APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-10 > 1222962553

From: Rebecca Christensen <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Incorrect Information -and new FamilySearch
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E1KlOwZ-0006jl-9C@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

   The first question is the easier of the two to answer.  Yes there is space to add notes/comments along with the source citations or separately to the individual record itself.   Whether there is currently enough space (memory) provided to adequately discuss the documentation I am not sure.   The amount of space provided has increased since the first release of the program.  It is important to remember this program is still under development and hasn't reached the stage where it is "ready for prime time" for the general public.  Although it is in limited use with the numbers of people using it increasing, it is still very much in testing.   Eventually the program is slated to allow supporting documents to be attached to an individual's record.
   Your second question is harder to answer.  I am not quite satisfied myself with the current options to the problem, but hope a better solution can and will be implemented.   Of course, it is possible to dispute the parent-child relationships of any erroneous set(s) of parents that might be attached to an end-of-line person (or any other person for that matter.)   That would leave a dispute record where you can document and discuss why that set of parents is incorrect, but it currently wouldn't show in the "primary view" of the data that the parents are "unknown."    The erroneous parents would show up but the link to the parents marked as disputed rather than leaving the parents' fields blank or unknown.   
    The other current solution is to remove all of the individual entries in a person's record that show the erroneous set of parents.   To better understand how this works, you need to understand the underlying structure of how the records are combined.   As the starting point, "New FamilySearch" has combined the records from several distinct databases - the IGI, Ancestral File, Pedigree Research File, and several others, for better or worse - into one database.   Each individual has a virtual "folder" where you virtually deposit all of the records for an individual from all of the various databases in the system, so that all of the records for an individual are in one "folder."   It is also possible to remove records from an individual's "folder".   This is the way to remove records for one individual that have been placed in another individual's folder or one way to remove totally erroneous information from a person's record.  So, it is
possible to remove the records for an individual that show the wrong set of parents attached to the individual's record.    Unfortunately, there isn't a way yet to flag the individual entry other than disputing it so that someone else doesn't once again place that record in the folder.   What many of us still want is some way to flag a record so that it can't be re-added to the folder once it has been removed (after being documented to show why it shouldn't be there in the first place.)     As to your question, there isn't currently a way to specifically select and mark "unknown parents" as the choice for the parents for the end of line.   If you do remove all entries from the folder that have the erroneous parents, you can at least for a time have the parents unknown, until someone comes and either fills in the blanks for the unknown parents or re-adds the erroneous entries back into the folder.   This is a more complex problem to solve,
but I hope they can find an acceptable solution.  The problem is different people might have valid differing viewpoints on what is accurate and what is inaccurate and what should or shouldn't be in the individual's folder.   On the other hand, it would be nice to just remove obviously wrong information from a person's folder and not have to ever see it again (records that people have carelessly submitted where a person died before they were born, for example.)
     I was a beta-tester of the program and now have access to the program as part of the "rollout" so have seen the program develop for the last 18 months or so.  It is still very much a program in development and the engineers have been very responsive to adding improvements to the program and problem solving.  Anyone currently using the program can submit suggestions for enhancements and problem reports.  On the other hand, it is a much improved program since I first started using it.   The plans for the future of this program and its potential are very exciting.  

Rebecca Christensen

--- On Thu, 10/2/08, Fredric Z. Saunders <> wrote:
From: Fredric Z. Saunders <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Incorrect Information -and new FamilySearch
Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 9:14 AM

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of Rebecca Christensen
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:03 PM
To: Richard A. Pence;
Subject: Re: [APG] Incorrect Information -and new FamilySearch

> Anyone can enter the correct information and
>add source documentation to both new information and
>to the disputes.

I have two questions. The first is, that you say it will allow adding
source documentation. [Question 1] Does it allow space to discuss that
documentation, or just room to cite a source? Many times it is the
combination of 2, 3 or more sources together which show a relationship. To
just cite the sources without leading a person through the logic behind what
they show together in combination may leave many viewers wondering, "what
does that record prove?"

[Question 2] The next question is does it allow listing the ancestry for a
person as "unknown"? If so, what kind of sources can you list under
"unknown"? That is probably the most prevalent dispute I have, where
list an ancestry when there is no evidence for the one they list, or where
it is easily disproved. [The alleged person died at age 11., etc.] Most
often it is a case of "researchers" taking a person, and assuming a
of the same name in another location is the same person.

I have dozens of cases of where someone has taken one of my 1600s American
ancestors, assumed they are the immigrant, and then picks a person listed on
the IGI from the extraction program that was born "about the right
time" in
England, and then goes off grabbing names.

On some of these it appears the entire "ancestry" back was taken from
IGI. I think their thought process must run something like, "Let's
see, our
ancestor George was in MD in 1650, so this George, son of Thomas, born in
London 3 Sep. 1620 must be him. Now, here we go, there is a Thomas, son of
William, born 6 Oct. 1598 in Sussex so that must be him. O.K. for William,
there is one born 18 April 1560 in Lancaster, son of James, so that has to
be him. Uh oh, no listings for a James, and neither of the wives for Thomas
or William goes back to Royalty. Let's go back and pick a different path
until we find one that somehow we can connect it to Royalty, and trace our
ancestry back to Adam and Eve."

Rick Saunders

This thread: