Genealogy cannot be true genealogy unless it is based on true facts such as birth, marriage, death and other facts that can be proved. There is a lot of genealogy under Family Tree which is based on this basis, However, there is a lot genealogy based on factors such as 2nd opinions supported by Family Search which is destroying everyone's genealogy. I have worked on my genealogy for 55 years and have around 10000 files but Family Search is letting everyone into every other peoples genealogy to decimate, copy and destroy the genealogy. I have been trying for the past year and a half to save my genealogy but is a loosing battle with Family Search in charge. Now the only thing I am trying to do is get my genealogy off of Family Tree and save it.I must say that this comment left me speechless for about 30 seconds (a long time for me). I am not quite sure what Anonymous's relationship is with FamilySearch.org's Family Tree. I sat there staring at this comment for some time, trying to gather my thoughts and come up with something coherent to say about this person's predicament. I must admit that I finally had to put this post aside for a while and think about what was written above. I even began to believe that it was a hoax. Hoax or not, it is an interesting quandary.
I guess I will take it a bite at a time.
Genealogy cannot be true genealogy unless it is based on true facts such as birth, marriage, death and other facts that can be proved.
Given all the posts I have written about defining genealogy, facts, proof and all that, I was puzzled about this comment. I think what Anonymous wants to say is that it is necessary to provide a source for entries in your family tree. I would certainly agree with that. I am not too sure about what I would consider "true facts" if those facts were based on documentary evidence. I would not be so sure that any given document provided "true facts" however. Every one of the types of documents named can be wrong in some cases.
There is a lot of genealogy under Family Tree which is based on this basis,
I am not sure what is "under" the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, but I assume the reference is to the fact that more of the entries on the Family Tree are being sourced all the time.
However, there is a lot genealogy based on factors such as 2nd opinions supported by Family Search which is destroying everyone's genealogy
I am not sure I understand what Anonymous thinks is going on here. I am also not certain how my genealogy is being destroyed. FamilySearch Family Tree incorporates over 150 years of combined research. Admittedly, some of the entries are wrong, however the structure of the Family Tree (a wiki) allows everyone to make corrections and enter supporting sources. None of these changes come from "Family Search" and FamilySearch is entirely neutral on the content unless it is objectionable in some way. It is up to those members families on the tree to correct the information. Apparently this concept is lost on Anonymous. There is nothing on the Family Tree that can destroy anyone's genealogy. It is very wise to have your own copy of your own files if you can't understand why and how the entries on a wiki will continue to change.
I have worked on my genealogy for 55 years and have around 10000 files but Family Search is letting everyone into every other peoples genealogy to decimate, copy and destroy the genealogy.
This statement seems to be a repetition of the previous one. I am not sure what 10,000 file means, but I assume that means that the person has 10,000 people in his or her database file (I always suspect round numbers since they are inevitably wrong). Since the Family Tree is unified, technically everyone in the world has their entire known family on Family Tree. Actually, it is still under construction and will be as long as there is any information left to add, but the actions of the contributors are not decimating or destroying anything. The serious issue I see here is the mention of the word "copy." Apparently, Anonymous is one of those people who do not want to share his or her research. Well, after 55 years, I suppose it could all be lost anytime now. One thing I can say for certain, if you or anyone else fails to share their "genealogy" with others, all their work will be lost. I hope Anonymous has a family member that will still talk to him or her and is willing to preserve all of the 55 year's worth of research.
I have been trying for the past year and a half to save my genealogy but is a loosing battle with Family Search in charge.
This statement assumes two false premises, one that FamilySearch is "in charge" of the data in the Family Tree and second, that there is some issue here with saving Anonymous's genealogy. I find that many people using the tree think their conclusions are right and everyone else is wrong. I wonder if Anonymous is putting sources with all 10,000 of the entries on the Family Tree? I am also wondering how he or she got all that information into the Family Tree in the first place and how many duplicates were made in the process? The users of the program, including Anonymous, are "in charge" of the data. I also wonder how many other family members Anonymous has contacted about helping maintain and correct the Family Tree? I might also point out that the Family Tree is still a work in progress and more information is still coming into the tree from the 150 years of accumulated research that is sitting out there to be corrected and merged. I hope Anonymous has his or her own copy of all that 55 year's worth of work or it may really be lost.
Now the only thing I am trying to do is get my genealogy off of Family Tree and save it.
This is the most puzzling statement of the entire comment. How does one go about getting their genealogy out of Family Tree? Short of manually copying the entries or using a program such as Ancestry.com, RootsMagic.com, Ancestral Quest or Legacy Family Tree, I am not presently aware of a method of getting information out of the Family Tree. Once again, here is another claim of ownership which I see as the root of the problems expressed by Anonymous. It does not sound to me as if this person has heard of the word cooperation before.
I continue to be amazed every day at the attitudes expressed by some in the genealogical community, but I am glad for the comments because they keep me thinking and writing.
I agree that their post was difficult to understand. However, it sounds very much to me that they were using the wrong tool for what they wanted. Obviously they thought that whatever they uploaded would remain there, in tact. There are sites that do this but FamilyTree isn't the one of them. Could this simply be an education problem about the way different sites work, and their relative advantages and disadvantages?
ReplyDeleteGood point. I wish I had thought of that. But it appears to me that putting all of your data online is still risky.
DeleteAlthough I would probably react somewhat differently than the person who wrote the post, I certainly have felt the frustration of having years of carefully researched and documented families merged or deleted in a few minutes of carelessness by another. Pooling resources and research is one of the wonderful advantages of FamilyTree but the huge downside is the lack of protection another's work. We've probably all experienced spending hours correcting and restoring information that someone else has quickly and without research "fixed."
ReplyDeleteI have had the same experiences. But it is important to understand that the changes come not just from people putting in new data but the ongoing process of moving all of the data from over 150 years of uncollaborated genealogy.
DeleteIn a way, I have to sympathize with the frustration I think Anonymous is expressing. I probably spend at least 2-3 hours a week fixing all the irresponsible changes made to Family Tree. In many cases, users seem to completely ignore the Notes and Sources. They simply compare their file to what is in Family Tree and if they are different, they change the Tree. The whole notion of a wiki is that over time "good data" drives out "bad data." However, my experience with Family Tree has been exactly the opposite. It requires constant vigilance to keep it from descending into chaos!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I think that most users do not seem to be aware of the Reference/Restore function of the program. I would suggest that you wait on lines that are in a state of flux until New.FamilySearch.org is entirely separated from FSFT.
DeleteAnonymous is not entirely mistaken to think that FamilySearch is "in charge." The engineer/programmers and administrative authority which make changes to the Tree are employed by FamilySearch.
ReplyDeleteFurther, changes to innumerable person profiles are made by an entity identified only as "FamilySearch." Sometimes these are extensive changes to family groups. They are often erroneous material from old trees. Sometimes the same changes are made over and over if a watchful user corrects the changes. There has been a lot of discussion of this continuing issue on the "getsatisfaction" forum. One explanation has been that these changes relate to current implementation of the effects of ordinance work. Not everyone believes that this explanation encompasses all of the changes made.
See my comment above. Until FSFT is completely separated from NFS, the programs is and will be in a state of constant change.
DeleteMr. Tanner,
ReplyDeleteHypothethis: I'm a botanist and have a beautiful spruce tree in my yard which has been carefully nurtured for many years. My neighbor, on the other hand, has a diseased tree. During the night, neighbor grafts branches of his diseased tree into my tree and prunes all my healthy branches, Neighbor is ignorant about tree-grafting; he is a butcher by trade.
You must know some of the people I talk to now and again. Just kidding. Maybe.
DeleteMr. Tanner: The botanist's tree was perfect prior to neighbor's rude behavior. In civilized cultures it is called "impropriety." In other words, the botanist doesn't need the neighbor's "help" to keep his tree healthy. Your friend, Mr. Anonymous
DeleteI have my genealogy on both Roots Magic and Legacy 8 which I downloaded from Family Tree. You cannot get into new.familysearch.org files anymore. Roots Magic is the easiest to work with and Legacy 8 the hardest. Roots Magic is limited to 10 generations plus you can get an extra 2 generations with names only but securing the extra 2 generations is very hard and very slow. I have Legacy 8 up to 90 megabytes but I really do not know what I have at this point since my computer was hacked. Everyone I see downloading from Family Tree is using Roots Magic.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with both programs is that you are snared by the temple data in both program and it is hard to get around this part. Try Roots Magic and you will see what I mean.