I'm currently climbing (up and down - following father as far as I
trust, then stepping back down, and following mother ditto - lather,
rinse, repeat) my tree, in both my own records and the master tree (or
whatever they call it) at familysearch. Intent being to see if they can
give me _pointers_ (I don't blindly accept, but try to check
independently [and don't accept if I can't]); sometimes they give me
ideas I haven't thought of, such as a placename in an adjacent county.
Secondary intent to share my knowledge.

I seem to be giving familysearch more information than I'm getting from
them, but I don't mind that.

But often, in particular where I'm examining a suggested duplicate to
see if the suggested person is really the same as the person I'm looking
at, it shows me when both people were "Added" - presumably to their
master tree. And it's nearly always 2012 - often 1 or 2 May 2012.

Was there some sort of mass glom - of people - at/by them that year?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

My movies rise below vulgarity. - Mel Brooks, quoted by Barry Norman in RT
2016/11/26-12/2

On 02/03/2024 10:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I'm currently climbing (up and down - following father as far as I
> trust, then stepping back down, and following mother ditto - lather,
> rinse, repeat) my tree, in both my own records and the master tree (or
> whatever they call it) at familysearch. Intent being to see if they can
> give me _pointers_ (I don't blindly accept, but try to check
> independently [and don't accept if I can't]); sometimes they give me
> ideas I haven't thought of, such as a placename in an adjacent county.
> Secondary intent to share my knowledge.
>
> I seem to be giving familysearch more information than I'm getting from
> them, but I don't mind that.
>
> But often, in particular where I'm examining a suggested duplicate to
> see if the suggested person is really the same as the person I'm looking
> at, it shows me when both people were "Added" - presumably to their
> master tree. And it's nearly always 2012 - often 1 or 2 May 2012.
>
> Was there some sort of mass glom - of people - at/by them that year?

I suspect it might be related to the merging of the LDS/IGI databases
and database restructuring in 2011/12
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FamilySearch
https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/where-is-the-igi-on-the-new-site

You could ask FamilySearch
https://www.familysearch.org/en/fieldops/europe-contact-us

In message <urvf1c$1u6pj$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:01:21,
john1 <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr> writes
>On 02/03/2024 10:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> Was there some sort of mass glom - of people - at/by them that year?
>
>I suspect it might be related to the merging of the LDS/IGI databases
>and database restructuring in 2011/12
>see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FamilySearch

Sounds very plausible. There are - judging from my researches alone - an
awful lot of people in their system who are duplicates of other people,
just waiting for researchers to decide whether they are or not.
Hopefully, AI will in time reduce that number.

>https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/where-is-the-igi-on-the-new-site
>
>You could ask FamilySearch
>https://www.familysearch.org/en/fieldops/europe-contact-us

Useful page, thanks. I'm so used to big organisations being for
practical purposes uncontactable that it hadn't occurred to me that they
might be an exception.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All humanity is divided into three classes: those who are immovable, those who
are movable, and those who move! - Benjamin Franklin

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:01:21 +0100, john1
<john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr> wrote:

>On 02/03/2024 10:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I'm currently climbing (up and down - following father as far as I
>> trust, then stepping back down, and following mother ditto - lather,
>> rinse, repeat) my tree, in both my own records and the master tree (or
>> whatever they call it) at familysearch. Intent being to see if they can
>> give me _pointers_ (I don't blindly accept, but try to check
>> independently [and don't accept if I can't]); sometimes they give me
>> ideas I haven't thought of, such as a placename in an adjacent county.
>> Secondary intent to share my knowledge.
>>
>> I seem to be giving familysearch more information than I'm getting from
>> them, but I don't mind that.
>>
>> But often, in particular where I'm examining a suggested duplicate to
>> see if the suggested person is really the same as the person I'm looking
>> at, it shows me when both people were "Added" - presumably to their
>> master tree. And it's nearly always 2012 - often 1 or 2 May 2012.
>>
>> Was there some sort of mass glom - of people - at/by them that year?
>
>I suspect it might be related to the merging of the LDS/IGI databases
>and database restructuring in 2011/12

Yes, they merged various sources, and there are lots of duplicates.

For example, they merged databases of baptism record transcriptions,
and if a couple had five children in a particular parish, there will
be five records relating to the same father, and a sixth for his own
baptism, and seventh for his marriage. Just make very sure before
merging them that they really are the same person and don't relate to
his first cousin who had the same name and the same grandparents.

--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

In message <7vkq0jd4l2ne31naq1pp4cp7fislh82ucn@4ax.com> at Wed, 3 Apr
2024 15:08:21, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes
[]
>>On 02/03/2024 10:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>>> But often, in particular where I'm examining a suggested duplicate to
>>> see if the suggested person is really the same as the person I'm looking
>>> at, it shows me when both people were "Added" - presumably to their
>>> master tree. And it's nearly always 2012 - often 1 or 2 May 2012.
>>>
>>> Was there some sort of mass glom - of people - at/by them that year?
>>
>>I suspect it might be related to the merging of the LDS/IGI databases
>>and database restructuring in 2011/12
>
>Yes, they merged various sources, and there are lots of duplicates.
>
>For example, they merged databases of baptism record transcriptions,
>and if a couple had five children in a particular parish, there will
>be five records relating to the same father, and a sixth for his own
>baptism, and seventh for his marriage. Just make very sure before

Yes, they could do with a couple merge function. I often find, say, Fred
and Jane with a given marriage date and location (and often a child with
a given birth date and location), and it suggests another Fred and
another Jane with the same marriage date (and often a matching child). I
then merge the two Freds, but then have to go through the process of
merging the two Janes. (And the childs [I say that rather than children
as it's usually one person].)

>merging them that they really are the same person and don't relate to
>his first cousin who had the same name and the same grandparents.
>
I don't usually look as far back as grandparents. But yes, one must be
pretty sure before merging.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's quickly getting to a place where privacy will be cause for suspicion.
- Mayayana in alt.windows7.general, 2018-11-6.