Some people eat, sleep and chew gum, I do genealogy and write...

Tuesday, November 3, 2026

Can AI Fix the FamilySearch Family Tree -- Part Two Concerns and Challenges

 

The first big question is whether AI can actually improve the quality of the massive FamilySearch.org Family Tree, and whether it can consolidate and search the scattered record collections across the website. FamilySearch currently maintains eight distinct record collections that are either searched individually or, at best, appear together in only one or two combined queries.

Here are the eight primary search areas under the "Search" tab:

  • Records -- The core portal for searching traditional indexed records, currently supplemented by computer-indexed records that are increasingly AI-assisted.

  • Full Text -- An AI-powered search (currently in FamilySearch Labs) that indexes every word in processed documents and generates transcriptions alongside the digital images.

  • Images -- A vast archive of browse-only digital images, largely unindexed and gathered by FamilySearch camera crews around the world.

  • Genealogies -- A diverse aggregate of unrelated databases, lineage collections, oral genealogies, and contributed family trees.

  • Catalog -- The comprehensive bibliographic guide to the Family History Library's collection, indexed using traditional library methods at the collection or roll level rather than the individual record level.

  • Books -- A collection of digitized family histories, local histories, and periodicals that are searchable full-text, word-for-word.

  • Cemeteries -- A dedicated database of burial grounds and individual headstones searchable via the Cemeteries interface.

  • Newspapers -- A historical newspaper database indexed for full-text search, provided through a partnership with NewspaperArchive.com.

It is obvious that AI can perform remarkable feats—particularly in automated transcription, paleographic deciphering, translation, and surrogate search. A key question, however, is whether AI is reliable enough to replace FamilySearch's traditional catalog and query systems, tools built on decades of painstaking volunteer indexing.

Full-text search can surface ancestral records that never made it into traditional field-indexed collections. However, it currently covers only a small percentage of total holdings, and there is no simple way to track its overall impact across the other major collections. While icon badges in the Catalog indicate certain microfilms or DGS folders that have been processed by Full Text, the remaining collections offer few clear indicators of inclusion.

If FamilySearch eventually applies full-text AI search across the vast majority of its holdings, will traditional searches—such as the Historical Records Collection and the Catalog—become obsolete? Furthermore, could full-text retrieval be paired with specialized AI agents capable of actively evaluating and contextualizing search results against existing Family Tree profiles? Ultimately, will AI agents assist in researching all the records on the FamilySearch website?

The AI technology answer all three questions with a "yes" is available today. The biggest challenge is processing the billions of records on the FamilySearch website and then redesigning the website to take advantage of the complete Full-text search capabilities. 

The results would then be similar to what is currently done on the Ancestry.com and MyHeritage.com websites. For example, MyHeritage.com has for years provided highly accurate Record Matches that search virtually all the pertinent records on the website in 42 languages. Also, Ancestry.com has AI assisted searches that suggest the next individuals on many of the end of lines. 

I guess the last question is how fast can FamilySearch start implementing the programming to solve the questions?

1 comment:

  1. If AI is capable of going forward in any meaningful manner, it would, I believe, be immensely valuable for it to review the existing conclusions in FS FT by comparing them to the existing base of historical index records. Otherwise, we are still building on sand. Reviewing what's there now will never be totally possible because loads of records aren't held in any form on FS but were used by researchers. I guess that this sounds like a souped up version of the existing quality checks

    ReplyDelete