Genealogy's Star

Oral Histories and FamilySearch

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Sat, 14 Nov 2026 18:05:53 +0000

https://youtu.be/UcnAKxgGzro?si=MW4Tb92NTqcZaidx

I previously posted a blog about "FamilySearch oral histories - where are the oral files?" I decided to try a new way of creating informational videos. Using Google Gemini Notebook, I put my blog post plus some other valid sources into a note in a Google Gemini Notebook and had it create a video. The information in the created video is all mine. By using Gemini Notebook, you can essentially prevent Gemini from using or citing any sources other than those you provide. Unfortunately, oral histories are about the smallest area of interest in genealogy that exists. Although FamilySearch has made a tremendous effort to gather well over a million oral histories from various parts of the world, these oral histories, from my own experience, that part of the FamilySearch.org website is probably not used much.

This video is a test case. If you are interested in having Gemini Notebook help you generate videos, you might want to watch this video to see how providing the source information allowed Google Gemini Notebook to create a very coherent and workable video.

Changing a Person from Deceased to Living on the FamilySearch Family Tree

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Sat, 14 Nov 2026 00:20:15 +0000

First of all when a person dies, there are possible duplicate entries. This is normal. Each who creates an entry of the same living person gets a new ID number. This means that if several people enter a person as living in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, there will be an equal number of duplicate copies of that individual with the each entries own ID number.

When a person dies, if the person was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, FamilySearch waits for an entry from a Ward Clerk reporting that the person is deceased. If you find an entry for a person who is deceased, you can mark it as deceased, but you may not be marking all of the entries for that deceased person. If the deceased person was not a member, the living entry remains online until someone marks it deceased.

Other relatives of the deceased person may have created a number of duplicate entries, as I mentioned above. When that occurs, that still leaves a number of duplicate entries that people have entered showing the person is living. In each of those cases, all that needs to be done is to mark them deceased and explain the reason for making the change.

It is more complicated if a living entry has been marked as deceased incorrectly. If you were the one that marked the person incorrectly, you can make the change simply by marking the person as living. If someone else happens to mark your living person as deceased, it is a little bit more complicated. Here is the explanation from FamilySearch's AI Assistant:

To change a person from deceased to living in Family Tree, go to the person page, click Details, then in the Vitals section next to the death date select Edit. Choose Living, enter how you know the person is still alive, and save.
If you are not the only contributor, also submit an explanation with your relationship to the person and how you know they are alive. A request goes to FamilySearch Support for review.

If you are the only contributor, saving changes the record to Living and it becomes visible only to you.

For more information see the following FamilySearch.org article: How do I change the status from deceased to living in Family Tree?

MyHeritage Introduces a US Consolidated Federal Censuses , 1790-1950

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Wed, 11 Nov 2026 21:21:13 +0000

https://blog.myheritage.com/2026/11/myheritage-consolidates-all-17-u-s-federal-censuses-into-a-single-enriched-collection/

Recently,

MyHeritage.com

announced a notable technical milestone with the release of their

United States Consolidated Federal Censuses, 1790–1950

collection. By applying specialized artificial intelligence to cross-link and eliminate duplicate records across all seventeen available enumerations,

MyHeritage.com

reduced an estimated 841 million individual census listings down to roughly 588 million consolidated profiles. Rather than querying seventeen isolated databases, researchers can now view an ancestor’s reconstructed timeline—tracking residential changes, household compositions, and family units spanning from childhood to late adulthood—within a single aggregated record.

Here is an example of a search for my Great-grandfather.

You find the collections under the Reasearch Tab and select "United States Consolidated Federal Censuses, 1790 to 1950."

In my early years of doing research, I spent hours and hours reconstructing the census records for one large family. It is amazing to be able to do this as quickly as it is possible now.

This blog post was aided in part by Google Gemini.

Heads Up -- FamilySearch Record Hints may Produce the Wrong Document Image

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Tue, 10 Nov 2026 01:12:22 +0000

It may be difficult to read from the screenshot, but this particular record hand for Xaverio Corsi GQHR-PGR is an example where the image of the record given did not contain his name or entry at all. However, it was possible to find Xaverio by manually searching the records in the collection, one-by-one.

This is another example of a record hint that was inaccurate.

Here is a comment from one of my friends about the situation.

When I check the hints in my Italian tree, The images associated with the hints are never correct. If the system gives me 3 or 4 hints that are duplicates, the 3 or 4 images will all be different and wrong. Most of the time the correct image is in the same book and I can find it with the date but not thanks to AI. For Pellegrinas' son Raffaello, his baptism was on 4th of November 1834, one hints showed me an image from 1832, the other from 1843 and another from 1871. None for the correct date. When I asked AI about the discrepancy, this is what I got: This link, 3 times offered, shows 3 different pages for the document. It should be 1834, it shows 1832, 1843, 1871...

It should be noted that FamilySearch Record Hints are typically generated through a mix of automated record indexing, traditional automated record-matching algorithms, and probabilistic linking rather than generative AI. Also, AI cannot search the records directly and can only see a record shown on the screen.

The fact that the Record Hints may not show the corresponding digital record should be a warning to those who use the feature to check the image record. It may also be the case that these Italian records have not been verified.

Adding Unconnected People to FamilySearch

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Mon, 09 Nov 2026 22:07:31 +0000

The reality of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree is that it contains an innumerable number of snippets and partial pedigrees for individuals who are not definitively connected to the main tree. From time to time, as you add people, you will discover that an individual has already been entered. This is how some of the isolated records floating around in the Family Tree universe eventually become anchored to their proper places. FamilySearch provides a specific option for adding these unconnected people.

Before adding an unconnected person, verify they are not already in the Family Tree. While FamilySearch attempts to match records, common names and variations remain challenging for both researchers and the site's search engine. Once you proceed, you will complete a similar online form used for any new entry.

If you decide to add the unconnected person and you plan on looking at the record you created, you may want to record the person's ID number. Also, keep in mind, that you may have just created a duplicate record.

FamilySearch Oral Histories -- Where are the oral files?

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Mon, 09 Nov 2026 16:38:31 +0000

https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/genealogies/

There are 1,847,774 oral histories on the FamilySearch.org website as of the date of this blog post. All those oral histories are searchable and are located in the Genealogies section found under the Search menu.The oral histories originate primarily in Africa and the Pacific Oceania But there are numerous additional locations scattered through the collections.

There are more oral histories if you click on the arrow at the right side of the screen.

Records are gathered through targeted collection efforts, field projects, and direct user submissions. Submissions often include details regarding interviewees, foundational ancestors, specific regional locations, and tribal or clan names.

Field workers and researchers conduct recorded audio and video interviews with community elders and family historians. These conversations capture spoken lineages, traditional histories, and personal narratives in the local language. FamilySearch preserves the original digital audio files to retain the authentic voices, songs, prayers, and cultural expressions of the speakers. FamilySearch also processes the contents of these interviews to construct searchable pedigree structures and family trees, making oral records discoverable alongside traditional historical documents.

The Oral Histories projects are ongoing. More oral histories will be made available over time.

RootsTech 2027 Class Preview

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 18:10:44 +0000

https://www.familysearch.org/en/rootstech/schedule?cid=EM-00065414&lid=o0pvp9nxmuo7

The upcoming RootsTech RootsTech 2027 conference, scheduled for March 4–6, 2027, invites family history enthusiasts from around the globe to gather both online and in person at the Salt Palace Convention Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, under the guiding theme of celebrating the joy of connection and discovering the stories that matter most.

For those participating from home, the virtual experience is entirely free and grants access to over 200 new online sessions translated into more than 20 languages, inspiring keynote addresses, virtual networking with fellow attendees, and an on-demand learning library available year-round. Meanwhile, attendees heading to Salt Lake City can secure early bird registration for $99 US for a 3-day pass or $69 US for a 1-day pass, unlocking over 225 exclusive in-person sessions, a sprawling Expo Hall featuring more than 200 exhibitors and sponsors, and early previews of cutting-edge family history technologies.

The extensive educational lineup spans a broad spectrum of specialized topics designed to sharpen research skills and break through stubborn brick walls. Attendees can explore dedicated tracks covering Artificial Intelligence in genealogy, DNA research, beginner fundamentals, regional research spanning Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and beyond, as well as specific record types, methodology, archiving, and preservation. In addition, the event features specialized Latter-day Saint sessions, including uplifting Family Discovery Day broadcasts and Temple and Family History leadership instruction.

If you are traveling to Salt Lake City for the conference, I strongly recommend reserving a room right away. With the popular Plaza Hotel now gone, nearby downtown accommodations are in higher demand and booking up faster than usual.

Using the New AI Assistant GAIA on MyHeritage

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 15:02:27 +0000

https://blog.myheritage.com/2026/11/introducing-gaia-myheritages-groundbreaking-genealogy-ai-agent/

Quoting from the above blog article:

GAIA is powered by agentic AI, meaning that it can plan and carry out multiple connected tasks to achieve a goal. Unlike general-purpose AI platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude, GAIA is built specifically for genealogy. It approaches research like a professional genealogist, using established research methods to evaluate evidence, cross-check information, and assess possible connections. For example, it treats information from other users’ family trees as less reliable clues to investigate rather than as established facts. GAIA presents the supporting evidence, distinguishes between well-supported findings and uncertain possibilities, and indicates its confidence in the results.

Now let's look at what it can do with a challenging end-of-line problem that has been around for a number of years.

This screenshot shows one of my direct line, remote ancestors on my MyHeritage family tree. Garrard Morgan born in 1755 has a son and a grandson, both named Garrard Morgan. This has been an entry in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, since the Family Tree went online. Until recently, there were many more generations of speculative and inaccurate ancestry attached to this person. Some time ago, I detached all the inaccurate individuals to clean up the entries.

On MyHeritage, I already have a long list of Smart Matches (the green dots on the individual's colored accent on my MyHeritage family tree). Smart Matches are connections to other users' family trees who are related to me on MyHeritage. The brown dots indicate a possible source record. However, a quick search shows that the source cited is a user-contributed entry in another family tree which was the reason for cutting off the false lineage on FamilySearch.org. So, FamilySearch.org and MyHeritage.org cannot automatically find any additional sources for Garrard Morgan b. 1755.

I opened Garrard's profile page on MyHeritage. MyHeritage already has seven sources listed. Now let's see what GAIA can do.

I clicked the Research this person at the top edge of this screenshot and then clicked on the Research Agent Suggestions to Start Research.

GAIA begins to analyze the existing information.

I got an extremely detailed analysis of what has already been done. It is apparent that GAIA is not only familiar with the details from MyHeritage, but also the records and tree data available on FamilySearch. The initial research begins by focusing on Elizabeth Milton, Garrard Morgan's wife.

I could go on with the results of the research, but at this point, it becomes extremely lengthy. The conclusion is that although there are a lot of mentions on other family trees and in copied records about this family, there is very little documentary evidence.

GAIA immediately starts suggesting looking at original records in Goochland County marriage bonds and begins the process of searching the records. The conclusions and information provided by GAIA are extremely pertinent to doing any further research.

To avoid making this blog post much longer, I suggest that you try using GAIA for yourselves.

Looking at Record Hints between the Big Three Genealogy Family Tree Websites

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 02:05:36 +0000

FamilySearch.org, Ancestry.com, and MyHeritage.com all provide record hints. Over the past few years, these matching systems have increasingly incorporated artificial intelligence. I use all three websites daily for genealogical research, and I have definite opinions regarding the accuracy, availability, and overall usefulness of their hints. These observations are not based on a formal study; they reflect my personal experience and methodology.

Each of these massive websites hosts its own unique collections, and hint generation naturally depends on the records each platform holds. These collection differences are among the most influential factors when judging utility. Because I am familiar with all three, I rely on each for its specific strengths. This diversity makes direct, 1-to-1 comparisons tricky—each platform is uniquely valuable in its own right.

Both Ancestry and MyHeritage offer an abundance of immediately actionable record hints (Record Matches on MyHeritage). When working on either platform, one could spend nearly full-time simply evaluating and attaching quality matches. FamilySearch.org remains the outlier. When adding a new person to the FamilySearch Family Tree, you might receive a trickle of hints, but more often the system seems to wait for you to build out the profile before suggesting relevant records. Because of this lag, I typically do the heavy lifting on Ancestry or MyHeritage first. Once I transfer that verified data over to FamilySearch, hints finally begin to populate—though they often simply mirror the records I just added from the other sites.

Ancestry and MyHeritage deliver hints seamlessly. On Ancestry, AI increasingly surfaces potential tree extensions and leaf hints that are generally well-supported and helpful, though complex or conflicting lines can still trip them up. MyHeritage’s Record Matches have consistently been among the most dependable, often capable of driving an entire line's research on their own.

FamilySearch has placed its AI-assisted research tools front and center. However, these AI-generated hints and suggestions can be deceptively tricky, frequently leading researchers into messy genealogical quagmires. Unwary users risk accepting these suggestions without proper source verification, quickly injecting errors into a shared tree.

I encountered a clear example of this recently with a FamilySearch AI-assisted suggestion. The tool suggested a spouse for an individual in England whose existing profile showed siblings born across five widely scattered locations—a classic red flag that the family grouping was already suspect. Accepting the AI recommendation at face value would have compiled bad data on top of bad data.

AI can and does make mistakes. Evaluating historical context, geographic plausibility, and family structure should never be left entirely to an algorithm. Future iterations of these tools will undoubtedly improve, but for now, everyday researchers need to approach AI-generated suggestions with healthy skepticism and rigorous verification.

Can AI Fix the FamilySearch Family Tree -- Part Two Concerns and Challenges

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 14:28:27 +0000

The first big question is whether AI can actually improve the quality of the massive FamilySearch.org Family Tree, and whether it can consolidate and search the scattered record collections across the website. FamilySearch currently maintains eight distinct record collections that are either searched individually or, at best, appear together in only one or two combined queries.

Here are the eight primary search areas under the "Search" tab:

Records -- The core portal for searching traditional indexed records, currently supplemented by computer-indexed records that are increasingly AI-assisted.
Full Text -- An AI-powered search (currently in FamilySearch Labs) that indexes every word in processed documents and generates transcriptions alongside the digital images.
Images -- A vast archive of browse-only digital images, largely unindexed and gathered by FamilySearch camera crews around the world.
Genealogies -- A diverse aggregate of unrelated databases, lineage collections, oral genealogies, and contributed family trees.
Catalog -- The comprehensive bibliographic guide to the Family History Library's collection, indexed using traditional library methods at the collection or roll level rather than the individual record level.
Books -- A collection of digitized family histories, local histories, and periodicals that are searchable full-text, word-for-word.
Cemeteries -- A dedicated database of burial grounds and individual headstones searchable via the Cemeteries interface.
Newspapers -- A historical newspaper database indexed for full-text search, provided through a partnership with NewspaperArchive.com.

It is obvious that AI can perform remarkable feats—particularly in automated transcription, paleographic deciphering, translation, and surrogate search. A key question, however, is whether AI is reliable enough to replace FamilySearch's traditional catalog and query systems, tools built on decades of painstaking volunteer indexing.

Full-text search can surface ancestral records that never made it into traditional field-indexed collections. However, it currently covers only a small percentage of total holdings, and there is no simple way to track its overall impact across the other major collections. While icon badges in the Catalog indicate certain microfilms or DGS folders that have been processed by Full Text, the remaining collections offer few clear indicators of inclusion.

If FamilySearch eventually applies full-text AI search across the vast majority of its holdings, will traditional searches—such as the Historical Records Collection and the Catalog—become obsolete? Furthermore, could full-text retrieval be paired with specialized AI agents capable of actively evaluating and contextualizing search results against existing Family Tree profiles? Ultimately, will AI agents assist in researching all the records on the FamilySearch website?

The AI technology answer all three questions with a "yes" is available today. The biggest challenge is processing the billions of records on the FamilySearch website and then redesigning the website to take advantage of the complete Full-text search capabilities.

The results would then be similar to what is currently done on the Ancestry.com and MyHeritage.com websites. For example, MyHeritage.com has for years provided highly accurate Record Matches that search virtually all the pertinent records on the website in 42 languages. Also, Ancestry.com has AI assisted searches that suggest the next individuals on many of the end of lines.

I guess the last question is how fast can FamilySearch start implementing the programming to solve the questions?

Can AI fix the FamilySearch.org Family Tree?

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Sat, 31 Oct 2026 15:07:02 +0000

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Salt Lake City and to attend a very limited conference with FamilySearch about the future of the FamilySearch Family Tree. This was at the junction of the failure of the new.FamilySearch.org Family Tree and the desire to replace it with something else. The results of the day-long meeting was that the FamilySearch Family Tree should be an extensive wiki. However, at that date, relatively far in the past, it was not possible to imagine the size and complexity of the current FamilySearch Family Tree.

The FamilySearch Family Tree has grown in its size to an immense repository for a vast amount of information about the family of families of people throughout the world. The original concepts of allowing unlimited individual changes and unlimited individual contributions has become its greatest obstacle for continued use. Slowly over the years since it was introduced, the FamilySearch Family Tree has been modified from its original completely open wiki structure to be more restricted.

One of the initial problems with the creation of the Family Tree was the addition of seed data that was incomplete and in many cases entirely inaccurate. This data had been created by years of individual genealogists acting separately with various levels of competency. Initial basic challenges of the Family Tree included, a massive amount of duplication, a considerable amount of inaccuracy and a substantial amount of imaginary data.

Efforts at regularizing and correcting the data entered into the FamilySearch Family Tree includes the creation of user trees that are independent of the FamilySearch Family Tree and maintained by individuals or organizations. Although a very valuable step in providing a venue for additional information that is separate from the FamilySearch Family Tree, the addition of user trees is only a small bandage covering the issues of the main tree itself.

FamilySearch additionally, resisted the suggestions that the wiki family tree be moderated. The amount of effort and the number of people to actually moderate the FamilySearch Family Tree seemed overwhelming. However, today, there is the possibility of using AI agents and AI oversight of the FamilySearch Family Tree is certainly a way to overcome the current difficulties.

Major issues facing the FamilySearch.org Family Tree include a substantial amount of duplication, changes made to well-documented and accurate information that is already present in the family tree, the addition of unsubstantiated and unsourced information, much of which is entirely inaccurate, other minor issues with the consistency of the data. All these issues fall into categories of maintenance that could be supplied by AI agents.

There is a major concern on the part of FamilySearch that requiring more accuracy and eliminating duplicates will discourage people from using the Family Tree. This is particularly true for first-time users entering their own information from personal records or memory. AI agents could easily be developed to assist with this initial entry, ensuring contributions are supported by an identified source—even if that source is simply personal knowledge. Beyond those initial generations, however, there is little justification for allowing constant, unchecked changes to records that are already thoroughly documented and substantiated.

Substantial parts of the family tree where the data has been substantiated and where all the ordinance work has been done by those doing the work in the temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be partially read-only. The basic information available which is well substantiated should not be subject to change, although the addition of additional sources and memories should be possible. My constant example of this is the descendants of the Mayflower.

Information about the steps being taken by FamilySearch to begin this process of adding AI agents is not readily available to the public. But it would help those who are now abandoning the family tree for other venues due to the constant changes in their own genealogical data. It would also help if FamilySearch used some of the most talented genealogists to provide the structure for the AI agents.

Presently, AI is changing dramatically, almost weekly. And it may be an obstacle to implementing any particular type of AI agency until the AI begins to settle down. However, it would also be a good idea to use AI programming that would be at least in part independent of the major AI websites and providers.

The original obstacle in creating a moderated wiki was the overwhelming need for people to monitor the quickly growing family tree. Today, we have the technology to add these monitors and improve the operation of the family tree so that it may become useful even to those who are now abandoning it.

Can you compare AI websites?

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Fri, 30 Oct 2026 15:02:44 +0000

AI hasn't reached the level of variety presently available to someone trying to buy a car, but there are still some of the same factors involved in deciding which AI website to use. Each type of car available is scrupulously reviewed in online YouTube channel videos. Likewise, the different AI websites come under tremendously detailed examination. Like cars, sometimes the differences in AI websites turn out to be preferences. The usual car video compares two, three, four, or five different models of cars that are essentially the same. There are also major online reporting agencies, such as Consumer Reports, that rank vehicles on their own set of criteria. Likewise, AI websites are compared based on differences that are often totally unapparent to the general AI users.

When I was very young, I lived in a very small town, and there was a major division between those in the town who drove Chevrolets and those who drove Fords. Members of each of the two groups were enthusiastically defensive of their choices and viewed the opposite car/truck owners as ill-informed and sometimes slightly un-American. Each year, of course, there was a scramble to compare the newest versions of the offerings from both car companies.

We are in about the same condition today with the AI websites as happened during the past few weeks, new models or new versions of nearly all the websites have been introduced, and the online critics immediately begin the comparison. Unfortunately, the comparisons usually fall into the area of preferences rather than differences discernible by the ordinary user. For example, once again comparing the AI websites to vehicle purchases: the difference is that if you are a building contractor, you probably are more interested in a truck. If you are an individual whose use of the vehicle is limited, you probably drive a smaller, more economical vehicle.

This is the case with AI users around me. Most of them are very happy using the free versions of any of the AI websites. These users don't need the enterprise versions of the AI websites any more than the average driver needs a Ford F-450 Super Duty, Ram 3500 or a Chevrolet Silverado 3500HD,

It is also apparent that, just as there is constant attention paid to the features of the new automobiles, the AI websites are continually compared by the new features that are implemented. Trying to keep up with AI is complicated by the fact that the features that are being reviewed are often so esoteric that only trained computer professionals can understand the nuances of the differences.

What I think the individual AI user is really looking for is the AI equivalent of a Toyota Corolla.

If you are interested in exploring the differences between the various AI websites, the best way to do so is to begin asking your preferred website about how all the different offerings from Google Gemini to Claude are ranked under different criteria. By the way, the gas mileage or electrical mileage of the AI industry is measured in tokens. In one category, the websites with the highest number of usable tokens win the game. However, just like focusing on vehicle mileage ignores all of the other considerations involved in the purchase of a vehicle, focusing just on tokens produces the same results. The real difficulty is that the current state of the AI industry is that there is not a discernible difference in features that allows users to make educated choices. I find that most users make the choice of which AI website to use based mostly on recommendations from those that they view as more educated.

I spend a considerable amount of time comparing and contrasting various AI offerings and make my choice primarily on the breadth of utility, i.e., the features available. For some of the same reasons that I drive a Subaru, at this point, my ownership of TrailSeeker is based on economics and the fact that the car has high clearance and that I live in a town where there are terrible roads, steep hills, ice and snow, and other obstacles.

I suggest, just as I do with cars, that you do your homework, look at a lot of options, and make your choices based on what fits your needs the most.

Recently seen on Facebook: "I don't touch AI, and certainly don't want it anywhere near my genealogy !"

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 20:21:47 +0000

I am puzzled how this person was able to avoid using AI, unless they are conducting genealogical research completely on paper. If they have used any of the large family history platforms—from FamilySearch to Ancestry or MyHeritage—they have already been using AI. The record matching algorithms, automated indexing, and handwritten text recognition (HTR) behind these sites all rely on machine learning. In fact, anyone using Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge to search the web, compose emails with predictive text, or browse social media is regularly interacting with AI. There is simply no longer a practical way to participate online without it.

I maintain trees on FamilySearch, Ancestry, MyHeritage, and other platforms. AI is a remarkable research assistant if you understand how to harness it.

Even if we assume someone has somehow avoided direct contact with AI tools, their online "genealogy" is almost certainly built upon data, indexes, and digital collections surfaced by artificial intelligence. The massive shared trees online demonstrate just how intertwined modern research is with automated technology.

Years ago, I saw the exact same resistance from some of the attorneys in my law office. They were bound and determined to avoid computers. That seemed viable until they realized the rest of us were completing research in a fraction of the time using legal databases like Westlaw. Complete avoidance became impossible once the Arizona court system mandated electronic filing. Very shortly, even attorneys across the United States will find it impossible to practice law without utilizing some form of AI.

It will only be a matter of time before AI is entirely ubiquitous.

Introducing GAIA -- A Real AI Research Agent from MyHeritage

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:14:23 +0000

I was one of the very early testers of the new GAIA AI Research Agent from MyHeritage.com. I had time to test GAIA over a period of weeks with some extensive research projects. Here is what I said at the end of the test run.

The addition of GAIA as a research assistant on MyHeritage is a milestone in the development of the website. I have been testing new genealogy programs for many years, and I always begin with information I already know thoroughly. This lets me determine whether a program provides new clues, generates inaccurate data, or merely copies what already exists in my tree.
Working with GAIA was a new experience. As a test, I chose one of my direct-line sixth-great-grandmothers, Lydia Stewart. Generally, maternal lines are far less researched and documented than paternal lines, but Lydia Stewart happens to be well documented. Even so, many questions about families living in the late 1700s and early 1800s remain difficult to resolve.
As I began using GAIA, I was impressed by the questions it asked to advance the research. Drawing on existing genealogical sources and data from other family trees, its conclusions were consistent and well-grounded. Lydia Stewart died in Bolton, Warren County, New York, and GAIA located a link and brought up documents pointing to a possible probate search. Although I already had substantial sources for Lydia, any reference to a probate record was missing, making this a valuable suggestion. The Warren County online records look to be a promising resource. GAIA also provided details on Lydia’s children that were absent from my own files. While I might eventually have discovered these sources myself, GAIA’s ability to find them demonstrates its real value as a research assistant.

You find GAIA on an individual's profile page. It is opened by clicking on the "Research this person" link. This opens a page with a list of possible sources and a further link to "Research Agent Suggestions."

Here is an example of the beginning research for my direct line ancestor, Garrard Morgan.

Here is a summary of which MyHeritage subscription levels provide access to GAIA.

Complete Plan: Grants access to the full historical data collections (billions of records) and advanced research tools required for the AI agent to search, extract, and match historical records against your tree.
Omni Plan: MyHeritage’s all-inclusive subscription. It includes everything in the Complete plan plus higher usage allowances/quotas for advanced AI tools, full access to OldNews.com, Geni Pro, and photo tools. Notice the orange "Go Omni" banner in your header—users on lower tiers or with standard plans are prompted to upgrade to Omni for expanded usage limits.
Data Plan (or standalone Data / Tree subscription): A basic Data subscription allows record matching, but specialized AI features typically operate on a quota system with limited searches or trial prompts before requiring an upgrade to Complete or Omni.
Free / Basic Accounts: Free accounts are generally limited to a small initial preview or trial run of AI features before being prompted to purchase a subscription to view full source matches, conduct additional sessions, or extract records into their tree.

You can check your exact remaining monthly allowance or session quota at any time by clicking the "GAIA usage" link located at the bottom left of your chat panel. I currently have the Complete plan. AI usage allowances operate on a rolling monthly cycle that refreshes on the same day each month corresponding to your subscription renewal or initial allocation date (not necessarily the 1st of the calendar month).

For a lot more information go to the MyHeritage Blog: MyHeritage Introduces GAIA, a Groundbreaking AI Agent for Genealogical Research

What is a Genealogical Source?

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Sat, 24 Oct 2026 16:49:58 +0000

The simple definition of a genealogically valuable historical record or source is a record created at or near the time of an event by someone who participated in it, witnessed it, or had an official duty to record it. Genealogically valuable records are not limited to a particular era or format; an oral history or personal recollection from a relative fits this description just as well as an archival document.

Unfortunately, the word "source" often carries multiple meanings. In genealogical practice, what we often need most is a clear record of where that source resides, that is a citation telling exactly where and how the information was obtained. Over a lifetime of reading footnotes, I have found that few explain this access route in detail. Most merely cite a title or publication without indicating where a researcher might actually locate it. Citations vary widely in style and depth, but even a straightforward bibliographic citation can establish this connection:

Here is a perfectly acceptable citation to a book.

Bennett, Archibald F. A Guide for Genealogical Research. Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1956.

From a genealogical perspective, the citation is missing the key element of where the book was found. In this case, the book is still subject to copyright protection and is only available in libraries and for purchase online. If the citation included a reference to the location of the book, subsequent researchers would not have to go through and try to find the book themselves. Another example of the need for specificity is a citation such as this one for this record:

“Santa Ana. Confirmation Records 1730–1736.” Accessed October 24, 2026.

This citation tells us where the record was found. However, that particular set of records has 835 images, and lacking a more exact citation, I would possibly have to go through all 835 records to find this particular image. Here is a more complete citation:

“Santa Ana. Confirmation Records 1730–1736.” Accessed October 24, 2026. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GGZK-8NV?cat=koha%3A686299&view=explore&lang=en&groupId=M986-8MC

Fortunately, many of the online genealogy programs have a way to save a complete citation to a specific record. However, this type of feature is not universal, and occasionally you will get a citation to the entire set of records. Here is the citation to the record from FamilySearch.org.

"Santa Ana, Oaxaca, Mexico records," images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GGZK-8NV?view=explore : Oct 24, 2026), image 14 of 103; Archivo Diocesano de Oaxaca. Image Group Number: 004782273

Both these citations take you to the original document. Another important reason for having more specific citations is that you, in doing your own research, may need to go back and look at the original record. Without a specific citation, you may end up doing the research over again.

There are a number of programs which will automate the process of creating citations. A free app is Zotero.org from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Be sure and remember that the source is the description of the origin of the information. The citation is the format in which it is presented.

There are possibly hundreds of different citation formats. However, genealogists primarily use the Chicago Manual of Style. If you use an app such as Zotero.org, the app itself will format your citations in the style you select.

Options for using other family trees rather than using the FamilySearch.org Family Tree as a primary family tree

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 14:15:17 +0000

The genealogical landscape is populated by a great number of different genealogical resources and genealogical programs. It is extremely difficult to even begin to estimate the total number of active genealogical tree programs. A good sample of the programs available can be found in FamilySearch.org Solutions Gallery. The solutions gallery is available at the bottom of the startup page. Currently, there are seven apps listed as the top genealogical resources and fourteen apps listed as Family Tree Management Apps that sync information with the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. FamilySearch has also entered the options by its creation of "User Trees."

Of course, this whole discussion relies on the assumption that you are using the FamilySearch Family Tree for your primary family tree. A decision to use another app (program) besides or in addition to the FamilySearch Family Tree for your primary family tree information depends on four main factors:

1. Your view of the reliability of the FamilySearch Family Tree, considering the number of changes you view as happening within your own part of the family tree

2. Whether or not you want to move to a fee-based Family Tree instead of using the free FamilySearch Family Tree either to stop using the FamilySearch Family Tree or to use another family tree as a backup copy.

3. Your degree of tolerance for maintaining more than one family tree.

4. The number of individuals you consider to be part of "your" family tree.

The first major decision involved in either moving from the FamilySearch Family Tree or using another family tree app for a backup is to use a desktop program (app, I use these terms interchangeably) or an online website. The most popular desktop family tree programs include the following:

Family Tree Maker (Software MacKiev): Currently holds the largest market share among desktop users. It is heavily utilized for its robust multimedia scrapbook management and its native synchronization capabilities with both Ancestry and FamilySearch. It offers native applications for both macOS and Windows.

RootsMagic: Highly adopted for its clean evidence-first architecture and direct API synchronization with FamilySearch and Ancestry. It handles local-first workflows efficiently, supports the GEDCOM 7.0 standard for data exchange, and generates comprehensive database properties reports. It runs seamlessly on both macOS and PC.
Legacy Family Tree: Renowned for its unparalleled suite of detailed reports and comprehensive charting options, including dedicated X-DNA charts. It is highly favored by professional researchers for its organization tools, though it remains a strictly Windows-based application requiring virtualization to run on Apple Silicon hardware.
MyHeritage Family Tree Builder: A widely used freemium desktop client that provides bidirectional synchronization with the MyHeritage global records database. It is particularly strong in local photo management and handling massive offline databases on both Mac and Windows environments.
Heredis: A major contender that originated in France and dominates the European market, though it has built a substantial international user base. It stands out for its highly visual interface, robust mapping tools, and seamless multi-device synchronization.
MacFamilyTree (Synium): The most popular desktop program exclusively built for the macOS ecosystem. It is heavily optimized for Apple Silicon hardware, leveraging native Apple frameworks to render massive interactive 3D charts and process 20TB+ multimedia databases with zero latency.
Gramps: The definitive open-source, offline-first application. It provides absolute local control over databases with zero vendor lock-in, offering extensive plugin customization and strict, evidence-linked citation handling across macOS, Windows, and Linux.
Family Historian: Widely adopted by evidence-focused genealogists for its rigorous source citation templates and interactive timelines. It operates natively around GEDCOM structures, ensuring that media and source context travel flawlessly during file exports, though it requires Windows 8, 10, or 11.
Ancestral Quest: The direct architectural successor to PAF (Personal Ancestral File). It maintains a very loyal user base by focusing on strict, local database reporting, straightforward evidence-linked notes, and deep synchronization tools for the FamilySearch shared tree.

This is not an exhaustive list but it represents a broad spectrum of programs. Desktop programs can generally be started using a GEDCOM upload. However, the FamilySearch Family Tree does not have a GEDCOM downloading option so you must rely on the ability of the individual desktop programs to download portions of the part of the FamilySearch Family Tree that contains your family information. Some of the programs have limited support for descendants.

If you are trying to avoid a shared family tree such as WikiTree, there a fewer options. Here is a list of the major alternatives:

Ancestry.com: The world's largest subscription-based genealogy platform. It provides access to billions of historical records, extensive user-generated family trees, and deep integration with its DNA testing service.
MyHeritage.com: A major subscription and freemium platform featuring more than 20 billion historical records. It is well known for its strong international record collections and its advanced AI photo tools that allow users to enhance, colorize, repair, and animate historical photos.
Findmypast: A prominent subscription site that specializes in British and Irish genealogy, offering the most comprehensive collection of records for the British Isles.
Geni.com: A platform dedicated entirely to creating a single, collaborative world family tree where users interconnect their research.

Some of these programs and online websites go back years and are generally accepted as alternatives to the FamilySearch Family Tree. If you decide to ignore the FamilySearch Family Tree, you may end up duplicating research that is already available. The huge size and continued growth of the unified FamilySearch Family Tree should be regularly consulted to help prevent redoing research that is already documented.

I certainly recognize that individual preferences regarding the use of any of the programs and websites listed above are totally up to the individual. I use many of the programs and have become familiar with all of them over the years, but time and resources mandate making selections and choices.

Paint-by-Numbers to Remember and Honor Your Ancestors

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:28:13 +0000

https://paintezshop.com/products/customized001?variant=45535703072958

When I was growing up, coloring books, puzzle books, and paint-by-numbers pictures were a part of my childhood. I took art classes during high school, and when I arrived at the University of Utah as a freshman, I majored in fine art. After a year of classes, I finally realized that I was not coordinated enough to be an artist. Of course, I never lost my interest in art. During my years traveling around to various countries of the world and throughout the United States, I have gained a tremendous appreciation for arts and crafts. Paint-by-numbers still exists and is still a part of the vast do-it-yourself (DIY) movement in the United States. If you want to see the ongoing interest, do a quick YouTube search for "paint by numbers."

Out of the blue, I was contacted because of my genealogical interest by one of the major paint-by-numbers companies to see if there was interest in having paint-by-numbers applied to ancestral photographs. The company that contacted me was PaintEasy https://paintezshop.com/. Many of my genealogy friends are involved with doing books for their families, some AI generated for grandchildren, and other traditional crafts. Being as old as I am, I would view paint-by-numbers as a "traditional craft. In this case, a treasured photo of a family member can be turned into a craft project through paint-by-numbers.

The company offered to send me a free starter kit, but I have had essential tremors since I was born and although, I would like to, painting-by-the-numbers is out of my ability. My wife, Ann, however was interested. Hence, I could write about the process and she could do the actual painting. We got our first kit and Ann is looking forward to how it works out. The idea was to convert a photo of one of our relatives into a paint-by-numbers print and then do the painting with the kit supplied. Ann decided to try out a different image first. Here is the first kit.

FamilySearch.org Person IDs an Enigma

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Mon, 12 Oct 2026 13:20:43 +0000

These two names are the same person. They are not duplicates in the FamilySearch Family Tree. Joshua Tanner GR5L-PSL is in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree and Joshua Tanner LKKM-LWY is the same person in my FamilySearch.org User Tree. If you want to know about User Trees on FamilySearch, see my video: https://youtu.be/vAg8XM4F3qE?si=sTQP4OVJvUA5Q0c1

If any of my relatives who are Tanners start a FamilySearch User Tree and enter Joshua Tanner as an ancestor, Joshua Tanner will have his own distinct ID number.

The FamilySearch ID numbers are an essential part of avoiding duplicate entries in the family tree. For example, if you are adding a source, the source linker may indicate that the record is already attached to that person. This indicates that there is a duplicate entry. The only real way to tell the difference between the duplicate and the original is to compare the ID numbers and look at the information entered for the individual.

Duplicate entries on the FamilySearch Family Tree are endemic. An untold number of hours have been consumed by eliminating duplicates from the FamilySearch Family Tree. The process of resolving duplicate entries is an ongoing background to almost every entry.

This relatively new experiment from FamilySearch Labs enables you to search all the family trees on FamilySearch at the same time. Doing this is an immediate indication of the number of duplicates that have been added to various family trees. The relatively new FamilySearch User Trees will guarantee that additional duplicate family trees and individual entries will increase.

The reality of the international genealogical community is that anyone starting a new family tree on any online website will more than likely be doing duplicate research. For example, when I am doing research on my Ancestry family tree, any new entry that I make will almost always come up with a match to some other user who has already entered that information into their own tree. If any of my grandchildren or great-grandchildren were to work on the FamilySearch.org website, they would immediately find that their ancestral files were complete back at least six generations. Of course, this is limited to the direct lines going to me and my wife. Many times, people who are new to the FamilySearch Family Tree are surprised to find so much of their ancestral information already available. If this new person is beginning a family tree on other websites, they may not be aware that FamilySearch already has a substantial amount of information about their family.

Given the state of technology, there should be a way for individuals working on their own private or unconnected family trees to immediately see that they are entering information already on a variety of family trees. This should be particularly the case with individuals uploading GEDCOM files to the FamilySearch User Trees. As soon as the GEDCOM file is uploaded, there should be some way to notify the new user that the names they have uploaded from another program are already on the FamilySearch Family Tree. Otherwise, there is a significant possibility that the FamilySearch User Trees will end up increasing the number of duplicates on the FamilySearch Family Tree. The generation of a new ID number for people who already exist on the FamilySearch Family Tree will add to the confusion and duplicates.

Will Genealogy Survive AI?

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 02:14:26 +0000

https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/genealogies/submissions?f.collectionId=10000130

AI's rapid advancement is caused by three factors: raw compute increases, algorithmic efficiency improvements, and "unhobbling" processes. In the current super-accelerated decade, we enjoy a 10,000x AI performance boost every four years, making it likely that AI will exceed top human experts by 2027. There are good arguments that AI progress past 2027 could be slower, but also that it could be even faster.

Nielsen, Jakob. “The Decade of AI Super-Acceleration.” UX Tigers, July 10, 2024. https://www.uxtigers.com/post/super-accelerated-ai.

At some point, genealogists will have to face the fact that AI can accurately do much of the work genealogists do. An easy example, not considering document transcription and translation, would be the ability to search huge databases from a single prompt. In this regard, record hints and matches are quickly becoming more accurate. It will be only a short time before AI will be used to search nearly all the huge online genealogical record collections. For example, FamilySearch is spending huge resources to extend AI-supported Full-text search.

Meanwhile, the serious, advanced genealogists will comfort themselves with the seemingly huge archival collections that have yet to be digitized. One of the most extreme examples is the United States National Archives where only a very small percentage of the documents have been digitized.

One of the main commonly expressed arguments against the utility of AI is the issue of the inappropriately named "hallucinations." One way of responding to this background concern is to ask, compared to what? AI is essentially a computer program. Top commercial models (like Google's Gemini Flash variants and standard GPT models) have dropped below a 1% hallucination rate on basic apples-to-apples summarization tests.

See Graffius, S. M. (2026, January 7). Are AI Hallucinations Getting Better or Worse? We Analyzed the Data. ScottGraffius.com. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33179.53285.

One way to control the hallucination issue is to use your chat program to self-critique or correct any task you have asked it to do. For example, if I ask Gemini to transcribe and/or translate a document, I use a specially designed prompt to initiate the process and then I start a new chat and give Gemini the prompt I used and the results and ask it to review and correct the output. You may be surprised at the response.

Now, if AI continues to get better and expand in its capabilities, how much more of what genealogists do could be done more accurately and much faster than even the most expert level genealogist?

Here is a list of some of the genealogical tasks that would be enhanced or replaced by using AI.

Searching for valuable historic and genealogically useful information from online and paper-based archives and websites. Granted there is a current "paywall" issue. Without permission, most genealogy database sites are protected by account authentication layers, paywalls, and robots.txt/web-scraping blockers. But once we do the job of finding a record on a protected website, an AI assistant can transcribe, translate, and analyze the document. Currently with context-sensitive AI, anything you can see on your computer can be seen by the AI assistant and analyzed despite a paywall. This only means that the paywall sites need to catch up to the new technology if they want to do so.

Google's Gemini 3 generation operates with a standard input context window of 1 million tokens—expandable up to 2 million tokens in advanced developer and enterprise environments—and supports up to 64,000 output tokens. Across its natively multimodal architecture, a 1-million-token input translates to roughly 700,000 words, approximately 1,500 single-spaced pages of text, 1 hour of video, or 11 hours of audio in a single prompt.

See Google DeepMind, Gemini 3 Pro Model Card (Mountain View, CA: Google, 2025; updated May 2026), 2–3, Google DeepMind Media.

How long would it take you to search through this number of pages?

From my own experience I have added 120 original documents that include deeds, probate files, town records and other similar documents and using Gemini Notebook, Gemini generated a spreadsheet showing all the people named in all the documents with citations to the documents and showing the relationship, if present, of all the people named. The long part of this analysis was locating and uploading the documents. Gemini did the analysis in a matter of a few minutes.

How long would it take you to do the same analysis?

Using FamilySearch's Full-text search, I was able to find deeds and probate documents about my ancestors that I had never and would not have even spent the time to find.

What new-to-you documents do you think a full-text search might reveal?

As AI matures and becomes more sophisticated and reliable, the tasks it will be able to do will continue to expand. Those genealogists that are still working on paper or even those who do not care to learn about AI may one day wake up to the fact that any work they do is already done by an online website such as FamilySearch.

See Trent Toone, “What Latter-day Saints Should Know About Temple and Family History,” Church News, March 6, 2026, https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2026/03/06/elder-mark-bragg-rootstech-2026-what-latter-day-saints-should-know-temple-family-history/.

Can a genealogist remain relevant? The ones that are relevant today will be the ones who are relevant tomorrow. These relevant genealogists are the ones that are anxious to adopt whatever advances in technology that will help them do their work better, faster, and with more accurate content. AI is already doing this for a large number of genealogists.

Additional Note: I use Google Gemini for my examples for the simple reason that Google has optimized Gemini for deep research and synthesis, which aligns directly with what I do as a genealogist.

FamilySearch announces genetic genealogy expert CeCe Moore and actress and philanthropist Jane Seymour as keynote speakers for RootsTech 2027

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:21:21 +0000

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQhWfMTkxcCvvVpPTVBmrLflVzg

Registration is now open for RootsTech 2027 on March 4th to 6th, 2027. The conference will be held at the Salt Palace, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The theme for RootsTech 2027—“Celebrate!”—encourages participants to see family history as a living celebration of people, cultures, and stories that connect generations.

Two of the keynote speakers have been announced.

CeCe More

Quoting from the announcement:

An internationally recognized DNA investigative expert, educator, and pioneer in genetic genealogy, CeCe Moore has helped transform the way people use DNA to discover family connections and solve longstanding mysteries. Her work has been featured in thousands of articles and television programs worldwide, and she has served 13 seasons as the genetic genealogist on the PBS series Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Moore’s groundbreaking work has demonstrated the remarkable impact of family history research and DNA analysis, helping establish genetic genealogy as an essential tool for learning more about our ancestors.

Jane Seymour

Again quoting from the announcement:

Award-winning actress, author, and philanthropist Jane Seymour has inspired audiences for more than five decades across television, film, stage, and literature. Best known to many for her Golden Globe-winning role in Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, Seymour’s work extends beyond entertainment through her dedication to philanthropic causes and family-centered storytelling.
In 2010, she founded the Open Hearts Foundation, inspired by the philosophy of resilience and selfless giving passed down by her mother. Today, the foundation supports nonprofits that help individuals transform adversity into opportunity, and it has provided grants to organizations throughout the United States.

See you at RootsTech.

RootsTech 2027 Opens Registration with Dual In-Person and Virtual Format

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 00:32:15 +0000

https://www.familysearch.org/en/rootstech/

Registration is officially open for

RootsTech 2027

, scheduled for March 4–6, 2027. Hosted by FamilySearch International, the conference returns to its dual format: an in-person gathering at the Salt Palace Convention Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, alongside a free virtual program broadcast worldwide.

The 2027 theme is "Celebrate!", focusing on cultural heritage, traditions, and shared history.

Conference Formats: In-Person vs. Virtual

Free Virtual Access: Requires no registration fee and includes livestreamed keynotes, select educational classes, virtual vendor booths, and the "Relatives at RootsTech" networking feature.
In-Person Attendance: Early-bird pricing is now available on RootsTech.org. Passes provide full access to all on-site classes, hands-on computer labs, the main expo hall, and one-on-one specialist consultations. Detailed speaker lineups and class schedules will be released in the coming months.

What It Means for Genealogists

Beyond promotional storytelling, RootsTech remains the key annual barometer for the genealogy industry. It serves as the primary stage for new technological developments—such as AI-assisted text recognition, automated indexing, and DNA privacy policies—as well as platform roadmap announcements from major vendors and archives.

Whether attending in Salt Lake City or participating online, researchers should review the session catalog when published to target advanced methodology classes, paleography training, and regional record collections directly relevant to their research problems.

This blog post was written with the assistance of Google Gemini.

10 Ways to Survive Using the FamilySearch.org Website

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 20:32:21 +0000

FamilySearch.org can seem overwhelming at first glance. Yet just as the saguaro cactus thrives in a harsh desert, you can adapt and master the platform. Here are ten practical survival suggestions for navigating the FamilySearch Family Tree and uncovering your ancestors. Much like packing a full canteen before trekking into the desert, understanding these essentials will save you needless frustration along the way.

Of course, you need to register and sign in to the website. This is free and necessary to view sources and other parts of the website.

1. Take an intensive tour of the entire website. You can scroll to the bottom of the startup page, click the "More" arrow, and see a representative outline of the items you should be familiar with on the website. From my own experience in helping people I am certain that most users are not even aware that there are so many things on this website. If you're traveling in the desert, you need a definite beginning and an end, usually by using a map or a GPS. The help center is like a GPS for the website.

2. When you finish with the list at the bottom of the startup page take some time to explore the help menu available from the question mark icon in the upper right-hand corner of the screen.

A review of the items in this help menu may help you understand what you do not know about the website. If you need help with any part of the website, you can use the help menu to answer your questions. If you dig down deep in the Help Center, you will also find a set of lessons instructing you on how to do genealogical research and also how to use the website in great detail. Here is a link to the page with all the classes: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/learning-center

3. Take time to review your portion of the FamilySearch Family Tree. You may have only a few entries, and you may have an overwhelming large number of entries. In either case, you will now be made aware of the scope of your journey using the website. The whole purpose of the website is to find and then document each of your ancestors and as many of your relatives as you can possibly find. This is analogous to beginning a journey across a very large desert. You need to know the extent of your journey long before you begin walking. Also take time to check the entries that are already in the FamilySearch Family Tree to make sure they are accurate.

4. Become familiar with the FamilySearch Research Wiki. This resource will give you an idea of the historical record sources that are available for almost any place in the world. It will also prepare you for the next suggestion or trick. You can see the link to the Research Wiki above in the Search tab.

5. Do not add any information to the FamilySearch Family Tree that does not have a valid historical source supporting its accuracy. This is akin to avoiding cactus and rattlesnakes. Any time you see an entry for an individual in the FamilySearch Family Tree that has no sources attached and no memories, you can assume the information is either inaccurate, incomplete, or a total fabrication.

6. Just as certain desert regions pose extreme hazards, specific sections of the FamilySearch Family Tree present equal danger to researchers. These are the volatile sectors of "revolving-door" ancestors, where entries change almost daily. Entangling yourself in these unstable records can quickly erode your enthusiasm and resolve. Before attempting any corrections, examine the profile’s edit history; click the "Show all" link to review the full volume of recent revisions before entering what you believe to be the correct data. Even seasoned desert travelers encounter sudden dust storms and flash floods—and these chronically contested profiles are the flash floods of the FamilySearch environment.

7. Did you know that each of the items in the FamilySearch Search Menu access different collections of records that may or may not overlap. You can see the list below. Click on each of the entries in the search menu to find out what they are and how to use them. You may need to refer frequently to the Help menu for additional help.

8. As you add information to the FamilySearch.org website, it is a good for your survival to keep a backup copy of your own information on another app, either on the internet or on your desktop, which ever you prefer. Having a duplicate copy of your information helps you correct changes that might be made to your information on the FamilySearch Family Tree. You can also use the new FamilySearch User Trees for backup. See my video Understanding FamilySearch’s User Owned Trees

9. Check FamilySearch Labs for new apps and features. See https://www.familysearch.org/en/labs/ You can turn the lab experiments off or on. If you like them, you can keep them on.

10. If you really want an expansive experience, Go to the FamilySearch Labs and click on the "Search All Family Trees" on FamilySearch. Then go to the Historic Records collections (Records in the Search tab shown above) and do a search for someone already in your part of the family tree. You may seem confused at first with what appear to be duplicates, but what you are seeing in the same person in all the FamilySearch.org trees. You can go to the Find Your Family Tree on FamilySearch also.

Here is a list of additional helps for learning about the FamilySearch.org website.

BYU Library Family History. “BYU Library Family History Center.” Accessed September 10, 2026. https://familyhistory.lib.byu.edu/.

“FamilySearch YouTube Channel.” Accessed September 10, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/@familysearch.

RootsTech. “RootsTech Conference & Year‑Round Learning.” Accessed September 10, 2026. https://www.familysearch.org/en/rootstech/.

“The Family History Guide.” Accessed September 10, 2026. https://thefhguide.com/.

YouTube. “BYU Library Family History Center YouTube Channel.” Accessed September 10, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7hqNOQt-2AfeVEpDuc7sCA.

Is FamilySearch.org AI Really AI?

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 14:28:39 +0000

There are a few places on the FamilySearch.org website that appear to be AI driven. I am not certain which of these features are seen by which users. The AI research Assistant appears on my startup page. From time-to-time, I check to see what the suggested ancestors "who could grow" my family tree work out. Here is an example using the first "ancestor" on the list I found at the time of this post, "William Thurston 1809-1871 2Z3W-1N2."

It turns out that William Thurston 2Z3W-1N2 is a cousin (not technically an ancestor) who is connected to me by a link going back to 1702 through one of my less reliable lines. The record the hint takes me to is a birth record for "Infant Thurston."

If I put aside my concerns about the accuracy of the line leading up to and then down to William Thurston, I could easily attach this record to the Family Tree. It could be a baby that died in infancy. The record does show a William Thurston with a "no name" female born in March of 1848. This list of birth is not chronologically organized. There are birth from various years including dates back to 1828. the date in question is this number.

The number to me that it could be 1848. By the way, a quick check with Google Gemini about this document shows that it is not the complete document. Gemini seems to think the document says 1847 and that the "no name" children died in infancy. This raises the question of whether this child was stillborn (by our current definition) or lived for a period of time. The entry on the FamilySearch Family Tree for William Thurston already shows a child born in 1848 who shows no death date.

Now lets look at the William Thurston family. William, his wife, Eleanor Chase, and all the children were born in Bristol, Massachusetts. The suggested record is from Massachusetts. Birth Records 1847 | Barnstable. Birth Records 1848. Well, Barnstable and Bristol are almost at opposite ends of Massachusetts.

The record set of the vital records is actually the following.

Assuming that this one child was somehow born in a different county from the one where the family lived, there is already a child in the family born in 1848 who has a source showing she was two years old in the 1850 US Census.

So, without going through my whole family line, I would still not add this child to a family that already had a child born the same year and shows up in the 1850 US Census as a two year old.

Now what did the FamilySearch AI want me to do? If I ignored the fact that the suggested child was said to belong to William Thurston 2Z3W-1N2 who I might be related to and if I fail to check and simply believe what is offered by the AI Research Assistant, I find this is the family that the child would be attached to.

This is not even a valid record and who I am not at all related to.

So much for the AI Assistant.

US Copyright Law vs. AI

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Mon, 07 Sep 2026 14:11:48 +0000

There are three areas of U.S. law in which prediction of outcomes of litigation is difficult to impossible. The three areas include tax law, immigration law, and copyright law. The few contradictory statutory provisions in each of these three areas change on almost a daily basis. Most U.S. citizens have a vague, if not inaccurate, understanding of U.S. copyright law. For individuals and not major corporations, the rule that all copyright claims must be filed in the federal courts makes pursuing a claim of breach of copyright almost unavailable to the average citizen.

Let me explain this in simpler terms. Basic copyright law, as it is expressed in the statutory base, is easily obtained from the U.S. Copyright Office, which is part of the Library of Congress. See https://www.copyright.gov/ You can see the entire statutory law from this website by selecting a menu item to look at the law itself. See https://www.copyright.gov/title17/ To even begin to understand copyright law, you would need to study and understand all the provisions of Title 17 of the United States Code. However, the rest of the bulk of the U.S. copyright law is not readily available. Most of what is considered to be "the law" in the United States is court-made law by judges' decisions in specific lawsuits. To resolve any particular questions regarding copyright coverage and application, you would have to do extensive research on all U.S. court cases decided since the inception of copyright around the time of the U.S. Civil War.

If you want to get started with the existing court decisions, you can do a quick search on it, a program from Google called scholar.google.com. https://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&as_sdt=3,45. Do a general search on copyright law, and you will find a response that shows about 180,000 cases. Major copyright cases can cost the litigants tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars.

What about the current status of copyright and AI? Here is the report from the copyright office in a part of the website called "Copyright and Artificial Intelligence." See https://www.copyright.gov/ai/. Here is a quote from the website about the current status of AI and Copyright law.

Since launching an initiative in early 2023, the Copyright Office has been examining the copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI), including the scope of copyright in AI-generated works and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training. After hosting public listening sessions and webinars, the Office published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register in August 2023, which received over 10,000 comments by December 2023.

If you know anything about copyright or AI, you will realize that the U.S. government's efforts to address the issues cannot possibly keep up with the changes occurring on an almost weekly basis. Here is a screenshot of the Copyright Office's most recent announcements.

Here is the Copy Office's summary of the most recent release "Issue No. 1060 - January 29, 2025."

Today, the U.S. Copyright Office is releasing Part 2 of its Report on the legal and policy issues related to copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). This Part of the Report addresses the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI. The Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. The Office confirms that the use of AI to assist in the process of creation or the inclusion of AI-generated material in a larger human-generated work does not bar copyrightability. It also finds that the case has not been made for changes to existing law to provide additional protection for AI-generated outputs.

Just ask yourself, "What has changed in AI from January of 2025?"

As an experienced trial attorney, if you ask me about a specific AI versus copyright issue, at the time of this post, I could not answer the question without spending a considerable amount of time on research. Even if I did the research, my conclusion would be my personal opinion. My review would have to include all the recent decisions made about copyright law. For example Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.C. Cir. 2025; U.S. Supreme Court, cert. denied March 2, 2026) See https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-449.html

What more can I say?

Privacy and online family history

noreply@blogger.com (James Tanner) — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 12:03:48 +0000

I may use AI, specifically Google Gemini, to assist me in research, composition, and editing of my blog post; however, the ideas and content of this blog are my own.

One of the first things you should know about genealogy is that dead people do not have any rights to privacy. One legal example is the case of Mrs. Alline E. Cordell, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Detective Publications, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 419 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1969). That case held the following:

The courts are virtually unanimous in ruling that incidental mention of a plaintiff in a suit brought for the invasion of a relative's privacy is not an actionable tort. Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal. 2d 315, 323-324, 239 P.2d 876 (1952); Metter v. Los Angeles Examiner, 35 Cal. App. 2d 304, 310-311, 95 P.2d 491 (1939); James v. Screen Gems, Inc., 174 Cal. App. 2d 650, 653, 344 P.2d 799 (1959); Bradley v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 26 Ill.App. 2d 331, 333, 336, 168 N.E.2d 64 (1960); Carlson v. Dell Pub. Co., 65 Ill.App.2d 209, 213 N.E.2d 39 (1965); Kelley v. Post Pub. Co., 327 Mass. 275, 278, 98 N.E.2d 286 (1951); see Milner v. Red River Valley Pub. Co., 249 S.W.2d 227 (Tex.Civ.App.1952). Cf. Annerino v. Dell Pub. Co., 17 Ill.App.2d 205, 210, 149 N.E.2d 761 (1958) (case not dismissed because defendant published a photograph of the plaintiff, wife of the decedent against whom the complaint focused its attack).

The Court also states:

As the District Court found, this is a case of an alleged unauthorized public disclosure of private matters. Certain limitations have almost universally been imposed on this kind of tort. Prosser, Torts, § 112, at 843 (3d ed. 1964). The cause of action is regarded as purely personal, and only the person about whom facts have unauthorizedly been published may recover. Consequently, the right lapses with the death of the person who enjoyed it, and one cannot recover for this kind of invasion of the privacy of a relative, no matter how close the relationship.

Over the years, certain exceptions to the no privacy after death rulings have been made for commercial, medical, and digital estates. Here are three examples of statutory exceptions carving out parts of the general rule:

Codification of Post-Mortem Rights of Publicity (Property vs. Privacy)

At the time of Cordell, appropriation was still viewed primarily as a personal privacy tort that expired at death. Beginning in the late 1970s and accelerating through the 1980s and 1990s:

The right to control the commercial use of one's name, likeness, image, and voice was decoupled from personal privacy and reclassified as a transferable property right.
Over 25 states enacted dedicated post-mortem right-of-publicity statutes (such as California's Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act and Tennessee's Personal Rights Protection Act) that allow heirs and estates to enforce commercial likeness protections for decades after death.

Statutory Medical Privacy (HIPAA Omnibus Rule)

Prior to federal health privacy rules, hospital records of the deceased were governed haphazardly by state law.

Under the 2013 HIPAA Omnibus Rule (45 C.F.R. § 164.502(f)), a decedent’s protected health information (PHI) remains subject to federal privacy protections for 50 years following their death.

Digital Estate Laws (RUFADAA)

Because the common law in 1969 did not envision digital identities, cloud data, or online accounts, the Uniform Law Commission introduced the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA) in 2015.

Adopted in almost every U.S. jurisdiction, RUFADAA prevents estates and fiduciaries from automatically accessing private digital communications (emails, direct messages) unless the decedent explicitly granted consent in an estate planning instrument or via an online legacy setting.

What this means for genealogists is that an unhealthy attitude toward privacy risks work being permanently lost upon their death. Even more importantly, excessive privacy restrictions often mean researchers spend years duplicating work that others have already completed. We share our genealogy for the simple reason that we share a common ancestry with all our cousins.