Posts
FamilySearch.org
I realize we are getting well into 2025, but I am always fascinated by what happened in the past year. FamilySearch.org had a banner year and from my standpoint, more than I can quickly learn about is coming in 2025. I do, however, have a few comments about the numbers for 2024.
All this comes from an email sent to me on December 30, 2024. Here is the opening quote:
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH—Join FamilySearch, the world’s largest nonprofit genealogy organization, in looking back at 2024 to recap some of its most notable highlights. FamilySearch celebrated its 130th anniversary as an organization in 2024, and the 25th anniversary of its popular website, FamilySearch.org. Millions of visitors made fun new ancestor discoveries during the year thanks to advancements in FamilySearch’s artificial intelligence, new historical records collections, and RootsTech by FamilySearch, which continued its global reach in helping individuals make new family connections.
FamilySearch enjoyed more than 285 million visits from across the planet in 2024. Patrons frequented FamilySearch’s growing record collections, interactive discovery experiences like Surnames and Ancestors, and helpful articles on the FamilySearch Wiki and Blog.
I am sure you are wondering how FamilySearch can claim to be 130 years old. The answer is very simple. FamilySearch is a trade name for The Genealogical Society of Utah. I have no doubt that the number of visits is accurate since I usually login to the FamilySearch.org website several times a day.
The next section talks about the number of records using the measurement of searchable names.
The next subject is the FamilySearch Family Tree.
The number of people in the FamilySearch Family Tree has to be adjusted for duplicates and some of us are painfully aware that there are still a huge number of duplicate names in the Family Tree. I also wonder is the number of sources is unique sources or simply a total of all the sources attached to all the people that would include multiple copies of the same source.
Here is another quote.
The world’s largest online family tree grew by more than 150 million people in 2024, totaling 1.67 billion searchable people. Contributors also added 530 million sources to their ancestors in the tree—which helps increase accuracy and collaboration. In addition, three new user features were added to the FamilySearch Family Tree:
Merge Analysis Feature simplifies the ability to review and correct merges, and you can better understand the “before and after” of each merge.
Portrait Pedigree View Update allows you to view siblings, a single-family line, and multiple family lines at the same time; add relatives quickly without leaving the page; and distinguish living individuals more easily.
3 Star Record Hints introduce a broader range of record considerations for experienced researchers to explore.
There is a lot more to talk about but I will leave the rest for other posts on other days.
I've attended RootsTech digitally for the past three years, and am signed up to do so again this year. I picked my schedule of presentations yesterday, and it looks really good. One of the presentations will be given by a genealogy friend of mine; I've presented at local genealogy conferences (before the pandemic) at which he was also a presenter, and encountered him at other genealogy events locally. I had not heard of the Surnames and Ancestors feature on FamilySearch, and am interested in taking a look at that. Thank you for mentioning it.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the announcement by FamilySearch of their CETs project, of providing space for private trees? No going back to the collaborative tree and correcting errors and misinformation provided by others. And then going back again, after you've corrected that, and finding the erroneous information there again. I said I love the idea of the private tree, but I object to the licensing agreement as too vague and broad. The Senior Product Manager contacted me by telephone to discuss my objection. He said that I'm not the only one who has expressed such objections, and that has caused great concern to FamilySearch. I said one thing to him that he said he's going to pass on to their lawyers: "What are the limits [to all the vague and broad statements in the agreement]?" We had a long and productive discussion. He is trying to determine how to issue a plain-language licensing agreement that will set out to users exactly what the vague lawyerly lingo means, what FamilySearch specifically will and will not do with our data, our research. I'm all for that. I told the gentleman that I appreciate their efforts to reach out to users to determine what we think of these broad agreements. I'm certainly interested to see how this all plays out.
ReplyDelete