Is Find A Grave ready to change?
It’s been a long-term, persistent, growing problem at Find A Grave: that people utterly unassociated with a recently-deceased person race the grieving family to be the first to create a memorial.
The Legal Genealogist has added this blog’s voice to those calling for a moratorium on non-family-members posting memorials for the recently-deceased to give the families involved a chance to deal with a loved one’s death before some stranger spreads the information into a space on the ethernet that the family hadn’t yet occupied.
In A modest proposal, I suggested a 90-day moratorium on allowing strangers to post memorials to the site1 — others have suggested 30 days, even a couple of weeks2 — to give the families of the recently deceased time to come to terms with their loss before an utter stranger is allowed to add a memorial to that website.
And every time the proposal comes up, the Find A Grave apologists are out in force to argue that this small concession to the grief of the families would destroy the website, is inconsistent with its purposes and that families shouldn’t have obituaries or death notices online if they don’t want strangers creating memorials before the deceased is even buried.
Every. Single. Time.
Leopards, it seems, don’t change their spots.
Or do they?
This week, a post in the Find A Grave News & Announcements seems to suggest that maybe — just maybe — Find A Grave is beginning to understand that it has a problem here. In the post, Memorials for the Recently Deceased, the site notes that the problem is “unusual” but concedes that it “can make a challenging time more difficult.”3
And it offers a rough outline of one idea to deal with the issue and asks for thoughts, ideas and comments to be posted on the proposal.
Here’s what’s being considered:
• “When someone creates a memorial for someone who has died within the past year we would ask for their relationship. (One year is a starting point, but we’d be curious to hear your opinion on how long this time should be.)”
• “If the person creating the page is not related within our transfer guidelines (this is currently direct line relatives within 4 generations, but we’d appreciate your thoughts on this too), we would let them know that the memorial will be in a provisional state and that if a family member would like to claim it, we will transfer it to them.”
• “Once the memorial is created, it would look like any other memorial, but we would add some messaging to let family members know they can claim the page. (What message do you think would be appropriate?)”
• If the family member was related within the transfer guidelines, he or she would need to have or create an account and the memorial would be transferred to the family member automatically. “Once they were signed in we would transfer the memorial to them and ask if they would like the page to continue to say ‘Created by [original creator]’ or not. If they say no, we would remove the reference to the original creator and just say, ‘Managed by [new person].’”
This isn’t a proposal for a moratorium on posting by strangers for a time to give families a chance to post their own memorials — the spots haven’t changed completely. My own view is that the provisional memorial should not be made live online until the end of the moratorium period. Only family members should be allowed to post within some set time after a death.
But it’s a start.
It suggests that Find A Grave is at least beginning to listen.
Which means those who think we need a moratorium need to speak out.
The Find A Grave post says: “We’d love to hear what you think about this idea or any other ideas you have in the comments on this page.”
That page is here: “Memorials for the Recently Deceased.”
If this is an issue you care about, speak up.
Do it on that page.
Do it now.
Before the leopards decide not to change their spots.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Of leopards and spots,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 31 Oct 2019).
SOURCES
- Judy G. Russell, “A modest proposal,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 5 Aug 2019 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 31 Oct 2019). ↩
- See e.g. Amy Johnson Crow, “How FindAGrave Could – and Should – Be Made Better,” Amyjohnsoncrow.com, posted 21 Oct 2016 (https://www.amyjohnsoncrow.com/ : accessed 31 Oct 2019). ↩
- “Memorials for the Recently Deceased,” News & Announcements, Find A Grave (https://news.findagrave.com/ : accessed 31 Oct 2019). ↩
Thank you, Judy. I’ve added my thoughts to the Find-A-Grave site.
Happy to see Find A Grave considering this issue. My comment left on their website. Thanks, Judy.
I’ve just given Find A Grave my four cents worth concerning what they should do. My statement will probably make some “obituary vultures” mad. I noticed that all posts to that page are moderated.
These days, just about everything NEEDS to be moderated. You wouldn’t believe the spammers who jump on every open platform… (At this moment I have 804 posts in my blog’s spam filter…)
Good Grief!! I guess some people have no life.
🙂
Leave findagrave as it is. If there are restrictions as to who and when a memorial can be created there will be fewer memorials made. Who is so possessive of a grave site that they won’t let anyone else honor the person buried there? Would they also remove flowers placed there by non family members?
I can tell findagrave anything. How will they know Auntie Gertrude is not really my aunt but a close friend of my parents? Or that she lived next door when I was a child? OR, perish the thought, that I belong to my local historical society who tries to keep information like that available for anyone who inquires?
How many people will be forgotten if there are restrictions on making the memorial? I didn’t start genealogy until I was 65. What if the ancestors I didn’t/don’t know existed never got a findagrave? You are extremely lucky if all your research is easily found in local archives. I am not so lucky. I thank the people who put my family memorials on findagrave no matter when or why they did it.
The idea that people will not make memorials if they need to wait a short time to give space to the grieving family does a terrible disservice to Find A Grave volunteers. I’m not ready to say they’re so selfish or mean that they’ll refuse to create memorials if they have to wait a few weeks. Why are you so convinced of this?
I draw a distinction between someone who actually walks a cemetery and records those buried there and someone who posts an obituary online within hours of the death. The first individual is providing a meaningful service. The second individual is intruding into the lives of those grieving and cannot have visited the cemetery and taken a photo because the deceased has not been buried. Most, if not all, obituaries are posted on the funeral home’s website as well as in the local newspaper. There is no immediate need for that second person to intrude at a time of grieving by posting an obituary at Find A Grave.
agreed.
Thanks for continuing to spotlight this issue, Judy.
There are many problems with Find A Grave. But none seems as pressing as the need to value the feelings of mourners, above some perceived need to immediately post a memorial on a for-profit website … a website that, frankly, many non-genealogists don’t even know exists.
Please make sure you comment on the Find A Grave page…
It’s already closed. Guess findagrave is as unresponsive as always…
We can hope that the vast majority of opinions expressed while comments were open will be heard and acted on…
Hi, Judy. I’ll admit that I was not aware of this problem until you brought it to my attention with your recent blog posts. In fact, I have been grateful to those who posted the information about distant relatives on Find-A-Grave, because I often would not know the name of the funeral home or the relevant newspapers. Find-A-Grave led me to the information I needed when Google did not. That said, my eyes are now open and I support what you and others are calling for.
It seems to me that the problem is not necessarily that the information is posted at Find-A-Grave, but that control of the information is usurped from the family by strangers. I’ve thought a good bit about it now, and have an idea that I’ve not seen mentioned in the various discussions. I’d appreciate your opinion before I add my comment to the Find-A-Grave notice.
One entity that plays a pivotal role in the period of grieving is the funeral home that the family has entrusted with arrangements. Most newspapers I have dealt with will publish only an obituary that comes from a funeral home. They know that it is the family’s “official” statement. I can see a role for funeral homes in the Find-A-Grave situation, to the extent that they want to become involved. When the funeral home asks the family to which newspapers the obituary should be sent, they could also ask about Find-A-Grave.
If the family authorizes the funeral home to create the memorial at Find-A-Grave, it will appear before the “vultures” get a chance to act. Also, the funeral home would “own” the memorial page on behalf of the family and would know better than anyone to whom it should transfer the page. If no one wants it after a set period of time, the funeral home could release it to Find-A-Grave, but in the interim, the family would have control through their selected agent. On the other hand, if the family expresses its decision that a memorial page NOT be created during the period of grieving (to be determined), the funeral home could convey that information to Find-A-Grave through a process that Find-A-Grave would establish.
I’m not saying that all funeral homes would want to do this, but for those who are willing, it would give Find-A-Grave a level of comfort to know that the creator of the page is representing the family.
Your thoughts?
I certainly see no reason not to allow an agent to act on behalf of the family, whether it’s a funeral home or someone else. That would simply be an additional way to authenticate a memorial posted during the moratorium period, in my view. It is coming from the family, through a trusted intermediary, authorized by the family to act on its behalf. It just may be more than Find A Grave can handle in the “who’s allowed and who’s not” system.
I just read your post, went to Find-a-Grave, and found comments already closed.
After reading many comments, I can’t help wondering if there is a way for Find-a-Grave to permit people to CREATE memorials quickly, but to postpone publishing for 6-12 months to allow family to grieve.
The current behavior by some posters on Find-a-Grave is offensive to some religions by showing callous disregard for mourning traditions. Thank you for continuing to write about this. Last time I checked, it was called Find-a-Grave, not Find-an-Obituary and not Find-a-Death Notice.
They closed the comments already…
I was surprised at how fast they closed comments — but the comments were overwhelmingly in one direction: a period of moratorium where only family members can post.
Comments have been closed. Personal matters (including my religious Sabbath) have kept me away from the Internet, so Judy’s posting here is my first inkling of this thing.
My first question: How would FAG verify that the person is a family member? FAG would need to implement some sophisticated security measures. FAG wants to keep itself open and simple, but is purportedly considering the feelings of the surviving family members; whether this is out of genuine humane considerations or fear of a public backlash I do not know, but suspect that the latter is a larger component than the former.
In an ideal world, everyone’s genealogy would be open and publicly known. But the world is not ideal, nor is it simple. The Law of Unintended Consequences must be given its due regard by those of us in Genealogyland and beyond.
My own family’s experience: My sister died in Florida on 27 April 2014. The very next day (28 April 2014), one “Peggy English” took it upon herself to set up a memorial on FAG — Actual burial did not occur until 29 April 2014 (which I arranged and attended). My mom and I ordered the gravestone on 1 March 2015, and the unveiling of the stone did not occur until 19 July 2015 (which I did not attend because I am now overseas).
I received a photo of the stone unveiling from a friend who was in attendance, and on 26 July 2015 I posted it on the FAG memorial that “Peggy English” had created.
[ https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/128696317/ ].
We would have greatly preferred to set up the FAG memorial page on our own terms AFTER the stone had been unveiled.
Our disaffection was a minor inconvenience to us, but I can easily see other families finding such pre-emption to be a traumatic experience, especially if the death was premature or unnatural; it subsequently came to my attention that a 3rd cousin of mine had suicided; her dad, who did not take it well at all at all, did not want a FAG memorial to be established for her.
Bottom line: FAG cannot have it both ways! If it really intends to go easy on the surviving family then there must be a strict time frame (my own sentiments would be 90 days) on the creation of memorial pages (or, alternatively, allow the creation but place an embargo on the actual display of the pages).
I created a simple memorial the day that my father in law passed on Nov 10. On Nov 16, some stranger created copy/paste of the obit. Find A Grave deleted mine on 11/22, gave her the photo and linking up I did because mine didn’t have enough information. I am waiting for a response to my appeal, but not happy at all that this happened.
That’s simply outrageous. Find A Grave had better fix that.
Thank you, I am still waiting for a response from both the person who created the duplicate and Findagrave. I did a post on Random Acts of Kindness FB page and the post was deleted. I have shared your post on my Facebook page, hoping to bring more awareness to this.
Update: The contributor replied back and transferred my father in laws memorial back to me. I still haven’t received a response from Findagrave.
Glad the contributor did the right thing.
Dawn, why do you believe your memorial was merged into the newer memorial because yours “didn’t have enough information”? The normal protocol (99.99% of the time) is for the newer memorial to be merged into the older, regardless of the amount of information. We are supposed to search prior to creating a memorial so duplicates are not created. The .01% that are merged the other direction (older into newer) are cases where the older one was not created in the correct cemetery or there was a significant change to the name such that the older memorial could not be found in a search.