Changes made in FamilySearch

In order to preserve the promise of transparency and open communication, the change log records changes to topics made by both customers and employees. Anyone can dispute a change by clicking the "Dispute" link and entering additional details.


  • January 14, 2020 13:37
    Brett, the poster:
    Removed 'Thank You' by Brett
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • January 12, 2020 22:36
    joe martel Dispute this change
  • January 12, 2020 17:37
    joe martel
    Removed use site test by joe m
    Reason: test
    Dispute this change
  • January 12, 2020 17:37
    joe martel, the poster:
    Removed a reply by joe martel in use site test
    Reason: optional
  • January 11, 2020 02:29
    joe martel
    Reason: Review code of conduct and personal attacks
    Dispute this change
  • January 07, 2020 21:42
    Tim Cross
    Changed reply in topic of No Way to Remove Names Accidentally Added to a Message by Tim Cross to I appreciate the discussion, feedback, and interest in the new messaging features.<br /><br />Currently, we allow for adding and removing individuals on the message up until the first message is sent.&nbsp; Once the message is sent, we "create" the message thread.&nbsp; Once the message thread is created, we currently don't allow for adding/removing patrons on the thread.&nbsp; We may change this in the future.&nbsp; However, we need to better understand the ramifications associated with adding/removing patrons.<br /><br />For example, with Facebook Messenger, the thread is based on who is included on the thread.&nbsp; As you adjust the list of those on the thread, the thread actually changes.&nbsp; Meaning, if you create a message with Tom, Sally, and Harry, when you remove Harry from the thread, a new thread is created with just Tom and Sally.&nbsp; The old thread still exists with Tom, Sally, and Harry.&nbsp; You can actually toggle between threads by adding/removing those on the thread.&nbsp; You can not have multiple threads with the same participants.<br /><br />--------------------------------<br /><br />I have a question for those following this discussion.&nbsp; When do you feel you will use FamilySearch Messaging to discuss your research pertaining to an ancestor in the Family Tree instead of using "Collaborate" on the Ancestor's Person Page?.
  • January 07, 2020 03:19
    joe martel
    Reason: This content is spam.
    Dispute this change
  • January 05, 2020 20:03
    Paul Wrightson, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • January 05, 2020 20:03
    Paul Wrightson, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • January 04, 2020 23:24
    joe martel
    Changed reply in topic of Scotland Census, 1901 by joe martel to Colin, I'm not sure if your question had been answered or not. I just briefly scanned this thread to hopefully answer any unanswered questions you have. If you feel you have what you need, you can request to have this thread closed.<br /><br />Through contracts record custodians control what can be seen by their users, and what other partys' users can see. In this case the collection is through FMP.&nbsp; FMP and FS agreed to what FS users can see. Those FS users are broken up into different restrictive groups. I'm not going to get in what is fair or not but members of the LDS church sometimes can have more access than other groups of users. <br /><br />In this case it appears that members can see the record (indexes) and Attach those records to a Person in FSFT. Once the record is attached any user in FS can now see that record index. These are restricted indexes as set forth by FMP. Searching a collection would reveal the indexes so the restricted indexes are only searchable by members as well. <br /><br />The images for this collection are not visible to any FS user. I don't know if the images are available at FMP or some other party.&nbsp;<br /><br />There are many levels of access restrictions for the various collections, images, pages, redactions and it is a very complicated legal and technological issue. For instance, some information can be seen in libraries and family history centers. And there are always odd edge cases created by contract and time. Some collections disappear because of custodian and government control. So it's kind of a moving target. Trying to explain all this is hard and software and messaging could be out of date. I wish we had better visibility into all this but I think a company could spin up a whole division to assess collections and visibility throughout the genealogical world. That seems daunting. Hope this helps..
  • January 04, 2020 01:52
    Lundgren, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • January 03, 2020 23:26
    Lynne VanWagenen
    Reason: Code of Conduct violation. Comment is not kind or constructive. It violates the policy of Conjecture, gossip, or debate about the priorities, motives, processes, policies, or competence of FamilySearch or its personnel.
    Dispute this change
  • January 03, 2020 16:02
    Lynne VanWagenen
    Reason: Selling or promotion of products or services.
    Dispute this change
  • January 01, 2020 22:51
    joe martel
    Changed reply in topic of How is the FamilySearch "Our Tree" doing on accomplishing its GOALS? by joe martel to Great timing Robert. As with any organization and its products, focus and message can evolve. This link will give you a sense of the accomplishments for 2019&nbsp;<a href="https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/familysearch-2019-year-in-review/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="Link https//wwwfamilysearchorg/blog/en/familysearch-2019-year-in-review/">https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/familysearch-2019-year-in-review/</a>.
  • December 30, 2019 18:32
    Lynne VanWagenen
    Reason: Spam/links to porn
    Dispute this change
  • December 25, 2019 15:08
    joe martel
    Reason: spam
    Dispute this change
  • December 20, 2019 18:52
    Alahärmä, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • December 20, 2019 06:50
    Don M Thomas, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • December 20, 2019 05:07
    ATP, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • December 19, 2019 19:02
    joe martel
    Reason: confidential
    Dispute this change
next » « previous