But now the source description on the individual Event page does not link to anything. It was handy for that sector to link to where one could edit the Source Citation. And it was very handy to be able to delete a particular Source Citation link to a given Event.

Can these features be restored, please?

Cheers,
Jade

However, PLEASE implement some sort of folder system!

When my family wants to look at photographs of ancestors, not only do they have to go through people on the other side of the family, but hundreds of document scans as well. Please give us a way to sort the images into folders, it would make things so much easier and is WAY OVERDUE.

This is such a basic feature I am surprised it is not already in place. Especially when you have the option to upload hundreds of photos at once, it’s a little ridiculous to just throw them all into the same spot.

Well-done to the coders for restoring the hypertext source/citation links.

I’ve been following his thing about evidence and really hope some software developer (namely WholleyGenes) grabs the idea and runs with it.

I suspect these folks have been reading the AncestryInsider blog. The blogger there, a former employee of Ancestry.com and now employed within the LDS enterprise, has been constructing a model for handling genealogical data for software developers.

He has been trying to develop a model relevant for both LDS’ “newFamilySearch Tree” as well as for Ancestry.com.

Both tree setups have the same sorts of major flaws, principally that neither one is mainly based on evidence.

The “newFamilySearch” genealogical entries are based mostly on, as AI said in June, 2010 (“Close But No Cigar”):

” . . . oodles of worthless, source-less, secondary informational, derivative sources: Ancestral File, Pedigree Resource File, and user-submissions to the International Genealogical Index.”

The Ancestry.com trees are based on the same plus additional genealojunk (such other trees, sundry genealogies, assertions on various websites, queries in newsletters).

The LDS newFamilySearch enterprise is having a hard time acknowledging and coping with the flaws in its database. Attempts to implement ways to make evidence-based corrections and flag major mistakes have not been notably successful thus far. Some users have reported that they have made corrections only to have others immediately come along and change it back. I can’t comment on the evidentiary basis for any changes made, the point is that the newFamilySearch tree setup is an error-jammed database combined with a wiki approach.

Ancestry.com, on the other hand, has been nibbling around the edges regarding data-handling, most recently in the area of improving some elements of its source-citation setup. I don’t know if the changes are more suited to gedcom v.5 formatting.

Perhaps it could say: Trees-proceed at your own risk.

Absolutely, Positively, Correct!

In the past we’ve all seen instances of Ancestry’s sloppy use of language (think “census substitute”, etc) which has been, at times, somewhat more than misleading but this one outdoes them all!

I wonder if Ancestry is trying to promote trees from being merely hints to being actual evidence?

If so, then color me out of here for good!

But with rollout of the 15 July changes to the source and source-citation listings in Member Trees, you have begun promulgating a lie.

Under the heading of type of Tree items copied to some individual’s profile you say “X citations provide evidence for (name here).”

This is simply false.

In nearly every case this copied tree stuff is there for the very reason that the clickophile ~does not have evidence~ for what is asserted — copies of “stories” (most of which are significantly or wholly untrue) and photos excepted.

Repeat: tree stuff is copied due to lack of evidence. Not ~as~ evidence.

Extremely few trees contain references to any evidence at all.

You really should change the wording of this disingenuous false assertion in the Source Citation listing.

It should say something like “Trees contain assertions about (name here).”

Thanks