Jump to content


Photo

Family Trees


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Jack

Jack

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 03:59 AM

Just wondering if anyone has any opinions on the FamilySearch Family Tree?

Are there any major differences between it and Ancestry's Family Tree?

Can info that I input on MY family be changed by others?

Just curious about the advantages/disadvantages before I commit myself to something that may not be any more accurate than Ancestry.
Jack

a posteriori

#2 Kevin

Kevin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 05:32 AM

I think the biggest difference is that for FSFT there is only a single tree. There should only a single entry for an individual in the entire tree so that there is no duplication. In AFT, people create their own trees and a person my be found on potentially hundreds of trees, so there is much duplication.

Because of this anybody and change almost anything on FSFT, so people can change info that you input on your family, because the person also belongs to someone else's family also. I have been using FSFT for a long time and have 'cleaned up' a lot of things related to my ancestors. I have never had anyone change something on my relatives that I did not agree with. The information seems to get more accurate and full as time goes along with so many people being able to provide information.

#3 Kahill1918@yahoo.com

Kahill1918@yahoo.com

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 08:39 AM

I too am trying to understand how this works. Suppose I enter a tree containing let's say, Noble Curtis, with his ancestors and descendants, the whole works. Then someone else comes along and uploads his own tree also containing the same Noble Curtis guy. Do these two trees automatically merge? If not, then suppose we do not agree on something? So my Noble Curtis shows Mary --- as his mother while the other guy shows Mary Smith as the mother with which I disagree?

#4 Kevin

Kevin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 09:28 AM

First of all, as I stated there is only one tree. When people upload information they should NOT blindly upload their entire RM database/tree, this can cuase many duplicates and then requires the individuals to be merged. They should attempt to match individuals between FT and RM. If the person already exists in FT then simply create the link and then share any data desired. Only upload a new person if and only if the person is NOT already in FT. The 'trees do NOT automatically merge'.

If there is a disagreement then a discusssion (hopefully backed up sources) should take place between the persons involved to come to a concensus (maybe both are incorrect). Just as in RM, FT allows mutiple entries for events when there is conflicting information from the sources.

#5 Jack

Jack

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 09:55 AM

Where did the initial tree originate? That is, did it come from a GEDCOM that, for example, I created and submitted some years ago? With all of the GEDCOMS submitted, mine was probably not the only one containing members of my direct line. Did they get merged to make the now one tree?

This will be interesting! I can see me changing info I believe to be incorrect and someone following me and changing it back.

I think I'll observe from the outside for awhile, looking in from time to time to see what a family tree of my direct family looks like.
Jack

a posteriori

#6 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 3665 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 11:25 AM

Here's a little history. FamilySearch combined all it's records from the IGI, Ancestral File, Pedigree Resource File, LDS Church Membership records, and a few others. They put them into the New FamilySearch website. There people had a combining fest to make it one great big tree of mankind. There were problems discovered because no one could change a previous submitter's information. Original submitters die or have no contact information. You can't delete incorrect relationships. It soon became a mess.

Phase 2 - FamilySearch builds Family Tree and makes it open edit so anyone can make changes. Now you can also delete relationships and really clean things up. Primarily the summary view items in NFS where transferred over to Family Tree. So that is the bases of where the records originally came from. They are still moving data from NFS but the connection will be severed soon. Once that happens some people you can't merge in FT then will be able to be merged.

Any new data that is put into Family Tree is user submitted.
Renee
RootsMagic

#7 Kevin

Kevin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 11:27 AM

The initial tree came from many different sources that FamilySearch had access to, including submitted GEDCOMs. Some of the initial merging was performed automatically, addtional merging has been peformed as people 'cleanup' their ancestors and find duplicates.

You can login to family search and perform a search to see if your ancestors are there. You could do that from either going to the WebSite or from RM by selecting an individual and see if it finds a match on FT.

#8 Ludlow Bay

Ludlow Bay

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 770 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 01:10 PM

I'd like to correct one word in Renee's previous post:

Phase 2 - FamilySearch builds Family Tree and makes it open edit so anyone can make changes. Now you can also delete relationships and really clean mess things up.


In other words, keep in mind that in FSFT, people can now very easily delete valid individuals,relationships, dates, places, notes, sources, etc. The resulting bickering, blaming, finger-pointing, name-calling, flame-wars, murder and mayhem will one day be viewed as the spark that began World War III.

#9 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3240 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 01:18 PM

Think Wikipedia. The last man standing controls the story. Some entries are pretty objective, others very subjective. That does not make it useless; how many times do we first refer to Wikipedia? For FSFT, there is the risk that someone will try to claim royal lineage or suppress their ancestral criminality. What fun!

I think I prefer the Ancestry model but I will revisit FSFT from time-to-time to see if it does help in some way.
Tom user of RM6306 FTM2014 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
Posted Imagewiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> Posted Image app, a growing bundle of RootsMagic utilities.

#10 c24m48

c24m48

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1053 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 01:28 PM

Phase 2 - FamilySearch builds Family Tree and makes it open edit so anyone can make changes. Now you can also delete relationships and really clean things up.


I guess I'm still having a very hard time understanding the concept. Couldn't somebody just as easily replace good data with bad as to replace bad data with good? And if there is a dispute, who is the decider?

I'm just curious. I've not yet looked into participating in Family Tree, but often think about doing so.

Jerry

#11 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 3665 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 01:49 PM

If FamilySearch notices that family members are battling it out and switching back and forth assumptions on the FT. They will lock the file/person down and let the parties cool down or battle it out in the discussion area until they can come to an agreement.
Renee
RootsMagic

#12 c24m48

c24m48

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1053 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 02:17 PM

If FamilySearch notices that family members are battling it out and switching back and forth assumptions on the FT. They will lock the file/person down and let the parties cool down or battle it out in the discussion area until they can come to an agreement.


Much thanks for the info. It seems to me that somebody at FamilySearch could easily spend several lifetimes monitoring such disputes. :)

But on a more serious note, what happens on Family Tree if certain disputes are ultimately undecidable? I've said numerous times that the person that I argue with most vigorously about difficult research questions is myself. There are really no certainties in genealogy - just degrees of confidence and doubt. 99.9% likelihood is not certainty, and 0.1% likelihood is not impossibility.

For example, I have two somewhat distant cousins (third or fourth cousins - something like that) who should have nearly identical Y-DNA. (I cannot participate in this particular Y-DNA test with them because my common ancestor with them goes through my paternal grandmother). Their Y-DNA is fairly similar, but it's enough different that statistical analysis says that there is only a 3% chance that they have a common ancestor within as few generations as indicated by standard genealogical research. And the evidence from standard genealogical research is quite strong. So what would happen if a dispute about this broke out on Family Tree?

While 3% is not a very big number, it's not like 1 in a million or 1 in a billion or anything like that. If you had 100,000 such cousin pairs as closely related as my cousins with the puzzling Y-DNA results, then about 3,000 of the pairs would have Y-DNA results as different as my cousins. 3,000 out of 100,000 is not a small number.

Or what if it appears that there was about a 51% chance that John Doe was the son of Samual Doe and about a 49% chance that John was the son of Thomas Doe? Or what if the chances were 80% and 20%, respectively? Or what if the chances were 99% and 1% respectively? How would these disputes be handled on Family Tree? I'm by no means sure about this, but it just sort of feels like Family Tree is based on the premise that every genealogical research question is ultimately resolvable with great certainty provided only that sufficient research and analysis is done - that there is only one genealogical Truth, and that it shall be found.

Jerry

P.S. What we are actually doing in our particular case is to try to identify and recruit additional male line descendants for additional DNA testing. For example, I'm trying to find male line descendants of my grandmother's brother.

#13 Steven

Steven

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 06:56 PM

I think your primary record for research should be RootsMagic. Everything else is really a tool to collaborate in my opinion. From that point of view, I've participated in Ancestry and FamilySearch from the beginning and will continue with both into the future. It's an amazing way to connect with other researchers and find clues to more information you can then find sources to substantiate. It only takes one long lost cousin who has been doing research for years that you bump into to make all the time and effort you might invest in sharing info with both of these services worth while. I've never had an issue where someone has mangled my data on FamilySearch. I like that FamilySearch Family Tree is free for everyone to participate in so we could potential see many millions more share their info that aren't willing to pay for Ancestry.com currently. If nothing else, it's a great research tool even if you don't publish your own info there. However, the earlier comment about Wikipedia was spot on. And in order for tools like that to really blossom it requires everyone to contribute a little bit.

#14 Jack

Jack

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:29 AM

Based on what I've seen at FSFT and read here, I probably won't be "updating" any of my family information there.

If pushed for a reason why I won't use it is simply because I would rather spend my time continuing research on my known family than correcting someone else's mistakes.

I do use Ancestry to store my family tree and only let people in who ask to view it. I never give any of them editorial privileges and, limit their time to review. However, if that person proves to be a relative to someone in my tree, I'll give them a GEDCOM of my work that pertains to their family.
Jack

a posteriori