Family Search - Person Codes

[Cornelius88]

Not sure if this is the place to ask.  When searching the LDS Family Search site, the results sometimes show a person together with what appears to be an individual code.  Variants of this carry through marriage and presumably extend to any issue.  These mostly appear on published family trees.

An example taken from a published tree taken more or less at random, shows:  John Horrocks 1783-1841 2:2:QFR8-QVW  His wife was Hannah Ball 1785-1860 2:2:QFR8-QV4

The first part is self explanatory, but can someone tell me where the codes 2:2:QFR8-QVW  and 2:2:QFR8-QV4 originate and, in simple terms what each part represents?  Does Family Search still pursue this coding system for new additions to the database or is it a survivor of the early days prior to computerisation.  I've not noticed it being used on any of the other major genealogical sites so I assume it must be related purely to the LDS Church and Family Search.

Thanks for any help.

I have tried the LDS site but am unable to locate an explanation.

[aghadowey]

Does this help?
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-are-id-numbers-used-for-in-family-tree#:~:text=An%20ID%20number%20(identification%20number,in%20Family%20Tree%20ID%20numbers.

[LizzieL]

And more to the point - have they any point?

[LizzieL]

And remember, any tree  is only as good as the researcher who has compiled it. And don't be misled by thinking a tree which quotes 20 sources for a person is better than which quotes 2, 1 or zero. If all those 20 are for the wrong person, but just happen to have a similar name, they are meaningless.
I find Family search trees are the worst because they can be changed at will by anyone.
I am looking at a tree which has my great uncle on. He had the unusual forename of Hungerford. He is on a tree with his siblings, including my grandfather, who had the unusual name of Heber. On this tree my grandfather has been called Herber and 6 sources have been quoted. On every single one of them his name is correctly spelt as Heber, but the person who added him to this tree has been so sloppy they can't even copy a 5 letter word correctly.
For Hungerford it is even worse. The person who created the record has his name correct, but for some reason in 2012 his name has been changed to Charles. There is not an individual's name against this change it just says Familysearch. Reason for change: Change made by authorized support staff or as part of an update. So a tree which was correct has been randomly changed to be incorrect by FS. They now have a Charles Eltham born England in 1887 on the tree. And of course people will copy this without doing their own research - thinking because it's on FS it must be true. If they had put his family nickname as an alternative, I would have understood it, but no-one has and I can't be bothered, because no doubt someone would say I was wrong and delete it. Source 1911 census, when lodging with his future father in law - obviously they only knew him by this nick name and recorded it on the census

[PatLac]

"Pedigree Resource File," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:Q6JM-DY3 : accessed 2025-05-20), entry for John Horrocks !!!; "Hervey/Smart Family Tree" file (2:2:2:MMXX-CFY), submitted 2020-05-05 by BarbaraOberst1 [identity withheld for privacy].

These codes are for submitted family trees and can be searched under "Genealogies".

[MollyC]

The main difficulty is that one person can have several codes, which need to be merged together.  Family Search automatically creates these person codes as their volunteers enter large numbers of people from one dataset.  So John Smith may have one identity in the 1851 census dataset, another in 1861, another for his marriage and so on.  It is then up to the researcher to identify that these are actually one individual, and it is open to people merging folk who have the same name but are not the same person.  I had a lot of difficulty dividing one woman whose married name had been merged with the birth of someone else whose maiden name happened to be the same!

[Cornelius88]

Many thanks for the replies, there's rather a lot to digest.

I'm sceptical regarding the evidential value of published pedigrees.  That's not to say they have no value, but as LizzieL points out, they are only as good as the researcher who compiled it.  In this case part of the pedigree confirms my own independent research, but when it reaches pre-1830 or so we are in the realms of speculation. 

@aghadowey:  thank you for the link which does explain the codes.  I think they may have some use in aiding research but only in the realm of published trees.  Even then they can be misleading.

Some background.  There is a myth in my family that we are somehow related to Horrocks the cotton king.  The story goes that a daughter came over all Downton Abbey and legged it with the coachman.  Daddy was no Lord Grantham and banished her and the coachman from the family. 

For the myth to be even remotely true there would need to be a female Horrocks marrying.  My own researches show a relationship to a male Horrocks in the Birmingham area, but a published tree shows a Horrocks born in the Manchester area who died in Birmingham.  Unfortunately he married in Birmingham, but it does show a link to cotton country.  However, there would need to be more evidence that the Horrocks born in Manchester who died in Birmingham was the same person.  Parish registers of the period are not really adequate for that, so the jury is still out. 

Like all family myths there is probably something in it somewhere, but however romantic the story I doubt it is anything like as presented.

[LizzieL]

Sometimes wills can be helpful, but if the wealthy Horrocks cut off the daughter she would be unlikely to be mentioned. Unless he says, I'm not giving my daughter X a brass farthing, because she ran off with Y

[Cornelius88]

......if the wealthy Horrocks cut off the daughter she would be unlikely to be mentioned.

This appears to be the case.  Unfortunately 

One of the published pedigrees refers to a family myth within his branch of the family, that this John Horrocks was the illegitimate child of Horrocks the cotton king.  In the chat accompanying the pedigree he then refers to this as having been disproved.  How, or in what manner I'm unable to tell.  Efforts to contact the pedigree owner have been unsuccessful. 

There is an excellent biography of the cotton kings by Margaret Burscough:

Margaret Burscough, The Horrockses: Cotton Kings of Preston. (Lancaster: Carnegie Publishing, 2004).

Needless to say there is no mention of a runaway daughter.