Please allow us to edit when adding names to FamilySearch
Too often I will add all the information needed to add someone new - full date and place of birth and full date and place of death; just to have Family Search find the person is already listed but with only a year of birth and "deceased" listed etc. If I select that person, then I have to go in and re-type all that informaiton again. Unfortunately, I find it easier to just create the person again and then go in and merge them. It would be so much easier to just let us edit the information when adding them.
thank you.
Comments
-
James
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
You are not alone ...
And, I fully understand where you are coming from ...
Been there ... done that ... still do ...
Now ...
hat Said ...
'Yes', that is correct, we MUST go into, the record the individual/person, that MAY be a Possible "Match" ...
And. 'Yes', we NEED, to enter (or, as you suggest, 're-enter'), what we "believe", is the CORRECT "Vital" information, that is what we SHOULD be doing, on EACH; and, EVERY, occasion ...
Remember, the individual/person that has been suggested; as, a Possible "Match", is just that ... "Possible".
We really NEED to investigate the "Possible" individual/person to ensure, that (in fact) they ARE a Possible "Match".
Admittedly, there may ONLY be a, "Name"; 'Year' and 'Place' of "Birth"; and, "Deceased", for that Possible "Match".
But ...
That Said ...
We NEED to investigate, ALL he other aspects of that individual/person, that can also be applicable, namely (if any), Parents; Siblings; Spouses; Children; and, other "Detail", that may be included.
More often than NOT, there can be COUNTLESS individuals/persons, with the SAME (or. very SIMLAR), "Name"; 'Year' and 'Place' of "Birth"; and, "Deceased".
Please be aware that ...
Genealogy/Family History is NOT a "Sprint" ...
Genealogy/Family History IS a "Marathon" ...
I for one, certainly DO NOT want, the ability; as, you suggest.
One of the MAJOR reasons, for such, is that there are currently, far TOO MANY, "Inexperienced"; and, "Inattentive", Users/Patrons. working, in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch'; and, as such, I would NOT want to given them, such 'licence', inevitably leading to a 'Shortcut', denying both, due process; and, proper research.
The drawback or downside of allowing such; as, you propose, would certainly outweigh any benefit.
'Old School' ... Step by Step ... Line by Line ... precept by precept ...
We should NOT be in so much of a 'Rush' ...
As an aside ...
I have come across MANY individuals/persons, that have either, been "Changed"; or, "Merged"/"Combined", with OTHER individuals/persons, with the SAME "Name" and 'Year' of "Birth", that come from entirely DIFFERENT "Continents" (let alone, "Countries"), by "Inexperienced: and, inattentive Users/Patrons.
I am sorry ...
Just my thoughts.
I know that this does not help; but, I hope that this gives you another perspective.
Brett
0 -
One way to avoid losing your entries due to an existing profile turning up is to try to remember to look for existing profiles before adding people. Of course, Murphy's Law states that the one time you forget to do that is the one time it'll find someone.
But in fact, I think that creating a profile anew and then merging is actually preferable to choosing the person offered up by the Add routine, simply because the merge process offers much greater visibility into both profiles than those uninformative suggestions from the Add routine. You have to go through multiple clicks to open the proffered profile in another tab, and then open your originating profile in yet another tab (because the first instance is currently obscured by the Add popup), and then go back and forth to compare. It's much simpler to just copy the ID of the proferred profile, add your new person, and then paste the copied ID into Merge by ID.
I agree with Brett that editing a proffered match right in the Add screen would be a Bad Idea: as I implied above, there is not nearly enough visibility into the profile to really know whether it's the same person. Allowing one to edit the vitals from there would offer much too great an opportunity for mistakes.
1
