Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Notes & Sources deleted by people that didn’t create them.

Notes and sources: I wish that notes and sources entered by one person, would be like memories, in that they could not be deleted by another person.
3 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • I share your frustration. Unfortunately, sometimes sources are simply incorrectly attached out of simple mistake or pure stupidity. The whole point of a wiki is to allow a wide group of people to correct mistakes. My concern is that sometimes sources and notes are lost in the merge process. I wish there was some warning system to alert users when a file being deleted by merging has more sources than the surviving file. Another solution might be to make it real hard to merge out a file after it has a certain number of sources, notes, etc attached. The file could be edited, but not easily merged.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    Notes that should never be deleted can be entered as discussions.

    It's hard to lose sources in a merge because they are all moved over automatically.

    Sources do need to be editable and removed when needed because we all make mistakes and sometimes a source on a record turns out to not be for that person after all.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    My problem is that some of my sources are not a document that can be uploaded or a website; they are bibliography reference. I don’t know how they can be entered under sources - unless I type it out and upload it as an image.
  • (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

  • Are both memories and sources transferred during a merge? Is it correct that only the person that creates a memory can delete it?
    • view 1 more comment
    • This is NOT correct: "Sources have to be pulled over from right to left in a merge". I will attach an image below (can't do that here) to show when I just started to merge two Persons. I intentionally put the person with four sources on the right. They were immediately on the record on the left when the Merge Persons window opened.
    • Just the other day I was doing a merge and the person had Censuses showing on the right which I had to bring over to the left. I don't know if they would have automatically been brought over, but I clicked and brought them over to the left.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I ran a test. My results were:

    When merging occurs:

    Memories are carried forward, without an option to omit them. As far as I can tell, only the creator can delete memories.

    Collaboration are carried forward, without an option to omit them. Anyone can delete collaborations.

    The default on Sources is to carry it forward; however, they can be left behind. Anyone can delete sources.

    The timeline and other information is a replace/reject or add option. Notes attached to the children under family members (versus Collaboration notes) did not carry forward. Any one can change and delete timeline, notes, and other information.
  • (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

  • Sherie, I would like to see where this is occuring. Can you provide a PID and the old Source or Note title? It should show up in the change log and you should be able to easily restore the Note or Attach the Source.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Joe, :) I posted to this topic 4 times, and I’m not sure which one you want to see. The original note was a parent-child note. It was only 1 out of a 2” binder and I just happed to go back to the person. I re-entered it and don’t remember the person now. It’s a good thing it happened because I hadn’t considered the fact that relationship and timeline notes can be deleted by someone else. So I’m going to be more careful about referencing in the memory section.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 5
    I disagree. I've been one who has deleted notes and sources created by others in the past.

    Whenever I see that someone created a source that links to the ancestry version of a census record, I check the profile for the FamilySearch version of that same record. I don't see any reason to carry the ancestry reference when the FamilySearch reference provides the image of the document in a way that all FamilySearch users can view.

    Same with Find-A-Grave. If someone linked in a Find-A-Grave reference from Ancestry, they've committed a double-fault. Think about it -- if you are going to link in a reference to a non-family-search site, why not link directly from that site? I would rather see an outside source link from Find-A-Grave directly, rather than an indirect link from ancestry or elsewhere.

    I've seen notes with such helpful information as "1859". That's it. That was the entirety of the note -- a year. No indication as to whether that was a birth, death, marriage date. No explanation of why such a note was even attached. Stuff like that is rubbish.

    There have been times when it has become clear that a profile is conflated, and needs to be separated. When that happens, yes, I would like to be able to make another profile and would like the ability to indicate on any given note or source that instead of being on person 1, that note / source needs to be attached to person 2. This is easily done with FamilySearch sources. Not easily done with outside sources or any of the collaboration notes.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I'd agree with David Wynn here. I have also removed duplicate Ancestry sources and deleted notes that are utter rubbish. Sometimes we're confronted with things even worse than just random years or dates in notes. Sometimes it's utter gibberish from old GEDCOM files in 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

  • I also agree with David Wynn.,

    When I'm working on a profile of one of my relatives, I'll do a cleanup in all areas. At times, I'll consolidate notes that have the same or related information (usually, they are older) or move the material to a Discussion. Likewise, if a record is available on FamilySearch or directly from a site (like Find a Grave), I'll make sure I have the FS source and then delete the one from Ancestry or similar trees. If it is a Find a Grave source and the Find a Grave source is directly referenced, I'll look to see if there is a FS source and use that in place of the Find a Grave source (although in this instance, the Find a Grave link can go away (and has) even for FamilySearch sources.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Reply to Don on Sherie's comment:

    See attached image. No clicking required for the sources to be moved from the right on Merge Persons to the left.
  • (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

  • Regarding deleting duplicate Sources that reference other websites. I have a different approach to this.
    Say a census record is on FS and Ancestry. It's to the same census page. But the URL to those two are different - one to FS, one to Ancestry. I don't delete the "duplicate" because The Ancestry page may have:
    1. a better image,
    2. a better, or more detailed index,
    3. a better citation,
    4. more interesting community information (like a user corrected index)
    5. most importantly : another source of the historical information incase the URL to the other (FS) page gets restricted or hidden/removed. This can happen when contracts expire or the record custodian request their info to be pulled from FS.

    So duplicate are our way of life today, and is more of an insurance to the source data.  Someday maybe we'll see the enhancement that lets us bundle a bunch of Source that refer to the same-world artifact. 
    • view 4 more comments
    • I have one relative as it is with over thirty sources.

      Most are Kansas annual census enumerations (on Ancestry), but they provide a very full picture from year to year for this relative.

      If I followed Joe's practice, I'd end up with even more entries because in the case of the Kansas census enumeration on the 5th year of each decade, FS also is posting those. That means for this particular relative, I'd end up with some 40 or 50 sources.

      Joe's practice is not always practical in that it would result in far too many sources in some situations.

      As more and more information becomes available on multiple sites, we need to cut the number of sources for the same event in some manner, not duplicate them by site.

      That's why I would be in favor of being able to combine sources for the same event in some manner, but this will entail redesigning the source linker (which needs to be done, anyway) to be able to add a source URL to an existing source (FS or external) for each person in the record.
    • Does anyone create a separator in the "Sources" section to differentiate from the FS and third parties until the bundling enhancement comes on board? Thoughts on whether this would cause any concerns to do this?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I agree with Joe. In my documentation (not under sources), I even include references to false leads, with the outcome, because that helps the next researcher to not go down that path. For example, my second cousin in his documents listed all the places that he looked for for a marriage certificate, and that saves me looking in those places.
    • view 9 more comments
    • I’m back to composing old-fashioned documents. So this doesn’t pertain to the Sources section of FamilySearch. But, within the document, I would include a comment about Gustavo Anjou because a new researcher may not know why I didn’t that research. In my one of my lines, a book was published by an excellent genealogist, but in it she made a mistake on one set of parents. In my document, I would include that book and why it was a mistake.
    • BTW for those who don't know that post starting "Regarding false leads" was NOT James Tanner. It was me.

      There has been a really, really weird glitch on my phone which has meant for some reason that I am logged in as him on my phone. I have brought this to the attention of Familysearch, and I am trying not to post from my phone until that login session ends and I stop accidentally impersonating him! He is also aware of what is going on.

      I absent-mindedly posted that from my phone this evening and realised what I had done too late.
  • (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

  • Trouble is.... Joe's statement:
    "Just remember that Discussions are stream of thought communication and ideas with other users. Information about the Person (Vital, OtherInfo, Relationship, Source Attaches, Notes, Life Sketch, tagged Memories) are more "permanent". "
    ... makes sense to Joe given the environment that he's in. To those of us outside that environment - we use the items how they seem to fit our needs and that may very be totally different to the vision of the designers.

    To Joe, "Discussions are stream of thought communication" - which really, let's face it, is what the word means! To the rest of us, Discussions are the thing that cannot be changed, such as "There are 3 guys of this name in Bristol at this time" - and I really don't want the moron who last merged them all into one coming along, merging them all and deleting my note because I'm clearly the idiot. No "There are 3 ..." is not a real-world discussion. Yes it's more of a Warning (which we talked about once). Yes, most of all, I want it permanent!

    Notes... Note can be two sorts of things - Notes about the life of a person and Notes about how we have done / might do the genealogy of a person. Notes about the life of a person clearly need to be editable. Notes about doing genealogy probably need to be permanent. (Possible one might have a marker to say, "This is obsolete now"). Which one was the FS vision for Notes? Search me....

    Memories... The biggest misuse possible I think. I have seen it recommended many times that the best way to record a decent proof is to write out a nicely formatted document and load it into Memories. This is excellent advice. But it's not a Memory, is it? I don't remember someone born in the 1700s!!!

    Please don't anyone think I'm criticising anyone else's view of what Discussions, Notes, Memories, etc, are for. I'm not. What I am pointing out is that for all sorts of reasons, things are not necessarily being used as the original designers envisioned. And we need to ponder that before doing anything with them.... Just how are people using these things...?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I want "Discussions" to be permanent in the shared FamilySearch "Family Tree!" Yes, I understand why the "Family Tree" is an open edit, but for the few of us who wish it was NOT so open, give us "Discussions" as locked to any and all changes.

    I asked once that there be a shared "Memories" in the FamilySearch "Family Tree," so when working on other peoples lines, I would not have to clutter my "Memories" with other peoples ancestors. Not getting a FamilySearch shared "Memories," I have put all things I want saved to other peoples ancestors in "Discussions."

    For example I will copy from the ancestry.com - U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007 - the following and put it in their "Discussions":

    U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007
    Name: Celia Ellen Johnson
    [Celia Ellen Bartholomeu]
    Gender: Female
    Race: White
    Birth Date: 21 Oct 1892
    Birth Place: San Francisco, California
    [San Francisc]
    Father: Albert Bartholomeu
    Mother: Nellie Flynn
    SSN: 546188300
    Notes: Dec 1937: Name listed as CELIA ELLEN JOHNSON
    Source: ancestry.com at this computer address: https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/s...

    California, San Francisco Area Funeral Funeral Home Records 1895 - 1935
    Name: Celia Johnson
    Gender: Female
    Race: Caucasian (White)
    Birth Date: 21 Oct 1892
    Birth Place: California
    Age: 73
    Death Date: Dec 1965
    Death City: San Francisco
    Death County: San Francisco
    Death State: California
    Death Country: United States
    Father: Albert Bartholomew
    Funeral Home: H. F. Suhr Company
    Source: ancestry.com at this computer address: https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/s...

    Sherie Ann Peterson, I apologize for talking about "Discussions" when your Feedback talks about other people deleting your Notes and Sources.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Don Martin Thomas. I think it’s still the same topic, because we’re talking about record retention. I can understand your thinking as a researcher. But not everyone on FamilySearch is doing research. If Memories was shared, Family Search would no longer serve my purposes. I have been doing genealogy since 1962, I have the research done by numerous relatives and generations. My task at this stage is trying to get it into permanent storage that is easily available to anyone. I studied my options for over a decade before deciding that FamilySearch is the best place for permanent storage. But, if I entered my records into Memories and anyone could delete them, it would be a waste of my time and put into jeopardy of chain of records - that once broken would be almost impossible to reconnect. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying about a shared Memories.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Yes, Sherie Ann Peterson, you are misunderstanding what I am saying about "Memories." I want the same locked down "Memories" we have now for each of us to stay the way it is, but I would also like a shared FamilySearch controlled "Memories" that we all could copy things to when we are doing researching on other peoples ancestors. I just did not want other peoples ancestors "Memories" cluttering up my own "Memories."

    So that I don't clutter up my own "Memories," I will put other peoples ancestors researching into other people ancestors "Discussions."

    "Discussions" being like "Memories" in that others can not change the data.

    Hope you are understanding me now?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Don Martin Thomas, Yes. And that makes sense to me. Thank you.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • This reply was removed on 2019-06-13.
    see the change log