You have to look carefully at the family outlined on the right-hand side of the screen to understand the full impact of the statement above:
It keeps going on:
Notice that there are no sources, yet. We can only imagine why this particular entry was chosen for the imposition of Read Only status. It looks like there might have been a measure of unsourced disagreement over the content. I can only say, that this is a good sign. I have a whole list of people who should be read only in my own family. But I would prefer it was done after I had added all the sources. We have been told that FamilySearch will take this step in some cases and here is proof positive that they are taking this program seriously. If you want to fight about your ancestors go somewhere else to do the fighting.
By the way, it would take me about ten minutes or so to fix this entry, assuming I had some source to go on.
I see a duplicate there for him that would be impossible to merge now. Wouldn't this just end up causing more problems? I can just see people creating more duplicate entries if they find new info to add but can't fix the main entry.
ReplyDeleteI can imagine that the FamilySearch team can make the changes here that need to be made including the merges. They probably want to be able to do this without the users making constant unsupported changes to the data.
DeleteI think this is a great move on FS's part. I have Mayflower Lines that I cannot even get static long enough to print a pedigree chart before this one person starts deleted everyone's entries. She writes in the name field which is a problem when using ** Every week when I get my watched list I am astounded by this. It have been going on for well over a year. Every weekend I feel like reporting it but when I get my list of changes the offices are closed. I just figure I have too much to do to even touch these lines until FS straightens out the Hopkins and Cookes which they said they will be doing, unless they have appointed this other person to stand guard 24x7. I have a brand new cousin though and I would love to share our lines with him if this person would just take a ten minute break. Thank you, James, for posting this.
ReplyDeleteAs we keep looking, we are finding more and more entries being locked. From my standpoint, it is about time.
DeleteI sure hope that the offending user is blocked too, at least for a while.
DeleteThere have been a lot of locked records ever since the start of Family Tree. There have also been repeated complaints on the getsatisfaction.com/familysearch feedback boards along the line of "These people won't merge!" "My changes won't save!" and "Why can't I add anything to this record?" Usually with the reply that the record must be locked. That has spawned the reply "Well, why didn't you tell me before I worked for hours trying to figure out what I was doing wrong!"
ReplyDeleteIt is nice to hear that they are now warning people that the record can't be changed.
Of interest, a couple of months ago a similar yellow banner showed up for about six hours on living people that stated "Living Person - only you can see this record." or something like that. Someone asked about it and was told that it should not have been showing up yet and was part of getting living people's records moved out of New Family Search and into Family Tree which is needed before the final links between NFS and FT can be severed.
Since there are a number of different reasons for locking, it could be useful if a reason were given in each instance.
ReplyDeleteThis also opens the question of whether or not the files will be "cleaned up" while they are locked.
DeleteI found another issue with this. My husband's living grandmother is locked. Luckily I had added her parents on my husband's account before it was locked. His uncle is new to familysearch though and now can't link parents to her so the rest of that line is just blank and can't be fixed without contacting familysearch.
ReplyDeleteYour comment is very strange. Normally, you do not need to add any information to living people. That is their own responsibility. In addition, you are not related to your husband's grandmother. Another reason you may be having difficulty. Also, it is very common for living people to need to be added in to see the subsequent ancestors. I suggest someone related to this person, or the person herself, work this out.
DeleteOn my account I obviously had to add the grandmother myself since she is living and not my own relative, but her own children have her show up automatically on their accounts since they are lds. Her deceased parents don't show up though so they would need to be added. I'm the genealogist of the family though so I was helping them get things set up and came across the issue. They will be contacting someone on familysearch to get things fixed, but it's just frustrating since I was visiting them from out of town and had limited time to help them out.
DeleteYes, you do have to add in living people, but in every case, the program will search for duplicates. Usually, once the living people are connected, the rest of the pedigree shows up automatically. Thanks for your good work and help.
Delete