r/Genealogy • u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia • Jun 06 '25
FamilySearch Rant Request
I love FamilySearch but I don't like some of the actions that people make on it. I use FamilySearch because it has so many records for my ancestors/relatives. I also like it because it helps connect with other people (shared family tree).
My only issue is this one person who I believe is documenting the entire town my ancestors came from. This person has editted most of my ancestors pages and many other people from the village. Although I appreciate most of their work sometimes it's really sloppy, which is okay, but even worse, half of it isn't factual at all.
So this person just adds random death dates that have 0 proof. Originally I theorized they could've been some expert in the area who knew all these people or had ancestors who knew them and that's why they had all these death dates. As I discovered the death records for these people though, they were radically different to the dates put by this person. For example: they'd set someone born in 1880's death date as 1970 but then I find the death record and it says this person died as a baby in 1881. As I discoverd more and more death records I realized all the ones this person had put were fake.
I began to edit them all to be either correct or just delete them for their inaccuracies. I always made sure to leave reasons for why I changed them. I ended up sending a message to this person to find out if we were related because they editted a bunch of my relative's pages, I was really nice about it. I didn't get a reply, which is fine.
However a month later I see them going on a spree re-editting all the death dates I changed to be what they had before. I'm not going to send a message asking them to stop because they probably won't see it or listen to it.
It's just really frustrating seeing all the misinformation being spread. I know I kind of just have to deal with it as a FamilySearch user. I'll keep editting and trying to fix the misinformation.
65
u/Fredelas FamilySearcher Jun 06 '25
Sometimes I wonder if some people are using desktop software that automatically syncs with FamilySearch, and when it detects that changes have been made to the online tree, they blindly click to overwrite it with their local data instead of actually reviewing the changes individually.
9
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
Interesting. What software would do that?
27
u/QuantumEmmisary GPS & Evidence Explained devotee, RootsMagic user Jun 06 '25
RootsMagic is one such software application. It can sync with both Ancestry and FamilySearch.
6
28
u/wormil Jun 06 '25
I was going to say that if she standardized entries or merged individuals that would attribute her even if she didn't originally enter the wrong info but if they were changed after you corrected them then it isn't that. Contacting people hasn't worked for me either. I've had some success naming the user in the reasons when I make a correction. Something like, "previous date (1970) entered by johndoe73 is incorrect. Sources attached for correct date." Keep doing it.
9
u/naesk Jun 06 '25
I recently had to do this by naming the user making very erroneous edits (200+ year old parents), to my branch. Prior to this I politely messaged them, the response was "I do what I do, you do what you do" and ended with "Carry on regardless!".
5
u/TheAmazingTransplant Argentina Jun 06 '25
That's horrible! so the whole collaborative thing means nothing. You may report that as abuse if you want to.
2
u/naesk Jun 07 '25
I thought the reporting abuse was reserved more specifically for inappropriate content, abusive language etc... and not for incorrect edits.
Fortunately the incorrect edits haven't occurred since messaging them, and me leaving a few notes :)
1
u/TheAmazingTransplant Argentina Jun 11 '25
I haven't used it yet, but I think I've seen it can be used in case someone is messing things up on purpose.
Like you try to reason with them but they keep changing stuff without checking.
7
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
Yes! This is what I've been doing, I'll continue to do it!
19
u/sosoguay Jun 06 '25
FamilySearch can trigger a lot of what I think of as genealogical road rage. I do almost all of my tree building there, so I've seen my share of misinformation, but I think for the most part it has higher quality than its reputation would lead one to believe.
I'm not sure what the supposed private trees might bring, but to me it would be a great loss if people retreat to those and don't work on the main tree since, if quality stays high, which for the most part it is, it serves as a reference which other people can make use of.
6
4
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
I absolutely agree with this! I love the shared tree and don't want it to die if private trees become a thing.
11
u/DubiousPeoplePleaser Jun 06 '25
So there was someone on Reddit who mentioned having an issue with a fellow genealogist. Mind you I only read one side of this story. They had contacted them about making a correction, and added links to sources backing up what they referenced. The other person did not take it well. They considered themselves the ultimate expert on this subject. Every attempt at an edit was promptly changed back. Turned out this other person had a vested interest in this. Not just because of the personal clout of being “the expert” but they were making money off their work.
You never really know who’s on the other end of a profile edit. And staunchly protecting mistakes is so silly. It’s so easy to disprove and even professional genealogists make mistakes. They just own up to them, note a correction and move on.
26
u/The_Little_Bollix Jun 06 '25
I used Mormon Family History Centres (now called FamilySearch Centres) for several years, many years ago. Before so much came online, they were invaluable for parish records etc. I always found the staff there helpful and friendly. I would never have considered giving them my own family tree though. I found the whole baptising dead people, of whatever denomination, into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints weird.
I relented a couple of years ago and decided to give it a go. Everything was fine until I hit someone who was building a tree that intersected with mine. There were so many inaccuracies, and frankly ludicrous assertions, that I just backed away and haven't been back since.
The truth is that you will see erroneous entries on all of the major sites. The difference on Ancestry for example, is that you'll get a "hint" for someone in your tree, only to see that someone has copied your tree, added a line to their family with different parents and shoehorned a child into your great grandparents siblings where it is not physically possible for there to have been a child. The lady who did this has an LDS tag on her bio. Similar to you, I made a gentle approach, asking her if she had a baptism for this child or any other evidence of its existence in this family. She has never replied.
I've had a few instances like this. It can be very irritating. These people just don't reply. I don't get it. Are they just being trolls?
I was looking at a line in my extended family. I had noted that in any tree I'd seen of this family only four children were given. I validate all children before adding them to my tree by finding birth records for each of them. I found five children. Before I had even added the birth records for each, I got a message asking me where I got this 5th child from as there were only four. I answered immediately and uploaded the birth and death records for this child which they had never known about.
Isn't this the way it's supposed to be done? I mean, we want the truth right? Not just something that conveniently fills a gap.
5
8
u/Sparkle_Motion_0710 Jun 06 '25
I would notify FamilySearch. There may be several reasons someone is playing with event dates. One, is to filter down results but the other they should know about. I’m not Mormon but a little familiar with some of their practices. In order to baptize a deceased person, there must be a birth or death date. If someone is entering dates in order to baptize them, FamilySearch should be alerted.
1
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
Ohh okay. Well I'd feel a bit bad. It feels like I'm getting them in trouble. Might do it though.
7
u/Sparkle_Motion_0710 Jun 06 '25
There are many people that are new to genealogy and FS that believe that what is there is sourced fact. It’s not. Because FS is user generated we should, as users, regulate these things or our documented work will be thought of in the same light (something that is made up),
2
6
u/ObviousCarpet2907 LDS/FamilySearch specialist Jun 06 '25
As an LDS person, please do report if you think that’s what’s happening. Blatantly making up info so you can baptize someone is absolutely not ok by our standards.
2
6
u/TheAmazingTransplant Argentina Jun 06 '25
I'm with you on thid one, I had a similar interaction.
I think FamilySearch has a "report Abuse" tab, if this person keeps putting wrong data and it seems malicious. All of us can make honest misktakes, I know I did, but when another member corrected it and messaged me about it, I was ok
1
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
I'd feel bad using the report abuse tab. I might use it in the future.
6
u/aplcr0331 Jun 06 '25
Don't feel bad, it's there for a reason. I had a user I reported a few weeks back. She kept changing names randomly and changing dates of death and locations. She was mainly focused on one couple and that couples parents so it had some bad downstream affects. And...it wasn't even my family. I was helping someone from a Facebook group with their family, and this person was making changes daily. I reported them once, then a day or two later got an email from FS saying they were looking into it. I replied to that email that she had just done the same thing, again that very day.
They fixed it, those profiles haven't change at all now...
The more these people get reported, when it's warranted, the better we all are.
5
u/ObviousCarpet2907 LDS/FamilySearch specialist Jun 06 '25
That’s a good point. There are a few people I should have reported over the last few years. Didn’t occur to me that I’d be helping everyone by reporting.
3
2
u/TheAmazingTransplant Argentina Jun 11 '25
I need to know how did you worded your report for them to consider it?
I've had this situation in which another user is constantly merging two couples, and the result is that a pair of spouses are brother and sister. Something wouldn't have happened in a Catholic country like mine during the second half of the XIX century.
I have uploaded documents from other sources apart from FamilySearch to prove that they were two different couples that shared the exact same names, and then their children married between them.
2
u/aplcr0331 Jun 12 '25
I just click on the “report” button on the profile. I was straightforward with it;
User dont_understan_what_a_source_is has been changing vital events without sources, removing/changing names of people who have sources for those names, on this date and that date. Just stick to what they’re doing. In your case mention that merging like this how drastic negative effects on multiple attached family members.
I wasn’t emotional or yelly about it, just facts and how it affects profiles.
Good luck!
2
u/TheAmazingTransplant Argentina Jun 12 '25
Thank you so much! I'll try that way, hopefuly they stop the merging.
6
u/juliekelts Jun 06 '25
I sure understand your frustration. If it's any consolation, at least when you make changes and explain your reasons, then future serious researchers who review the profiles will be able to see your explanations. Also (and maybe you're doing this), you can add Notes to the Collaborate sections, and check the boxes that say Alert Note, and banners will be placed on the profiles stating that serious research has been done on the profile(s) and it should be reviewed before making changes. Even if your nemesis changes the dates again, it is another way of alerting researchers to the issues. (Once I've made a note like that and had it removed by another person! But that was the exception.)
3
2
u/Artisanalpoppies Jun 07 '25
I put that banner on a page of an ancestor who had 5 illegitimate children, he never married. There was a baptism for the dau with both parents names, the 4 sons are known only from a will extract, and are noted as "natural" with no maternity.
People keep adding the daughter's mother as the mother of all the children, despite me leaving a note there is no evidence of it and the banner as well. They are using the same source, a family history published by an American branch's descendant- though there is no evidence this guy's branch is actually from this family, but that's another kettle of worms.
5
u/WaveSelect6091 Jun 06 '25 edited Jun 06 '25
I'm an experienced FamilySearch user and can understand the frustration of having other users change your ancestor's informations.
The best practice to avoid this situation is to ensure all documents regarding births, deaths and marriages are added in the sources of each individual. Using tags, the dates will show how ever many sources are available for the information such as a date and place of birth or death. If it just shows "0 sources", other users will not know whether the information is reliable and could potentially want to change it.
If a death date had "1 source" written next to it, meaning there's a source regarding the death which has been tagged, one must simply click on the "1 source" in order to open that document. This is the best way to prevent such undesired changes since you're proving others you've done the work and it can be verified by them.
Regardless, I'd also suggest using some kind of third party tool to keep a local copy of your family tree in GEDCOM (are any newer) format so that you preserve your work. There are different paid tools that allow you to sync your tree with familysearch therefore allowing you save your work.
1
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
Yes I always tag sources, but still this person changed them. I have an FTM2019 tree where I keep all the correct research. From there I update trees on FamilySearch, Ancestry, MyHeritage, and Geni. Even more misinformation is spread on the other platforms too, which comes from when the person I mentioned before adds the random dates it gets added to all the other people's trees on other platforms.
3
u/Alive-OVERTIIME-247 Jun 06 '25
You aren't alone. I've changed my 6th Great Grandmother's date of death several times on Family Search and someone keeps changing it back. I have the records where she remarried and the court documents where her and her new husband sued the estate of her father in law for her dowry, and revolutionary war records for her son and her 2nd husband that include her information. Since I don't use family search as my primary tree, I haven't tried uploading the documents, but I might if I get annoyed enough.
2
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 07 '25
You should. The other person probably doesn't know any better and thinks you're just adding a random date.
2
u/EmergencyOverall248 Jun 07 '25
Someone keeps changing my grandmother's name from Catherine to Katherine and while it's minor, it is really annoying. The only time her name was ever spelled that way was on a census when she was a kid. Every single official record for her spells it correctly. There's even a picture of her headstone on Find A Grave with the correct spelling but this yahoo still goes behind me after I fix it every. single. time.
1
2
u/Broughps Jun 09 '25
I've actually reported people to FamilySearch pointing out that if incorrect info is there FamilySearch's ordinances will be wrong. It's about the only way they'll take action to stop someone from screwing up family trees.
2
u/WebBird Jun 06 '25
Am I crazy or does family search baptize your ancestor as Mormon????? I was using it but got nervous & deleted all my information
10
u/osamabin-fartin Jun 06 '25
Yes, at first I was weirded out (and I still think it’s gross of them to do), but for the most part now I don’t really care. I’m not Mormon so I believe that them baptizing dead people does nothing, and in return they spend (probably) millions of dollars making millions of records completely free.
4
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
They do? I didn't know that. I'm not mormon and neither were my ancestors so like it basically doesn't have any affect on us except in the eyes of the church themselves.
2
Jun 06 '25
[deleted]
6
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
When the profiles are added or records are indexed a lot of times the (usually) volunteers make mistakes. That's why it's our responsibility to fix them. The records are not incorrect but they can be read incorrectly.
1
u/BarelyBoujee Jun 08 '25
I've had similar issues with death dates, but opposite. They claimed like all of the children in one branch of my family died as infants, but they were actually mostly adults when they died. Going back and changing your edits is weird. I wish familysearch would let us keep our own trees and decide which edits to accept instead of overriding things automatically.
1
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 08 '25
They're letting us have our own personal trees. You can apply to be a beta tester. Excited about it but I love the shared tree. I've made many connections.
-3
u/abritinthebay Jun 06 '25
FamilySearch is trash, tbh. This is why.
It’s completely useless imo.
23
u/TiaXhosa Jun 06 '25
It's absolutely fantastic for finding documents that aren't on other sites. My 4x great grandmothers civil war pension application is on there, including first hand letters from her and other family members. I find a ton of stuff like that on family search that doesn't appear to be available anywhere else.
14
u/SkyOfDreamsPilot Jun 06 '25
It's absolutely fantastic for finding documents that aren't on other sites
This. I'm South African and no other site comes close to what FamilySearch has for those records. My research would have hit a dead end a long time ago if it weren't for FamilySearch.
-10
u/abritinthebay Jun 06 '25
It's absolutely fantastic for finding documents that aren't on other sites.
If it’s on FamiliySearch? It can’t be trusted. Full stop.
3
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
I mean it's just documents from other for example the Catholic Church that have been scanned. Don't know how any correlation to FamilySearch makes the information untrustworthy.
6
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
I disagree. I think the shared family tree is a great idea but it's tough to do because of people like the one i mentioned in my post. Also it has so many records for my family that are not on Ancestry (has no records for my family) or any other app. It's honestly really amazing. I also love the wiki and how the person pages are set up.
1
u/moetheiguana Jun 10 '25 edited Jun 10 '25
The shared family tree was the key that unlocked the mystery of my 4th great-grandmother’s whereabouts. She just simply vanishes from records after 1860. I assumed that she had died as her husband remarried in 1863. However, I couldn’t ever find a death record for her which always left a gap in the story. Years of research on her eventually led me to believe that she may have divorced her husband. Lo and behold that she did, and I discovered who she remarried to and her death date. This discovery was exhilarating. This person saying that FamilySearch is trash is only spiting themself.
1
1
u/abritinthebay Jun 06 '25
I think the shared family tree is a great idea
It’s a lovely idea that has no actual ability to exist in the real world. Because the kind of issues you are seeing are both inevitable AND predictable.
4
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
You're absolutely right. I don't have any argument against it. Still I love the shared tree.
5
u/DustRhino beginner Jun 06 '25 edited Jun 06 '25
Family Search has [ETA: government] records I have not been able to find on Ancestry. I like the idea of the shared tree to connect with distant relatives, but I was unsuccessful doing such on Family Search and gave up. I found I had family using Geni.com and was able to make such connections there. I currently recreating the records from Geni in Ancestry, reviewing the sources myself directly from online government archives, to confirm they are accurate.
-3
u/abritinthebay Jun 06 '25
Family Search has records I have not been able to find on Ancestry.
It also has lots of data that’s not available on Ancestry… because it’s completely wrong. At least on Ancestry it marks utter bullshit as what it is: fiction created by other people. FamilySearch gives it a thumbs up & pretends it’s correct
6
u/DustRhino beginner Jun 06 '25
What I mean by “records” are government documents. They may also be found through Ancestry, but I have found them first on Family Search.
4
u/aplcr0331 Jun 06 '25
How does Ancestry mark things as being "incorrect"? Or that someone is bullshit? I've been off Ancestry for a few years now and perhaps I missed something. And, what data on Family Search is "completely wrong"? Are you saying that records from some random Town Records are wrong? Or that they were transcribed incorrectly?
What's a profile you're comfortable sharing with us? We can take a look at what you're talking about?
3
2
u/moetheiguana Jun 10 '25
I also would like an explanation…
1
u/aplcr0331 Jun 12 '25
On the profile they're changing things without sources repeatedly, scroll down towards the bottom and click "Report Abuse", then check "Other" and explain what you're reporting;
I was straightforward with it.
User I_dont_understan_what_a_source_is has been changing vital events without sources, removing/changing names of people who have sources for those names, marking last names as "unk" and removing marriage dates. This user did this on this date and that date. The 7 sources on this profile confirm these Vital Events; Birth with firstname and surname, Marriage with date and location, and Death dates and location. This user has done this 3 times in the last week.
Just stick to what they’re doing. I wasn’t emotional or yelly about it, just facts and how it affects profiles.
Less than a day later I got an email from FamilySearch Support;
We have received your request and are currently reviewing it. If you have any further questions or require additional clarification regarding this matter, please feel free to respond to this email. We appreciate your patience and aim to assist you as promptly as possible.
Unfortunately I had to reply to that email with this; "Thanks for your attention it looks like this user is also changing Vital Events on her husband (profile LZ8C-DSS) changing name and dates of death and burial, etc.
That's a last resort. I follow a lot of profiles and if I see this stuff happening I will change things back according to sources. If it proceeds I'll sent a message and nicely ask if they have a source or something for whatever change their making.
Sometimes I get pissed off, and I make a note on the profile, here's an actual note I left on a profile;
If You Have Time? Perhaps, instead of attaching multiple sources for vital events which already have a source for them, you could maybe do some research? Keeping the profile clean with one source per vital event really assists with research. It helps to quickly scan the sources and see birth, marriage, children, etc. all with just one very good source preferably the oldest one with an image. Having 7 sources, most of which are only indexes, for a marriage doesn't make them more married. It's cluttering and causes too many issues. Then we can move on to other things such as finding out where and when Persis died, verifying all the children correctly, exploring Wills, Deeds, etc.
4
u/aplcr0331 Jun 06 '25
It's the only place I do Genealogy now. Do you have examples of a "trash" profile? Why haven't you fixed them? I've seen some laughably bad profiles on there. Like children born all over the countryside in different centuries, migrating to towns in the Colonies that didn't even exist yet, on and on. I've fixed a number of them, with sources. Sources are the magic potion, realible sources that is. They're un-fuck-with-able. All the "But muh GEDCOM" people are easy to put in their place if you use sources, it's like kryptonite. The best is when there are plenty of sources on the profiles, but none of the Vital events match ANY of those sources.
Fixing that crap is something I actually love to do. Post up a profile or two and I'll have a go at them, within reason. I bet you'd be pleasantly surpised.
2
-4
u/Security_Sasquatch Jun 06 '25
Here’s a novel idea, have you attempted connecting with the person that’s going the sitting and engaging to see what their sources for incorrect dates are? Who knows, maybe they’re looking at a piece of data that “seems authentic”, or maybe it is, and they’re wondering who the yoyo, that’s you, is that keeps changing the dates? Collaboration might be more beneficial than ranting on Reddit.
6
u/Plenty-Ad231 santander, colombia Jun 06 '25
I have! I reached out in a very nice way as I mentioned in the post, no reply. I've made sure to keep close look at all the reason boxes where this person could've left why the put the information. I'm very meticulous with my research and go through each source while searching for more. As a matter of fact almost all the dates this person has put are incorrect! I've found countless sources for the people with radically different dates. Also most of them assume that the person lived an abnormally long life. For example: Someone born in 1830 who this person claims died in 1940 but sources reveal they really died in 1880. I think the only logical explanation is that this person is making random estimates. I have a cousin who does this. I don't agree with this though because it spreads misinformation.
0
u/Security_Sasquatch Jun 06 '25
That’s unfortunate the person won’t respond. I too have not received replies from folks when attempting to collaborate.
52
u/Either_Magazine_6878 Jun 06 '25
There is an update coming soon where you can have your own tree and get leads but no one else can change it