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

Pull Relatives from FindAGrave.com and BillionGraves.com records

Please include relatives listed in FinaAGrave.com and BillionGraves.com websites, if they are given. This should be an easy dataset to pull from their sites and match to FamilySearch records.
2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Sorry, no it does not pull links to listed Spouse, Children, and Parents.

    If you have an example of an individual that this IS happening on, I would love to see it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 3
    Huge numbers of relationship entries in those databases are just wrong. While they might be the opinions of the submitters, the basis for those opinions might be error-riddled trees, mistakes in obituaries or vital records, omissions of spouses (so children attributed to wrong couples), and so forth. No way should the data be put into the FS-Family Tree by a computer extracting from those sites.

    Example: A Hugh Cunningham was involved in ambush of a militia group in Kentucky in August, 1782. Through misinterpretation of records someone put him down as having died in the fracas. Instead, he was one of several captives taken to Canada, held there as a POW, and subsequently released. A payroll for the released captives (for payment for during their time of captivity) tells the story. This payroll has been published in _George Rogers Clark and His Men_. Meanwhile, a historical society in 1928 erected a tablet listing the killed, with Hugh's name on it.

    Also meanwhile, someone decided that this was a tree-figment known as Hugh B. Cunningham, supposedly born in 1708. At some time the findagrave memorial maker gave that birth date to the Hugh Cunningham for whom a nonexistent grave was entered in findagrave (listing drawn from the erroneous historical society tablet). And the middle initial "B." was added to the findagrave entry for the non-deceased Hugh -- no such initial appears for the KY person in any known record. Until recently, the ambush death-date was part of the FS-FT profile for this invented Hugh B. Cunningham, for whom no known actual record seems to exist -- he makes a prominent appearance in a book, with no documentation whatever. He now appears in many trees, some with the fictional death date.

    This chain of baseless conclusions of at least several persons is repeated in many forms in findagrave and of course in trees, including FS-FT. Millions of times.

    Do your research, people. Those with brains have at least the possibility of locating evidence for conclusions. Computer programs cannot be trusted to figure out such series of problem-conclusions as in the above. There are no short-cuts.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Yes, those records, as all other records are going to have the possibility of incorrect data, and should be evaluated before being attached to any individuals in FamilySearch - including the Primary individual.

    The relatives should be pulled in for evaluation, just as is presently done for Census, Death Certificates, Obituaries, etc.
    • view 1 more comment
    • So true, Andy and Jade. In many cases, any places for births and deaths are the result of someone adding information to Find A Grave that is not present in either the cemetery (sexton) records or on the gravestone. Even then, I have found incorrect dates on gravestones when compared to actual birth and death records issued by the state.

      Find a Grave and BillionGraves information that is not on the gravestone should be treated as "other" for reliability purposes. The dates on the gravestone should be treated as secondary, meaning that they were recorded after the fact or were passed on through two or more persons, which can create copying errors.
    • I've run across more than one obituary text published on a Find a Grave record and in all cases, I try to chase down the actual obit either from the newspaper or the funeral home.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Thank you, I have forwarded this on to the appropriate eyes for this thread.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    If the FS-FT computer program cannot differentiate between my ancestors and a very distant cousin (as shown in an email to me in the July 24 campaign), how can it be expected to wrangle the sundry messes in findagrave and other websites?
    • FSFT and Campaigns are two different critters, Jade. The campaigns are almost always set up independent of the tree -- as evidenced by the messed up "Overland Trails" campaign of the 24th. Whomever set up that campaign had to be working with something other than the current FSFT (as of the date of the mailing).

      FSFT is constantly being upgraded, fixed, changed and eventually, after all we have been able to do, it will be clean.

      Right now, we are working (all of us) hard to clean up the mess created by the massive integration of nFS data before the old system was finally severed from FSFT.

      External indexes, such as Find a Grave, are not under the control of FSFT or its programmers. These external indexes, including the SS death index are under the control of their owners. In addition, there is no "joined at the hip" situation like that with the old nFS databases, so updates to one of these external databases is not instantaneous, but is under control of contractual terms with the owner of that database.

      When it comes to hints and such, those are being tweaked and my suggestion is to use a site like Find a Record to keep an eye out for new hints, duplicates, standardization issues, and so on.
    • In thinking about this and what I do, I do not depend upon FamilySearch (or Ancestry.com) for being current with respect to Find a Grave, but often use various methods to search for grave records of my relatives within Find a Grave and other lists, including those published by local genealogical/historical societies and other general search sites, such as GenWeb, BillionGraves, Interment, and so on.

      Lately, I have been searching newspapers for obituaries, death certificates, and other sources for funeral information that often includes dates that are otherwise missing from Find a Grave and similar sources.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I agree with Jade.

    The relatives included in FindAGrave/BillionGraves are very often inaccurate and in my opinion should NOT be indexed as part of the source record.
    Only details (and relatives) included on the headstone/memorial should be indexed as being primary source information.

    I find that the majority of relatives are added without supporting sources and indexing them would be akin to indexing personal family trees from ancestry, etc.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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