tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post2424218206535531526..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Pruning and Grafting the FamilySearch Family TreeRandy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-64496010878503381522017-01-22T10:10:26.643-08:002017-01-22T10:10:26.643-08:00FamilySearch just updated their Weekly FamilySearc...FamilySearch just updated their Weekly FamilySearch changes of people you are watching e-mail. Do like the summary that lists how many people were changed but wish they didn't list each change in a manner that seems to take up so much space in the e-mail. Also, unsure what the green checkmarks and red x's are -- searched their Website for an explanation but couldn't find anything that helped clarify this change -- maybe information will show up in a future What's New letter from FamilySearch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-19004102498738010022017-01-04T16:54:02.491-08:002017-01-04T16:54:02.491-08:00I watch over 2500 people in FamilySearch Family Tr...I watch over 2500 people in FamilySearch Family Tree (the Shackfords who descended from William Shackford, 1640ish). I review the weekly list of changes (8-15 people -- 30-100 changes) and have to say that generally I spend more time adding helpful new information (new sources, correctly added new descendents, or pictures!!!) to my RootsMagic file than I spend fixing newly introduced errors. This was not true at first when I had to merge the masses of duplicates. When I do find an error or an addition that is unsourced, I write to the person who created the error and they usually fix the issue they created in a week and thank me for the comment (one big exception but FamilySearch intervened to help out). If the person doesn't fix the error I go in and either fix it or add a discussion comment that the person added has no sourced relationship and is probably an error. <br /><br />Randy - I had a 1/2 written blog for a future Tuesday's Tip on how helpful this WATCH feature is so when it shows up I'm not copying your blog! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-61121886112969922562017-01-04T15:38:29.813-08:002017-01-04T15:38:29.813-08:00I most heartily agree. It is a disaster. I too wen...I most heartily agree. It is a disaster. I too went through a bunch of changes and again found numerous problems. One couple now has children ranging over 150 years! If FamilySearch can't include a "logic test" before changes are accepted, it should consider trashing its system. This happens so frequently that I'm tempted to remove my "Watches." I simply cannot keep fixing the same families over and over. It's futile.Faxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14160490778082617475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-34766787312161391582017-01-04T08:12:34.414-08:002017-01-04T08:12:34.414-08:00Randy, this annoys me so much. If people post thin...Randy, this annoys me so much. If people post things to a tree such as the FamilySearch family tree at least they should be pretty sure the information they post and upload is accurate. The tree that I follow in FamilySearch is so messed up that I don't know if it is possible to fix. I started to correct things a while back but gave up when I realized that those who posted the wrong information believe they are right (Even without sources to prove it) and will just change it back deleting all my hard work. I would rather spend the time researching and adding correct information to my own private tree.<br />Joan<br />Bishop Joanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07236025312006228292noreply@blogger.com