The Blind Men and the FamilySearch Family Tree

My reference to the Blind Men and the Elephant is transparently intended. In the case of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree the real question is who are the Blind Men? The users? The developers? A little of both? I have been reading comments from various people who profess to "know" what is going on. There are several problems with these opinions. None of them account for all of the data. Put another way, none of the supposed analyses account for what is observed as happening in the Family Tree.

So what is happening?

It is apparent from my direct observation and the observation of many others that a huge number of "newly discoverable" entries are being either added to the Family Tree or are now discoverable by the search engine. One explanation by the Ancestry Insider in a post entitled, "Barrage of Records" Causing Problems" dated June 15, 2016 addresses some of the observed issues. I could ask a number of questions that are suggested by the AI's commentary, but I see no reason to raise the issues those questions would suggest.

The bottom line of the situation that exists in the Family Tree presently is that there is a defect in the ability of users to merge obvious duplicates. Further, the search engines involved with the program are unable to find and display all of the duplicates. I have shown how this is discoverable several times in past posts, but I will do it again here.

MyHeritage.com has access to all of the entries in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. One of my ancestors, Nathaniel Potter shows 284 Record Matches. All of these, except for the first 6 are records found in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. This means there are 278 duplicate entries in the Family Tree discoverable by MyHeritage.com. In paging through these duplicates it is evident that they relate to the same person. Here is a screenshot from MyHeritage.com.

Here is one of the records on the FamilySearch.org Family Tree.

Here is what I find when I look for duplicates for this randomly selected record:

So again, obviously the search engines are not finding all the duplicates. This situation has existed for months (if not years) and is not a "new" development. What is a new development is that many of these "duplicates" are now discoverable and can be merged. Some still cannot be merged. But in some cases, we have been able to eliminate all of the duplicates for a specific person. 

Now, I cannot believe that these hundreds of duplicates came from the recent move by the Membership Department. The duplicates came from multiple submissions of the same people for over a hundred years of accumulated submissions. They have been in the data all along. The imperfections in the program cannot yet deal with either the number of duplicates or their specific origin. It is obvious that some of the issues do come from the "Membership Records" whether or not those records actually represent people who were or are members of the Church. 

The net effect on the user is an inability to actually work with the program and make any progress on some of the lines usually referred to as containing IOUSs. Another issue is the fact that many of the duplicates are converted into duplicate ordinance requests. 

Now, the bogey man here is the new.FamilySearch.org involvement with the Family Tree. I am sure that the explanation of what is happening is much more technically involved than my generalized speculations. But what I can do is "reconstruct" the cause from the effect. In my favor, I may be one of the Blind Men, but I have a very powerful computer attached to the Internet and many, many years of experience in deciphering the internal workings of computer programs and detecting bugs. In this case the Family Tree elephant is my "black box." I try to work out how the program works or does not work from the observable product.  

My best guess today is that intentionally or not, the fact that we can now find more of the huge pile of duplicate entries in the database indicates that FamilySearch is making progress in "fixing" the program. We are steadily seeing the functionality of the program increasing and the area closed off by the "construction" grow smaller and smaller. I do not claim to have any "inside" knowledge of insight into the time table involved. My guess is that there is still a significant amount of programming to be done, but I can also foresee that many of the issues now preventing merges are being eliminated. 

As always, the Family Tree program is the solution, not the problem. If you think the program is a problem, then you are the problem. Get to work and do what you can do with the program and stop worrying about the future changes. Let me worry about them. I will do this anyway. 

Multiple Duplicates on the FamilySearch Family Tree Portend an End to new.FamilySearch.org

I have had a number of comments recently, both public and private, about a huge number of duplicate entries finally showing up in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. Previously, the program was unable to find or view these duplicates because of a complex issue originating in the limitations imposed by the previously used program, new.FamilySearch.org. You can see my more extended explanation in my post entitled, "What will the FamilySearch Family Tree look like when it is fixed?"

The appearance of the Family Tree's previously undetectable reservoir of duplicates is a major indication that the programming being done to detach and finally put to rest the new.FamilySearch.org program is finally nigh at hand. As I note in my post from my other blog, the appearance of all of the duplicate entries in the Family Tree will throw some of the family lines into chaos. On the other hand, most of us who have been waiting for years for this event to happen are diligently trying to merge all the duplicates.

If you have no idea what I am talking about, it probably doesn't matter at all. The problem involves people with "legacy" families whose relatives have submitted their genealogical information to FamilySearch and its predecessors for well over a hundred years. Fortunately, the store of duplicates is not infinite, although it may seem so in some cases. I do know that it is potentially possible for their to be over a thousand copies of one individual essentially hidden in the program. These previously undetectable duplicates have prevented many of these "pioneer" lines from being corrected in the Family Tree.

The end is not quite here yet. I still see notices that some of my relatives "Can't Be Merged At This Time." This notice is the chief indicator that the problem still has not be resolved. But my own experience, and those of my commentators, is that many more duplicates have appeared and are able to be merged.

Of course, this may all be idle speculation. We may still have a while to wait before there is a definitive end to the limitations imposed on the Family Tree. As usual, we will just have to wait and see.

MyHeritage.com makes a NewspaperARCHIVE.com Collection Notice

The following notice was published on June 16, 2016 concerning a much-used and valuable collection on the MyHeritage.com website.

16    Jun 20160 comments

NewspaperARCHIVE.com Collection Notice
We wanted to give our users a heads up that MyHeritage's license of the newspaper content from NewspaperARCHIVE.com is about to expire next week. This means that on Tuesday, June 21, 2016, the collection will be de-published (withdrawn) from MyHeritage. In addition, pending Record Matches from this collection will be removed. Confirmed Record Matches that were saved to family trees will remain in place. 

MyHeritage is currently in negotiations with NewspaperARCHIVE.com to enter into a new license in order to keep this collection on MyHeritage. If these efforts are successful and the content is relicensed, then it will be reloaded onto MyHeritage and the Record Matches will return, and all links to newspaper records that were saved into family trees will continue to work. This will work well even if the newspaper content will be de-published for a while, and then return. 

We advise users who have pending Record Matches from this collection, to view them before Tuesday, and to confirm as many as of them as possible and extract their value into their family trees. 

This does not affect other newspaper collections on MyHeritage such as Trove from Australia and Jewish Chronicle from the UK. 

Thanks,
The MyHeritage Team

In my case, as shown by this screenshot, I have 667 Record Matches with 616 pending.  I guess I need to scramble around and add a few of these to my family tree.

This event also illustrates something all genealogists should be aware of. The existence of these databases or collections online is subject to the business decisions made by the hosting program. Several collections have disappeared from FamilySearch.org and other websites due to econmic considerations by the "owner" of the data. This will likely occur from time to time and so we might need to start treating these online sources like we do sales in the supermarkets: buy it while it is there and don't wait to make up your mind.

Latin Legal Terms for Genealogists -- Part Three

The last two posts in this series covered some of the more persistently used Latin phrases used by lawyers and judges. It is interesting that the law has preserved this archaic connection to is dim past, but genealogists who do research into any of the multitude of aspects of our legal history often run into these phrases. My goal was to not only define the terms but give some of the legal background about how they are used. I have been limiting my comments to about ten terms per post but in this case, I am discussing just one aspect of the legal system, but one you will likely run into frequently.

Here is the next discussion of terms.

Casus fortuitus -- literally "fortuitous event"

This is a term used in conjunction with claims in "tort" or personal injury. The word "tort" comes from the Latin term tortum meaning wrong or unjust.  The full definition of the word "tort" is a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability. Tort law is contrasted with contract law. The difference between tort claims and contract claims only barely begins to become clear to law students after reading a few hundred or so cases. When law students (and practicing lawyers) "read a case" it means that they study the language of the case as well as the decision in an attempt to understand how the case was decided. I once estimated that during law school, I read an average of about 20,000 to 30,000 pages of law cases a semester. When I finished law school, I needed a new prescription for my glasses.

There are really three different tort terms, casus fortuitus, force majeure (really French) and vis major. As tort law in the United States has evolved one of the main issues in any tort action (personal injury) is "causation." I could easily write a hundred or more pages on the legal theories surrounding the concept of causation. For example, here is a sample of a California Civil Jury Instruction (CACI) on causation. 

430. Causation: Substantial Factor
A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm. 

[Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.]

If you want a small introduction to tort law also called the law of negligence and usually advertised by lawyers who profess to deal in "personal injury claims," you can look at the whole list at the following link: https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/

The difference between the three terms cited above concerns the origin of the action that "caused" the injury. A force majeure is a man-made cause that cannot be avoided such as a war or riot.  A casus fortuitus would be an injury caused by the injured party being in the wrong place at the wrong time. For example, we have news accounts here in Utah every so often about people hit by rocks falling off the canyon walls as they are driving on the roads up the canyons. A vis major is literally a greater or superior force. We usually apply the inappropriate term "act of God" to this type of occurrence as if God sent the rock down the side of the mountain to specifically crash into a specific car. Maybe He did but that is not something our legal system can decide.

Since our legal system cannot repair the actual or physical damage done by a negligent act, we have evolved a system of awarding monetary damages for torts. Juries and judges are placed in the position of determining "fault" in the case of a tort claim. One legal definition of "fault" is as follows:

Fault is a negligent or intentional failure to act reasonably or according to law or duty. It is an improper act or omission causing injury to another and arising from ignorance, carelessness, or negligence.

Every word or term used in a legal context has its own legal meaning. That is one factor that makes doing genealogical research into legal documents so difficult. A word like "fault" has a complex legal definition and is used in a very specific way. Use or misuse by one of the parties in a legal dispute of one word or phrase can change the outcome of an entire lawsuit. You cannot rely on "common sense" in understanding the outcome of a lawsuit.

Historically, an action in tort was called a trespass action. The term "trespass" did not refer to the action we know today, it was more inclusive and included any interference with lands, goods or a person. The action was commenced by the filing of a "writ of trespass." Originally there was a distinction between "trespass" and "trespass on the case." On one hand there was a direct injury caused by an action of the defendant and in the trespass on the case, the act was indirect. This distinction was abolished in England in the 1800s.

English law was greatly influenced in the United States by a publication known as Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. There are over 1500 editions of these books listed in WorldCat.org. Many of these books are available online in ebook format and you can look at them if you are interested.

Here are the previous posts in this series.

http://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2016/06/latin-legal-terms-for-genealogists-part.html
http://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2016/05/latin-legal-terms-for-genealogists-part.html

MyHeritage Introduces Sun Charts

MyHeritage.com has introduced a new type of descendant fan chart available to all users of MyHeritage for free. Quoting from their recent press release:

The center of the Sun Chart features an ancestor selected by the user, with multiple generations of descendants in the outer rings. This chart is the world's first descendant fan chart with personal photos, unique to MyHeritage. 

The Sun Chart is designed to place as many descendants as possible on the smallest possible chart, scaling to hundreds and even thousands of people,
making it ideal for sharing with relatives at a family reunion or get-together. Descendant charts that would not fit in a room if arranged horizontally or vertically, can now be prepared in this compact circular format and hung conveniently on the wall. It is designed to be the most compact family tree chart, while offering a very eye-catching and attractive visualization of a family tree, complete with photos.

MyHeritage.com goes on to explain how the chart format was developed.

The Sun Chart was created to solve a particular challenge. Family history enthusiasts are always looking for the ideal chart for family reunions and other festive family events. A regular descendants chart, typically horizontal or vertical, can become enormous, too large and unwieldy to be practical for events or for hanging on the wall. Descendant fan charts are a popular choice but are limited in the number of generations and don't include personal photos. 

The Sun Chart is designed to plot as many descendants as possible on the smallest chart possible. Charts that include hundreds or even thousands of people can now be prepared in this compact circular format and hung conveniently on the wall. 

Non-MyHeritage users can easily import their tree to MyHeritage (as GEDCOM) and generate this chart.

The motivation for creating the chart has been documented by more than one MyHeritage.com videos recently. You might want to go to the MyHeritage.com YouTube Channel to see some of the other amazing things going on at MyHeritage.

MyHeritage reunites 93 year old Holocaust survivor Nata Gattegno with her relatives

Here are some more details about generating your own Sun Chart.

"The new Sun Chart is a perfect example of MyHeritage's unique approach," said Uri Gonen, Senior VP of Product Management at MyHeritage. "We bridge together cutting-edge technologies and an appreciation for the wisdom of generations past. When our research on the genealogy of the community in Corfu revealed an unusual and highly useful family tree format, we decided to harness our technological abilities to bring the benefit of this style of family tree chart to as many people as possible, and added personal photos to make it even more appealing."

Sun Charts provide extensive configuration options to control photo size, font size, and level of included detail, so users can customize each chart to their needs. MyHeritage has developed an algorithm for compacting the charts, which calculates every person's position precisely in order to result in the smallest possible chart.

Personal photos are included in the chart, helping to bring the family tree to life, and creating a visualization that is more appealing and interesting.

After generating the chart, users can download it in PDF format and print it themselves at home or at any printer, or email it to their family members. MyHeritage also provides an integrated poster printing service that is useful for charts of unusual size, with worldwide shipping.

Sun Charts are free. To generate a Sun Chart, users can sign up on MyHeritage for free and start a new tree, or import their existing tree as GEDCOM.

State Land Sales vs. Public Land Sales -- Part Two

Facsimile of the first page of the original "Plimouths Great Book of Deeds" in the handwriting of Gov. Bradford

Colonial land in America was clearly subject to the ownership structure of the country claiming sovereignty. For the English colonies, the original land claims were based on several large companies that derived their claims from royal charters. Land divisions were initially made on the basis of the social standing of the settlers. The early division of the lands by the Colony of New Plymouth are contained in the following book:

New Plymouth Colony, Nathaniel B Shurtleff, David Pulsifer, Massachusetts, and General Court. Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, in New England. Boston: Press of W. White, 1855.

The land records are in Volume 12 of this important work. If we fast forward to the present, you can see the current land records on the Massachusetts Land Records website. Present land records are linked back to the original land grants in what is known as a "chain of title." The people (usually lawyers in the eastern part of the United States) who verify land ownership through searching the chain of title are called "abstractors" and the reports they provide are called an "abstract of title." In the most of the western part of the United States, the same function is provided by title companies. The report they provide is called a "title report." Both of these types of services require the payment of sometimes substantial fees. For example, the Massachusetts records go back to the original grants. The deed shown above is partially to one of my own direct ancestors, "Francies Cooke."

Because all of the land that was originally claimed by England was deeded out to various interests long before the colonies declared their independence. These original property claims were passed on to the individual states. The rest of the land in the country was claimed by the United States Federal Government during the years following independence. Here some maps showing the dates and names of the parcels acquired.






The Federal Government currently claims about 640 million acres of land which is about 28% of the total of 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. See Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data. The lands in the eastern part of the country are called "state lands" because ownership was retained by the colonies when they became states. Texas also retained ownership to its lands when it was admitted to the Union. The rest of the states derive their land ownership from the Federal Government and are called federal land states.

Here is a map showing the current land owned by the Federal Government.

Some of the land in the eastern part of the United States has been subsequently acquired by the Federal Government through purchase or through the declaration of national parks, monuments and national forests.

Each state in the United States also claims its own "state lands"

Genealogists need to be aware of the dates and history of the land sales and acquisitions in the areas where their ancestors lived.

See the previous parts of this series here:

http://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2016/06/state-land-sales-vs-public-land-sales.html

BYU Family History Library uploads two valuable videos to YouTube

German Online Sources - Milan Pohontsch

Cloud Computing Solutions for Genealogists - James Tanner

Two interesting videos have been recently added to the almost 150 existing videos on the Brigham Young University Family History Library YouTube Channel. We would invite you to review the offerings on a variety of genealogically valuable subjects. More videos are added weekly and the number of subscribers is approaching 1,500 with close to 56,000 view so far. I certainly realize that these numbers are not impressive as far as some of the larger genealogy channels are concerned, but the BYU Family History Library is just getting started with adding so much content. You may wish to subscribe so that you can receive notifications of the new videos as they are uploaded. 

The schedule of upcoming webinars is posted on the BYU Family History Library webpage.