Full Text Search moves to FamilySearch Search Menu

 

For the past year or so, Full Text search has been part of the FamilySearch/Labs.org programs. Beginning August 28, 2025, a link to the Full Text search was also available from the standard Search pull down menu in the FamilySearch.org website. This is a significant event and may indicate that the number of documents processed by handwriting recognition has reached some sort of threshold. When you click on the Labs link to the Full Text Search, you get the following screen which shows the integration of the link in the Search menu.

Unfortunately, there does not yet seem to be an indication of how much of the entire FamilySearch record collections has been processed by the Full Text search option. There is a link to Browse All Collections, but the number of processed collections changes from day to day going both up and down. Processed collections are marked in the Catalog. 

So there is a way to see if any specific collection can be full text searched. This is a major step in making the entire collection available to full text search. 

More coming as the full text search continues to develop. By the way, if you don't see this a major genealogical event, you are probably not using the other existing tools available either. 

Guiding Principles for Responsible AI in Genealogy: Accuracy

 

Accuracy

AI can generate false, biased, or incorrect content. Therefore, members of the genealogical community verify the accuracy of the information with other records and acknowledge credible sources of content generated by AI.

This is one of the guiding principles for the responsible use of AII for genealogy developed by the Coalition. See CRAIGEN.org

Initially, AI chatbots were "rule-based" and used a set of predefined rules and keywords. If a user's input didn't match a specific rule, the chatbot couldn't provide a relevant response, leading to frustrating and limited interactions. An example of a rule-based chatbot is a telephone tree answering service. See the following:

Wills, Jason. “The Evolution of AI Chatbots in the Last Decade.” Medium, October 8, 2024. https://jason-wills343.medium.com/the-evolution-of-ai-chatbots-in-the-last-decade-012cf8b126f3.

“The Evolution of NLP Chatbots and Generative AI: How They Work, Why They Matter, and What’s Next.” Accessed August 7, 2025. https://quickchat.ai/post/nlp-chatbot-generative-ai-evolution.

AI chatbots became more useful as natural language processing (NLP) advanced. NLP is a field of AI that helps machines understand, interpret, and generate human language. However, initially, chatbots were limited by the following factors that lead to hallucinations. Here is a list of sources that discuss the issue of hallucination. 

Choi, Anna, and Katelyn Xiaoying Mei. “What Are AI Hallucinations? Why AIs Sometimes Make Things Up.” The Conversation, March 21, 2025. http://theconversation.com/what-are-ai-hallucinations-why-ais-sometimes-make-things-up-242896.

Timothy, Maxwell. “What Is AI Hallucination? How to Fix It.” Accessed August 7, 2025. https://www.chatbase.co/blog/ai-hallucination.

“What Are AI Hallucinations? | IBM.” September 1, 2023. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-hallucinations.

Wikipedia. “Hallucination (artificial intelligence).” July 29, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)&oldid=1303244625.

Currently, some chatbots are source centric and provide links to websites that are used to construct the answers to prompts (questions). Although it is still necessary to examine the information from the sources, the accuracy of chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and CoPilot, have evolved to the point of being more reliable. 

The accuracy principle cited above will continue to be a factor in using chatbots for genealogical purposes and will also require the genealogical researcher to continue to take responsibility for the accuracy of the information supplied. 

By actively searching for information and cross-referencing it from multiple sources, deep research models significantly reduce the likelihood of "hallucinating" or making up facts. They are designed to find information to support their claims, and if they can't, they are less likely to generate a false statement with high confidence.

The key, as set forth above, is not to rely on AI as you would a historical source. From my perspective, I use AI as I would an entry in an online family tree or a surname book with no sources, unless the sources are supplied by the AI Chatbot. 

“Ethics and Standards - Board for Certification of Genealogists.” Accessed August 20, 2025. https://bcgcertification.org/ethics-standards.

 

Don't get left behind by AI

 

Artificial intelligence is not a passing fad. It is a fundamental change affect nearly every aspect of our lives. Genealogy does not escape the effects of these major changes. One obvious effect of AI to FamilySearch.org is the end of volunteer-based indexing. If you haven't noticed, Indexing has disappeared from the website. 

All the indexing of records on the FamilySearch.org website is being done by AI-driven Full-Text Search based, in part, on AI based handwriting recognition. 

FamilySearch.org/labs

I suggest the following to get some idea about what is going on. 

• CRAIGEN.org The website of the Coalition for Responsible Use of AI in Genealogy. 
• https://youtu.be/Hfwxe7llx7Q?si=EMEV7WzXMaKxulu6  Updated-AI, Handwriting Recognition and Full-Text Research on FamilySearch

I have a number of other videos on the BYU Library Family History Center YouTube Channel,  but they are now months old and possibly already far out of date. This is the same problem with looking online for current information about AI. You have to look at the date of the article or video and try to find something that is not already out of date. 

AI is currently reaching the saturation point of online text and videos. By the way, I have more videos about AI coming up during the months ahead. 

FamilySearch Improved Merge Experience

 

One basic fact about online family trees is their propensity to create duplicates. This apparently stems from the belief by each family tree contributor that their work is somehow unique and completely accurate. When this belief in uniqueness and accuracy is extended to the large online family tree websites, the results is the larger the family tree the more likely the possibility of duplication. A huge, collaborative, universal family tree such as the FamilySearch.org Family Tree is by its collaborative nature to provide a place for all those believing in uniqueness and accuracy. The number of duplicates entries on the FamilySearch.org Family Tree has been, in the not too distant past, into the hundreds of millions. According to FamilySearch.org Facts, there are about 1.72 billion people in the Family Tree. Even if only 1% of that number were duplicates, there would be about 17.2 million duplicate entries. So, what is the actual percentage?

The actual number of duplicates could only be determined by some sampling method that took large numbers of people in the Family Tree and looked at them to see if they had any duplicate entries. Currently, in some cases, the Family Tree will tell users that there are duplicate entries. But, in my own experience, some duplicates only show up when information is added to one of the entries. For example, if I have an entry for a person with a very common name, when I do the research, I often see duplicates show up and if I am working with a family, those duplicates can continue with all the family members. This happens frequently enough for me to assume that there are a huge number of duplicates in the Family Tree. 

The Family Tree has several features that attempt to prevent duplication. However, a new person can be added to the Family Tree simply by indicating that there are no matches to existing entries. When the new entries are being added by someone uploading a GEDCOM file or working on a linking project duplicate entries are almost guaranteed because the standard FamilySearch method for determining duplicates does not find duplicates that are only discovered through doing research by adding sources and verifying all the information. 

Here is an example of a person with an extremely common name that has been been added with no sources from a GEDCOM file. 

There is obviously not enough information about this person to determine if there is a duplicate entry. Her husband is Marcos Garcia de Jove PSG1-PCF. He also has no sources. The issue here is that by doing more research on this person who has no birth date and no death date finding duplicate entries is fairly common. That is true here because of the huge number of people named Maria Velazquez and also the fact that we do not have her full name and any information about her birth, marriage or death. 

Here are some recent articles about the new Merge Experience. 

• Grant, Kathryn. “FamiilySearch Family Tree Merge Experience Has a 2025 Update • FamilySearch.” FamilySearch, July 11, 2025. https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/family-tree-merge-2025-update. 

• Id: 935, Article. “Merge Duplicate Records in Family Tree • FamilySearch.” HLPC Help Center, April 20, 2020. https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-merge-possible-duplicates-in-family-tree. 

• Tennant, Amie. “How to Fix Incorrect Merges in Your Family Tree • FamilySearch.” FamilySearch, March 10, 2025. https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/fix-incorrect-merges-on-familysearch.

If you have questions about the new Merge, you can get help from the FamilySearch.org Community. 

https://community.familysearch.org/en/

FamilySearch Computer Generated Family Trees are not Sources

 

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:5:7ZXY-254?lang=en

In working with another missionary/volunteer at the BYU Library Family History Center, we ran across this source entry.

You can click on the image to enlarge it. This entry was apparently posted by FamilySearch.org. Note that there are 35 sources for this individual and this Computer Generated Tree was posted on April 23, 2024. The same day, FamilySearch.org added a copy of a parish register enty. 

The first entry, the Computer Generated Trees entry, is not a source. It has duplicate names for an existing record and an unsupported duplicate entry for the existing individual and his parents. The second entry, the parish register, is one that has the valid historical source information. The Computer Generated Trees entry come for this file in the Genealogies section of the FamilySearch.org website. 

This entry must be one of a multitude of entries being made by FamilySearch, apparently, all of them or many of them duplicates of entries for a person already in the Family Tree. Incidentally, the parish register is also a duplicate of an entry made in 2019. 

Although the specter of Computer Generated Trees is being discussed as a replacement for human intervention in the genealogical research process, this single entry seems to indicate that at least back in 2024, the process did nothing more than duplicate the work already done. I suppose that you could take the position that people are really superfluous and that computers can do a better job of building family trees given the access to the necessary information but from what is shown here, the reality would be a duplication on a massive scale. 

Are you ready to be replaced? I don't think I am either. 

The Amazing Escapades of William Francis Tanner L19W-7W9

 

https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/L19W-7W9

Remember, as this story unfolds, that "Important research has been done on this person. Please read these alert notes before making changes." Also, he has a hefty 60 sources attached. Let's look at this amazing person. Oh, I should mention that the information in the FamilySearch Family Tree changes daily. I should also mention my research in Rhode Island has shown multiple people with the same William Tanner name during the years from 1657 to 1740. 

Here is his wondrous story. 

William Francis Tanner was suposedly born on 10 March 1657 in Chipstead, Surrey, England. There is a note that first mention of William in Rhode Island was in 1682 when he is 25 years old. However, he is married to Elizabeth Colgrove GWPP-Y78 who was apparently born in Sussex, England in 1665 and died in Sussex after the couple had five children who are born from 1680 to 1700 also in Sussex. Meanwhile, William was busy in Rhode Island by 1682. But he has to return to Sussex for children born in 1684, 1689, 1690, and 1700. 

In Rhode Island, William marries Hannah Tibbetts L6PR-VD4 in 1690 so he crosses the Atlantic just in time to have his daughter in Sussex in 1690. Quite a world traveler. He only manages to have one child with Hannah who dies in 1688. He quickly marries another woman, Mary Babcock, in 1690  and fourteen additional children born in 1691 (back to Rhode Island), two children in 1692, 1694, 1698, 1700, 1704, 1710, 1712, 1714, 1717, 1719, Deceased, and Deceased. Meanwhile, remember those five children born in England. He has multiple trips across the ocean. 

This William Tanner is currently only related to me through Sir Richard Vernon G4BD-PSP born in Derbyshire, England in 1415 and who died in 1451. 

This prolific William Tanner started out as my direct line ancestor before he was taken over by those Family Tree users who don't seem to have anything productive to do except make changes to this unfortunate family. My direct line is through another William Tanner that does not have the problem of multiple ocean crossings and three wives. 

These Revolving Door people are a significant waste of time and give the Famiily Tree a bad reputation among responsible genealogists. By the way, there do not appear to be any sources that have William Tanner with a middle name in Rhode Island. 

https://blog.myheritage.com/2025/07/significant-enhancements-to-mystories/

Quoting from the MyHeritage Blog post "Introducing MyStories: A New Service to Turn Cherished Memories into a Printed Keepsake Book"

For 21 years, MyHeritage has inspired millions of people worldwide to discover more about who they are and where they belong. While family trees, historical records, and photos are integral to family history — the stories, memories, and anecdotes that form the essence of life often go undocumented. MyStories encourages people to capture their stories and preserve them for future generations in high-quality hardcover books, ensuring their stories are cherished for posterity.For 21 years, MyHeritage has inspired millions of people worldwide to discover more about who they are and where they belong. While family trees, historical records, and photos are integral to family history — the stories, memories, and anecdotes that form the essence of life often go undocumented. MyStories encourages people to capture their stories and preserve them for future generations in high-quality hardcover books, ensuring their stories are cherished for posterity.

Now, MyHeritage has added a new level of convenience and utility. Here is the quote from the blog post entitled, "New Features on MyStories: Audio Recording and Enhanced Editing."

Many people are eager to tell their stories, but some are more comfortable talking than typing. With the addition of audio recording and transcription, you can record your story in your own voice with the click of a button. Once recorded, MyStories uses AI voice-to-text technology to automatically transcribe the story. The transcribed story appears directly in the story editor, where you can edit the text and layout, and add relevant photos. The audio recordings are saved so you can access them later on and download them, if you wish.

I am trying to write one subject a week for this entire year. I will certainly put images in the sections I have already written and in the subsequent sections.  

Apple study reveals the limitations of current AI Large Reasoning Models

 

Apple Machine Learning Research. “The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity.” Accessed June 23, 2025. https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/illusion-of-thinking.

It is about time that someone or some company did studies to determine the limitation of the currently popular Large Languag Models (LLMs) and AI Large Reasoning Models (LRMs). First, short explanation about LLMs and LRM.

A Large Language Model (LLM) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) program designed to understand, generate, and manipulate human language. LLMs are characterized by their massive scale—they are trained on enormous datasets of text and code, often comprising billions or even trillions of words. (Google Gemini search)

also: 

A Large Reasoning Model (LRM) is an advanced type of artificial intelligence model that extends the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by specifically focusing on and enhancing their ability to perform multi-step logical reasoning and problem-solving. (Google Gemini search)

Quoting from an article posted by The Guardian (Marcus, Gary. “When Billion-Dollar AIs Break down over Puzzles a Child Can Do, It’s Time to Rethink the Hype.” The Guardian, June 10, 2025, sec. Opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/10/billion-dollar-ai-puzzle-break-down.)

Apple did this by showing that leading models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Deepseek may “look smart – but when complexity rises, they collapse”. In short, these models are very good at a kind of pattern recognition, but often fail when they encounter novelty that forces them beyond the limits of their training, despite being, as the paper notes, “explicitly designed for reasoning tasks”.

Apple used a child's game called "The Tower of Hanoi" that is relatively easy to solve to show that the reasoning ability of the major LLMs and LRMs fail when faced with challenges that can be solved by young children. 

My own experience using AI for a variety of purposes (such as the ones above) indicate that the advancements for historical/genealogical research are as limited as I expected. However, when we talk about handwriting recognition and the related progress is handling large numbers of documents will fundamentally change the way genealogists do their research.

The Digitization of the Vatican Library

https://digi.vatlib.it/

 Yes, you are reading right. There is a website with the current digitization of the Vatican Library. The images are watermarked but that does not interfere with doing research. From the website: "The project aims to digitize the entire Library' collection namuscripts : 80,000 (excluding the archival units) mostly from Middle Ages and Humanistic period. See https://digi.vatlib.it/news/#news-1 

Here is a description from Google Gemini of the digital library. 

The Vatican Library has embarked on an ambitious and ongoing project to digitize its immense and historically significant collections, making them accessible to a global audience. This initiative, primarily housed on the "DigiVatLib" platform, offers free access to a vast array of materials, transforming the experience of engaging with these irreplaceable artifacts.

The digital collections are remarkably diverse, encompassing a wide spectrum of historical and cultural heritage. Chief among them are tens of thousands of precious manuscripts, many dating back to the Middle Ages and Renaissance. These include not only theological and ecclesiastical texts but also classical Greek and Latin works, Arabic, Hebrew, and Ethiopic manuscripts, and even early copies of works by influential figures such as Aristotle, Dante, Euclid, Homer, and Virgil. The digitization process captures these intricate documents with high resolution, preserving their delicate details, illuminations, and sometimes even their original blemishes.

Beyond manuscripts, the digital library also features a substantial collection of incunabula (books printed before 1501), offering insights into the early history of printing. Furthermore, researchers and enthusiasts can explore archival materials and inventories, providing a window into the administrative and historical records of the Church. The collections are enriched by graphic materials, coins and medals, and various other printed materials that form special projects within the library's holdings.

The digitization effort serves a dual purpose: long-term preservation of these fragile and invaluable items for future generations, and opening up their contents to a much wider public. The platform utilizes International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF) technology, enhancing accessibility and enabling scholars to easily compare and utilize these resources alongside those from other major institutions. While the project is ongoing and a significant portion of the vast physical collections is yet to be digitized, the Vatican Library's digital endeavors represent a monumental step in democratizing access to some of the world's most treasured intellectual and artistic heritage.

Major update to FamilySearch England Jurisdictions 1851 Map

https://www.familysearch.org/en/labs/

 

The England Jurisdictions Map of 1851 has been a long-time FamilySearch.org feature. It has disappeared for times in the past and recently has had its own location. The URL for the map is unique: https://www.familysearch.org/en/mapp/  Yes, the URL has two "ps" in map. This FamilySearch.org website is relatively obscure and I find very few people who are otherwise involved in English genealogy know about the map or its features. Now, the map is even more detailed and useful likely using some AI features. One of most useful features is the beginning date of parish registers and bishop's transcripts. 

The best way to become familiar with the map and its features is through clicking around and seeing all the new features. Here is a brief description of the map from December 13, 2024 before the new AI additions. 

The England Jurisdictions, 1851 map is a powerful, internet-based geographic information system (GIS). It shows parish maps of the 40 counties in England. This mapping system simplifies English research. It consolidates data from many finding aids into a single searchable repository. Access the information with the click of a mouse in a parish boundary. See https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/does-familysearch-support-the-england-jurisdictions-1851-map

I need to say something about the state of current England jurisdictions. They are complicated, daunting, difficult to understand, only vaguely described and confusing to say the least. Now, back to the 1851 map. Why 1851?  The FamilySearch England Jurisdictions 1851 is based on the British Ordnance Survey map of 1851. See Ordnance Survey from the National Archives (UK). These maps show almost every building, farm, and everything else about England. The 1851 map is a good example. 

What about jurisdictions? As confusing as English jurisdictions are, anyone wanting to know how to do English genealogical research needs to know about, at least, the basics. The FamilySearch.org England Jurisdictions 1851 map now goes well beyond the basics For example, here is a list of layer of the upgraded map:

You can turn of and on the various subdivisions of the overall jurisdictions of counties. Finding genealogical records depends on knowing this jurisdictional approach to England (also Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Wales and all the other countries and subdivisions of the British Islands plus Ireland. 

The map has always been useful to see the parishes that existed in 1851, but now the list includes all the possible jurisdictions. 

Take some time. Learn about the map and ask a lot of questions. Remember one thing, boundaries and jurisdictions change over time. The current maps of England will be considerably different than those in 1851.   

FamilySearch Catalog marks Full-Text search collections

 The FamilySearch.org Catalog

You might or might not have noticed sone new icons in the FamilySearch.org Catalog. Here is a closer screenshot view.

Here is an even closer view.

The new document icon is a link to the FamilySearch.org/labs Full-text search for that particular collection. Here is a screenshot of the Full-text search file. 

Now if I search for my own surname (a lot of my ancestors and relatives lived in Apache County) I get the following new record list. 

This is my great great grandfather's probate file. All these probate files are new additions to the both his sources and memories. This record has probably not been looked at previously since it was created. 

I am guessing that these extra icons are going to get a lot of attention in the next few weeks and months. 

Over 1000 free genealogy videos

 

https://www.youtube.com/@BYULibraryFamilyHistory

Just a reminder that the BYU Library Family History Center continues to post three or four or more new genealogy videos every week. As of the date of this post, the number of videos was 1064. If you see a topic that needs to be covered, you can contact the library through an email to family-history@byu.edu

I lost track of the number of videos I have done that are now on YouTube.com. But I am sure you can fine a few that might help you in your genealogical activities. 

Reclaim the Records won the first-ever public release of the FULL New York State Death Index, from 1880 through the end of 2017

Reclaim the Records 

Quoting from the announcement:

Reclaim The Records, a non-profit organization dedicated to government transparency and public access to historical records, proudly announces the court-ordered release of information from millions of New York State death records, spanning three centuries of New York’s vibrant history. Last week, after a four-year legal battle, New York State’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of Reclaim the Records in the case Matter of Reclaim the Records v. New York State Department of Health, finding that the Department of Health must disclose comprehensive death index records that had been requested under the state’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

For more information about this monumental court decision, please take time to read the following web page:

Indexed data from more than ten million records from the state of New York for the years 1880-2017 have now been ordered released by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York. 

Are you aware that there are many other public record collections that are restricted or only available behind a pay wall? You may wish to read some of the other articles in the battles faced by the Reclaim the Records staff and supporters. Please note that Reclaim the Records releases all these records into the public domain. 

See: https://www.reclaimtherecords.org/

Computer Disk Storage Prices Continue to Decline

 

If you want to keep it, back it up. Computers and the associated devices are consumables. They are not investments. That means that any electronic device will have a life span and ultimately fail. The common lifespan rule of thumb for all devices, including computers, hard disk drives, smartphones, tablets or pads, and all the rest, is five years with a possible maximum of eight years. Even if a computer is physically sound, it can become "obsolete" as software and operating systems become more demanding, and older hardware struggles to keep up.

What this means is that the older the devices get, the more likely they are to fail but there are many ways electronics can fail long before the life span. So, what does this mean in plain English? You need to be aware of the age of each of your devices that you depend on for memory storage. The good news is that the cost of both hard drives and SSDs (Solid State Devices) continues to come down. Although, external pressures that affect availabilty and manufacture may temporarily drive up prices. In addition, the storage capacity of hard drives continues to increase and therefore drive down prices on smaller capacity hand drives. 

Currently, (at the date of this post), the newest, readily available, large capacity hard drives are up to 22 Terabytes in storage capacity. This is more than most people could fill during most of their lives. Depending on the resolution of the average one to two hour movie, a 20 TB hard drive could store about 13,333 movies. If the movies were higher quality 4K , that number may drop to 5,000. But for the average genealogist anything over a 10 TB hard drive would probably never entirely fill up.

But let's look at current prices. A Seagate Expansion 10TB External Hard Drive HDD - USB 3.0, with Rescue Data Recovery Services (STKP10000402) on Amazon is selling for $284 but there may be other prices for similar drives. If you want to see the statistics on hard drive failure rates, see Backblaze Drive Stats for Q1 2025. But, the price of a Seagate Expansion 22TB External Hard Drive HDD - USB 3.0, with Rescue Data Recovery Services (STKP22000400) is $299. For about $15 more, you can get double the capacity. 

So let's say you look at the size of your current computer's internal memory and it is much smaller than 22 TBs. You think well, all I need is a 1 or 2 TB hard drive to back up everything on my computer, (See one of my old posts: Struggling to Stay Online -- Back it up or lose it), Right now, a Seagate Portable 1TB External Hard Drive HDD – USB 3.0 for PC, Mac, PlayStation, & Xbox, 1-Year Rescue Service (STGX1000400) , Black is $59 and a Seagate Portable 2TB External Hard Drive HDD — USB 3.0 for PC, Mac, PlayStation, & Xbox -1-Year Rescue Service (STGX2000400) is $69. 

By the way, you can purchase a Seagate Expansion 28TB External Hard Drive HDD - USB 3.0, with Rescue Data Recovery Services (STKP28000400) for $389. 

The question is how much is all the time and effort you have put into the contents of your computer's hard drive are you willing to all over again?

Back it up or lose it. 

Why is Thomas Hicks a revolving door ancestor?

 

Thomas Hicks MDCG-YHY is a revolving door ancestor.  He was called to my attention by a guest of the FamilySearch Library in Salt Lake City, Utah who I was helping with a consultation. See https://www.familysearch.org/en/library/genealogy-help It just so happens that I am also related to this person assuming that the lines shown in View Relationship are correct. Thomas Hicks is a revolving door ancestor because the basic information about him is changing constantly with nine changes to the identity of his wife and other data in the last two weeks and there are hundreds perhaps into the thousands of changes logged by the Show All changes option. 

I am not about to spend the time necessary to clear up the confusion about Thomas Hicks because it is a waste of time. This revolving door of constant changes should be made an award and I suggested that the people who qualify be marked with this possible icon. 

Perhaps, there should be a competition for finding the individual on the FamilySearch Family Tree with the most changes. I already have in mind several individuals who are probably candidates for that honor. Perhaps something like this:

The tragedy from my recent consultation was that the person requesting help refuses to put his information on the Family Tree due to the changes. How many people are not using the FamilySearch.org Family Tree for exactly that reason and that reason alone? The irony of this particular person being a revolving door ancestor is that he appears in New England between 1557 and seems to appear on the FamilySearch.org Family Tree sometime before 2012. The further irony of this revolving door award winning person is that he had an extensive number of descendants who obviously have their ancestral heritage change with each change to Thomas Hicks. 

In addition, any of the find my relative apps will constantly show a different set of proposed relatives. 

I refuse to do any research in New England because of this constant threat of constant change. Yes, I know all about the CET trees project and when it is released, I will likely be able to look at my New England heritage once more.

Is AI helpful or merely trivial?

As a genealogist, there is a division between activities that help and support genealogical/historical research and those that are mere play-time diversions. AI is not my "companion." AI is not going to help me with my daily schedule. AI is not going to improve the quality of my life (at least not directly). I am not looking to AI for advice about my life. AI is not a game or pass-time. So, what good is AI to a genealogical researcher? 

I have been working on that aspect of AI now for more than three years. I have compared several of the Chatbot AI programs and tried to see how AI fits into my daily routine of finding genealogical records, drafting blog posts, developing webinar and class presentations, and answering questions from patrons at the Family History Center at the BYU Library and consultations with guests from the FamilySearch Library's webpage. (https://www.familysearch.org/en/library/genealogy-help). Here is what I have found so far. 

First of all, I find it necessary to plough through the fluff and triviality of most of the online suggested AI activities. One of the main activities of genealogical research is the process of asking questions and finding answers from valid historical documents usually referred to as the "Research Process." But because of the complex nature of the overall genealogical activities that support research, I often need help with the mechanics of using online programs and resources. I also need to keep my computer system operational. So where does AI fit into this process and how do we avoid being side tracked by triviality?

At it core, AI as it is now being promoted is nothing more or less that an enhanced search engine with a robotic interface. If this assessment is the case, and I think it am right, AI should help with research as a step-up from a Google Search. What I do find, after trying different approaches, is that AI gives answers and not just a list of possibly useful websites. Initially, there was a lot of hand wringing over the accuracy of the AI Chatbots. The answer to the issue of the reliability of the information from the Chatbots was simply providing the source of their responses. The good news is that both Google Gemini and Microsoft CoPilot now provided accurate source citations to their responses. This allows the information to be evaluated and incorporated into the Research Process. You will have to try this out for yourself, but I find routine questions about history are adequately addressed. The AI Chatbots can also give me suggested online record sources and other related questions. 

What this means for the average genealogical researcher is that AI can become your preferred search engine as long as it provides adequate source citations. 

Here is a short example. I asked Microsoft CoPilot the following question:

Tell me the Catholic parish and diocese of Nuevo Colón, Boyacá, Colombia 

I got the following response:

The Catholic parish in Nuevo Colón, Boyacá, Colombia is Parroquia Nuestra Señora de la Antigua, located at Carrera 4 N° 3 - 26, Nuevo Colón, Boyacá, 90230. This parish falls under the jurisdiction of the Arquidiócesis de Tunja. If you need more details, you can check out their official page .

The answer also linked to the following website for support.

Iglesias y Parroquias Católicas en Nuevo Colon Boyacá , Colombia

https://www.tramiya.com/iglesias-y-parroquias-catolicas-en-nuevo-colon-boyaca-colombia/  

This is definitely an enhanced help from trying to find this website with a Google Search when I have no idea that it exists. A check by searching from the town, Nuevo Colon Boyacá , Colombia, on Google Maps shows the churches in that town correspond to the response from CoPilot. 

Now, why would I use CoPilot? I got both answers with links Even with the mapy of the town, I still do not know the dioceses. 

If you are doing hundreds of searches every day, the convenience of the Chatbots saves valuable time. 

Now what else. We (my extended family) are finding the organizing a lot of information on a spreadsheet in enhanced. We also find that asking for instructions about fixing online computer issues is enhanced. We like these features but see no use for the fluff. I don't need a Chatbot to tell me what I need to buy at the store for example. Although I might use a Chatbot to research purchases. So we come back to using AI for finding resources and answering questions. 

Genealogy is not just copying names

 

In some parts of the world, particularly for people who descend from ancestors from Western Europe, genealogy is not a particularly new innovation or pursuit. In my 43 years of doing genealogical research, I spent the first 15 or so years copying genealogical information from my ancestors. This information was found in books and a huge number of family group sheets located in the Salt Lake City Family History Library. The information that I found was sometimes incomplete and inaccurate. For example, I found this book in my father's personal library. 

Tanner, George S. John Tanner and His Family: A History-Biography of John Tanner of Lake George, New York, Born August 15, 1778, Hopkinton, Rhode Island, Died April 13, 1850, at South Cottonwood, Utah. Salt Lake City: John Tanner Family Association., 1974.

This book contained a short section about John Tanner's ancestors going back to one William Tanner from the Rhode Island colony in the 1700s. Because it appeared that all the information was available in this book, it seemed that all I needed to do was copy the information out into my own genealogy computer program. (My use of computers for doing genealogy started at about the same time.) The problem was that the information about "William Tanner" was both partial and inaccurate. Many, many years later, after beginning actual research, learning a lot more about genealogical research, and looking at original source records from Rhode Island, I boiled down most of the inaccuracies to the simple fact that no one had yet identified William Tanner and had certainly not traced his origin to England. 

Now, what is happening with the online family trees and William Tanner? A huge number of William Tanner's supposed descendants are still copying the inaccurate and incomplete information out of the John Tanner book cited above. The reality is that I have found as many as ten men living in the Rhode Island Colony during the same late 1600s to 1700s with the same name: William Tanner. The results are evident from the constant ignorant changes and additions being made to the FamilySearch.org Family Tree entry for an entry many consider to be the person from the book. Here is a screenshot of the entries you can find with people who may or may not be THE William Tanner who is the ancestor of John Tanner from the book. 

What is known about the true William Tanner has been documented with deeds, wills, and other contemporary documents. 

Copying is not research.  

Why is Genealogy or Family History so challenging?

 

There are always obstacles and challenges to doing genealogical research. But, time and learning can over come most, if not all these challenges. The main issues deal with the difficulty of getting started and continuing to learn in order to adapt to rapidly changing technology. 

First a note about terminology. Genealogy and Family History are merely two different terms for exactly the same pursuit. The term "genealogy" is used more frequently in the United States and the term "family history" is more common in the United Kingdom. The only major university in the United States with a degree in genealogy, Brigham Young University, consistently uses the term "family history." But see also the Family History Portal where the term "Center for Family History and Genealoogy" is used. I use the terms interchangeably. 

Here are a three of the major challenges of pursuing an interest in genealogy or if you prefer, family history. 

Finding the motivation to begin learning the basics of genealogical research. 

Depending on your own background and perhaps, religious affiliation, you may have heard more or less about searching for your ancestors. There is a constant, low-level background of mostly online discussion about involving new people, mainly youth, in genealogy or family history. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDA Church) are frequently reminded that searching out their ancestors is part of being a member. See Family History. There are major websites dedicated to help "youth" become involved. See, for example, Youth, Connect with Your Ancestors. Those who are not members of the LDS Church who make up the vast majority of those are involved in genealogy become fascinated by learning about their ancestral heritage apart from any religious motivation. 

So a religious motivation alone is not usually the reason why someone would go through the effort of learning what is usually an involved and difficult pursuit.  For example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has promoted family history for over a hundred years and it is well known that the percentage of members of the church actively doing genealogical research is less the 5% of the total membership. However, 5% of over 17 million people is a lot of people interested in genealogy. See How the FamilySearch tool Ordinances Ready is hastening and simplifying temple and family history work for an example. Additionally, the in-person attendance at the annual RootsTech conference has been well above 20,000. It is my opinion that motivation must come from a personal interest in doing research and finding ancestral lines. That motivation could come from a family member, but that was not my own experience. Additionally, to be involved at anything like the level demonstrated by many of my associates, requires more than an interest, it requires years of effort dedicated to learning and practicing a high level of stubborn pursuit. 

Beginning the process of doing genealogical research.

Genealogical research is more than a hobby, it is an avocation and can become a full-time obsession. Genealogy involves historical research. There is nothing about genealogy that is easy to do. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates around 3,400 historians out of a population of over 300 million, were employed in 2023. See Occupational Outlook Handbook. Interesting, an Ipsos poll from June 2021 found that 7 in 10 Americans think it's important to know their family's history. See Majority of Americans think knowing their ancestry is important. There is a general confusion over an interest in family history and actually doing genealogical/historical research. Also, taking a DNA test or actually doing research into original historical records is the dividing factor in the vastly different perspectives. 

Accepting the standards of carefully researched genealogy.

Even among those who are involved in "researching" their family lines, there is a significant percentage (not readily measurable) of those who lack the historical research skills to produce accurate and supported genealogical data. I must admit that this is a subjective conclusion on my part but it is based on well over 43 years of active genealogical experience. Many would-be genealogists give up when they learn that genealogical/historical research has standards. See Ethics and Standards. The fact that there are university level degrees in genealogy and family history should indicate that genealogy is a lot more than a part-time hobby. 

So, to summarize, genealogy is not a restful, Sunday afternoon, past-time for older people. It is a serious and difficult part of a historical research. The numbers of active participants, after subtracting those who do not have the skills necessary to actually do genealogical research, indicate that it is a highly specialized pursuit. I would say occupation but the number of people who make enough money to live from doing genealogical research is an insignificant number of the small number of people who do historical record supported research. 

FamilySearch's Struggle with Duplication

 

I recently discovered the second installment in the history of FamilySearch.org (aka The Genealogical Society of Utah or GSU). I have written about the first book in the past but it is still required reading for anyone interested in understanding the monumental task faced by FamilySearch to eliminate duplication of entries submitted to the temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Presently, with the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, the historical problem is still abundantly present. 

The concern over duplication was one of the main motivating factors for the establishment of the GSU. Here are the two books that explain, in great detail, the challenges faced by the GSU and its trade name FamilySearch. 

Allen, James B, Jessie L Embry, and Kahlile B Mehr. Hearts Turned to the Fathers: A History of the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1894-1994. Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, Brigham Young University, 1995.

Kahlile Bliss Mehr. Dawning Of The Digital Age: The Family History Department, 1995-2011, 2014. http://archive.org/details/MehrDawningOfTheDigitalAge.

Before you start wringing your hands or bemoaning the issues with the FamilySearch.org Family Tree especially about duplicate entries, you must read both books from cover to cover. The Hearts Turned to the Fathers book is still available from Amazon and Deseret Book. The second book is available to read on Archive.org. You can find an ebook edition of the first book from Barnes & Noble. 

From what I have read, the main issue confronting the GSU (FamilySearch) all along has been the technological challenges of attempting to create a tree for all mankind. So far, the FamilySearch.org Family Tree is the best that we have. I can also say that recent developments in the Family Tree are heading in the right direction and the issue of duplicate entries is still in the forefront of the development. But from my standpoint, if you come to me an complain about duplicates, changing entries, or any of the other issues with the Family Tree, I will simply say, wait and see what happens. Technology is changing rapidly and the Family Tree is changing as rapidly as the new technology is available and can be adapted to the development of the Family Tree. 

How about thanking FamilySearch for its efforts and praising them for trying to invent and use technology that was not available until the last few weeks before this post was written. 

How up to date is the FamilySearch Research Wiki?

 

https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/England_Genealogy

The FamilySearch.org Research Wiki is one of the most valuable genealogical resources currently available. With more than 100,000 articles, it covers more information than can easily be comprehended. It was designed as a "wiki" for the purpose of allowing users to create and edit information. However, it has been a long time since the days when any interested contributor was allowed to edit information. In July 2024, all the remaining long-time editors were blocked from further edits. I speculate that FamilySearch is working on adding an AI search capability to the wiki and need to "freeze" the wiki while that development goes on. Meanwhile, the articles are aging rapidly. Of course, not all the wiki is affected by the passage of time. But some of the major articles about specific countries are basically become out of date due to both historical and technological changes. Here is an example from the article on England and the subsequent articles linked to the main England page. See link above.

There is a page in the wiki that explains much of what is outlined below but the page has very few useful links and cannot easily be found. See https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/England_Jurisdictions 

There are 40 counties in this list. Currently, there are 48 counties in England. The statement in the text before the county list states that "The England counties listed below are based on historic boundaries pre-1974." Some of these counties no longer exist. As of 2025, there are 48 administrative counties in England. Some of these as listed above are purely traditional and do not appear in the current list. These missing counties include Cumberland, Huntingdonshire, London, Middlesex, Sussex, Westmorland, and Yorkshire.

These current counties are not separate articles or in the list above from the Research Wiki: Bristol, City of London, Cumbria, East Riding of Yorkshire, East Sussex, Greater London, Greater Manchester, Isle of Wight, Merseyside, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands, West Sussex, and West Yorkshire. 

In 1851, England had 40 counties for the purposes of census reporting, which were known as "registration counties". From 1851 to 1911, the "registration counties" were used for census reporting and administrative purposes. It's important to note that there are different definitions of "county" in England today: there are ceremonial counties (48), metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties for local government (84), and historic counties (39). The England 1851 map shown above is based on the 40 registration counties. 

Now the issue with these differing lists is that each of current 48 counties has its own archives and family history resources. Some of the administrative counties, such as the Isle of Wight, have been a county since 1890. See https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Isle_of_Wight,_England_Genealogy But some of the other counties do not have separate pages. 

This is just one example of the difficulty of administering and maintaining a collection of over 100,000 articles without the help of a willing and able community. For whatever reason, the editing of the Research Wiki has been limited to those inside FamilySearch. I might mention that most of the information about the Canadian Provinces is also out of date. 

Some of the countries of the world, such as Chechnya, are almost completely missing from the Research Wiki. 

I realize that traditionally, genealogists record events and sources with the places as they were at the time of the events in an ancestor's life. When changes occur, the name of the place changes. This means that without moving some of my ancestors' places entries change. The main challenge illustrated with my example above about England is locating the present jurisdiction so that a search can be made in the historical jurisdiction. The best example of this challenge is Yorkshire County, England, which is now North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and East Riding of Yorkshire. 

It will be a great loss to the genealogical community of the Research Wiki continues to go further out of date. 

Origins going back 10,000 years from MyHeritage

 https://blog.myheritage.com/2025/02/introducing-ancient-origins-trace-your-origins-back-10000-years/

If you obtain enough DNA information from enough people, it is possible to draw conclusions about ancient origins. Here is the promotional video for the MyHeritage.com new Ancient Origins.

https://youtu.be/LlRKBp_YUp4?si=n4jjD7d8X2FaGyFM

Here is a link to the blog announcing the new DNA feature. https://blog.myheritage.com/2025/02/introducing-ancient-origins-trace-your-origins-back-10000-years/

I have had both my MyHeritage.com and Ancestry.com DNA on MyHeritage.com for some time. I currently have 18, 502 matches. My matches span the globe. 

If you think that projecting DNA matches back 10,000 years is a gimmick or imaginary, you don't know what is going on in the world-wide DNA community. Here are some links to articles explaining other long DNA projections. 

https://www.templeton.org/news/revising-human-history-through-ancient-dna

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43586-020-00011-0 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098222100436X

There are probably hundreds more articles along the same lines. 

Now what about my own ancient DNA? There is a lot to explore on MyHeritage.com.

Each of the areas have futher analysis (I think I look just like the person used as an example except for the hair)

You can continue to explore more with the links given to support the conclusions. Here is one link.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7487 

Have fun learning about this new extension to your DNA origins. Of course, you have to have a family tree and a DNA test on MyHeritage to get the full results.