Reaction to Changes made on Ancestry.com

By Anonymous on Sat, 08/22/2015 - 19:22

Forums

Dear Editor,

Recently, Ancestry.com made a change in the User’s experience when merging a record from their record collection into an Ancestry Member Tree (AMT) (online tree) or the Family Tree Maker program, Version 2014 (FTM2014).

The Patch Notes for FTM2014 are HERE:[1]

The first “Enhanced Feature” reads “When merging, changed default to discard duplicate facts (even when different) rather than keep as duplicate alternate facts”

This was an interesting announcement, but I am glad I read it before I installed the related patch. I created a video blog post using FTM2014 before I installed that patch.

FTM2014 - Web Merge feature BEFORE the Update / Patch [2]

 

My normal practice is to review ALL options as they are presented to me. I make my choice based on the information in my existing database (left column) and what is in the record I am adding to my file (right column). I make my choice based in the evaluation that I have within my database from other records and what is presented in the new record from Ancestry.com.

I installed that patch, and used the SAME file, ran the same task following the update.

FTM2014 - Web Merge feature AFTER the update / patch [3]

 

My selections were the same, but my choices had changed.

The normal choices are Alternate or Discard what is being presented and the ability to change the Preferred Fact. The Alternate choice adds the information to the file using the indicated fact or discarding that fact while retaining the Citation, or unchecking the “include source” indication on the screen.

I took this a step a step further, since I don’t normally do this activity in my AMT (online tree).

Census Merge in Ancestry Member Tree [4]

 

The experience was the same. Same choices / options while merging the data into my Ancestry Member Tree.

I just want to restate that I have always reviews all of the options as they were presented. The change was the “default” option that was presented during this process.

I felt that it was important to post these three blog posts to let my readers understand what I saw to be changes. Especially, for those who haven’t paid that close attention to the merge offerings.

In the past, at least in the Ancestry to FTM2014 web merge process, we were given pretty good choices that made sense. For example, if my Birth fact had only a location and the new record had a Date and Location, it may have suggested that this new information should be considered Preferred, making what I had in my database base as Alt. Depending on what was in my database and the new record, the choices were easy to make.

That is when I was seeing comments, even in my blog comments, that “Ancestry was DELETING my facts”. I could see how that might be the perception if you didn’t pay close attention to the offerings.

There was a message on one of the message boards that Ancestry.com was responding to User’s concerns about so many facts for any profile. They didn’t want to see the Birth fact (as an example) 5 times on a profile. Each fact had bits and pieces for the full birth fact.

That got me thinking and asking myself questions. What was I overlooking. I must be overlooking something if Ancestry.com would respond to Users making those complaints to them. The best that I can tell is that they were just responding to the End User.

I my blog example, looking at the Persons NAME you will see this: [5]

EE_01.png

Each Name FACT has at least 1 Source (their term). I think that this is what the complaint to Ancestry was. What is his name so many different ways? What is his real name?

I have always tried to Document what I found, and Where I found it. My goal for myself and anyone looking at my online tree, on information from my file, what to be able to go to the source and see in that source what I had documented in my file or online tree.

Oh, the “_____ Hart” entry was from a Census Record for one of his children, where only the Birth location (state) was indicated. I assumed that since the child was a Hart, that that child’s father was a Hart.

I have to make a choice of that is the Preferred Name Fact. In this case, the one at the top, William Gray Hart. My analysis of all 7 citations was that his name is William Gray Hart.

Had I not paid attention of the merge screens, at any time in the past, my preferred fact might have been “deleted”, if, for example, I hadn’t read the screen with the Census Record in the Video. That Census Record had his name at William Hart.

Within my program, I have the option to present only the Preferred Facts, so that duplication wouldn’t be there with the associated citations. That is bad, because it would only report 2 of the 7 citations that I have for the name fact.

So, now I am questioning IF I am wrong here. Is it that important for someone finding my online tree or reading a report I might have, to have all of these Facts with the documentation (citations) that reflect the recorded fact?

 

Bibliography

[1] “Support Center.” Family Tree Maker 2014 Patch Notes. Web. 22 Aug. 2015. <http://help.ancestry.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9048/kw/patch>

[2] “Family Tree Maker User.” : FTM2014. Web. 22 Aug. 2015. <http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/2015/08/ftm2014-web-merge-feature-before-update.html>

[3] “Family Tree Maker User.” : FTM2014. Web. 22 Aug. 2015. <http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/2015/08/ftm2014-web-merge-feature-after-update.html>

[4] “Family Tree Maker User.” : Census Merge in Ancestry Member Tree. Web. 22 Aug. 2015. <http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/2015/08/census-merge-in-ancestry-member-tree.html>

[5] “Contact This Member for More Information.” Request Access to Tree. Web. 22 Aug. 2015. <http://person.ancestry.com/tree/82830990/person/30468163487/facts>

Submitted byEEon Sun, 08/23/2015 - 09:43

Russ,

In a specific sense, we must disappoint you. EE does not, cannot, and should not address specific software issues. Those need to be addressed within the forums for the specific software. EE is a manual that provides a framework for historical research, irrespective of software or even if no software is used at all.

What we can do here is to address your question from a "best practices" standpoint. In doing so, we're going to substitute a couple of words so that your query will fit the framework all research should meet:

"Is it that important for someone finding my published work or reading a report I might create, to have all of these Facts with the documentation (citations) that reflect the recorded fact?"

Three particular passages in EE address the standards that need to apply here.

1.3  Each and every assertion we make as history researchers must be supported by proof. However, proof is not synonymous with a source. The most reliable proof is a composite of information drawn from multiple sources—all being quality materials, independently created, and accurately representing the original circumstances.

2.20 When we convert our notes into a narrative or permanent database, we select the best evidence we have found. If several sources for a fact are of equal value, we may cite all of them in the same reference note.

2.74 Every statement of fact should carry its own individual citation of source.

 

Submitted byrworthingtonon Sun, 08/23/2015 - 09:53

Dear Editor,

Absolutely NOT disappointed. I totally understand. In fact, I struggled to post the question, and was almost ready to withdraw it.

Chapters 1 and 2 are the reason for my question. As you may know, +DearMYRTLE is hosting a study group on these two chapters, and working with  her homework is the reason for my question / post here, and documenting my experience with the changes made at ancestry.

Bottom line, for me, I am not going to change what my "best practice" is. Document what I see (fact, event) and where I found that information.

Thank you for your time in answering my long winded question.

Russ

Submitted byAylarjaon Tue, 08/25/2015 - 11:02

Russ, I think it was still worthwhile for you to raise a concern about the change to Family Tree Maker's behavior, although acknowledging EE's response that specific application features or functionality are outside the purpose of this forum. The FTM patch introduces new behavior that complicates adherence to EE recommended best practice, namely that the software's new default is to append source citations to facts that in many cases will have no relationship to one another. Additionally, the software's new behavior to proactively delete facts without explicit confirmation further complicates the researcher's ability to assess the range and quality of facts and draw sound conclusions. So from an EE perspective, I think there is benefit in having awareness that Family Tree Maker has introduced new behavior that significantly interferes with researchers who strive to adhere to the standards and practices recommended in Evidence Explained.

Submitted byrworthingtonon Tue, 08/25/2015 - 11:08

Aylarja,

Please understand that this change is from Ancestry.com, as the SAME behavior occurs in an Ancestry Member Tree. I hope I demonstrated that in the 3rd blog post.

Russ

Hondodfw, to avoid going into too much detail in this forum about this change to Family Tree Maker, I suggest you read this thread from the Ancestry community forums: http://ancestryforums.custhelp.com/posts/fd8f6a1f34. The bottom line is that a newly released mandatory patch changes the application's default settings when performing a web merge from the Ancestry.com web site. The default behavior now causes the application to delete alternate values for fields that it imports during a web merge and then migrate source information from all deleted alternate facts to the lone surviving preferred fact.