Upload Your GEDCOM to Family Search - Why It Takes FOREVER to finish!

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Read the show notes here: www.familyhistoryfanatics.com/familysearch-upload-tree-problem

[@barblee5294]

I'm glad you recommended not uploading a GEDcom to Family Search. It is so frustrating to see new "facts" show up on an ancestor's page just to see that the "fact" is based on a GEDcom, with no support for that "fact." I've put "fact" in quotes because often what was uploaded was incorrect, and it directly conflicts with the true fact that has support attached. It's no big deal... I just change it back to what it should be, using the verifiable support, but I do wish people would stop uploading their GEDcoms.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Barb, you're very welcome. I wish my advocacy of not trying to upload a GEDcom file into the One World tree would be hear and followed.

[@tinplategeek1058]

TBH I'm a bit overwhelmed by FamilySearch. I did update a few records by linking images found within FS back to the global tree but didn't feel comfortable doing it. However there were no complaints so it must have been okay or nobody else is looking at these individuals. Also while chasing down a rabbit hole by following an in-law branch away from my direct line (outside of FS), I have ended up with Martha Dandridge appearing as the wife of Daniel Parke Curtis. So for a laugh I looked at FS for George Washington's tree. And found that there were too many to count first presidents of the USA all with their unique FS Id. It is this type of issue which makes me question the utility of FS. If a really easily identifiable individual cannot be truly unique within the tree, what chance is there for my more humble agricultural labourer and the like to be identified correctly?

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Actually, the multiple profiles for a famous individual is a factor of two things: 1. The initial seed information in 2012. There are multiple database entries for such famous individuals because of the number of records they appeared on when the databases were merged into one. (Particularly the pedigree resource files.) Prior to this, we called these individuals of unusual size. (Princess Bride reference there.) FamilySearch maxed out to capacity with merging such individuals. I thought they've eliminated IOUses with the new family tree. SO there's something else at play here. 2. The next is user stubbornness. If someone doesn't like a profile for an individual, they'll create their own and prevent it from being merged into a single profile. There is no oversight by FamilySearch to prevent this from happening. Thus, the culprits are likely users not the platform. I wouldn't blame the platform as much as the users trying to fight the goal of the FamilySearch platform of one profile for every person who ever lived. What's needed now is more collaboration.

[@winhunter27]

After watching this video, for which I thank you, I visited my (smallish) family tree on FamilySearch. It is a complete mess! People have been adding to it without looking at the context - people from the 19C born, raised and died in the SW of England yeet end up being baptised way across the country in the North East. My paternal grandfather is shown both as the father of my father and also as my brother! Some people have been attached by others to wrong branches and with wrong details. I quickly closed the tree and have gone back to Ancestry where I have 3231 people (since you asked😃). Sorry, I've no time for open sourced trees.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

I respect that. However, if you made corrections and interacted with others, you could be the person to help polish up your family tree. Additionally, look at the dates. Did the changes happen in 2012 or 2013? Then that's the case of previous research being wrong and in need of correction. Which is why FamilySearch put forth this format. If it's within the last 5 years, it could be inexperienced researchers who need help learning the complexities of records. My advice is to spend a hour or so here or there cleaning the tree, sharing your information with others (in the Notes section or through messaging). Then see what happens. You might be surprised that the family tree improves with your effort. But again, only do a little bit at a time.

[@whychromosomesmusic5766]

I totally support not uploading GEDCOMs into the Family Search family tree. In reference to adding my own information to the tree and part of that having to correct duplicates with no sources I'm not necessarily frustrated, but, if I compare using the time to do that with other projects such as a current collaboration wherein he already knows how to create professional publication worthy genealogical research papers and he has given me a list of wills he needs and I am doing the work of finding them and transcribing them, then I would have to choose to do that instead of fixing duplicates on the Family Search Family Tree. For the record, out of his Wills Wish List (1760-1900 in NC) I already have the exact microfilm locations of all of them except one. Now it is merely a matter of pulling up those microfilms (in some cases two versions -- Loose Wills and those recorded in Will Books) and transcribing them in word using titles with accurate details and source notes with even more accurate details, copying and pasting the links to the microfilms AND attaching my Word transcription in an email to him and just continuing that process. He is creating the abstracts for his professional research papers. I would not be surprised if he ends up publishing it. I think a project like that is more worth the time it takes. So, it is not a matter of frustration or even impatience. More a matter of time management and what is the most practical use of that time, energy, effort, etc.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

I get your point to be sure. We all have to decide what is the best use of our time. Let me just share, the hours I spent in 2012 and 2013 cleaning up my profiles and branches were well worth my time and energy. The corrections have stayed corrected, for the most part, since that time. A few changes happen when folks from certain lines didn't know there was a first or second wife. Once they see the evidence, the changes go back. I do advocate writing and publishing and yet I don't regret cleaning up the FamilySearch family tree. Since 2013, most of the trees people use for the branches I corrected come from that starting point.

[@whychromosomesmusic5766]

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I admire your dedication. I have neurological problems which affect my mind sometimes. It's probably a GOOD thing that I don't mess with the public family trees on some days. ;-)

[@HardWater91]

According to that site, I’m descended from all the royal families of Europe and a couple of mayors of London, not sure what to make of it.

[@ValorieZimmerman]

Well, until all links are verified, I take such links as merely amusing. That said, that many generations ago, they would have lots and LOTS of descendants.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

According to the site, I'm related to Thor Odinson and Odin. As Valorie suggested, I have to validate each name on the family tree to ensure that the line is accurate before I believe anything. Additionally, historicity demands that we be very careful with anything prior to the 1500s as many lines were fabricated in order to establish someone's right to rule and to eliminate other's claims. Thus, without adherence to sound genealogical principles, many lines aren't as truthful as they claim. So, focus on the ancestors closest to you and work your way back using documentation. and don't believe anything until you've proven the case.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Well said @Valorie Zimmerman

[@HardWater91]

@@ValorieZimmerman Well, I guess at some point the genealogy is a matter of historical fact, for example we know who Henry III’s father is as it is well documented. It must be similar for many of the generations preceding him. I guess it’s the generations closer to us that we need to be more careful with as they aren’t as well documented (unless there were famous or something obviously). Regarding some of my more recent ancestors, I have seen them on other genealogy sites giving the same information. One would assume it is correct, although can’t be sure because of possibly unseen mistakes. Quite frustrating really! Like you say, still amusing to think that it is true.

[@cathyneal415]

I am tired of going into my tree and finding someone has totally screwed my tree by using incorrect census info or by filling in some blank spaces in my tree that I just haven't gotten around to entering yet with incorrect info. For instance, my great-grandfather Ulysses Harvey lived in the household of a neighbor when he was a teenager and worked as a farmhand. I had not entered his parents yet while I was working on another family in my tree. When I returned to the Harvey line, I found my grandfather had a new ancestral line that went back for several generations. Someone had taken him as a son of the family he was working for (even though he was listed on the census as a farm laborer) and added the lineage of his employer's family as his own. Do you know how long and difficult it is to remove and replace all that info with the correct data? I would prefer no one have access to my tree without my permission. I would welcome any information I do not have or have been searching for, but for someone just to put incorrect info onto my tree without checking it out with the tree owner first is not right.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Cathy, i can understand the frustrating you have when things get messed up. I also know that I made similar mistakes when I was a baby genealogist. I made them publicly on GeoCities platforms back in the day and those mistakes were perpetuated over and over and over again. Thanks to FamilySearch's collaborative family tree, when mistakes like this happen, I have communicated with the researcher who made the error. Thankfully, we're all striving to do better research and get it right, unlike on platforms like Ancestry where people tell me to bug off and they can do whatever they want. I share the feels of frustration when the corrections need to be made. However, I have found that when we spent the take making the changes and explaining why, things do improve with time. For every case of a bad change to the tree, there are 1,000s of positive additions to my family tree that I wouldn't share in anywhere else. May you have and discover this to be the case in your future researcher.

[@shelleymonson8750]

3494 people in my desktop genealogy software (Reunion). 1941 people in my Ancestry trees.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Thanks Shelley for watching the video and sharing how large your trees are.

[@barbiestailing7458]

I have about 1300 people in my family tree maker program

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

That's a great sized tree. Very manageable.

[@nicolefollett7693]

47627

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Wow. That's a lot of names in your personal family tree.

[@nicolefollett7693]

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics We have a one name progenitor in our family and have a group of researchers world wide keeping track of his descendants

[@godisloveireland]

Over 27k in my ancestry tree

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

Wow. That's rather large.

[@ValorieZimmerman]

I have a big one too because my Baysingers all seemed to have a dozen children each, and I'm trying to capture all descendants I can and link them to DNA matches.

[@nickmiller76]

I would never ever upload my tree to a platform where other people are able to modify it. Far too many people out there who haven't the first idea when it comes to family history research.

[@FamilyHistoryFanatics]

I upload to a tree where people collaborate and add research that I don't currently have time to do. There are two sides to the coin of being able to edit a one-world family tree.