familysearch.org and Family Tree

[donworth]

Has anyone checked out Family Tree on the LDS familysearch.org?

In a nutshell, it appears to be a sort of "crowd-sourced" wiki universal family tree database. In other words, the idea is that everybody collaborates to make one gigantic, world-wide online family tree with no duplication. Before you can add anyone to the tree, you first have to see if they are already in it, and use the instance you find. There are rules for correcting or changing information about people, discussing individuals (attached to their record), adding sources, etc.

I think it's a fascinating idea in that it improves on Ancestry.com's approach where everyone submits an independent tree. However, I see some weaknesses. For one, those of us with very large trees can contribute our entire tree via GEDCOM, however we would spend a TON of time processing (potentially) thousands of matches that pop up for people in our tree that are already in the Family Tree database. (those of us with big databases would be discouraged about participating because of this, and usually the data from really big databases is more trustworthy than from smaller ones in my experience.) And, in looking at it I saw lots of records for people I knew about that had bad information - do I really want to try to fix all of that sort of thing I come across? And I saw in one case about 8 separate records for what was obviously the same person - they really should be merged - but it seems awkward to do that. It also seems difficult and cumbersome to add sources - I saw VERY few in the database. So you get a record that is the product of several people twiddling it without much indication what to trust and why (whereas on Ancestry you can sort of tell whose trees to trust and whose are a pack of garbage from the completeness and quality of sourcing.) There is History of changes available tho.

It's an admirable goal to attempt this - but I really wonder whether it is going to work. Also, I have submitted my data to LDS multiple times over the past 30 years in different forms, and their databases don't seem to stick around forever - usually they get replaced with something else. If I were to put a lot of time into Family Tree, would all that work stick around?

What do others think?

Don

[STEVE]

Re: familysearch.org and Family Tree

I recently came across WikiTree. You might find it interesting. <http://www.wikitree.com>.

STEVE

[Susan Freas Rogers]

Re: familysearch.org and Family Tree

And, in looking at it I saw lots of records for people I knew about that had bad information - do I really want to try to fix all of that sort of thing I come across? And I saw in one case about 8 separate records for what was obviously the same person - they really should be merged - but it seems awkward to do that. It also seems difficult and cumbersome to add sources - I saw VERY few in the database. ....

What do others think?

I agree about seeing records with bad information, but that is not unique to FamilySearch's tree. Most (if not all) of the other online trees I've seen have bad data, too. The question is whether someone will take the time to fix it, and my guess is yes, in FamilySearch, eventually someone will, just like most other wikis. (Not sure it will be me, though! I have to look at the training videos first anyway.)

Relative to many trees not having source citations: my experience is that most online trees are that way. I spent some time on Geni once, and not one "tree" of many I looked at had any source information whatsoever. (That doesn't prevent me from milking them for information though. But in my Reunion file, I enter the source as "Unsourced," (a new type of Source I created) and identify the website where I found it, so I'll know to treat it as a clue only, not actual data.

My take on the FS FamilyTree: I love the goal, and the fact that they have provided the tools and the means for people to link their ancestors, fix errors, discuss what's right and wrong, etc. Personally, I believe the lack of source citations stems from the fact that thousands out there (if not a million or so?) actually don't have any sources to cite, because they've just copied from other online trees that didn't have sources. Those people don't seem to care. But for those of us who do, we can put them in, AND we can (nicely) ask those who didn't provide sources where they got their information, thus, over time, pushing them in the right direction (OK, call me naive, you're right!).

BTW, I was told that when the FS Tree just gives the Source as FamilySearch, it means that the data came from an old Ancestral File or the other type of file that LDS members used to be able to create (you used to be able to see them when doing a search on FS.org, but no more). If the submitter's ID was no longer active and that person could not be contacted, FS didn't even give their ID name, it just gave the source as FamilySearch. So again, these are clues only, not data, but better than nothing when you already have nothing.

FS's tree is the only one I'll probably put some of my own tree information on, because it's non-commercial and provides good tools and support (pretty amazing, actually, they are spending millions. I am not an LDS member.) I suspect many others will feel like I do, i.e. let's support the organization that gives us so much for free, AND doing a good job at it.

Almost forgot to say: I've made some very big finds using the tree, both clues AND new people who I've been able to verify with additional research. So DO try it. FYI, you do NOT have to put in any tree information of your own, even though the interface will make it look like you should. When you sign in and see a tree with you at the start, just ignore it, and click SEARCH further up within the tree area.

Susan
P.S. Anybody seen Mundia? It's in beta-testing stage, from Ancestry.com, looks like a direct response to FS's FamilyTree. I just stumbled on it yesterday. While it's in Beta, Premium-service features (like being able to contact others, I think) are free to Basic members.