U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-11-2019, 08:31 AM
 
Location: NJ
12,629 posts, read 22,576,541 times
Reputation: 11528

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
I've just realized that a lot of the duplicates at FS's tree are created by FamilySearch's autobot which seems to add data from their records. The bot is not smart enough to recognize duplicates/families though, so if it adds people to the tree from 10 baptism records, for example, all children of the same parents, it will add 10 new families, creating 10 duplicate sets of the same parents, each with only one child.
I've cleaned up a lot of these.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2019, 12:03 PM
 
2,142 posts, read 1,018,094 times
Reputation: 4119
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZgarden View Post
Yes and in the conversation (email) I had with the guy who did it, he said he had resources and did I have them ? Yes, I do, and they are on there. In the end, he put it all back (somehow) the way it was, with a comment "Do what you want."

I was totally unaware that strangers would tamper with someone else's family tree without contacting the home person first. To me it's like a personal violation, when they think they know more about my family than I do. I am trying to get the tree up to date on Ancestry, which, I hope will not allow this.
Ancestry does not allow this. In fact you can make it private on ancestry and invite people to it and you can give them levels such as view all the tree only or to make contributions. My sister and I share our family tree and we both can adjust it but no one else can. Even if you make it public, the public can only see dead people and they cannot change your tree, they can comment or send you email telling you something may be wrong but it is up to you to change it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2019, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Santa Maria, CA
766 posts, read 1,447,517 times
Reputation: 651
The reason for putting it on FS is because Ancestry.com is a pay site. If you aren't a member, you can't see search results for even public trees. Also, when you make a correction on FS, it's for everybody. That's both good and bad. If you make a mistake, you mess everybody up but there is a restore feature that anybody can use to restore the previous version. On the flip side if you correct an inaccuracy, it's fully corrected. On Ancestry, every tree belongs to the owner (as long as they continue to pay) even if shared public so bad information (multiple copies) can stay there forever and never be corrected. Worse yet, they become sources for new trees and propagate the bad data.

I've used Ancestry far longer than I've used Familysearch so have given them thousands of dollars over time. I still have a subscription but do most of my work now on FS. The shared tree data model is just better in my opinion. You can and should still have a local database and I use Rootsmagic for that. I like that it can sync everything with Ancestry and download base information from any tree on FS (birth, death, burial, residence). The only free one-tree models that I'm aware of are FS and wikitree. I find wikitree too painful to use but it does have the controls to protect unauthorized modification of data. Geni is a commercial company that uses the same one-tree idea but in order to do things like searches, you need Geni pro which costs $120/yr and search results for historical records also requires a MyHeritage subscription which costs $189-$299/yr. The only thing I find lacking on FS is a way of sharing private data (living people) with a specified user or group of users. That would be the equivalent of tree sharing on Ancestry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
There are some branches that are already well researched and probably on FS, but equally, some of them are not. My work is on Ancestry.com so it's not like I'm not sharing it. On the contrary, I feel like what is the point of spending all that time adding it to FS when it's already on Ancestry.com and at FS, someone might come along and mess it up? Not saying I'll never do it, but every time I think about it, I feel like I'd rather spend my time working on my tree rather than copying it to another site.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2019, 08:42 AM
 
Location: 5,400 feet
2,947 posts, read 2,837,957 times
Reputation: 4334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp View Post
The reason for putting it on FS is because Ancestry.com is a pay site. If you aren't a member, you can't see search results for even public trees. Also, when you make a correction on FS, it's for everybody. That's both good and bad. If you make a mistake, you mess everybody up but there is a restore feature that anybody can use to restore the previous version. On the flip side if you correct an inaccuracy, it's fully corrected. On Ancestry, every tree belongs to the owner (as long as they continue to pay) even if shared public so bad information (multiple copies) can stay there forever and never be corrected. Worse yet, they become sources for new trees and propagate the bad data.

I've used Ancestry far longer than I've used Familysearch so have given them thousands of dollars over time. I still have a subscription but do most of my work now on FS. The shared tree data model is just better in my opinion. You can and should still have a local database and I use Rootsmagic for that. I like that it can sync everything with Ancestry and download base information from any tree on FS (birth, death, burial, residence). The only free one-tree models that I'm aware of are FS and wikitree. I find wikitree too painful to use but it does have the controls to protect unauthorized modification of data. Geni is a commercial company that uses the same one-tree idea but in order to do things like searches, you need Geni pro which costs $120/yr and search results for historical records also requires a MyHeritage subscription which costs $189-$299/yr. The only thing I find lacking on FS is a way of sharing private data (living people) with a specified user or group of users. That would be the equivalent of tree sharing on Ancestry.

You can open a free Ancestry account and build a tree. You can search and look at hints, but not the documents themselves. You must have a free or paid Ancestry account to get their DNA test and see the results and matches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2019, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,255 posts, read 14,314,355 times
Reputation: 12070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp View Post
The reason for putting it on FS is because Ancestry.com is a pay site.
Yep, and I pay for it so I'm going to use it. Frankly, this is going to seem harsh but I really don't care all that much if non-subscribers can't access it. I'm not doing all this work just for other people's benefit. Sure, I'm happy to share it, but that's not the sole reason I do it. One month of Ancestry costs all of $20, and you only really need one month here and there to occasionally check for new records additions and browse some trees - if someone can't afford one month, oh well, that's not my problem.

That said, I think you can access public trees on Ancestry from a library that offers it for free - I think you can view other trees, you just can't start your own or message tree owners because you're using a public login. This info from ProQuest (the company that facilitates the Library Edition of Ancestry.com) says Public Member Trees are "read only", which suggests you can access them: https://support.proquest.com/servlet...ile_1__Body__s

So there is still a way that even non-subscribers can access it for free, it just requires a trip to a library that offer Ancestry's Library Edition.

Additionally, I don't find FS interface very intuitive like I do Ancestry's, so that's where my working tree is always going to be and if FS can't make it easier to add data, I'm probably not going to spend that much time on it. The least they could do is provide a way to import data from an individual on an Ancestry tree - there's a browser extension that does this for WikiTree. This would prevent mass gedcom uploads creating duplicates since you can only import one person at a time, but it would also save time since you don't have to manually import every tiny little piece of data yourself. Some of the people in my tree have dozens of "facts" and details added, and I'm not going to spend all that time duplicating all that manually, it's far too tedious when in this day and age, there is technology which should be able to automate it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top