Family Historian User Group

It would be good to know if Calico is working on integration with FamilySearch, but it would be much better if they would publicly commit to it with a timeline. I have been planning to move from Family Historian to alternative software because of this specific issue. The world of genealogy is evolving and Family Historian needs to keep up. In particular: (1) Genealogists need a globally unique person ID to facilitate data interchange and validation. The FS ID is effectively that, notwithstanding issues about merging FS IDs. (2) The FS Family Tree (FSFT) is becoming the definitive family tree of all mankind, as its many initial data errors are being eliminated. Any genealogy package which does not support meaningful integration with FSFT will lose its relevance.

DPBicket wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 08:54

In particular: (1) Genealogists need a globally unique person ID to facilitate data interchange and validation. The FS ID is effectively that, notwithstanding issues about merging FS IDs. (2) The FS Family Tree (FSFT) is becoming the definitive family tree of all mankind, as its many initial data errors are being eliminated. Any genealogy package which does not support meaningful integration with FSFT will lose its relevance.

Yes to integration between packages, but that isn't the Family Search ID. It is the UniqueID, as first introduced many years ago, now supported by many packages, including FH7, and fully integrated into the next GEDCOM release (version 7).

I'm afraid descriptions such as "definitive tree of all mankind" are meaningless slogans - there is far more mankind outside the orbit of the LDS than inside it...

DPBicket wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 08:54

(2) The FS Family Tree (FSFT) is becoming the definitive family tree of all mankind, as its many initial data errors are being eliminated.

Not trying to be cruel, but my wife has spent many many hours at FSFT correcting entries relating to members of her family, only for the errors to be quickly and repeatedly reintroduced by people who seem to have no grasp of the history or geography of the British Isles, or how to read and interpret original documents.

arthurk wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 09:45

DPBicket wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 08:54

(2) The FS Family Tree (FSFT) is becoming the definitive family tree of all mankind, as its many initial data errors are being eliminated.

Not trying to be cruel, but my wife has spent many many hours at FSFT correcting entries relating to members of her family, only for the errors to be quickly and repeatedly reintroduced by people who seem to have no grasp of the history or geography of the British Isles, or how to read and interpret original documents.

What do you advise? Another definitive tree? Giving up? So long as you allow collaboration, you will always find some people who try to mess it up. So are you saying that the whole idea of a definitive tree is nonsense? Or does FSFT need some better mechanism - e.g. judges when you have these conflicts - who freeze the position, or freeze a disrupter out?

Human nature being what it is, I'm afraid I'm in the nonsense camp.

Agree, for two reasons - in many cases, records are either not available or incorrect, and secondly, most family historians don’t have the research skills required to assess those records to the standard demanded of a “definitive tree”, irrespective of their motivation. Collaboration is fine for folks sharing a hobby interest, but don’t overplay what it can achieve.

I'm very happy to collaborate on a 1-2-1 basis with other researchers -- I learned a lot that way, and hope I'm helping others in turn. But there are many researchers who aren't open to debate/can't conceive of being wrong.

DPBicket wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 08:54

<SNIP> (2) The FS Family Tree (FSFT) is becoming the definitive family tree of all mankind, as its many initial data errors are being eliminated. Any genealogy package which does not support meaningful integration with FSFT will lose its relevance.

I beg to differ. It's so full of errors. I work on sections of it, but others I just have to leave as it's a complete mess and I don't have enough time to try to fix it...and even if I did, someone would likely just change it back. People don't collaborate, in my experience, they just do their own thing and ignore my notes.

That said, we all make software choices based on our own priorities. For me, FH is perfect. After several years of sharing between Ancestry and RM, I realized it wasn't working for me. Adding everything by hand in FH has made me a better genealogist.

Thanks for the views expressed about the impossibility or at least impracticality of a definitive and collaborative tree. I think those views reflect your own experiences, and are not shared by everyone. It is probably a case of ‘different strokes for different folks’, i.e., everyone should use what works best for them. Let only those people who find that collaborative trees meet their objectives best, use them. The fact that there are significant collaborative trees, such as Family Search Family Tree (FSFT) and WikiTree, indicate that there are people out there who think they are worthwhile. The people on this forum might be considered somewhat self-selecting, as they are almost all by definition users of Family Historian which does not currently support integration with FSFT, so there probably aren’t very many people using Family Historian who are heavy users of FSFT. However, there are some very experienced genealogists, such as Una (I believe) who use FSFT exclusively, and likewise another experienced genealogist working on my own one-name study. So I’ll keep the views I expressed, and recognize that many agree, but not necessarily on this forum.

I’ll respond separately on the FS ID topic.

DPBicket wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 15:37

Thanks for the views expressed about the impossibility or at least impracticality of a definitive and collaborative tree. I think those views reflect your own experiences, and are not shared by everyone. It is probably a case of ‘different strokes for different folks’, i.e., everyone should use what works best for them. Let only those people who find that collaborative trees meet their objectives best, use them. The fact that there are significant collaborative trees, such as Family Search Family Tree (FSFT) and WikiTree, indicate that there are people out there who think they are worthwhile. The people on this forum might be considered somewhat self-selecting, as they are almost all by definition users of Family Historian which does not currently support integration with FSFT, so there probably aren’t very many people using Family Historian who are heavy users of FSFT. However, there are some very experienced genealogists, such as Una (I believe) who use FSFT exclusively, and likewise another experienced genealogist working on my own one-name study. So I’ll keep the views I expressed, and recognize that many agree, but not necessarily on this forum.

I’ll respond separately on the FS ID topic.

I've had bad experiences with FSFT and Ancestry trees, where people just copy data without checking it, so take everything with a pinch of salt until I can prove it.
On Ancestry, I have my 4x Gt Grandfather Thomas Grantham, born approx 1745 - I cannot find any proof of it other than an entry in a family journal stating he was from 'the black country' IE Staffordshire. Yet, someone has copied data from my tree and made a link, with no facts and 'apparently' can trace the line back in Lincolnshire to the 1500's - there is no supporting documentation.
Even a distant cousin in Canada, who calls herself a Genealogist by trade, has copied this data!!!

I would have to say that my experiences with the reliability of data in the FSFT is that I would under no circumstance want it anywhere near my own family tree - so many errors!. This has nothing to do with my being a FH user, just plain common sense.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 09:05

Yes to integration between packages, but that isn't the Family Search ID. It is the UniqueID, as first introduced many years ago, now supported by many packages, including FH7, and fully integrated into the next GEDCOM release (version 7).

I would welcome some further information about the Unique ID you describe, and who or what organization assigns these Unique IDs. In my comments I was referring to a GLOBALLY unique ID, but I don’t see how the Unique ID is a globally unique ID. The only comparable identifier I find in the GEDCOM 7 specification is the UID, which is specifically 128 bits long as specified by RFC4122. A globally unique identifier of this type can only be created by the same person or organization that creates the entity to which the UID is attached, and distributes it with that entity. For people, we don’t have someone creating such UIDs that I am aware of, and even DNA doesn’t work. Otherwise, if the UID is created by the person/organization simply using that entity (e.g., data representing a physical person), each user can create a different UID and attach it to their copy of the same entity. That is a unique ID for that particular user, but it is not a globally unique ID to which anyone can refer, unless there is a recognized registration authority for such IDs. The FamilySearch ID does serve as a globally unique person ID, with FamilySearch acting as the registration authority when it assigns its FamilySearch ID.

jbtapscott wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 16:02

I would have to say that my experiences with the reliability of data in the FSFT is that I would under no circumstance want it anywhere near my own family tree - so many errors!. This has nothing to do with my being a FH user, just plain common sense.

I too am wary of crowdsourcing one's genealogy. I initially burnt my fingers on LDS records specifically the old IGI not understanding the difference between:

• IGI Transcriptions (which certainly in Cumberland (England) seemed to be a good reflection of parish registers or sometime Bishop's transcripts)
• IGI Patron records - which often seemed to be "wishful thinking" based on a name match in approximately the right place at approximately the right time.

The former I believe are now "historical record collections" which appear on the Family Search Website (and on Find My Past), whilst the latter I think are now termed the Contributed International Genealogical Index.

In general I think I prefer corroboration (to other sources) to collaboration (with unknown contributors)

neil40 wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 15:44

I've had bad experiences with FSFT and Ancestry trees, where people just copy data without checking it, so take everything with a pinch of salt until I can prove it.

I absolutely agree about Ancestry trees. I'm not trying to defend them.
For FSFT, I fully accept that there are still errors. Nobody should accept data just because it is there. But you can assess what is credible or not quite quickly because good data will have sources attached or analyses to support proposed connections. If a proposed individual or connection has no supporting records, it is probably a relic of the original creation of FSFT, still waiting to be validated or deleted. There is a significantly increasing level of good, properly supported data there. And you don't have to wait for someone to find your own listing on some website and contact you to get feedback.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 16:49

This is veering into a discussion that should more properly be in the Research Forum...

Since I'm a Newbie here, I'm happy to be directed to where things are supposed to be discussed. This particular discussion started because we were talking about the FamilySearch ID, which is the first stage in Family Historian starting to implement integration with FamilySearch, as demonstrated by the leaked quotes. My assertions as to why that integration is important are what has generated so much discussion. There doesn't seem to be much support amongst those people responding to the prospect of such improved integration. That will be unfortunate, in my view, if it results in Calico lowering the priority it attaches to such development work.

Yes, UniqueID is essentially a random string generated when an individual is created in a supported product. It stays with that individual as their data are copied between apps, but if two different researchers create the same person in different apps, the same person has multiple UniqueID values. It’s stretching the English language definition of “unique”, but supported and permitted in GEDCOM 7.

I’m afraid the idea of a truly unique identifier assigned by FamilySearch (a retrospective digital ID to pass through the pearly gates?) just won’t work in the real world, for reasons discussed.

DPBicket wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 17:00

There doesn't seem to be much support amongst those people responding to the prospect of such improved integration. That will be unfortunate, in my view, if it results in Calico lowering the priority it attaches to such development work.

You can vote for it at https://fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldisplay.php?wlwlref=542, where it has a little more support.
i.e. Wish List Ref 542 Internet Data Matches for more websites including FamilySearch.

PS - I’m not against online trees in principle. I’ve spent a lot of time making it easier link to FH with Ancestry, but it’s strictly one-way - sharing my FH data to Ancestry, not harvesting Ancestry data for my use. It’s my data, so I take responsibility for its completeness and accuracy.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 17:04

I’m afraid the idea of a truly unique identifier assigned by FamilySearch (a retrospective digital ID to pass through the pearly gates?) just won’t work in the real world, for reasons discussed.

I think I missed the 'reasons discussed'. I think the FamilySearch ID does work as a truly globally unique ID, and in the real world. What doesn't work is the UID as you have described it. Just because it's in the specification in that way, doesn't mean it was meant to be a truly global ID, nor can it be, for the reasons I gave.

Do I also detect some antagonism towards Family Search because of its Mormon origins? Is that logical or more emotional? I'm not a Mormon, nor even close. But what they are doing helps us, and I see no reason to kick them in the teeth.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 17:08

You can vote for it at https://fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldisplay.php?wlwlref=542, where it has a little more support.

That wish list is effectively for 'hints'. What Calico is clearly developing, and which I agree is needed, is proper integration between Family Historian and FamilySearch. That means you see the corresponding records side by side, and can decide which ones you want to synchronize.

Not at all - folks are free to practice whatever they believe, but understanding the potential motive of contributors and sponsors is a vital part of assessing the potential reliability of data. Obviously, it neither guarantees nor invalidates data, but context is important.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 17:31

understanding the potential motive of contributors and sponsors is a vital part of assessing the potential reliability of data.

What potential motives of contributors and sponsors could undermine the credibility and reliability of a FamilySearch ID?

DPBicket wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 17:49

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 17:31

understanding the potential motive of contributors and sponsors is a vital part of assessing the potential reliability of data.

What potential motives of contributors and sponsors could undermine the credibility and reliability of a FamilySearch ID?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my recollection. FS started out in genealogy because they wanted to baptize everyone who ever existed either alive or dead. People who were never members of the LDS and never even Christians have been baptized by them. For me this impacts their credibility.

I have found so many mistakes in the FS tree on my ancestors that I don't look at it at all anymore.

Bill

Quantity of data vs. quality. IMO, it makes sharing dubious data far too easy, so users get enticed into generating large but unverified trees. But that's only my opinion. If it works for you, fine.

Have you tried Rootsmagic? I believe it does something very similar to what you describe, so may be a better fit for your priorities.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

28 Oct 2022 17:31

Understanding the potential motive of contributors and sponsors is a vital part of assessing the potential reliability of data. Obviously, it neither guarantees nor invalidates data, but context is important.

Since we cant know the motives of contributors, this is a bit of a strawman.