age Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> - 2018-04-18 21:37 +0100
        Re: FamilySearch comes of age Jim Dell <James.Dell@SBCGlobal.net> - 2018-04-19 09:26 -0400
        Re: FamilySearch comes of age Jim Dell <James.Dell@SBCGlobal.net> - 2018-04-20 14:56 -0400

csiph-web