OK, so I'm clueless and asleep! There's absolutely no need to get nasty. I'm allowed my opinion, too. Put the information in a book, instead of in a public area, or, use the tools available to you to keep your pictures private. Are the persons copying the info and pictures trying to claim that they are the ones who did the research or snapped the pictures??? Is it costing you income??? I know, in my case, the whole purpose of my hours and hours of research and posting of my family tree is so that my relatives and descendents can have the enjoyment of knowing and sharing who they are and where they came from. I can see no need to hide anything??? You guys have a great day.
Honestly, if documents/pictures are that private, why on earth do you share them with others in the first place. It's pretty simple, if you don't want others to know, don't tell.
Both the site and the software has options that will restrict others, why not use them?
The software industry world wide are still fighting piracy, despite the fact they have put the word copyright on each and every product they have, yet piracy exist as if nothing has happened the last decade. What makes you think people will stop running off with your private pictures? Next, how do you intend to follow up anyone who steals your pictures? We have laws about copyright here in Norway as well, but nothing can stop me in publishing for example ten lines of text from a book having a copyright. It's called fair use, and is quite normal.
As for a picture, let's say you have a copyright stamp at the bottom. It's very easy to edit this, and remove such a stamp. How do you plan to stop others from editing the copy? Put a copyright stamp across the face so that the picture is ruined?
I honestly don't understand how you want this to work. If you share something, allowing free access you have to deal with it. If you dont want others to peek in, don't share.
I can only say that just since others steal copyrighted materials does not make it acceptable practise. Neither am I talking about people 'peeking' at things, nor am I speaking of 'fair use', which, by the way, does not include the stealing and publishing of copyrighted photos that you do not own.
I enjoy sharing much of what I have accumulated and discovered in the 20 years of my genealogy work, but just because I like to share means that others are free to steal it. I have often shared copyrighted materials with others, when they asked.
I can only say that just since others steal copyrighted materials does not make it acceptable practise.
What you say is true. For three years, I wrote non-fiction articles online (click here to read some of my work) and had to set up a google alert to watch for plagiarism. In this case, if somebody copied my article, I lost money.
If this is important to you, simply use photo manipulation software to put the (c) watermark on your photos before you post them.
Having said that, I tend to agree with JM Steen. I'm not making any money from any photo I post to my family tree site, so if somebody wants to use one of my photos in their family tree site, that's fine. I'd really like if they'd cite my tree as their source, but FTB doesn't seem to have that ability. At best, you can get a link via a Smart Match, but that's optional.
It's a source of some amusement to me when I check a Smart Match and I find a photo (and data) that came from my site. I'm not going to contact the site manager and ask them to take remove the photo because it's mine and it's copyright. If you were to do that, I think you have a reasonable expectation that they would remove your photo.
For what it's worth, at every family reunion we've held, people bring in their photo albums and we all scan and swap photos. We're doing exactly the same thing online. Those of us who do research pencil on the back, "Original in the possession of... " with the name, contact info, and date.
You are totally missing the point. Yes, I scan old family photos. Yes, I post them online. Yes, I like sharing old family photos for my relatives to see. Yes, I expect that they will be lifted by family members. What I really hate to see is my family photos on other people's trees with no source from where it was stolen. Do you not see how this affect family research and connections? No? Let me explain it.
Joe steals a family photo of MY Grandparents from MY web site or MY family tree. He posts it on his site or family tree. Sure, we are related. Joe is very distantly related to my spouse, like a fourth cousin. MY cousin Bill sees MY family photo on Joe's tree and assumes that Joe woud have more information about MY Grandparents. Nope. (In fact, Joe has a typo or two with a bad date and misspelled city.) Joe has no memory of where he stole MY photo, so there is no way for him to help Bill find ME to find out more information on MY line. This is just one of the many issues, not even delving into the legal and moral issues.
As for copyright issues specifically, it would behoove you to read up on and educate yourself on the topic. Just because it is on the web and can be stolen, doesn't mean it is legal or moral to do so. See:
From that web page:
"Taking a hard line on copyright isn’t an easy position for a genealogist to take. As a group, we are and we should be sharers. But there’s a difference between sharing facts (which, by the way, can’t be copyrighted anyway) and having what we’ve done stolen. When we do important work of our own, we have the right to keep control of that work, and it’s important to draw the line and say no."
Genealogy is about documentation. Without documentation you have nothing....nothing but your own gut feeling and a suspicion.
On the internet and here on MyHeritage as well, you will find many fake trees, trees without citations and documentation. One of my ancestors lived in the year 800...if I would belive this family page. Of course, I don't.
I can see why some fill their trees with nonsense, there's an indication somewhere that say Sam might have been the son of John. Now, where to make such a note? Well obviously, within FTB. You simply add Sam as son of John, surely you will remember to look for documentation later on.
Then the tree is published. Guess what happens. The 10 next persons who found that tree online will read this as a fact and continue from there.
I want an easy way to tag and set the relationship between two people as unconfirmed or something similar to that. You can say "just make a note of it". Sure, but you make a note like that, it's not exactly easy to find later on. Nor is it easy to see this note for other people who view your tree online.Imagine you have 1000 individuals to keep track of. 3 relationships are not confirmed...how do you find them within seconds? You can't, unless you have some sort of system to seach for them.
A relationship tag, maybe with and additional note, will be very helpful when looking for and smart matching people, at the same time gain more control over a larger number of individuals in my own tree.
I agree, much of the information here (on Myheritage) are without citations. I hate it when I get a Smart Match on a historic person whom I have got the data of from a modern professional published researcher, and no more corrections to the data is available, and in the SM there is a citation "Got this from tree..." and the data is wrong (according to my source).
If you create a Citation source I think it is possible to see all records using this source and by that you can create a citation source "Unconfirmed" and then add that to all data that are not confirmed.
I suggested a while back that it should be possible to click on something and set a big green question mark as a 'watermark' or background on FTB person 'cards' or web 'profiles', where there is doubt about important details; this could include relationships. With a short explanatory footnote which could vary to show categories of uncertainty...Simple and effective visually and I would think technically quite feasible.
I think that all data should be considered unconfirmed if a citation is not added. So by default setting your suggestion of a questionmark icon on all unconfirmed data would be a great idea.
Just because many people say the same thing it doesnt make it true. I have a person in my tree that I have got the information from a resently and new research published in about 2003 and all data supported by citations. She was married to one person and now I have 48 SM that says she was married to another. As citation in one of the matching trees "Got this information from tree..." and if all other matches got their information from this tree in first hand or second hand or even several steps later it is realy bad that people dont question the information they see more. I beleive that the other information came from a publiched work from about the 1930s.
I have used unconfirmed information just as an idea of how to go further and where to look and see if I come to the same conclution.
Certainly there's a need for something of this sort.
I like Geoff's idea, and would like to be able to customize it. For example a red question mark that appears by each unconfirmed fact. The question mark would turn green if there is a single cited source, and be cleared (be removed) when the fact has two citation.
Or perhaps the confidence level of the source could be considered. Suppose Aunt Mary tells me that she and uncle Harry were married on 3 April 1941 (a real situation with fictitious names and dates). Self-report is normally pretty reliable, but Aunt Mary's 92 and her memory's not too good. It's a legitimate source, if a bit questionable:
Thomas Alan Gray and Mary Elizabeth (Pomeroy) Delton. Oral interview, 1 January 1996, by Thomas A. Gray at Mary's home in Lands End, Alberta. Tape recording and partial transcription in the possession of Tom Gray, Leduc, Alberta.
I'd like to be able have the question mark remain (green) until I have confirmed that with a more official source.
The whole idea has merit, I think. That way, if I link to somebody's tree through a Smart Match or the stupid Record Detective (if they ever get it working) points to a tree, I could have some idea immediately of how reliable the match is.
I've sent it directly to our developers and we will see if we can implement it and how.
But how will we ever know if and when this feature is implemented?
At the present time, as far as I know, the only way to know if there is a new build is to go to myheritage.com/family-tree-builder and click the "Free Download" control to see what file tries to download. It's still .7108.
For quite some time, FTB has several convenient tools for managing your family research. None of them are exactly what you are suggesting and they don’t work automatically with citation, but I believe they are quite powerful nonetheless:
TO-DO tasks: The best way to track evidence that you need to confirm in your tree, is by adding TO-DO tasks. When you “tag” an individual in the tree in a task (you can assign more than one to a task), you will see a red “has tasks” icon next to this person’s card in the tree. In the example you gave, you can add a task for verifying that Sam is the son of John, and tag both the father and the presumed son to this task. There is also a view for seeing all tasks (View > TO-DO Tasks) and filtering by a particular person. Of course, these tasks are only available in FTB and are not published to the website and are not visible by other users who see Smart Matches from your tree.
Research is complete for this person: Once you are completely satisfied with all the information about an individual in your tree, you can mark them as “research complete”. A green check will appear on this person’s card.
Privatization: The most comprehensive why to “hide” information that is not verified, is by marking it as private, which causes it not to be synced to your family site, and thus not available to anyone but you. It will not appear in Smart Matches that other users get from your tree. You can mark a single fact as private (e.g, the marriage fact of your Aunt) or an entire person (e.g., Sam who we are not sure how he really fits in the tree).
It’s not exactly what you are suggesting, that each and every fact that does not have a citation or even a good quality citation should be considered a non-fact. I think that this is pretty severe. However, a possibility to consider in future versions of FTB is to give the user (you) an option to automatically privatize any fact that doesn’t have a citation, or even to automatically privatize a fact that doesn’t have a citation with a certain confidence level and up, but unless you mark that person as “Research complete”, which means that regardless of citation, you are sure about everything that is currently recorded about that person.
There are a few points to consider from a users view and the community as a whole.
The three primary goals must be:
a) to make it easy to tag a relationship as unconfirmed,
b) to make life easier and backtrack unconfirmed relationships (possible with a todo-task, but not convinient),
c) to fight the massive amounts of false data in the community as a whole by using well placed "warning signs"
It is very clear to me that the community suffer from false relationships between people. In norwegian heritage we see a lot of false trees when dealing with 1750's and earlier. Many are just guessing relationships, based on todays wind direction. Currently, there are no easy way for me to "warn" other users about a THEORY that Ann was the daugther of Sam. I can write it in a note or something, but when my tree grows, it becomes hard to manage several of these.
Current tools, like a TODO-task will not warn others about a theoretical relationship, not yet determined true or false. A public note on both the individuals may warn others, but it's not the first thing most will check when using the Smart Match. Today's situation and current tools in FTB has not been enough to fight off the false data plotted in and spread in the community.
Users need an easy and fast way to tag a relationship as unconfirmed. This is the only way they will use it. Adding such a feature, well hidden within the software will be of little help. It should be fairly easy to simply use check boxes, just like you would make a note private. The interface already exist (the Edit Family window), it just need the additional. Adding a simple check box will make it fast and easy to tag, can be used by the system on this site to warn others (at least make them read any notes made) and can be used to backtrack the relationship later on.
The things you mention Uri, sure they can be useful for internal use, but I really wonder, when is research for a person ever complete? :D
Anyway, I consider these tools less powerful for this purpose, considering the three primary goals listed initially (especially fighting off false data). Making things private will only work the oposite way, you are making sure that no one are notified about a unconfirmed relationship.
Whenever you add citations, you can add a URL or a number (eg: page number) to the citation. Adding a URL makes it very easy to open the location and view the page on the internet.
I would really like to have an additional field here to be used for a local file, working just like with a http-location. It doesn't have to be very complex. Just a single field to browse/paste the local file location and a button to open the file.
I'm fully aware of the possibility to add a document just as I can add a photo to any person, but for structual and logical reasons it has become clear to me that I would really have use for direct access to a local file document in citations. It will be faster to find and more logical. If I want to look at a persons related multimedia content, I go there, if i want to look at the citations related to the person I look there. I also want to avoid having all my E-books spread on the Internet because I forgot to check some "privacy"-button.
Of course, neither the file location or the file itself can be published on the internet, so it has to be made visible to the local user only.
Thank you so much for suggesting yet another good idea.
I see how that can help you, and I myself use this option (if available) at different softwares. I will certainly forward this to our developers but since there is no so much demand for this feature it would take some time until it will be available.
Tips: Ersätt mindre vanligt använt namn på plats med ett mer vanligt. Åtgärda
In essence it means that the system suggestts that there are two incidents of 'Hasslösa, Sverige' and 3 incidents of 'Hasslösa, Sverige'. They look exactly identical to me. There might be a difference but is somehow lost in the presentation.
The issue here is that if you try press the Substitute button, nothing visible happens. The substitution is not even stored in the database,even if you press Refresh. Neither if you close the application and the PC and open it again.
This feature is severly flawed. Without fixes it is useless.
We will investigate further regarding the "Substitue" button.
I do not agree regarding your last sentence:
"This feature is severly flawed. Without fixes it is useless. "
The feature could be flawed, but it is certainly not useless - it points out errors for you that you could have not noticed without the tool. I do agree that this feature could be a lot better, and we will tell our developers that our members ask this feature to be fixed from issues.