Best Of
Re: Recent Changes to FamilySearch Record Search are HORRIBLE! Change It Back Now!!!
1000% agree - the new search UI rots - presentation of results all presented as a single list with zero ability to break it up" into overarching categories - unless you force one and only one such over arching category to be listed. It was EXTREMELY USEFUL having the ability to group the search results into the overarching categories. Having the records merely presented as one big list is far less informative and only poses confusion in keeping things straight in one's mind. The functionality the old search UI offered was extremely easy to use and aided in reviewing the result obtained. Why the near version did not exploit what was extremely useful in the old version and present greater ability within its general use patterns is puzzling. Why do upgrades ignore the user base when it comes to usability? This new search UI needs a lot of upgrades on the usability front!!!
Re: Recent Changes to FamilySearch Record Search are HORRIBLE! Change It Back Now!!!
I too HATE this new version of Family Search! I don't recall anyone complaining about the previous version being hard to use, please tell us WHY someone got the IDEAL it needed to be changed! You don't fix what's already helping us find our ancestors. I've also noticed that the 1900 census doesn't seem to appear on all family members why is that?
Re: Recent Changes to FamilySearch Record Search are HORRIBLE! Change It Back Now!!!
Oh I agree! I hate this new format! Please change back. This is not very user friendly. Can't find anything! 😐️Talked to two friends that said the same thing. Please do something!
Change amount in Ordinances Ready
We sometimes do two sessions, or sessions in two temples in a matter of a few days. It would be so much better to be able to select 1, 2, or 3 endowments to be printed from the Ordinances Ready option than the default of 1. Then we would have cards ready to do without having to reprint between every endowment session.
Re: How to guess which person is the same (or maybe it's wiser to not guess at all)
The answer to the "which one?" question may very well be "neither". Most weddings took place in the bride's place of residence, since it was generally her father paying for the party.
In addition to Gail's excellent advice, a few pointers more specific to Europe:
The choice of church wasn't random. Consult a gazetteer to find out where the residents of a particular village were obligated to have their vital events recorded. Gazetteers can also tell you the different names for a place, and the more completionist ones will also list things like named settlements or farms that belonged administratively to a particular place. Also check historical maps to see where the roads were at the time. Distance "as the crow flies" is much less relevant than actual traveling distance.
Always consider the possibility of unindexed records, as well as badly misindexed ones. Also, don't trust FamilySearch's placename fields in indexes. The autostandardization bot has badly corrupted the entire database, and many indexed collections have overcompensated for the errors: instead of (mis)identifying the town, the "event place" fields now just stop at the country. This means that if you try to use the place fields or filters in Search - Records, you may very well be missing the entries you're looking for.
As a workaround for FS's placename difficulties, you can use the Catalog, although it introduces an increasing number of obstacles. The latest one is the disimproved place search algorithm. (It still can't find Viennese records, for example.) You can try using the keyword field to work around that problem with the workaround. Another obstacle is that the catalog is now noticeably stale, because it hasn't been updated in three years (and apparently isn't planned to be refreshed any time soon). This means that the access symbols may be inaccurate: there may now be an index associated with some of the images on a previously-unindexed film, for example. A third possible obstacle is that many index entries have had extra characters added to the field with the image group or film number, and the search algorithm for that field doesn't necessarily consider "008017823_001_M99M-FG6" to be a match to "8017823". (They do seem to have loosened things slightly, though.)
With those caveats in mind, you can use film numbers to narrow your results, and then search by just given names, for example. (I find that those are somewhat less likely to be completely misread by indexers, probably because there were a lot fewer of them in use than there were surnames.)
Re: How to guess which person is the same (or maybe it's wiser to not guess at all)
The quick answer is to develop strategies and follow them. Of course, none may pan out and that just makes life difficult. BUT here are suggestions.
- Research the deaths of the two Michael Sarnowskis, pile up as many documents as you can, and then try to work backwards. Use wills, land deeds, newspapers, census records, and any other records available. It appears these people did not live in the US, so I am not sure what type of records are available. Also research their widows if the wives outlived the men. Look for clues and then begin to work backwards in time towards those marriage records you have. Again, pile up all records you find, even if you think they are useless. Like pieces of a puzzle, several records together may prove solid information.
- Start with the marriages and research all the children of each couple. Again, leave no stone unturned. Document the entire lives of all children as much as possible through marriage and their deaths.
- Research who the 2 sets of parents of the Michael Sarnowskis might be. Research them and all their children, looking for clues.
I have 3 male cousins born in the 1820s and 30s of the same name, living in the same town and sorting them out is nearly impossible. Strategies #1 and #2 have not worked for me other than I have nicely documented lives of 3 sets of couples and their children (and each of them continued the ridiculous tradition of having a son with their given name). I am in the process of working through #3, and so far it has separated one of the individuals, I'm pleased to say.
Good luck!
Re: Sources being added by missionaries?
According to the research wiki page for this recently released collection, this Social Security collection has 146,872,508 source records for deceased people.
Also recently, there have a few complaints posted here in Community from people feeling overwhelmed because their Hints lists went from a few dozen to hundreds of hints.
It sounds like someone has put together a group of volunteers to help take care of hints from this database. I would hope with thorough instructions on how to attach hints correctly and now to not create a bunch of duplicates in Family Tree. If done well, such a project could be very beneficial. If done poorly, it will lead to the same complaints as some of the census projects.
I highly doubt there is any concern with scammers here. What scammer would so blatantly announce his presence by actually attaching the source and announcing to the world "I was here!"? Red flags are not usually proudly waved by the person being flagged.
Dark Mode
Many digital services around the globe feature options to change the appearance of the Graphical User Interface. The most common of these options is Light and Dark Mode.
Currently, FamilySearch exclusively uses Light Mode, featuring black text on a light-colored background. Dark Mode is the opposite, with white text on a dark background.
Many users prefer Dark Mode over Light Mode. By nature, it exhibits less harmful blue light, making it less harsh on the eyes and allowing for better sleep. Some users will use Light Mode during the day, and Dark Mode after the sun sets. And other users, especially in the younger generations, simply use Dark Mode all the time, finding it more aesthetically pleasing.
I would greatly appreciate the addition of Dark Mode to FamilySearch. And I'm certain that others would as well, especially the younger generations. It may even help youth become interested in FamilySearch.
EDIT:
Dark Mode already exists for Family Trees, as well as for the messaging. These are great, but I'd love to see a system-wide Dark Mode.
Re: Doubt about match because of age
Per the index, Joannes Killian had two wives and eight children in the first quarter of the 1800s in Reichfelde:
Joannes Killian and Catharina:
Anna circa 1802, died 1807
Catharina 1805, died 1807
Marianna 1807, died 1814 (with Marianna given as mother)
Joannes Killian and Marianna Sarnowska:
Joannes 1811, died 1814
Josephus 1815
Marianna 1818
Helena 1821
Michael 1824
It's quite possible that Marianna's parents got confused about which surviving child was born in which year. It doesn't look like the priest was checking the baptismal register when entering the marriages. (It's generally pretty obvious when they do: they record ages as years, months, and days.) For an orally-reported age, two years off out of twenty is not that bad.