tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post4499996730511215940..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: Monday Mailbox: Frankenstein MonstersThe Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-42074417797388229852016-08-16T11:57:08.752-06:002016-08-16T11:57:08.752-06:00When ancestry.com was in such a flux over their NE...When ancestry.com was in such a flux over their NEW version, I looked at the possibility of putting a tree over on familysearch for "a backup" but I bought a book about familysearch, hoping to find tips about using it better and when I discovered other people could change my info I said NO WAY was I going to put ANY info over there. I did entertain the thought of putting a GEDCOM there when I feel like I have done all I can do on my family tree BUT I have looked at other genealogies on familysearch and find it pretty useless as I cannot find anything but BMD info--no back up sources (if they are there I sure cannot figure out how to get to them).<br /><br />It's too bad--familysearch.org is a GREAT resource and I use it a lot---and I would love to be able to share info with people who don't have ancestry.com for one reason or another as I have a large, well documented tree and have cleared up some mysteries for some of the more confusing ancestors who were some of the first people to come to the US. <br /><br />BUT without sources attached to the genealogies it is all just "noise"--I would never rely on a GEDCOM anywhere without backup documentation-although it is useful to use as a hint. <br /><br />I wanted to be able to upload a GEDCOM on familysearch but found I could not work in it--what good is that? They SHOULD have it set up so that you can upload a GEDCOM and work in it. I am certainly not going to manually load over 10,000 I have on ancestry.com with almost as many documents and certainly many more sources attached to their files.<br /><br />With over 10,000 ppl in my tree (I do extended families when I find them) if I cannot load a GEDCOM and add info as I find more, it is useless to me. If I cannot see sources of other genealogies that too is less than optimal-not to mention it is difficult to get around in those genealogies.<br /><br />I wish familysearch would reconsider how they do things--I don't want a tree that anyone can change, nor do I want to manually add 10,000 + people.<br /><br />I think familysearch is probably missing out on a lot of info they could have if they would change their system--the way it sits, I would not add anything to their site and I am sure there are others out there who will not add their info to familysearch for the same reasons.<br /><br />wrdsrushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03979538866342575847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-71764902262822821582016-08-15T13:49:52.192-06:002016-08-15T13:49:52.192-06:00(The link above is to Ron Tanner's talk at Roo...(The link above is to Ron Tanner's talk at RootsTech 2016.) FS FT now has the ability to contact the person that made changes without knowing their email address. This has worked well for me. Why not ask them why they made the change, then show them your proof standard evidence that your data is more correct. Then, once the data is corrected again, add an explanation as to why that data is wrong so that someone else doesn't repeat it. For example, you could say "Aunt Phoebe was wrong - there are only four children in this family, and they are Robert, Joseph, Mary and Ellen. Please do not include William - his parents are Herman and Elizabeth Schultz."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04119287221067215970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-21142789575941633742016-08-15T13:45:39.916-06:002016-08-15T13:45:39.916-06:00Thank you for the clear explanation. This is real ...Thank you for the clear explanation. This is real keeper, and should be part of some sort of required training for all users of the Family Tree. The only thing I would add is that while merging, ALWAYS merge spouses, parents and children, even if those would also create more duplicates. (By this I mean, any people listed on the right-hand-side of the merge page should ALWAYS be moved over to the left-hand-side. This should be the built-in behavior of FamilySearch Family Tree when merging! If you don't do this, you'll end up with orphaned people dangling out there, unattached to the tree. Someone will eventually find them and merge them, but putting them in the same family as duplicates makes it easier and more obvious that they are duplicates.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04119287221067215970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-29497266348739781912016-08-15T13:41:46.330-06:002016-08-15T13:41:46.330-06:00FamilySearch Family Tree wants people to talk to e...FamilySearch Family Tree wants people to talk to each other, help each other, and work together. They have provided many features that will help you keep your perfect data the way you want it. See this video for more information on how to do this: https://www.rootstech.org/video2/4739804694001 Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04119287221067215970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-36857045512336251642016-08-15T12:15:46.176-06:002016-08-15T12:15:46.176-06:00I finally deleted my own info on family search tre...I finally deleted my own info on family search trees--I could not stand the constant changes other people were making to the solid information I had posted with sources. It just became too much trouble. I like having more control over my tree than what is available through family search.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12085424128921008417noreply@blogger.com