Best Of

@BookWorm5

You asked "Does the community think it would be good for Relationship Viewer to show both paths?"

I would note that the word "both" doesn't really fit, since there are many possible relationship paths between two people in most cases.

Showing multiple paths would require a more complex user interface to allow the user to select the relationship path, and would also take more computing power to calculate all the paths. Is the benefit worth these multiple costs? Personally, I think it would be nice on some rare occasions, but I have plenty of other things I'd rather have FamilySearch work on.

Or does the situation discussed above fall under the category of "Privacy restrictions may prevent the calculator from disclosing very close relationships."

Or, since "You can be related to a someone else in multiple ways. The calculator displays the shortest path between the two of you," does the updated routine always consider a linage by blood to be "shorter" than a linage by marriage no matter how much longer it is?

Would be interesting to hear from one of the design team what is actually occurring in the program. Because there is at least the possibility that the help center article needs to be updated from:

In October 2024, the relationship viewer was enhanced to include relationships through your undivorced spouse’s line.

to:

In October 2024, the relationship viewer was enhanced to include relationships through your undivorced spouse’s line. However, a relationship through you will always take priority over a relationship through a spouse.

We need to hear from someone who actually coded the routine what the intent was.

This issue doesn't seem to have be raised recently, but it has been many times in the past.

The fault partly lies with the source linker, the new version of which still allows for multiple marriage events to be carried across to the profile pages of the individuals concerned. Perhaps the problem does lie in the fact that a marriage event effects a couple, because once one of the other Vitals events (baptism, birth, baptism, death) has been entered on the profile page of an individual, a further event cannot be added - only modified if there is a difference in detail from the data on the source.

There have been general calls for a complete workover of the Couple Relationship section in Family Tree, but that is one part of the program for which improvement had been sadly neglected by the developers.

On the specific issue being raised here, I think most of us would be happy to continue seeing the multiple details, but are certainly not happy that the event with the earliest date (including if it just includes a year, rather than a full date) is programmed to always be placed on the profile page. For example, if I add a source that shows just "1858" for the date of marriage, that will replace the more detailed "3 March 1858" date that has already been inputted. As suggested, the only way to rectify this is to delete the other (less detailed items) that have been added.

One further problem is that sometimes (though less rarely nowadays) an "related" marriage event (e.g., banns or licence) has been indexed as if an actual marriage. This can cause the date of the banns / licence to replace the actual marriage ceremony date on the profile page, too. And, of course, all this is difficult to notice, because the finer detail in the Couple Relationship section is hidden from view when looking at the profile page(s).

@EricShelton - Sorry if I have repeated points you raised in your earlier response.

Thanks, @SerraNola.

I've been meaning to update this thread, but I was unsure how much I should say.

When I returned to the tree, after that much-needed break, I saw that thousands - yes, thousands - of sources had been detached and events deleted. Hundreds of profiles were wiped clean or changed to something unrecognizable. My own mother's profile had been wiped clean; my maternal grandfather's name had been changed, despite all the attached evidence of his exact name. Duplicates had been created; profiles had been merged incorrectly.

I started methodically cleaning up some of the most egregious changes, but the other party was breaking again as quickly as I made repairs. Then, something amazing happened. After about two days, the changes stopped.

I kept working - carefully, methodically - but always looking over my shoulder, watching for the abuse to recur. Then something else wonderful happened. I started to see the profiles return to their former state, with fixes labeled "Change made by authorized support staff." I'm not sure what the tipping point was, but the abuse had been recognized; most profiles were returned to their former condition.

I'm still wary that the other party may come back, but, for now, I mostly have housekeeping chores. Many places lost their standardization, and all the source tags were lost.

Thank you to the support staff who recognized that the problem was real and made the decision to reverse the damage.

I've been meaning to respond to a few topics that were not addressed in this discussion:

From @Paul W "One does despair that the code of conduct here in Community is so strict that members can be banned for breach of its terms and conditions, yet Family Tree users appear to be able to act with impunity in refusing to collaborate with others, or even completely vandalising branches of the tree. "

There does seem to be disparity in how the Code of Conduct is applied between the Community and Family Tree. In Family Tree, Support does not actively monitor or enforce general behavior except through abuse reports. The emphasis is deliberately on users resolving issues among themselves and promoting collaboration. For Family Tree to succeed, everyone needs to take shared responsibility for accuracy and ownership. Support seems to err on the side of self-resolution.

From @MaureenE123 "I ask the moderators to state the options for @Áine Ní Donnghaile to request her abuse to be forwarded "up the line" for review. To me , it does seem to be abuse, even though Family Search Support appear to have dismissed this."

Here’s where—in my opinion, FamilySearch needs to improve the process to better support our patrons. When one repeatedly is unsuccessful in reasoning with certain users, it can jeopardize Family Tree's integrity and Support may overlook these issues if they do not appear malicious. In addition—regardless of intent, errors that result in offensive or inappropriate content can still qualify as abuse. Here are some typical user actions Support may not consider abuse, but that often remain unresolved:

• Repeatedly changing records back to incorrect information after corrections have been made, even when sources and conclusions have been provided
• Entering offensive comments disguised as legitimate data

Patrons shouldn't be left without options for resolution. Our abuse reporting guidelines should clearly answer these two questions:

1. Is there a way to appeal a decision from Support or to have a supervisor or escalation team review it?
2. What should someone do if their issue isn't resolved after contacting Support?

Currently, after Support reviews a case, there isn't a formal process for further internal escalation—beyond resubmitting to Support. Perhaps this process needs reconsideration.