Expressing frustration with FindAGrave corrections.

Question

My apologies in advance.

I appreciate the time and effort invested by our marvelous contributors and members of the tech team to improve WikiTree. That said, I have found myself uncomfortably at odds with the  "Warnings" and "Errors" (*) that generate when the system believes our profile data does not match a FindAGrave memorial that is cited on a profile. 

Finding I am even more at odds now as well meaning folks are editing profiles to add the "sameas=no" and "sameas=yes" FindAGrave templates, and I'm hoping folks can find a better solution.  

I do not use the FindAGrave template. Rather, I write a citation, something along the lines of the example below. 

Susie Smith Jones (1758-1810), memorial 1234567 and gravestone images; web content, FindAGrave, reporting burial at ABC cemetery; memorial maintained by Thankyou Joe; gravestone images added by photographer 1 and photographer 2; additional comments as appropriate.  

The work by well-meaning WikiTreers to address the errors and warnings by editing those citations with "sameas" elements, embeds a mini citation within the existing reference--so we have duplicated information and a second hyperlink. Rather than the citation example above, we find, 

Susie Smith Jones (1758-1810), memorial 1234567 FindAGrave Memorial 1234567 and gravestone images; web content, FindAGrave, reporting burial at ABC cemetery; memorial maintained by Thankyou Joe; gravestone images added by photographer 1 and photographer 2; additional comments as appropriate.  

(*) I still think the terms "Warning" and "Error" are both over the top and send the wrong message. Why can't these all be just "Hints," or "Hint-1," "Hint-2," and "Hint-3."

Edited to note--The underlined elements in the citation example represent links created by embedding the memorial URL--ala, it's a "hyperlink." (See Help:Adding Links.) If this were not a made up example, Susie's memorial URL would be "https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/1234567/susie-smith-jones"; the Wikicoding used to create the embedded link (hyperlink) would be   [https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/1234567/susie-smith-jones ''FindAGrave'']. 

Comments

I have a serious problem not just with the "template" Find A Grave source citations (which I despise; they're unnecessarily lengthy and imprecise to boot), but the fact that the memorials seem are taken as gospel, when they are, in fact, riddled with errors. 

For example, the names and locations of cemeteries memorialized on Find A Grave are often incorrect. I created a WikiTree category for a certain cemetery and included the full and proper name (XYZ Baptist Church Cemetery) and the proper location (XYZ [community] , RST County, State). The WT bot came behind me and changed the locality based *solely* on Find A Grave's entry for the cemetery, which is very, very wrong. Then someone else came behind them and changed the cemetery's name to "XYZ Baptist Cemetery," which is also incorrect. And the justification I was given for both was, "This is what Find a Grave says and if we don't use that, then someone may come behind us and change it anyway."

And, of course, that is aside from the many "warnings" WikiTree generates by comparing WT profiles to Find A Grave memorials; and keeps generating them even when multiple explanations are generated in the "status" field and the "false warning" status is used, and also when a note is dropped on the WT profile explaining why the dates used are the correct ones.

As genealogists, it is incumbent upon us to use facts to reassemble our ancestors' lives, not disseminate incorrect information. By prioritizing Find A Grave's many, many errors over actual, verifiable research, we are doing a grave (pardon the pun) disservice to our ancestors and the legacies we're trying to preserve through our efforts on WT.

Answer 1

Another point of view:

The inclusion of source citations enables Wiki Q-numbers to link data and generate the warnings you mentioned below. This practice is fundamentally about collaboration and the dissemination of knowledge. It's not merely about generating warnings for WikiTree users; it also serves other applications that may contain inaccuracies.

This process contributes significantly to improving the quality of available data on the internet. While the volume of messages, including warnings, generated by WikiTree might seem daunting, it plays a crucial role in rectifying erroneous data across various websites. Though it's a gradual process, the long-term benefits are substantial.

Additionally, proper source citation facilitates quicker access to our data during searches.

Comments

Thank you for your comment. I just take exception to a notion that what I have written is anything but a "proper source citation."

---

Elaborating ...

The data in both FindAGrave and WikiTree is user generated.

When there is a difference in the data comparison, it isn't possible for a simple system data check to know whether the data on FindAGrave is superior or inferior to that which is found on WikiTree.

Since we are only trying to point out differences, why can't all of these suggestions be considered Hints, or for the purpose of further categorization, Hint-1, Hint-2, Hint-3, etc.

P.S. I'm all for collaborating across platforms, and routinely communicate with FindAGrave memorial managers. FindAGrave doesn't have a comment feature or a comparable G2G-like system, and too often the wonderful assigned mangers do not accept messages.

---

I didn't mean to imply it was unacceptable or not proper. I was just pointing out the purpose and benefit of the formatting to link the two.

---

You're good, Jimmy ... Thank you.

Answer 2

I too have another point of view.

As a researcher, I would much rather have a source with a link that directly takes me to the actual memorial than a link that takes me to the website and a memorial number that I would have to copy and paste in a blank on the website to take me to the actual memorial.

Comments

Sorry if this was not clear, but the links in my "real" citations do go directly to the memorial page.

(Have edited the post in an effort to make this clear.)

Answer 3

FWIW, the recommended format for the citation includes both the profile's URL and the template: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Find_A_Grave#Links_in_source_citations Using the template ensures that a link will work even if Find a Grave changes their URL structure, but of course the template isn't a complete citation by itself. So the duplication is actually recommended.

Comments

While using a template is an option, I have never considered this to be the  "recommended format."

From "Help:Find A Grave" (quoting)--There is a handy {{FindAGrave}} "link template" for creating links to memorial pages.

You are welcome to disagree, however, I believe the reference notes I write provide a far more complete record of the source's evidentiary value than does a link and the memorial number. 

---

I don’t think it is the issue how you present it, it is the fact that you don’t use sameas=no when you (and others) put links for individuals other than the individual of that WT profile.

Many WT’rs devote a lot of time putting sameas=no on to profiles that are missing it to stop system suggestions.

Many WT’rs rely on the FindAGrave suggestions to help locate potential connections. By not having the sameas=no, it means other WT’rs have to spend more time sifting thru 585, 591-593 suggestions determining if they are accurate. We already have to find supporting evidence but then we have to figure out which profile the suggestion actually relates to when there are many FindAGrave links on one profile.

Either you (and others) are slowed down a bit when setting up the profile (/sourcing a profile) or others are slowed down fixing suggestions or trying to make connections.

---

Hi S. Stevenson,

Thank you, but wow!  I don't think those who are familiar with my work would think I feel "slowed down" by adding sources!

Again, my objection is not that we are trying to tell the system whether or not the memorial is about a profile person, it's that the mechanism for doing that then re-writes an existing, reasonably developed reference note.

---

Sorry, then i still don’t understand what you are trying to say after reading question and all answers.

---

Thank you ...

I'm just hoping they will come up with a solution that doesn't involve re-writing an existing reference note.

Does that make sense? --GeneJ

Answer 4

The suggestion should recognize the https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/1234567/susie-smith-jones format and extract the memorial number from it. If the data (name and dates) on WikiTree are similar to FindaGrave data the connection is established automatically.

If the data differs a lot, then a connection is not established (you will get 571: FindAGrave - Link without Grave ID Warning), since often there are links to a relative placed on the profile. And only in such case you must use the template {{FindAGrave|1234567|sameas=yes}} In other cases it is not necessary.

And in case of a wrong established connection (you can get a date mismatch suggestion or 572: FindAGrave - Linked grave not matching profile) you should use |sameas=no template parameter to prevent linking to those profiles.

Comments

Aleš, question for you: Will the suggestions report be able to recognize the Find-a-Grave template if it is imbedded in an HTML comment using <!-- .... /> (not sure that's the exactly correct coding)?

---

@Jillaine: I think it will ignore the template but so will it ignore the sameas in the comment.

@GeneJ: After looking at your suggestions and examples, I slightly adjusted the matching recognition. As a result matching changed on slightly over 2000 profiles and prevented the some date/location suggestions on them. But this will not have the effect on 572 suggestion, which bothers you the most.

BTW: You know that you can simply set the suggestion as false suggestion and it will no longer be displayed. It is good to write a meaningful comment like "There is no FG memorial for the person".

---

GeneJ, inclusion of the FindAGrave template in the FindAGrave source citation does not make anyone's profiles less well-done. And it does not prioritize matching data with FindAGrave over a well-done profile. There are hundreds, if not more, of WikiTreers which have produced thousands, if not more, of well-done profiles which include the FindAGrave template in the FindAGrave source citation.

---

Hi Nelda,

Thank you for your comment. 

You wrote, "...inclusion of the FindAGrave template in the FindAGrave source citation does not make anyone's profiles less well-done." 

Below is a comparison for the memorial of [[Houghton-1202|Ebenezer Houghton Jr. (1732-)]], https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Houghton-1202 . Profile reports about say six (6) memorials, with further detail given as part of a FindAGrave Research note. 

** Template format is fine; WikiTree happy, and "sameas" does not change the original output, which appears as, 

Find A Grave: Memorial #35955304. 

**Alternative format is not fine; WikiTree not happy, and "sameas" will change the output, originally as, 

Ebenezer Haughton (1732-1814), memorial 35955304 and gravestone photographs; web content, FindAGrave, reports burial at Godfrey Hill Cemetery, Hebron, Tolland County, Connecticut; memorial created by KC, maintained by James Bianco; gravestone images added by KC; GeneJ note--dates on Ebenezer's gravestone images not readable.

---

Would this be workable for you?

Ebenezer Haughton (1732-1814), {{Find A Grave|35955304|sameas=no}} and gravestone photographs; web content, reports burial at Godfrey Hill Cemetery, Hebron, Tolland County, Connecticut; memorial created by KC, maintained by James Bianco; gravestone images added by KC; GeneJ note--dates on Ebenezer's gravestone images not readable.

The FindAGrave template was inserted after the first comma. A couple of words were moved. Your comments were not removed or changed.

I think you would be able to work this out so all these FindAGrave suggestions would not be generated and others would not be making changes with which you are unhappy.

P.S. If you paste what I presented here into the profile and look at the preview, you can see that the finished product will look very much like your original...

Ebenezer Haughton (1732-1814), Find A Grave: Memorial #35955304, and gravestone photographs; web content, reports burial at Godfrey Hill Cemetery, Hebron, Tolland County, Connecticut; memorial created by KC, maintained by James Bianco; gravestone images added by KC; GeneJ note--dates on Ebenezer's gravestone images not readable.

---

GeneJ, did you consider using WikiTree Sourcer extension. It automatically formats the citation from FindaGrave to a WikiTree format including the template and you just paste it. 

<ref>
'''Memorial''': Find a Grave (has image)<br/>
{{FindAGrave|35955304}} (accessed 22 March 2024)<br/>
Memorial page for Ebenezer Haughton (27 Sep 1732-1814), citing Godfrey Hill Cemetery, Hebron, Tolland County, Connecticut, USA; Maintained by James Bianco (contributor 47745493).
</ref>

It has also some formatting options and the result looks like this:

↑ Memorial: Find a Grave (has image)
Find A Grave: Memorial #35955304 (accessed 22 March 2024)
Memorial page for Ebenezer Haughton (27 Sep 1732-1814), citing Godfrey Hill Cemetery, Hebron, Tolland County, Connecticut, USA; Maintained by James Bianco (contributor 47745493).

---

Hi Nelda,

I appreciate your efforts. 

As earlier, except for saying that terms like "Warning" and "Error" seem over the top (ala, they are hints), this post isn't so much about "Suggestions." 

My issue is that, as implemented, the "sameas" technology is seems invasive. 

Pardon if my ignorance shows, but it seems the template was designed so that WikiTree could capitalize on a cool opportunity, and it became implemented as a source citation that is used and appreciated by many among us. 

Although the template is busy doing a lot of good things behind the scenes, as a source citation it's pretty much just an unformatted link. Other than the site name ("Find A Grave"), I don't think it was ever intended that the template address additional citation elements that would have evidentiary value (my term). 

Your much welcome suggestion is that I should jumble the citation elements I have been using to accommodate that so-to-speak unformatted link. 

Either way, the template is invasive to those reference notes that are better developed, no?   

Our wonderful tech team came up with a non-invasive way to associate WikiTree and FamilySearch FamilyTree profiles. While the template does a lot more than just link profiles, why can't our WikiTree-FindAGrave approach be equally non-invasive.

(Sorry if my responses are choppy ... it is a work day for me.)

---

Hi Ales,

I'm working on a reply ... but may not post until tonight when I am off work.

Thank you. --GeneJ

---

GeneJ, jumbled??? No. In display, the term "FindAGrave" is moved but the two citations are almost identical otherwise. Basically, all I did to re-format the citation was replace your use of a URL in angled brackets with the "FindAGrave" template. That required a slight positional movement. Otherwise, everything in your original citation is there and in the exact order you have them. That is not my definition of "jumbled."

I tried my best to help you.

---

On a profile that has many links to relatives, only one template needs to be added to the one matching the main person with samesas=yes. All of the others would be ignored without having to add templatexto them, 'assuming' there is on Find  grave matching the profile person. You could also put that one template down in your Sources section, not in the citation, if you wanted the citation untouched.

Remember that the Find a Grave suggestions are also making sure that merged or deleted citations are being notified, as well as duplicate profiles are found, possible parents, possible spouse. The suggestions are not just checking dates or names.

Answer 5

I like how you compress the full URL into a link. You have a nicely formatted source reference.

I generally replace the ID with the template following the guidance as noted in your help link above when I work on a profile.

But my main goal is to replace the FamilySearch refs with FindAGrave citations similar to yours produced by the WikiTree Sourcer (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:WikiTree_Sourcer) (yeah I am lazy). Also I replace the minimalist {{FindAGrave  }} entries that people leave often as the sole source reference with a full citation.

Comments

Thank you for your comment. 

WikiTree, FamilyTree and FindAGrave are all user generated sources, so the quality of the work may vary greatly. For this WikiTreer, FamilyTree and FindAGrave are great finding aids. When the information from those sites is used in conjunction with an array of other sources, we can do a pretty good job of developing a profile. 

Hoping only to be helpful, I don't very often add a FamilySearch FamilyTree link as a source anymore. More often now, I use WikiTree's FamilyTree linker at "FamilySearch Connections." That tool adds a cool link to the "Research" section toward the bottom of the right panel on a WikiTree profile ... See the Research section on the profile of Ashbel Beach, for "Here is a likely matching profile for Ashbel on the FamilySearch Tree: MPPN-CTM." 

---

Thanks, did not realize that existed.

A profile's sources sometimes include a link to a FamilySearch  source for a FindAGrave link like::

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QV28-4GZ8

I replace those.

Answer 6

This might be slightly off what you are getting at, but let me give it a try.

In the main I add both the FamilySearch template and FindAGrave template at the bottom under "see also." I do this so it's easy to flick back and forwards between the different collaborative sites to make sure they are saying the same thing. (And from that perspective, I quite like the suggestions list, but then generally, for the profiles I am interested in, I'm often the person maintaining all three).

If, and only, if I am using an image of a gravestone as a major source (ie if I can't find a burial record, or prove a relationship or date another way than on the memorial inscription), then I will add a fuller FindAGrave source citation into an inline reference.

Maybe this is a distinction that could work for you, as you could write a source citation without the link, add the template at the bottom, and then if it gets "corrected" with the sameas addition, it doesn't change your source citation?

Comments

Thank you for the suggestion.

All sources may contain errors, so I try to rely on an array of different records for information that is consistent or in conflict with other information ... then work to find other sources, hopefully a variety of historical records, to resolve the conflicts.

Dropping the hyperlinks runs counter to my notion of a reasonable reference note, but your idea might work more times than not.

---

I also think we could put all the FindAGrave references in a profile comment, and then cite the comment.

---

I, too, share Gene's impression that commitment to the existing way the FindaGrave template is used conveys that "having our data comparable to FindAGrave is more important than having our profiles well done."

AND I think that Natasha's suggestion might be a good compromise that would leave Gene's (and others') beautifully written and complete citations intact while at the same time attending to the data-comparisons that are so important to other (but not all) Wikitreers. Until now, I have always deleted a Find-a-Grave template from under "See also:" if Find-a-Grave was already referenced in an inline citation. But I'm now seeing the advantage of leaving it there.

Gene, the potential / likely problem with putting your beautiful Find-a-Grave citations into a comment and then referencing the comment is that comments get archived and even deleted.  So I don't think that's such a great solution.

---

Hi Jillaine,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.  --GeneJ