Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m frustrated. Nobody needs 67 sources attached to their name!

Please add "Duplicate" next to "Not a Match" on the suggested sources that the computer finds for us.

Details: These days I'm spending my time in FT checking out suggested actions to be taken for some of my deceased relatives. Most often, the suggested action is to connect sources. In checking the sources already attached, I usually find the same sources already attached, and not just once, but several times! I think the highest number of attached sources was about 67, and many of them were duplicates, of course! There is no need to attach the identical source over and over to an individual. Please allow an option of "Source already attached" alongside "Not a match." I don't know if that will stop the computer from finding the same sources again, but it's worth a try.

PS: Dear Support, Thank you for your response. I am an experienced genealogist. I have been working with the FT from before it became NFS, then FT, and I am one of the original searchers who insisted on having every vital event for an individual sourced. Reality is, there is only one true document proving an event, and the events that need to be sourced for each individual are birth, christening/baptism, death, burial, and marriage situations. There is no reason for attaching duplicate (I mean word for word duplicate) source records. The only exception, in my opinion, is when you find the one accurate source resulting from indexing, and there is also a source including the digital image of the original document. Please create a note about adding sources that show up via computer scans explaining that exact duplicate sources need not be attached, - something like the note attached to the merging process. The majority of people accessing FT are not experienced genealogists. Please make using the site as simple and as easy as possible. Before adding new sources, one should see what has already been attached, then only attach additional ones that are not already there. Then, add a “Duplicate” next to “Not a match” at the bottom of the source, to make it easy for us all to sort all of the suggestions out. Thanks for listening again. Venita Roylance. PS: I am referring to the lists of sources that show up on peoples' home pages under “Recommended Tasks." On my list this morning, one of my ancestors shows up with 20 suggested sources. I worked with his record yesterday, and it appears that each suggestion in the list is a duplicate of a source I added yesterday. Not just one duplicate of those that I processed, but multiples of them.
1 person likes
this idea
+1
Reply
  • PIDs of the examples you are talking about please. We need to be able to see whether you really are talking about actual duplicate sources. I really doubt you are given how FSFT actually works.
  • (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

  • 3
    What's so bad are the multiple Ancestry source duplicates. So many I had to clean out from several.
  • (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 too have found this problem on many types of sources births, christenings, death, Civil War records, and occasionally census records.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 3
    Two sources are duplicates only if they have the same URL.

    We have been instructed more than once by FamilySearch personnel in this forum to attach all duplicates that apply to a deceased person's profile. Only if those sources do not apply can the source be declared "Not a Match."

    To do otherwise (declare what is supposedly a duplicate source, but having a different URL as "Not a Match") will cause major issues with the hinting system.

    As I've said, we have been told this several times in various message threads in this forum to attach all sources.

    If a hint comes up with an exact duplicate (having the same URL for both the attached source and the hint), then that needs to be reported so that it can be investigated. Be sure to include the URL of the source, along with the FS ID of the profile that has been impacted. Do not declare the duplicate as "Not a Match."
  • (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

  • So, if sources cannot be marked as duplicates -- and I understand that in many cases the source IS a duplicate (but does not have the same URL) but has been indexed with a different name spelling, a one day difference in the date of event, etc -- would it be possible to add a feature to the sources box that allows these sources to be grouped into a "folder" -- for example -- a folder in the sources area could be set up for marriage sources that would apply only to the individuals involved in the marriage event -- not to a marriage of children where they might be named as parents. I.E. The marriage of John Letsgetmarried and Susan Okayletsdo. There may be many duplications of the source of this information due to the same record sets be microfilmed at different time, there being a slight spelling difference due to one or two letters in a name, a difference in the date of the event due to one being a record concerning the bond and one being a record concerning the actual event date, etc. A folder specific to the marriage of John and Susan could be set up in the sources section and all of the duplicate records for John and Susan could be set up in the folder (or drag and dropped into the folder once it is present in the source list).

    This would eliminate the long lists of apparently duplicate sources that must be waded through, allow for a more concise organization of those sources and seperate the marriage sources where they are named in marriages for their children (which are more or less used as evidence of the parental relationship to the child involved anyway).
  • (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 problem largely relates to another of those promises made by FamilySearch personnel. We have been assured (for 2-3 years?) that code will be written to eliminate these duplicates - different URLs, but identical in every other respect.

    Perhaps Robert Kehrer or a colleague would care to update us on any progress being made with this issue. It is ridiculous to be having to add so many "sources" which are records of the same event - same filming, even, and identical information. No wonder so many users needed to have a Sources section on its own page - for most of our ancestors / relatives this should not be required.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    "Genealogy without documentation (sources) is mythology." -- U.S. National Genealogical Society.

    Every source helps fill out a complete picture of a person in their profile. It doesn't matter if the source is of the same event, each one of those sources will be indexed only once (or should be).

    Yes, some profiles will have many sources and where marriages are concerned, there are numerous examples of more than one source for the same marriage event. But, they are not the same -- in many instances, the source could be an index or even a copy of an index, but those represent a way to locate an original "official" record in a register, whether that register is for licenses, marriages, or marriage "returns".

    Sourcing a parent on a child's record establishes a relationship, which is also needed. It doesn't matter that there were 25 children in the family (yes, I actually have worked with a fellow that was the 25th child -- all from the same mother and father), each source on the mother or father's profile establishes the relationship to that child.

    What amazes me is that for many people, they consider sources to be irrelevant and yet, they are necessary or else we are working with what amounts to mythology.

    The rule stands as do the instructions for attaching all appropriate sources to those that are mentioned in the source.
    • view 5 more comments
    • If it has and can be verified, then I'll add it to my "unresolved" issues list.
    • By the way, any situations where a hint is for a record that (as verified with an exact URL in the source) has already been attached to that person, should still be reported. I believe that the two are possibly related.
  • (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 2018-10-21.
    see the change log
  • (Just deleted my second post in this thread as I had wandered too far off Venitar's issue of DUPLICATE sources. My comments over the sources often not being attached to the relevant ID can wait for another time!)
  • (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

  • it would be a nice idea, and a way they could kick out duplicates faster.
  • (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

  • EXAMPLE For David Newton, et al., Go to John Frost LHQ5-ZF4. A few days ago I tried to clean up his sources that were already attached. I arranged them chronologically, but did not remove the duplicates. Today you will see there are 16 suggestions of possible sources on his page; and, on my "Home page" there are 20 suggestions. Pardon me! I need some chocolate!!!
    • view 5 more comments
    • I did my own research on my own ancestry and created my own database with sources for each person's vital events long before adding my ancestry to FSFT. That was years ago, but having that personal resource, I can compare what I found for an individual with what FT has. I did this using the original records via filmstrips found at the FH Library in SLC. I still recommend that procedure, but few are using it these days.
    • Your recommendation is spot-on. I do worry how many "records" are attached to PIDs without anyone consulting the image of the original and so missing crucial identifying data that simply isn't indexed.
  • (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’m always hopeful!
    The events that need to be sourced for an individual are: Birth (and or Christening), Death, Burial, and the Marriage situation. Traditionally the church or the government creates ONE document for each of these events. The ideal situation is to find each of those documents and connect a digital image of each document to the individual. That is the Primary Source of the event, and the best evidence of the event. Neither churches nor governments create duplicate documents, except in rare situations.

    FS/FT is creating "sources" for each person for each event via indexing. These created substitutes for the original record are accepted as trusted evidence of the event by them and us, instead of the original record. They are, technically, Secondary Sources, and we have to trust that the data has been extracted accurately. If a digital image of the original record is attached, it is an excellent, and Primary source.

    The ideal is to have those five events sourced for each individual in the pot. Other data, such as census records. can be useful and should be posted in "Other Information," not with the life events of the individual. (Censuses are often full of errors and can only be relied upon when several censuses of the same family, over several years, can be compared.)

    Other events, such as serving in a war, crossing the plains, immigration, etc. belong in the "Stories."

    Please simplify the "Source" situation.
    • view 4 more comments
    • Venitar

      As Juli points out, you are not correct in your statement, "Traditionally the church or the government creates ONE document for each of these events". Well, particularly regarding records relating to England.

      Firstly, there are the Bishop's Transcripts she mentions. Whilst ostensibly these are copies of the original parish register entries, in some cases one finds they contain MORE detail than the original and can even show a different date for a certain event.

      Secondly, there are at least two versions of birth, marriage and death certificates - one held by the local registration superintendent and the other nationally: these can also show slight differences. For example, I obtained a copy of the General Record Office birth certificate of a gt gt grandfather, which indicated he had signed his name, whereas the original version (held at the local record office and which had been completed in the church where he married) showed he just made his "mark".

      So I believe you are wrong to say only one source is required per event, as this practice could result in the hiding of important information, shown in one version but not the other.

      A similar situation applies to indexed records. For the same event, one version might show the individual's age at burial, the other not. Or, for a marriage, the couple's ages might be shown in one version, whilst these might be omitted but their fathers' names shown in another.

      As I have said elsewhere, I really do dislike the adding of what I feel to be superfluous sources - especially secondary ones, in most cases. I also dislike "having" to add thirty or more electoral register records, which show roughly the same detail. However, the strong argument for attaching all sources, which genuinely relate to a particular individual, is that (left alone) someone could come along and attach them to the wrong individual (of similar identity).

      In summary, please don't overlook the importance of records that are not exact duplicates. Hopefully, the issue of dealing with those that ARE identical in every way (well, apart from perhaps their URL) will be dealt with in the near future, as previously "agreed" by FamilySearch management.
    • The URL is useless unless it actually links to the original record, and will take me to that record when I click on it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    This appears to be a particularly bad case of IGI gone wild. They do not appear to be duplicates in the sense that each is a different entry in the various IGI-derived databases. However they are duplicates in tbe sense that they are the same event recorded multiple time in the same databases.

    So from the point of view of being exactly the same they are not. However the number of repetitions of events in the IGI-derived databases can get very tiresome. Someone needs to go through these IGI-derived database, marking and merging all these duplicate recordings of the same events. Another particularly bad place for IGI dupes is Chellaston in Derbyshire. There are many christenings recorded four different times. Two is more usual and that might be explained by original registers and bishop's transcripts. Neverthless I think it's bad form to have so many dupes.

    For the moment attach all of them, however tedious that is and wait for someone to merge the dupes in the database. Given the dragging of feet over record transcription corrections I hardly think that's going to be soon unfortunately.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • David Newton,

    IGI did not go wild.

    The ones patrons submitted had already been separated long time ago from the overall IGI. The IGI you see are from extraction programs.

    Secondly, did it ever occur to you there are at least 2 or 3 different versions of UK's records? raw parish record, bishop's transcriptions and official parish records.

    IGI was released to nFS/FSFT first because it's already in a database.
    • view 6 more comments
    • The 13 sources I just attached to John Frost LHQ5-ZF4 were all duplicates of sources previously attached. How could I have compared the newly suggested sources with those already attached before going through the process of linking them?
    • Venitar, you can bring up the details for a source without linking to it. It's often simplest to let it bring up Source Linker in a new tab for each suggestion, then click "go to record" (or whatever the text actually is) on each tab.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Added this issue to https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

    * (Reported in several threads) A hint is for a source that is already attached. Related to this are more than one hint for the same entry of the same film. See https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea.... Also https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... (issue explained by gasmodels).
  • (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’m wishing there was a connection to the original record.
    Paul and Juli, you are correct - there may be more than one record of an event in English parish records. The record created by the Parish Clerk is the original. At the end of the year, the Clerk created a "Bishop's Transcript" by copying the original data he recorded at the time of the event and sending the copy to the Bishop. ... one might say he indexed it. The Clerk's parish record trumps the Bishop's Transcript, but when the parish record is not available, but the transcript is, the "BT" is used. There may be four records of a marriage, i.e. one from the groom's parish, one from the bride's parish, and two more from the Bishop's Transcripts of those parishes.

    I have two "sources" for the marriage between John Frost LHQ5-ZF4 and his wife, Elizabeth Meers. The data at the the top of each, in the box, gives the names, date and place, but not the event. Directly under that is the title, "England Marriages, 1538 - 1973" obviously the title of a collection of marriage records covering more than 400 years. Below that is Indexing information, and below that is the title "Citing this Record." Comparing the two sources, I see that the data below "England Marriages ..." is different on each source, leading me to conclude that one of them was extracted from a parish record, and the other probably from a Bishop's transcript. There is no hint as to which is which and there is no way for me to access the digital images of the original records via these sources.
    • view 7 more comments
    • The Banns are read in both parishes, and whether or not the marriage is recorded in both parishes depends on the parish clerks.
    • The procedure does call for the banns to be read in both parishes . . . but a marriage will only ever be recorded in the parish where it took place - signed by the curate who conducted the marriage - since 1754.
  • (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

  • 2
    While we're on this particular problem with sources

    this is despicable!

    Mary Louise Gray LHKS-DJH

    This record may have come from this image. You may need to look through several surrounding images if it does not appear on this image.

    https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
    wrong person

    Has to scroll to find correct page and find it is previous page
    https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

    and we can't edit the source to show correct web link because the hyperlink take you to wrong image while the correct link shown as entered in "Notes: is not hyperlinked.
  • (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 have just added all of the suggested sources to John Frost LHQ5-ZF4, in case you want to use his data.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I now have another ancestor, John Wills LDP2-QJ9 who has 12 sources already attached, and I have 18 other sources for him in my "Recommended Tasks." The only way I can see to compare the attached ones with the ones on the list, is to open two browser windows, then open his sources on one window and the new list in the other window. A new tab won't work because you can't open two tabs in the same window. The same applies to how to compare two sources that are already attached.
    • I just spent a couple of hours attaching the 18 sources to John Wills. I didn't take the time to compare URLs but I know every single one was a duplicate of records I had already attached recently. To add to that, the "hints" in my list were sets of duplicate records for the people in question, so I added 2 or 3 new sources to most of the children of the couple, who already had at least 2 or 3 duplicates already attached.
  • (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

  • EXAMPLE OF DUPLICATE:

    Elizabeth Cloke LC8M-9X3

    Source already attached:
    Citation
    "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1... : 11 February 2018, Elizabeth Clake, 26 Oct 1701); citing , index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 1,736,839. Attached by FamilySearch

    Record hint:
    Citing this Record
    "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1... : 11 February 2018, Elizabeth Clake, ); citing item 2 p 68, index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 1,736,839.

    What should I do with this?
    • view 4 more comments
    • Nope. Censuses are sources, just as parish registers are sources, just as wills are sources, just as grants of probate are sources, just as land transaction deeds are sources, just as historic newspapers are sources. All are sources. All need to be attached and cited where they genuinely relate to an individual.
    • Census information does not contain birth dates, although age (and in the case of the U.S. 1900 Census, a birth year and month is enumerated) and place of birth (a limited entry) are also enumerated. These, along with the address (that is on many later U.S. enumerations, are all entered under "Other Information."

      However, as David points out, the census enumerations are sources, albeit, secondary (with the exception of the residence at the time of the enumeration -- for which the enumeration is a primary source) sources, but yes, they all should be attached as a source. The information contained in the source can then be used to populate "other information" for the people recorded in the enumeration.

      What this means is that it is entirely possible to end up with a dozen or more census sources on one profile, all of which are valid. For instance, Kansas held a yearly agriculture census, as I've mentioned in this or other threads. Those add up in a hurry, but they are all sources of information about the family and/or individual.

      The source page does not have "other information" but a user can create and use a separator to set off the census sources, just as a user can create headers for different kinds of sources.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Click “open details” on the Source tab to the URL of all attached FamilySearch sources.

    show details on record hints will also show the URL and whether the hint has been attached to someone and their ID.

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

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

  • Venitar

    I don't know for sure if you were querying this from the point of view that you thought identical URLs were involved or, as in your general arguments above, whether it was considered necessary to attach a record with the same source reference (for batch and film number) in any case.

    As has been established, they do have different URLs, so in view of the current set-up, do need to be attached. It is very disappointing that Robert or a colleague has not joined this discussion to provide some idea as to whether it is still planned to address the situation with this type of "duplicate". From previous comments, it seems it might also be better to attach all such sources in order to make it easier to eliminate the "less useful" ones (i.e. the one(s) with the less details) in any future update / enhancement to the program.
    • I think that, in the absence of images, we don't know whether these are duplicates in the sense of two images of the same piece of paper. The Catalogue suggests that one might be Archdeacon's Transcripts, the other Bishop's Transcripts. I'd never seen Archdeacon's Transcripts before but I've just been reading a Rootschat thread for an 1811 marriage in Norfolk where the Archdeacon's Transcripts and Bishop's Transcripts differed over the name of the groom. However, the Parish Register, and also the banns, came down on the side of the ADTs. So 3 different paper / parchment documents (plus the banns) for the 1 physical event - with one of the three differing in content - for the Rootschat marriage.

      That being so, I'm really dubious whether anyone could write code that could distinguish between 2 separate images of the same piece of paper and 2 images of 2 different pieces of paper referring to the same physical event.

      I suspect that the best that anyone could do would be to require the multiple attachments (as now) but somehow allow the user, for sanity as much as anything, to hide those source records believed to be duplicates of the same physical event.
  • (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

  • 1
    I agree - currently and in the foreseeable future there is no alternative but to attach all of these duplicated sources (as advised by FS) . . . having selected one of these to use as the tagged source I incorporate your suggestion to "hide" (sort of) the remaining duplicated sources - not tagged to any events - by arranging them under a title in the list of sources as shown in the image:

  • (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 2018-10-29.
    see the change log
  • My advice is to attach them all.

    I have had attached Record Hints become non functional on two occasions now - with a notice like "no longer accessable" showing when I've opened the source.

    I think FamilySearch is a marvellous website and they are doing their best. Yes we should give them suggestions but let's not get mad at them.

    We are here to help them not to hate them or think we know better.

    MY SUGGESTION
    If you feel the Record Hints are duplicates (and I for one can't be bothered comparing all of the URL's to find out), just attach them all (or leave them there for someone else to attach)
    Then drag them all to the bottom of Sources for that person and place a sign above them stating that they seem to be duplicate sources.

    That way they are out of your way.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Perhaps the index fields need one more slot - a place to identify where the original record is found, i.e., (for England) Parish Record, Bishop's Transcripts, Archdeacon's Transcripts, etc., and (for other places and times) Parish Record, Church Record, Civic document, etc. That would explain why there are duplicates that are not quite exact duplicates, i.e. on one record the mother's name is Elizabeth, on another record it is Elizth, on another Eliz, on another Elzbeth, etc.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    That's actually achieved at the database level for some data sets. There are Hampshire and Cambridgeshire databases which specifically identify the source of the records as bishops' transcripts rather than the original parish registers. Unfortunately that will never happen with the original IGI-derived databases I fear.
  • (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