Findagrave-Only Profiles

Question

I have a suggestion. Maybe in addition to Unsourced profiles, we should add a "Findagrave-Only" category so that people can improve these as well. I see far too many profiles here whose only sources are Findagrave memorial links. This is probably done by people who want to quickly get more badges and connections. But by itself Findagrave is a poor source that is so often stretched beyond what it can possibly (and reliably) support. Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard?

Comments

If we stumble upon a profile with only FindAGrave as a source, why not just do a quick look on FamilySearch for another source and add it? Or look at the memorial to see if there is headstone and other valuable information.  Some FindAGrave memorials are indeed, poor qualilty, but many are a treasure trove of family information including full obits, copies of death certificates, mentions of occupations and places lived, community involvement history, family members names, etc. etc.

Often when sourcing, I find profiles that the previous edits where only to flag it as unsourced, even inserting "source needed" in several places in the biography section.  In just a few seconds more than it took someone to do those edits, I clicked on that little [1] on my tool bar and a FamilySearch census or marriage record pops up, that I can add to the profile instantly.

---

1. "If we stumble upon a profile with only FindAGrave as a source, why not just do a quick look on FamilySearch for another source and add it? Or look at the memorial to see if there is headstone and other valuable information."

I'll tell you why: because quality research isn't a quick and dirty process. Folks should be well acquainted with the circumstances of the people and facts they're treating before they willy-nilly add/alter things. Behaving in the way you suggest leads to glaring errors, omissions, and all kinds of bad informational support. 

2. "Some FindAGrave memorials are indeed, poor qualilty, but many are a treasure trove of family information including full obits, copies of death certificates, mentions of occupations and places lived, community involvement history, family members names, etc. etc."

First, the vast majority of Findagrave memorials (included ones cited here) don't have these things. Second, it's basically copying someone else's tree to posit all of their work in place of your own. (You nearly always can't verify needed details about it.) Third, we all should be citing those death certificates and obits directly instead of relying upon someone else to do it. 

---

Sorry, I obviously lack the ability to convey my thoughts. My point is that to find profiles, to add a "FindAGrave only" category to, would require a lot time and research, so why not spend that time, improving a profile while it is at hand instead of placing a category that may never get acted upon..  If a profile is found that is need of more sources, there is a huge list of Maintenance categories that can be added, such as "Needs more records" with subcategories for specific locations. 

Neither do I advocate copying the information from a FindAGrave memorial onto a WikiTree profile.  When I see great information on a FindAGrave memorial, I may mention, something about their occupation, or organization affiliation, or obituary can be found, with an inline reference to the FindAGrave memorial, so that the reader can easily open and see all the information, recorded there.  I consider linking to those FindAGrave memorials as be an asset to the persons profile. 

---

Another category would not serve the purpose, FaG is actually considered as only a tree and not a reliable source for most pre-1700 profiles.  There are hardly any graves extant from those eras.

---

Please don't think a tombstone image is proof they are easily faked.   Tombstone Generator | Online Gravestone Maker  try it you will see how easy it is to fake an authentic looking tombstone.  Find a grave is good for hints but not reliable as what we call a source

Answer 1

I agree with Natalie that the Needs_More_Records addresses this, as a category.

There are times when the sole source might be a FindAGrave memorial, such as the gravestone for a child who died young. That exemplifies the case where although the profile might contain only a FindAGrave source, it does not necessarily need to go into a maintenance category because the grave memorial might be perfectly acceptable (and the only source).

A further point is that it could be difficult to find profiles that have only FindAGrave as a source. There might be something that could be done with the Bio Check app, which is already looking at the possible sources on a profile, but it would still take time for individuals to review and assess those profiles. Plus it would be necessary to find all of the different ways that it is possible to "cite" a grave memorial on a profile. Our time might be better spent reviewing and identifying those profiles that have no sources at all and either adding sources or at least adding the Unsourced Research Note Box.

And, if we are going to target FindAGrave, what about profiles that only have a reference to an online family tree?

Comments

Only an online tree! I hoped we were past that, especially for more recent profiles.

Answer 2

I was new, a couple year ago, and botched up sources pretty bad.  I didn't understand this was a community tree and I only wanted to document my family from papers passed out at family reunions.  The only source I had was Draper Family History by Mabel (Draper) Hummel self published: not on line

Then I gradually found Find A Grave sources and just copied the URL address: like this (for my grandfather Fred Draper) https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/43522633/fred-r-draper

Next I was helped to click on the VIEW SOURCE button and do this: 

• Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/43522633/fred-r-draper: accessed 20 September 2023), memorial page for Fred R Draper (26 Dec 1889–1 May 1979), Find a Grave Memorial ID 43522633, citing Starr Cemetery, Dawson, Richardson County, Nebraska, USA; Maintained by Patti Filley (contributor 46992416).

• Then I was shown how to make the template {{FindAGrave|43522633}}

The point of all of this: 

Its a process!  It takes time!  Some of us learn slower!  Some of us need a Welcoming Spirit with some loving guidance how to improve

I keep correcting/updating my profiles and others I come across.

I was very grateful there were members here that took time and helped me grow.  They didn't beat me up about my profile bad sourcing process

Hopefully, some will look in on this post and see this and think:  "Oh, that's how you are supposed to properly source a Find A Grave reference 

My feelings is that we attract new ones, make it easy for them to learn and help them in a way that doesn't scare them off or make them feel bad!

Comments

That’s all very well. But the larger point of my original post was to see if we can categorize Findagrave-only profiles so that they can be improved. I mentioned points and badges, but in the end it hardly matters why these profiles have been left as such (whether through carelessness, inexperience, or some other reason), they still need work!

---

Sorry Ryan, I no doubt have misunderstood what you were saying! This is the part of your question that tripped the trigger for my response:  I see far too many profiles here whose only sources are Findagrave memorial links. This is probably done by people who want to quickly get more badges and connections. But by itself Findagrave is a poor source that is so often stretched beyond what it can possibly (and reliably) support. Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard?

Your question included an assumption of of what members are doing, and, well who really knows the mindset of all the members?  But we already have Source-A-Thons to take care of these infractions and many of those participants clean up profiles are year long!   It is getting done, maybe slowly!  

---

So you don't support categorizing Findagrave-Only profiles? This might help with things "getting done," right?

---

Ryan, sorry, I don't think I care one way or the other. Totally misunderstood your post.  

---

I would just add a Needs More Records category, because that is what's needed.

---

Well, a "Needs More Records" category would be open to more misuse. Sometimes all that may survive of someone's time on earth are one or a very few records. In many other cases, we don't know how many records are available for profiles that creators/workers never used or thought about.

A "Findagrave-Only" category would usually suggest much more about what is going on with these profiles source-wise.

---

I disagree with you on that. Maintenance categories can be helpful to projects and some of them are helpful during our thons. Otherwise, most of them just languish, gathering profiles. (For instance, the Needs Birth Record category groups over 28K profiles that need a birth record.) Unless there is a specific effort to cut down the numbers in the maintenance categories, they are often overlooked.  Adding yet another one isn't going to help get more sources on a profile with only a find a grave link, IMO.

---

Another case where Needs More Records can be relevant, or a more specific maintenance category, is when the only source is a marriage record. This usually means that birthdate is estimated and there is no death information. But I wouldn't suggest a specific new category for that case, and likewise sorry I don't support Ryan's proposal for a Find a Grave one.

I do agree with Patricia's earlier point that when possible it is more constructive to find and add further sources on the spot than to add maintenance categories.

---

YES IT IS A PROCESS BUT THE PROCESS SHOULD STOP QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS NOT SUPPORT THEM

SORRY MY CAPS LOCK IS STUCK AGAIN...

Answer 3

Hello Ryan,

It is a great idea, but not all FindAGrave sources are "bad."

If there is a photo of a headstone including names and dates, then the FindAGrave source is actually a good source. Here is a "good" FindAGrave source of my 2nd great grandfather:

Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/144011262/joshua-cilley-sinclair: accessed 20 September 2023), memorial page for Joshua Cilley Sinclair (9 Aug 1825–31 Dec 1898), Find a Grave Memorial ID 144011262, citing Cypress Hills Cemetery, Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, USA; Maintained by Athanatos (contributor 46907585).

So I am not sure how your proposal would work. Any ideas?

Missy 

Comments

I didn't say Findagrave is "bad" through and through. I use it plenty of times, but I always use it in conjunction with other sources. I'm not relying upon it to spin out whole profiles and sets of information. AND, in a huge number of cases, I myself took the photos of the graves in question and created Findagrave memorials for them...or have actually been to the cemeteries to see them myself in cases where someone else did. (And I indicate my photo-taking in my citations.)

In cases where you haven't taken the photos yourself, or have never even been to the cemeteries, it's important to remember that Findagrave is merely a secondary source at its very best. You're relying upon strangers to take accurate photos assigned to accurate cemeteries, and to post accurate data (often with incomplete citation information) to online memorial pages that aren't subject to critical editorial review.

Then, you're taking on faith that the gravestone pictured (if there is even a photo supplied) applies to the person the memorial claims it does. You often don't know when these graves were erected. We often see people using them to supply birth dates and other information to which the gravestone cannot possibly represent a direct witness.

At its worst (and most frequent), Findagrave is crutch for the lazy, ignorant, and/or inexperienced. They use it as a glorified online tree, the data of which they copy into their own trees and elsewhere. If I could wave a wand and force the genealogical community to go without it for a year, I would.

---

By "bad" I am saying "unsourced." When there is no other birth date or death date source except that which is on a stone on a FindAGrave, I do consider it a source.

My third great grandfather, Augustus Wilhelm Muller, was a German immigrant. I have not found his birthdate anywhere except on his headstone that I found on FindAGrave.

Corrected: Typo

---

I agree with Missy in provisionally using Find a Grave for date details where no other source is available. But I've seen too many cases of interred date for death date, and even photographed gravestone inscriptions where the death date is contradicted by better sources like newspaper death notices or probate records, to rely on Find a Grave for certainty.

---

You also need to be very careful that the information on the headstone is correctly transcribed.

Today I was working on a profile with a Find a Grave source, The headstone photo is one of the clearest I have seen, the engraving quite clearly says date of death 21 Aug 1870, and I have seen the headstone with my own eyes!

The person who took the photo had to have been at the cemetery also.

However it has been transcribed as 21 Aug 1878. The death record says 1870, obviously the person didn't double check with the death record and also ignored the details on the photo they took. And it has been attached to many Ancestry profiles with the wrong date used. And also on Family Search.

---

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

---

mISSY THE PROBLEM IS TOMBSTONE PHOTOS ARE EASILY FAKED.   Tombstone Generator | Online Gravestone Maker  try it you will see how easy it is to fake an authentic looking tombstone.  Find a grave is good for hints but not reliable as what we call a source

---

I finally had time to look at the link Laura suggested, it would be very easy to create a tombstone image.

Some similar sites are obviously intended to make humorous/fictitious headstones.

Many legit headstone companies allow you to design a headstone for a deceased person, some sites use a low quality image maker, which would look very different when a real headstone is actually created.

Answer 4

Ryan, a good post though misunderstood by some. I, too, come across many profiles with FindAGrave as the sole source and I frequently find errors in these profiles that roughly fall into the Westward Ho project and its subprojects. The errors range from simply wrong connections to connections made for no reason other than the same name and sort of maybe in the right geographic region.

FindAGrave, like so many sites (WT included!), has a tremendous range in quality from great to grrrr.

I think we might seriously consider Natalie's suggestion in one of the above answer threads as one that might serve multiple uses.

Answer 5

When Find A Grave was privately owned, most diligent researchers used actually obituaries. In 2013 it was sold to Ancestry. By 2015 the deterioration was obvious. Overzealous family members began to post their own relations without checking the actual Find a Grave site. I was just pointing out that some of the older files are more reliable.

I have since 2015 been trying to correct one of my 3 rd great uncles.

So if we had such a forum/category, what would be in the proposal you envision entail?

Correction always seems like a good idea.

Answer 6

@Ryan: "This is probably done by people who want to quickly get more badges and connections."

Firstly your statement not only is demeaning to those who gather data from graveyards but secondly makes an assumption that you are in my opinion not entitled to make.

I take thousands of graveyard photos and frankly very few of them get uploaded on Wikitree and rather more on Find A Grave because both are a very time consuming process. It can take a year or more to add a complete graveyard of 3000+ names unless you have nothing else to do all day.

My point however is that hopefully those that do make it to WikiTree will be of some use to someone. I do quite often expand the family tree a little but then find I have spent a whole day researching this one family who are nothing whatsoever to do with me. I don't mind that but there comes a point after a couple of days on one family where I have to stop myself and say "Oi, what on earth are you doing?". The rabbit hole can get very deep at times. 

We want to expand the one world tree and any additions will hopefully one day get joined in. Don't be so disparaging of other peoples time and work.

By the way none of the graves I add would get me any more connections or any more badges than I already have or get normally. To suggest that as a reason for adding grave profiles is in my opinion unreasonable.

Comments

Ultimately it matters little why someone makes a Findagrave-Only profile. It's not sound research. In the extreme cases where that would be the only source available, the profile editor should make notes explaining the situation. How often do you see those? I almost never do. 

Really this is about quality. You can choose to be offended by what I say, but what I am saying comes from a place of wanting to improve the place to which we all devote time and energy. 

And again, the point here is not to demean anyone who takes photos for these graveyards. I have done almost 5000 memorials for Findagrave, and have transcribed or photographed over 30,000 for BillionGraves. I use these resources, but I try to use them carefully. That's what I'm asking others to do, and not to simply copy or post things without knowing the relevant facts and issues of the deceased people with whom they're dealing. 

Maybe don't take things so personally.

---

Likewise Ryan maybe be a little more polite and a little less disparaging of others. Sometime the Find A Grave is the only reference, especially here in Ireland so don't be so cocksure that everyone can delve deeper into the relevant facts because for an older grave in Ireland there may well be none.

By the way I am not offended by what you say. I have lived too long on this earth to be offended by anything anyone says. I just object to the somewhat arrogant attitude. Not everyone can be as perfect as you obviously think you are.

---

I wasn’t arrogant. You can choose to take it that way, but I wasn’t. Merely pointing out a problem isn’t arrogant.

---

Not indignant at all. Maybe you need to learn the nuances of English and additionally read what I wrote, that I am not offended. Yes you were arrogant. You were looking down on others. End to it now as this is just silly.

---

It may be time for a review of Help:Discussion Rules here.

---

Ask someone like Elizabeth Shown Mills, Thomas Jones, or any other prominent genealogist what they think of Findagrave and sound documentation processes. I’ll never be the genealogist they are, but I think they might concede (in a moment of candor) that I’m right about some of this. And no, that’s not arrogant to say…it’s just true. How else am I suppose to say it?

Why do you think people of that caliber often avoid big, shared online trees? Maybe because of some of the issues I’m bringing up.

Actually, I’ve learned a lot by being here. I’ve learned better citation practices when people have corrected me, and I learned how to do inline citations after resisting them publicly. They were right; I was wrong. I don’t know it all already, but I’m eager to learn. If I’m wrong, I want to be right.

---

Jim, I’m sorry this has gotten the way it has. I wasn’t looking for a fight with my original post. (Lots of people liked it. Some commenters here agreed with me.) But I’m not going to sit here and be called arrogant simply because I advocated for a reasonable standard and a category to help with it. Reject the idea, fine. But I don’t have to take this.

Do what you must.

---

THE TRUTH IS RESEARCH IS HARD.  the further you go back in time the more you have to learn like foreign languages, archaic terminology, cultural idiosyncrasies, how to tell reliable sources from expedient ones.  Even a royal historian was reprimanded in court for falsifying records for payment.  Everyone wants to be special and being related to royalty or famous people can be a big deal.  just because you find something in a published book or on a website does not make it true,    We all have a responsibility to try to create profiles that are as accurate as possible.  None of us have all the answers but we do need to be open to assessment of what we are doing  We all make mistakes and sometimes have to redo somethings we have done.  I used Latin and French sources and someone who could not read them decided the profiles were unsourced.  So I spent a year translating all my primary sources and removing the unsourced templates.  I was unbelieveably lucky in that I had a relative ship me huge boxes of primary materials that spanned 500 years.  you can see many of them on profiles I created.  see as an example  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Walter-3018

.

Answer 7

It is hard to find any source which is always accurate.  My wife's birth certificate has her name spelled wrong.  Find-a-Grave is a secondary source and most of us have a bias as to how accurate it is.  If I am filling out a family of profiles, I will sometimes use Find-a-Grave as the only source if I believe that its information is accurate.  If it were important to me, I might add other sources. As I see it there are three choices one has if one finds a profile only sourced by Find-a-Grave:

1.  Add other sources.
2.  Make sure the Find-a-Grave information is accurate, and maybe add a note saying so on the profile'
3.  Ignore it and find something else to do.

This seems to also apply to profiles that only have secondary sources listed as sources. This would include sources such as Geni, FamilySearch, or Hiski.  I find most of these sources provide good clues for finding primary sources.

Comments

I agree.   Most members use the easy to find sources like Family Search. Ancestry, and for European people  Geneanet.   It is important to make sure you are not using trees from those sites but the paid side of primary birth, marriage, death and military records.  Many projects publish sourcing lists for the   project.   Use of primary sources often requires you to learn foreign languages, the history of those sources and things to watch out for.

Answer 8

I have learned so much information from Findagrave site- IF the image of headstone is included. I will cite Findagrave as “Headstone image located at Findagrave memorial number XXXX…”. I have been able to confirm families because of proximity to each other or because a middle initial is included, not to mention forever grateful to families that had surnames, “née” or “son of”,  “child of”, “wife of”, or other hints/ clues included on headstones. I have been able to connect over 1200 findagrave memorials to other family members.  The ones that are questionable would be no headstone image, & unknown burial location. It seems the older the burial, the more the information in the creation of the Findagrave memorial is based on unsourced information that we see in unsourced family trees from ancestry & other sites.  

Warmest regards!