gershonite wrote:There are several things that I find MOST annoying:
(I'm not sure why you posted this in this topic -- I don't see any issue you raised that is directly related to the 4 Sep 2018 update. But I'll try to help you anyway with some responses.)
Most of your issues stem from your discomfort with an open-edit model. FamilySearch is built on a model similar to Wikipedia, where anyone can edit most things. The theory, which mostly holds true, is that eventually the best data will survive because many people contribute. The best data is backed by sources.
I have also been frustrated with changes made by people who are not very careful. But I look at it as a balancing act. I have benefited from the contributions of thousands of people. In an entire lifetime I couldn't begin to gather and document the persons and conclusions on Family Tree that are related to me. The pain I occasionally have to endure because of incorrect changes is minuscule compared with the blessings that have come to me because of all the wonderful additions and changes made by so many more people.
gershonite wrote:1. People change things without consulting the person who originated the record
There is no requirement to consult with the person who originated the record. The creator of a record has no better claim to that record than anyone else. I often create records that I am fully aware are not in my direct family, but I am getting a family started or filled out so that others can come after me and add more details. I don't expect to be contacted before anyone makes changes, and in most cases I would strongly prefer not to be.
gershonite wrote:2. Adding names to families that are obviously not related. For example. John and Mary Brown lived in Surrey England in the 18th century. Someone decides to add a child all because the child has the surname Brown and the parents names are John and Mary. Forget the fact that this child was born 150 yrs AFTER the parents died and the child's birth was in the USA.
This is unfortunate. I agree that it is bothersome, but we just patiently clean it up.
gershonite wrote:3. Members decide to reserve individuals Temple work even though they are 21st cousins 100 times removed [Exagerated I know but you get the drift] OR sometimes not even related. They do not want to do the work themselves but reserve it on the Temple file AND when you ask them to release it as the individual is your Grandfather, they either ignore your request or blatently refuse. I had this done to me and SL had to sort it out.
If they are not related, then they are violating the temple policy they specifically agreed to when they reserved the ordinance. That does happen, but it's relatively rare.
gershonite wrote:4. Do not have the courtesy to answer emails.
That happens in every walk of life; I don't see FamilySearch being substantially different from any other situation where I try to contact people by email.
gershonite wrote:5. Allowing changes to be made.
I don't understand this point. Changes have to be made for improvements to occur. I would be willing to bet that you have made changes yourself.
gershonite wrote:I now no longer trust anything on FS unless I can prove it myself. Some just think because it's on the site, then it's 100% kosher. Well it isn't.
This is the reason for sources. Responsible editors justify their work with sources. And I see that this is happening a lot, for which I am grateful. Those things that haven't been documented are opportunities for us to add sources and justifications.