Aaron Tassin, MLIS

I’ve had this post bouncing around in my head for a few weeks.  If it is written down, maybe I can get it out of my head and move on.  Let’s see.

I’m a big football fan.  My teams are the New Orleans Saints and the LSU Tigers.  I also follow specific players, not necessarily on my two teams.  Cam Newton, the quarterback of the Carolina Panthers, is a player I follow.  I love Cam Newton, and I don’t.  As a player and a QB, I love watching him drive his team down the field.  But, off the field…not so much.  Love him, and then not so much.  I feel the same way about FamilySearch’s FamilyTree…I love it, but not so much!

FamilySearch’s FamilyTree is a global ‘one tree’ online tree.  You already know how I feel about online trees!  But I really like the way FamilySearch has built FamilyTree and how it is continually being improved for the better.  The person-centric Bow Tie view is a favorite.  Hinting, source attachments, family view layout, person watch.  All of it, I love it.  A huge plus is the integration with Roots Magic.  Up to this point, I’m a big fan.  But…

FamilyTree is ONE tree.  We all add, modify, delete, source, edit, add again, move, edit again, restore…the same data.  In theory, each person has only one record…their record.   And in so doing, there is a rub.  Anyone else can change the information you add.  This has been the main criticism of  FamilyTree.

By the way, I know of people who use only FamilyTree for their genealogical work.  I understand the reasoning – Temple Work – and if this is your sole mission, then I guess it is okay for that.  But for everyone else, having all of your work up on any online platform is crazy.  Even if all you have is PAF (Personal Ancestral File), use it as your data platform.  NEVER make any online platform your sole repository for all that family history you have collected for so many years!  The best practice here is to have some software on your computer and back it up redundantly.  I use Roots Magic plus a maze of backups.

Ideally, Family Tree would be an excellent way for family historians to collaborate.  I haven’t seen this.  I see people changing what others have put in and then having it changed back—a genealogical tug-of-war.

Recently, FamilySearch added a messaging component to the FamilyTree experience.  I think the idea was for people to work out their ‘disputes’ amongst themselves.  Maybe that works, but in my experience, some family historians don’t like being confused with facts.  And a few weeks ago, one such person contacted me (through the FamilyTree messaging system).

When I put data into FamilyTree , I do so to share my research.  Whatever I add is sourced, which should help others working with the same person or family.  In 2015, I changed an unsourced birthdate (1703) to a new birthdate (1707) sourcing to a derivative source.  In the area provided for an explanation, I explained myself.  Again, the only motivation here is to help someone working in the same family in the future.  My note said the change was based on the given source, and it was the best information available for now.  I even said the birthdate should be changed later if a better source is uncovered.  That was in 2015.

In 2017, I received a message.  It was short and curt.  Had I even taken the time to check the changelog before making my change?  Of course, I did.  I checked everything, and the first date was unsourced; nothing supported it.  So, I responded quickly (and much more politely), reiterating my 2015 justification for making the change.  Then, a second message came in.  “By the time you read this, I may have already made the change,” and “Please consider deleting your comment [2015 change justification]”.

Being the professional that I am, I didn’t respond – and haven’t.

Then, a third message was sent, saying the reference ‘belonged’ to a tree on World Connect.  Without saying anything, I followed up on this.  Yes, the same person with the 1707 birthdate was out on World Connect, and it was sourced the same.  The Point?  I’m not sure.  I found my information in the original volume during a visit to the Family History Library.

I still plan to continue adding and modifying FamilyTree with my source-based research but have turned off messaging.  There is no time for negativity.

So, what about the birthdate in question?  It was changed back to 1703.  That date remains unsourced.