Video

This has been extremely helpful.

Odd you mentioned names added without sources. In Ancestry, a huge genealogy website, Ancestry offers info with a small and very brief fake looking shot. There is no link to verify any info, no town, exact date, etc. This is quite annoying especially when you have an extremely expensive subscription. The Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Interesting talk however I was disappointed that it was suggested to link a source to a person without obtaining a copy of the certificate. Recently I had to order multiple birth certificates as there was a family Bowen with mother’s maiden name of Bennett in the same place. It turned out to be 2 completely different families. One family had Victor Bowen married Maud Bennett and the other had Charles Bowen married to Gertrude Bennett.

Why doesn’t FS require someone to explain why they are updating information or tying a source. Seems like lots of people ignore that information, even some CZcamsrs don’t do that when they are giving examples of using FS, very frustrating. Also why doesn’t FS give the option to use the standardized information not the abbreviated information in the index, which it defaults to.

I “vented” right along side many of your comments as I find all the 10 things annoying… thank you for wonderful instruction.

Thank you for this, I´m from Brazil, in September I will begin my first certificate in Family History by Byu Worldwide, and this video gave a lot of insights.

Really interesting approach. It would be great to get an update on the coverage question. Over the last 5 years, how has the census audit progressed, and what is the current coverage of Family Tree?

As one genealogist told me, entries into your family tree that don't have sources are nothing more than mythology. It takes the sources to prove that these people are real and that the connections are real. One of my pet peeves Well maybe there's two, is one, people that just copy other people's tree without actually doing the research and two, people that see say they say share a surname with someone that is famous, they will purposely build their tree so that they can say that they are related to that person. They don't realize that when somebody goes to do DNA or whatnot That person has been copied so many times and what they've done has been taken for granted, that it throws off the algorithm and it can mess up DNA. I had that problem in my maternal family. My mother's maiden name biologically is Hight and there are at least seven different spellings for the last name that I'm aware of, and there is one very very well-known person with that last name. And that is Jost Hite he built Belle Grove Plantation in Virginia. You have no idea how many trees that I've seen from my DNA matches alone that try to say that we are descendant from him. But the family organization says we're not. So doing ones research and doing one still due diligence is important in a family tree. And you don't just take somebody's word for it or copy someone's tree because you may be copying the wrong information. And don't automatically think because you share a surname with someone that you're actually related because you may not be. And please don't force your tree to go that way because it may be wrong. On the standardizing of dates, that's a big one!

Playback audio is not good. The information in the webinar was great. I just couldn't listen to the whole webinar due to the audio issues.

I found that alot of people do not research, I research & research agian to make sure the information I put online is right. What I come across the most is May 24, 1878 & findagrave will have May 24 1876. So it takes more time found the information,.

All of these points are part of my FamilySearch tree. Especial on my maternal Grandmother's side. It gets to the point, of why even try to support Family Tree. In the near future my death date will be recorded and my work will be replaced by fairy tales.

Mr Tanner, can you tell us the time period (roughly) when Junior and Senior became a father-son designation? And in-law. I believe I heard that a son-in-law could mean something different in 1780 than how we use it today. So my question is - when did it change? Thanks.

Thank you for this post. You have hit on many of my complaints. My favorite is the one where people are added who are parents of "discovered" people. I have multiple occurrences in my tree. Thanks again.

Is "gedcom" a valid source? I don't think it is. It says nothing to me. That could mean the person's mistakes came over with their data from where ever they imported it from.

I can understand James Tanner's comments and objections to historical records - or lack of records. But I find that his objections lack any remedies or solutions. His main point seems to be that Family Search (FS) wants and needs sources. The difficulty is that FS does not have any useful way to include historical sources into some profiles. To take an obvious example, records for royal families have all kinds of pseudo sources, but do they really qualify as true sources for genealogy? History tells us that William the Conqueror married Matilda of Flanders about 1051, but are there any records of this event? So far as I know, there is no such record from contemporaneous sources, that exists today. But, I think we are justified in claiming the date anyway, despite our genealogy proof standards that criticize this practice. I think this is justified for no other reason than that everyone alive in 1066 acted as though Matilda and William were married, because if they contradicted the assertion, William would kill them. Seems like proof to me. This problem also occurs in more modern situations, such as families in Eastern Europe circa 1930 to 1950. In that time period, every single family east of Berlin and west of Moscow was dislocated, and moved, sometimes to new continents, but always to some place else. Are there any source records in eastern Europe that can be connected to their descendants now? I think any such connection is tenuous at best, and they certainly do not adhere to any genealogy proof standard. I think Tanner's objection has to be tempered by some kind of acknowledgment that the scope of a source, has to be widened to include something else besides paper with some names and dates written on it.

Wonderful !

#11. The lady who created from her imagination, generations of people with no last name, no dates, no places, who, when asked for sources or references, replied they are "in a private notebook" that can't be divulged. She did it twice on my line, which suggests she is related. Horrible thought. One group was about 47 people, counting all of the sibs and cousins. She was thorough. FS had no solutions for it - either for cleaning up the mess, or counseling the offender. Ultimately I created a fictional male and a fictional female with obviously bogus names, merged in all of the fictitious characters, and left them floating as two small blobs in the FS universe. (The person changed their userid, attempting to hide...)

And the disadvantage is wrong information gets posted and reposted and changed back after it's been corrected. I don't use it and I wish people who think they know more about my family than I do will go away.

Love your webinars! They are so informative and down-to-earth.

nice, thanks

Very inspiring and motivating lecture 🤓 Thank you!

As somebody who was born in Worksop, it was quite the shock to have this as a case study in this video!

This is the only analysis that I have found that purports to offer a system of organizing genealogy archives and correctly identifies the problem: multiple avenues of access. It's solution, to use genealogical software for this purpose is problematical. These programs have no archival use in that they offer no unlimited life of their being operational. Consider the Personal Ancestry File (PAF) family tree program once offered by the Church of the Latter Day Saints. It is no longer supported. Family tree programs in general have three features that eliminate them from consideration as archival systems. One is that all information is stored in a database. Database systems are volatile. The technology changes over time creating the risk of obsolescence and loss of access to your data. The second problem is that the information is very difficult to extract from the database that it presents a problem nearly in the range of encryption. The third problem is that the database in these family tree programs is closed and proprietary. The opposite of this would be an open (published interface) and controlled through public standards making. The no longer maintained GED standard illustrates the concept of open system design. A digital genealogy archive should stick to tools that offer the most stability. Elements that may fit this bill is using only the operating system file management system as the "database" repository. Using file formats that offer long term stability, such as TXT, .RTF, PDF, and perhaps DOCX text format and TIFF, JPG, and GIF image formats. Also, seek stability in audio and moving image formats. I like this presenter very much. He identifies the real of organizing genealogy archives, the only person who I find gets that right. The notion of digital archive organized with off-the-shelf family tree software is problematic.

Thank you, James Tanner

Thank you for an informative and well-done lecture. Just wanted to let you know that the marine corps is pronounced “core” as in apple core not “corpse” as in a dead body)))

Thank you very much for sharing this information. There are a few key people I would love to have a photograph of. If it's even only a slight possibility, I'm going to try. And I have plenty of information of my own to share.

You provided lots of good information! Thank you!

It's all good progress, but AI still has a long way to go. Recently, searching a newspaper archive for my grandmother, Kate Loughborough, I was given a link to a production of the play "Kiss Me Kate", Loughborough Theatre.

I don't worry about duplicate in my family tree, they find me with great regularity.

Please don't diss FamilyTreeDNA which was the first testing company and the only one offering both Y & mito testing. While autosomal testing is cheap, and the most useful, this company is useful and most users are genealogists. And you can upload your autosomal raw data from Ancestry. Not your first step, but don't discount it either.

Excelent analysis of the ethnicity estimates. That's why it's so important to combine history with geneaology.

It's George A Miller. That 1801 is not obvious!! How would we know that they made the 8's sideways!!!?? I know now, because you just told me.

Could you please tell us what that Carlingian writing says?!! It would be nice if you added the translations that you worked out. Please.

I fully advocate the teaching of writing in cursive and teaching how to read old documents. History is important.

Your video scrolled across my you tube today. I am trying to work on my family genealogy. I have a niece who is with your church. She has helped me with some records. Please slow down and give yourself time and breathing room. It could help minimize the ums and the uhs.

Someone from BYU is the last person I’d want to learn from

Why is marriage not a tag?

Thanks for doing this class

Helpful!! Thank you:)

very interesting, James. Always appreciate your information

Just finishing up a 3-year project tracing descendants of my fourth great-grandfather who was a pioneer settler in Indiana. Primarily used ancestry but want to use FamilySearch as a counter check

Thank you for this! I just learned that a line from my paternal side came over during this time on the ship called Francis. The last name was Rose...both of my great x grandfather and grandmother and their children.

Very interesting information. Thank you.

Not real good on Indian Territory in Oklahoma - starts in 1890 - it also does not have the alpha counties in Oklahoma territory

Your sound is not working from the video (car chase) to the end. This happens a lot with Kathryn’s presentations.

So true about those shared family trees. I spent a lot of time separating an ancestor from some other guy with the same name and lived in the same are. They had merged them into one poligamist guy who never existed.

At about 48:10, someone asked what happens when a living person in a Family Group Tree is marked as deceased. The answer is simply that it works exactly like it does when you mark a living person in your private tree as deceased. The profile becomes part of the shared public tree, and within the FGT, all relationships to any living persons in the FGT are preserved. Of course, that same person may be marked as deceased from within various private personal trees, or from within other FGTs; all of those would then be public and would need to be merged together. If you need to undo it (because the person is not actually dead) then you need help from Support, exactly as you do for people incorrectly marked as deceased from a private tree.

❤thank you!

Ciao sono kevin io ho fatto test myheritage e ho un gruppi di persone perllopiu giovani che loro sarebbero figli di cugini di 4 grado e loro sono tutti di altre nazioni ma hanno in comune l origini dei rom perche ho contattato certe corrispondenze e loro sono rom e nei loro risultati hanno gruppi genetici dei rom e tutti hanno la stessa etnia asia meridionale con qualcuno asia occidentale e medio orientale.ho delle triangolazione stesso segmento.ho fatto il test ha mia madre pensavo che era dalla sua parte incece non e uscito ha mia madre.forse sara paterno ho falsi.grazie

I greatly enjoyed your podcast today! Thank you for sharing all of this valuable information and insight as well as the projects and programs & resources in place that you shared at the end to help descendants of slaveholders and of enslaved persons to Learn more about their ancestors.