tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post1341985588247099406..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: FamilySearch Responses to Questions About IGI Extracted SourcesRandy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-49996217418291917972015-04-04T11:41:48.149-07:002015-04-04T11:41:48.149-07:00Ted,
The rate of error seen in the merge algorith...Ted,<br /><br />The rate of error seen in the merge algorithms that were used years ago to create the Family Tree persons from the AF, PRF, contributed and indexed IGI datasets will vary based on which individual in the tree is being viewed. Persons with common names may see a higher rate of erroneous merges. <br /><br />The Indexed IGI records that are being attached are simply historical documents that were used to created the tree people. If you know where the correct person in the Family Tree is, by all means, detach the historical record from the wrong person and attach it to the correct one. This, and a good reason statement explaining why the record person is not the one you are detaching it from, will keep someone else from reattaching it to the wrong person again. If you do not know who the correct person is in the Family Tree, you can detach it and it will go back into the set of 5.2 billion unattached records until a descendant of the correct person comes along to attach it to their ancestor correctly. <br /><br />I do not understand your third point. The information displayed on the Family Tree person represents conclusions made by patrons based on the attached historical document sources. If you detach an erroneous source, and also edit the data displayed on the family tree person so that it no longer reflects erroneous data derived from that source, you have separated out the improperly combined records and data. <br /><br />-Robert KehrerOurFamilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06462712689123462904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-9256324497364296012015-04-03T08:22:59.533-07:002015-04-03T08:22:59.533-07:00It's in no one's best interests to have th...It's in no one's best interests to have their tree edited by anyone else, especially without their permission. Having a tree at familysearch gives them that permission. I will never have a tree there. There are plenty of messed up trees on line without creating more on purpose. Bad idea. Very bad idea. My guess is the people who think these things up do not do research or they tried it one day and it was too hard.Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13256855136448978468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-4954503988145370622015-04-02T18:17:50.589-07:002015-04-02T18:17:50.589-07:00Thanks for sharing the questions and answers. This...Thanks for sharing the questions and answers. This is most helpful!<br /><br />I was surprised at a couple of things:<br /><br />(1) The statement that wrongly attached sources "should be rare." (Question 6 response.) That has not been my experience. Of all the IGI sources I have examined so far, I would say something in the range of one-third are attached to the wrong person.<br /><br />(2) The response to question 7 suggests that all we need to do is detach wrongly attached sources from the tree person. That seems to be backing off from the "Learn More" document which seems to suggest pretty strongly that it is our responsibility to find the correct person in the tree and attach the source to that person:<br /><br />https://familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Dividing-incorrectly-combined-records-in-Family-Tree&lang=en<br /><br />(3) The response to question 4 doesn't really address the issue how wrongly combined persons are going to be separated. Even though we detach the wrongly attached sources, the underlying record still contains improperly combined persons. It seems like that is going to have be sorted out at some point.Ted Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09810743230086342147noreply@blogger.com