Family Search public trees

[tony vines]

Does anyone know whether Family Search compiles some of the trees publicly available on its website or whether it only publishes trees compiled by subscribers (I know that it's a free site but can't think of a better description)?

My question stems from looking at several trees on their website that have identical details of two of of my 4 x great grandparents which I believe could be wrong (or at least not provable because there is at least one other claimant to that honour) but only one of the trees has a source for the people concerned i.e. all the rest seem to have copied the same tree.

I know that this problem has caused many subscribers to BG to moan but on some sites it is possible to ascertain who compiled the tree and a method of contacting them. I can't see that you can do that on FS except when they give the name of the person who provided the source.

It might be a logical extension of the work done by LDS members who research and copy records in countries around the world but if they do this sort of thing they clearly need to be sure that they have got proof that the so-called sources are the right ones.

Tony

[emmteeyess]

FamilySearch's 'philosophy' is to have a 'one world wide tree' - that all subscribers can add to and update.
This means there is no way of locking up the info for your bit - like you can on your own tree on a paid subscription site.
If you correct your branches on FS, there is nothing to stop anyone else changing them back again or even to something else, if they think you are wrong. That can go back and forth till one of you loses the will to live. That way madness lies!
There are ways to put citations and references onto your records but these can be missed or disputed or ignored.

FS is brilliant for leads and individual records - but I wouldn't keep any tree on there, free or not. I tested it with bare details back to my grandparents then never went back to it - for the above reasons.

I do seem to remember there is a way of hovering over a record to see who submitted it I'm but not 100% sure as I don't use that facility

Cheers, MTS

[Peter Goodey]

Tony

Mormons draw up family trees as a requirement of their religion. They do not have to be adhere to the same standards of genealogical accuracy as you and I strive for. You really need to be very circumspect in using FamilySearch.

[Ladkyis]

what Peter said. The accuracy of a lot of the things that have been put up there has to be questioned and, as always, remember that there's research and there's making the biggest tree EVER! Until you can verify - as I am sure I have seen you say elsewhere - it doesn't go on the tree.

[Lesley Robertson]

Agreed. Many of the archives that allowed them to digitize records made a condition that the digitized records were available to all, not just LDS members.
Many of the trees are well-researched, but quite a few contain cut & paste from others, poor data evaluation (if it’s the same name and the right county it must be him type of reasoning), and a fair dollop of wishful thinking. For example, take a look for one Charles Edward Stuart, some time. Father James, one illegitimate daughter. It’s amazing how many descendants he has.

The IGI (in some ways the forerunner of FS) used to be well known for the number of families descended from a couple called Michael and Minnie Mouse - of course it was on microfiche and harder to correct.

Even if they wanted to correct an entry, how can they tell who is right - the original author or the new person? Multiply that sort of problem by the size of the collection - nobody has the budget to handle that, especially for a free service

[tony vines]

My thanks to everyone above for improving my knowledge.

Since I posted I've found other evidence that the tree was submitted by a member of the LDS church, so knowing that this is part of the LDS raison d'être is helpful. Like many seasoned genealogists I used IGI carefully when I first started. I guess that we all have to be grateful for the work done by the LDS church over many years so I'm not knocking it.

I do not have a tree online and nor do I intend to put one there in the future. I have no feeling of proprietorship about information concerning my ancestors - after all, anyone could find it if they were interested enough - but the problem of trees being added to or altered incorrectly puts me off because I don't want to be part of a process that misleads people. I was simply looking at the FS trees in case they provided clues to overcome a 12+ year old brick wall of mine. They didn't!

What I did find surprising was that although I was pretty sure that one of the trees on FS had been put up by someone who is distantly related to me (also including the unproven information), what appeared to be the best annotated tree was put up by someone who is not related i.e. a member of the LDS. I now understand why and of course the philosophy that underlies that.

Interestingly the science of genomics also suggests that we are all related if you go back far enough but this is a conclusion driven by scientific research rather than simply by belief.

Tony

[Guy Etchells]

Does anyone know whether Family Search compiles some of the trees publicly available on its website or whether it only publishes trees compiled by subscribers (I know that it's a free site but can't think of a better description)?

My question stems from looking at several trees on their website that have identical details of two of of my 4 x great grandparents which I believe could be wrong (or at least not provable because there is at least one other claimant to that honour) but only one of the trees has a source for the people concerned i.e. all the rest seem to have copied the same tree.

I know that this problem has caused many subscribers to BG to moan but on some sites it is possible to ascertain who compiled the tree and a method of contacting them. I can't see that you can do that on FS except when they give the name of the person who provided the source.

It might be a logical extension of the work done by LDS members who research and copy records in countries around the world but if they do this sort of thing they clearly need to be sure that they have got proof that the so-called sources are the right ones.

Tony

There are three types of trees on family search the first two types are similar to family trees on many other websites i.e. trees uploaded by patrons (members of the public) the difference between the two types is some are only edited by the person who added it the second type allows others to edit the tree.

The third type of tree is the "familysearch family tree" which is a tree complied by patrons and members of the LDS "staff" anyone may add people to the tree but the LDS also combines records from their vast database to the individuals and branches of the tree (this was tree started in 2013).
It was hoped to create one giant tree using this method but the drawbacks of inaccurate data replacing accurate date soon cropped up. The LDS are still attempting to perfect the system but anything that allows the public to add data will be open to inaccurate information being added.
Cheers
Guy

[tony vines]

Thanks Guy

A tree apparently created by a LDS contributor fairly exclusively about my paternal line contains some unproven ancestors. I am still hoping that the creator can provide corroboration because that would hurdle my brick wall. But there are two possible pairs of candidates for the role of 4 x great grandparents and if it is not possible to separate them you should not in effect toss a coin to complete the next generation of a tree.

Tony