Familysearch Family Tree

[sstarr2008]

Has anybody tried the family tree section of Familysearch yet? Is it new or have I only just noticed it?

Stu

[iluleah]

It has always been on there but with the changes with the website and if you register and sign in, it automatically puts YOUR sign in name in a new 'tree'. Just another way of them collecting data and unfortunately another way more unresearched 'trees' will got online, which then many think are real and researched from records.

I personally will not be filling in any trees online

[sstarr2008]

Thanks, I had wondered if it was just because of the new web design. I will leave it alone then.

Stu

[pinefamily]

It has always been on there but with the changes with the website and if you register and sign in, it automatically puts YOUR sign in name in a new 'tree'. Just another way of them collecting data and unfortunately another way more unresearched 'trees' will got online, which then many think are real and researched from records.

I personally will not be filling in any trees online

So no different from ancestry then.......

[iluleah]

Yes you are right. In reality we don't need collected/donated data which has no sources, as it is as much use to family history research as a chocolate teapot.

[pinefamily]

Genes Reunited had those sort of trees as well, that's the main reason I discontinued my subscription with them.

[robgen1]

Sadly so many people just take for granted uploaded tress are correct and don't even bother to check the validity of information.

The other sites mentioned are basically databases with the odd gems of information, that need to be validated. Usual rule applies check once, twice and thrice before adding regardless of resource used.

I have seen some beaut "furphies" made in some trees supposedly in my line of researched families that are just plain wrong and others that have
examples parents married to their own children
one child born in USA when all the other were born in Australia
 
They were added by someone that saw a name with same dates etc  others have just been added with no rhyme nor reason what so ever. In most cases without even basic evidence to support what is being claimed no dates, places or records

Then you get stiffed to pay each month for the access to said sites. Pay sites have some pretty heavy clauses in the fine print.

Much rather be a member of site like this where people in virtually all cases go out of their way to assist , and if not able to directly assist can point requester in the right direction to find what they
are looking for.

All but one i have asked for advice on Rootschat have been spot on. Rootschat has the right idea, and is great resource in all instances

[Erato]

I think family trees can be useful, not as definitive sources but as clues to follow up.  If I know that my Mr. X appears in the census married to someone named Abigail and a tree identifies her as Abigail Y, then I put that information into my notes as a theoretical possibility to check out if and when the appropriate data become available.  It is true that I have found trees with truly gross errors and those I do tend to write off entirely but, otherwise, I treat online trees as potentially useful but unverified data.

[Mavals]

Although I will not be using the trees personally, this new version allows you to "edit" an entry when you see it, although you need to explain why - which is fair enough!

I saw a presentation online from the Rootstech2013 conference which explained this. Their idea is to collect accurate data and they are aware that some individuals just add names to trees that appear to fit without proper evidence in support. This presentation may still be available on line and the facility to correct entries went down well with the audience.

I may look at the trees and treat them with the same amount of caution I use for Ancestry trees: lots!