Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m frustrated

Incorrect Family Search automatic linking

I was entering a few ancestors and Family search suddenly linked to an incorrect relationship without my permission. I never saw the ancestor name until it was linked and dont see how to delete.
1 person likes
this idea
+1
Reply
  • First verify that the link is incorrect before you do anything. It will take time and effort but the link may be correct so verify first, If in is for sure incorrect then you can remove the "relationship". Be sure to add sources and enter a complete explanation in the reason statement.

    See for help with correcting relationships:

    https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/...

    https://thefhguide.com/
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    The person that FS automatically linked to had died 21 years before the linked person (my parent) was born. How is this possibly correct? How can FS automatically link anybody when the person creating the tree had not asked for the link? No sources are needed.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • Anyone can make changes to any ordinary profile on this site. Whether you decide to permit those changes to occur or not is irrelevant.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    FamilySearch would not automatically link anything to an entry you made. It sounds like you chose an existing record rather than creating a new record (Family Search does offer you that choice) and that record you selected was not the person you wanted it to be and therefore there were incorrect links. FamilySearch never makes connections unless you do something to cause the linkage. When I enter a new person record, I almost never choose any of those offered, I create a new record and do a search for duplicates and merge those duplicates after carefully look at the duplicate to make sure all relationships are correct. Even doing that sometimes I make mistakes where there are multiple John's married to Mary in the same local.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    If you are just starting out your portion of the huge "Family Tree," you might want to start with your parent by adding him or her as an unconnected person. You can do this by hitting on "Family Tree" at the top of the page, and then going over to the left part of the screen and hitting on "Recents." Scroll down the "Recents" list to the bottom and hit on "Add Unconnected Person." After adding your parent you can then see if he, or she, is already in the "Family Tree."

    Sometimes others have made a mistake and connected another family to your ancestors, and if this is the case you will have to disconnect from wrong information. Really make sure that the person already in the "Family Tree" is your ancestor, otherwise you will be adding wrong information to someone else's portion of the huge "Family Tree."

    Remember the FamilySearch "Family Tree" is a one world, one person, "Family Tree" for all of humankind.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    Family Tree is such a huge tree with so many unique situations in it, all the the advice given above is rather theoretical and may not apply.

    What are the ID numbers of the people involved in this erroneous linking?

    If you post this, people will be able to look at the situation and examine the Change Log and tell you exactly what happened and how to fix it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m thankful
    Thanks to all of the responses I figured out what has happened. Briefly, I managed to add the wrong Louis Menzer K2XT-3YP to my small tree. He had the exact same spelling and maybe no B/D dates. He had no children but had wife Rose Delilah Jones 1852-1897 K2X-T3Y5. She was about 30 years older than my GF. I never saw her name until she was attached along with her ancestors. Response time on Family Search was extremely slow and maybe that was a contributory factor. I eventually managed to add my GF Louis Menzer who is now L1K2-75D.

    I don;t know how to fix this so if anyone else can help please do so.

    Thanks again
    Robert.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • There is no "my small tree". That is something that you must understand. There is one, single, overall tree. Now the particular bit that you are linked into might not merge into the greater whole (and since it's only two isolated people it hardly does), but it is part of a much, much greater thing.

    The second PID you cite doesn't exist in the system, and the first was created yesterday. Now looking at what you've actually done, to my mind there isn't really any harm in your edits. The much more extensive family that you linked into did not have sources attached to many of the children so those children are really speculation without proper sources. I suspect that those sources could be attached fairly easily, but they have not been. Like many parts of FSFT it has effectively been left to moulder and is currently of little real value.

    The deletion of one unsourced marriage event from one person is a mistake, but not a massive one. However you make a mistake when you look for a response from Familysearch. They are not the ones to fix this: you or another user need to fix it. The first thing that I would look for is the suggested source for Louis Menzer and Eva Pervin. The system has suggested a Pennsylvania marriage record for them dated 1941 with them as the parents of the bride. So the question is: is that source suggestion correct? Does it refer to your relatives?

    So once that question has been answered and the source suggestion either attached or marked as not a match as appropriate we can then move on to dealing with other matters.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    Let's go through a series of events here, try to see what happened, and look at the best way to reverse changes in Family Tree.

    1) When the Family Tree database was first created in the spring of 2012, a record for Rose Delilah Jones (1 September 1852 – 22 July 1897) K2XT-3Y5 was created



    with two husbands, both of whom were added just by name with no other information:
    Louis Menzer (Deceased) K2XT-3YP
    Joseph Goodrich (Deceased) K2XT-3B9



    Having come from older databases, there are no sources attached for any of this. But unless one can prove that this Rose never married a Louis Menzer in 1874, this couple relationship needs to stay in Family Tree for Louis and Rose's descendants to one day find and improve.

    2) Yesterday, you created a record for Esther Menzer (March 1918 – September 2000) L1KF-Q68



    3) After adding her, you attempted to add her father Louis Menzer. I assume you did this by clicking on the Add Parent link, adding information, clicking Next and getting this kind of a list:



    which is how the process works.

    Now I would assume that instead of clicking "Create New," you saw a Louise Menzer on the list that looked reasonable and clicked Add Person or Add Couple. This added the other Louise Menzer that already existed in Family Tree and his wife Rose as Esther's parents



    4) All this is very reasonable and people make mistakes like this all the time. Family Tree lets you revers this type of error very easily.

    As soon as you saw that this was the wrong Louis Menzer and Rose, you could have removed Esther as a child by clicking on the edit icon next to her name as shown in this example



    This bring out the edit relationship flyout in which you can remove the father from a child, remove the mother from a child, or remove the child from both. In this case, you would have wanted to remove Esther from both and so clicked the link next to her



    Clicking "Remove or Replace" brings up this screen where you then click the box to say you have reviewed this and understand what you are doing, then click the Remove Parents button



    Then you could have started over adding the correct parents to Esther.

    ================

    Instead, things started to go a bit off course but this is all easy to repair.

    5) Realizing there were an error, you removed the incorrect Louise from the family of Louis/Rose/Esther



    Unfortunately, this also removed the Louis that is not your ancestor from his wife Rose but left Rose as Esther's mother.

    I assume you were a bit frustrated at this point because you just deleted Esther completely



    So now Esther is gone and Rose has lost a husband.

    6) Next, you added a new spouse to the Louis that used to be Rose's husband



    Since you asked for help, I am going to restore the relationship of the Louis Menzer that was married to Rose and whom you are not related to and create a new Louis Menzer, who I assume is Esther's father, as the husband of Eva Pervin. You can safely add Esther as their child and proceed from there.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 2
    Your Louis Menzer is now Louis Menzer (Deceased) L1KG-NL7 and he is properly associated with his wife Eva Pervin:



    Just click on the Add Child link below them to add Esther.

    The other Louis Menzer is back with his wife Rose (to whom he was sealed in 2017):



    The reason this relation had to be restored, was that people have been working on Rose's family as recently as 2017, including having temple work done for family members. I'm sure they would have been upset when they discovered that you had accidentally kidnapped Aunt Rose's first husband out of the family. One of the things we all need to keep in mind when working in Family Tree is that everything we do has the potential to affect the work others are doing.

    ============

    When adding new people, you do have to be cautious with the list of possible existing people because if you have added very little information about the person, such as just a name, you usually get a very strange list of random people of the same name.



    I rarely find this list useful and usually find it is best to use the Create New button then use the possible duplicates link to check for duplicates.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • Gordon, Ever think of creating youtube tutorials on the use and benefits of the change log?

    "FSFT- Change Log, your friend" or "FSFT- Change Log Analysis" or "FSFT- Change Log Tools" or "FSFT- Change Log Restoration"
    • view 4 more comments
    • I tend to use Gordon's approach I am very cautious about adding an existing record however, I do understand Paul about getting distracted and creating a duplicate which does no show as a possible duplicate. I have found that I usually recover the duplicate as I add sources and fillout the family.
    • Come to think of it, where I believe I mostly come across "duplicates" in an "Add" process is when I am dealing with census records that link the whole household. I have usually added records to the existing father's person page, and am then "invited" to add the rest of the family - the children in which I have usually been quite unaware of, until this stage.

      (A typical scenario is that I have added the father from finding him as a child in, say, the 1861 census. Then I find him (either from a further search or a record hint on his person page) thirty years later in the 1891 census - now with a wife and several children to add!)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    Great analysis, Gordon - as usual. You definitely have a knack for clarity of expression.
    Re "So many potential projects, so little time. (Sigh)" I don't know how you have time to do any of these expanded answers!!!

    I added a link to this topic to the FS Wiki about this forum, as an example of what people can find herein. https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/...

    Perhaps a wiki page called "Gordon's Solutions" might work - Until then, feel free to add any of these great posted solutions to the existing wiki!!!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 3
    "The reason this relation had to be restored, was that people have been working on Rose's family as recently as 2017, including having temple work done for family members."

    "The other Louis Menzer is back with his wife Rose (to whom he was sealed in 2017):"

    Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Someone's not been doing any proper research before doing ordinances on a person. How many sources does Rose Delilah Jones have attached? One. When was that source attached? TODAY. Does that source provide any evidence that she was married to Louis Menzer? Nope. It's for the purported second marriage.

    So he's been sealed to his "wife" with zero actual evidence that they even married. Nice piece of genealogical research there by the person who did the temple work. Sadly typical of much that gets done with FSFT.

    Louis Menzer has five sources attached: again all of them were attached today. Again none of them provides evidence of a marriage to Rose Delilah Jones.

    Good start by Jessie Hearle who attached the sources to each person today. I just wish that those who had done the temple work had even attempted to do some proper research.

    No idea if proof of proper research is required for temple work. Given all of the name-grabbing apps out there I suspect not.
    • view 2 more comments
    • Really what you people have just talked about, Gordon Collett and David Newton, has a whole "Feedback" called, "Would Someone in Upper FS Management Please Explain WHY it is Necessary and/or Desirable to allow GEDCOM submission to the FSTree?" Are any of the GEDCOMs uploading to the FamilySearch "Family Tree" really sourced? I would say NOT! Sourcing really only comes from interring one person at a time to the FamilySearch "Family Tree." Sourcing is the main element in genealogy, and without it there is NO genealogy, and this should be taught first to all newbies.
    • Actually, none of the records discussed here are from GEDCOMS. They are either newly created by typing them into FamilyTree or from the original Family Tree database creation in 2012 from IGI and other records. But yes, you are right, we're drifting off topic and should be in "Temple Today - Chasing Green Temple Icons" or similar. Sorry, we'll get back to the topic if any more discussion is needed.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited