Bio Parents vs. Guardians
Programming glitch:
My great-grandfather, Henry Clay Rogers (LTHX-HLS), was orphaned at a young age.
The FamilySearch tree correctly reflects both his biological parents, Daniel Rodgers (2ZS7-YNM) and Mary Balding (G724-NV7), as well as the couple who became his guardians: Duren V Rogers (LCZH-Q2N), Daniel's first cousin, and his wife, Mary's sister, Susan Balding (GHKQ-WL5).
The problem is that when FamilySearch calculates relationships or sends notices about "your great-great-grandparents," Duren and Susan are identified as my direct ancestors, despite the fact that their relationship to my great-grandfather is clearly recorded as "guardinaship," not biological. Sounds to me like an interesting problem for a programmer. Or am I missing something?
Best Answers
-
As I understand the thread the issue came up because of a marketing email. Because the preferred setting depends on the user it is not selected properly by those who create the marketing letters. They do not sign in as a helper to each user but have some general way of determining relationships. I believe that is the issue with respect to these marketing emails.
2 -
While the "preferred" checkmark is a per-user preference, it has to have a global default or starting value. This is what people will see if they've never looked at a particular profile before.
I believe campaigns and Discovery pages have in common that they do not use the per-user "preferred" setting. They use the global default.
I have no clue how this default is chosen. I suspect it's something simple but utterly unpredictable, like "first entered" or "latest created".
0
Answers
-
Where do you have the preferred parent flag? Is it on his biological parents or the guardian parents?
2 -
Biological parents are preferred, not Duren and Susan. I only allowed the relationship with Duren and Susan to stay because (1) Henry is enumerated in their household in 1850, and because he shares Duren's last name, people assume he was Duren's son, and (2) they migrated together to Kansas; their lives intertwined from the time his parents died until Duren, himself, died. But Duren's father was not Henry Clay's grandfather; he was his grand-uncle.
0 -
CecelliaRogers You do not have bio parents marked as preferred. That is why the "view my relationship" is working inappropriately. Change the preferred setting and it should work.
0 -
Gail,
With respect, you and Amy are mistaken. 😣
On MY tree, his bio parents ARE marked as preferred. I believe the preference box is not a universal setting but is a personal preference. My family tree displays his bio parents, not the guardians. It's the underlying programming that continues to show you and Amy and presumably the rest of the world that his guardians are preferred. And this programming error is fed into the applications that compute relationships among users.
It will be a shame, but if FamilySearch cannot remedy this with a programming fix, I will simply delete the guardianship relationship altogether.
0 -
I was only asking where you had the preferred flag. Yes, the flag is set for each user. I was wondering if the flag setting is what is causing you to get notifications that aren't correct.
Send an email to Ron Tanner - ron@familysearch.org and ask him to have someone look into this for you. I also find it strange that you are getting notifications for a guardianship line and not a biological line.
1 -
Thank you so much Amy. I'll do that. (Really don't want to have to delete the relationship.)
0 -
I'm wondering if the reporting is pulling that guardian relationship because the marriage date of that relationship is before the marriage date of the biological relationship. If so, I would think the software could be tweaked to follow the biological flag instead of the relationship date. If that is what it is doing. I really don't know what it is doing - just another idea to help to try to figure it out.
2 -
Ron tells me there's no problem. "This is because Family Tree honors your preferred parents selection and treats them as your true relationships. If you want to remove the preference and prefer your real family line, then we will follow that line. We do not look at the relationships with regards to preferred designations."
I give up.
0 -
CecelliaRogers So I still see the setting as what you say you do not. Attached is my view. Can you please upload a screen shot of the same view as YOU see it?
0 -
Gail,
I am including a screenshot, just to drive home the point that I know what I'm talking about. I was an IBM programmer for many years, so not a novice to computers. With Amy's help, the issue has been referred to FamilySearch (see thread above). The latest from Ron, after I sent him a screenshot of the email message calling Duran and Susan my ancestors: "This is a campaign. I will forward to that teamz" I leave it in their hands.
0 -
The "campaign" to which Ron refers:
0 -
0
-
So now we have established that the preferred setting is unstable. Does that bother only me??
0 -
The preferred setting is based upon a user's preference. Each user can have their own preferred flag set for relationships. And can change it at any time. The reporting function of the Family Tree uses the preferred flag: pedigree charts, fan charts, family group records, etc.
What it looks like is happening, is that a marketing campaign is not utilizing the preferred flag and that is causing the confusion for users. For this example in this thread it is showing a user that these people are her ancestors who are not her direct ancestors.
0 -
I don't believe the Campaigns uses the current live data but only updates periodically therefore there will be a delay. It could be that the Campaign has not updated from the last time the preferred flag was set or as Amy offered, the Campaign is not recognizing the flag.
0 -
Amy Archibald, YES, indeed " this example in this thread it is showing a user that these people are her ancestors who are not her direct ancestors"!!! and I beg to differ with you that the setting is based on user preference. We have not established any preference on the vast majority of ancestors we have in the FamilySearch lines. I sometimes go to the pedigree and enjoy scrolling back to the 1400s on a particular line, and decide on a whim to look more closely at someone. A preferred setting is already established! I did not set it!
No, I feel something here is broken.
0 -
Gail,
Nothing is broken except, as Ron and Amy point out, a marketing campaign (or the peripheral Are You Related? app) is not reading the "preferred" flag.
In any instance where an individual has multiple spouses or multiple parental relationships, one entry will be selected by default as preferred. Imagine your grandfather had two wives. His grandchildren from the first wife would prefer the pairing with the grandmother from whom they descend, while grandchildren from the second wife would prefer that pairing. Neither one is right or wrong; it's a personal choice.
That said, when it comes to parents, I would be happier if the system would "read" the relationship description and, as in the case I described above, make the bio parents preferred by default, to be changed only by intentional action by a user (and only for that user). Since Amy's screenshot indicates my g-grandfather's guardians as the preferred couple (presumably by default), this doesn't seem to be the case.
1 -
I would like to speak to this but NOT as a moderator. This is personal. There is an issue because for the discovery page it ignores my husband and my family despite the fact we have 10 children. None of us are mentioned. Our marriage is marked preferred but does not show on that discovery page. Still his first wife, divorced and sealing canceled, is the one who is on the discovery page. I try not to be angry but it is hard. Only way to change that is to delete their marriage relationship which deletes their children.
This needs changed.
0 -
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
I am NOT sure, WHY, you raised the matter, of the "Discovery Pages", in "Ancestors,FamilySearch" [ .org ], here, in this particular post.
Please be, aware; and, advised ...
That the "Discovery Pages", in "Ancestors,FamilySearch" [ .org ],
(1) DO NOT; and,
(2) SHOULD NOT,
record/display, ANY "Living" People, associated with the individual/person, of the particular "Discovery Page", in "Ancestors,FamilySearch" [ .org ].
THAT, is a MATTER, of "Privacy", for "Living" People ...
[ Not to forget, to mention, for us "Living" Users/Patrons ... ]
Whereas ...
As to the, MANY; Many; many, (OTHER) things, that are OMITTED, from the "Discovery Pages", in "Ancestors,FamilySearch" [ .org ], of an individual/person (eg. Additional Spouses) ...
Well ... that is another matter ... that has been raised, by many.
MANY, Many, many, Users/Patrons are NOT happy/pleased, that the "Discovery Pages", in "Ancestors,FamilySearch" [ .org ], of an individual/person, actually OMIT pertinent information.
Just my thughts.
Brett
0 -
I brought it up because it is not paying attention to preferences as was the original posters concern.
As for living two of my children are dead as is their father. They do not show in the discovery page.
0 -
Thank you annewandering! I stand by my previous comment that we have proved in this conversation that the preferred setting is not stable or reliable. It should not look different to different people. It should be a stable setting that if changed, is changed for everyone. If changed back, it should be changed back for everyone. How on earth would the tree software "know" which preferred setting should be interpreted for me if my "line" is visible under both parents? Answer: it can't. And we know that situation occurs most of the time. We also know when people have carefully identified "step" and "biological" it is ignored. So ... not stable or reliable.
0 -
FYI
This post, has NOTHING to do, with the "Discovery Pages", in "Ancestors,FamilySearch" [ .org ].
The matter, of "Discovery Pages", in "Ancestors,FamilySearch" [ .org ], is ENTIRLEY unrelated, to this post.
And, should NOT be raised, in the context, of this post.
Brett
0 -
Gail
FYI
Please be, aware; and, advised ...
That the "Preferred" Couple (or, Family), option/preference, was originally established, long ago, for individual Users/Patrons to indicate:
(1) Which "Preferred" Couple (or, Family), they WANT, to APPEAR, in the "Pedigree" View, on THEIR "Pedigree" page/screen.
And, ASLO ...
(2) For those, who ARE Members of the Church, for the way, things appear, for "Temple" Work.
"Changing" the "Preferred" Couple (or, Family) principally works for those TWO (x2) situations/circumstances.
As far as I am aware ...
"Preferred" Couple (or, Family), option/preference, has NOTHING to do with either,
(1) "View My Relationship"; or,
(2) the "Discovery Pages", in "Ancestors,FamilySearch" [ .org ]
Here is a "Knowledge Article", in 'FamilySearch':
How do I set the preferred spouse or parents in Family Tree?
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-set-the-preferred-spouse-or-parents
Which states, among other things:
Quote
------------------
In Family Tree, a person can have more than 1 spouse or set of parents. In this case, you can choose the preferred spouse or parents that you want to see on a pedigree view.
Here are the impacts of setting the preferred spouse or parents:
- You see all spouses and parents on the person page.
- You see only the preferred spouse and parents in pedigree views and on printed family group records. Only the preferred spouse's or parents' descendants and ancestors show.
- Only you see your changes to the preferred spouse or parents. Other users can choose their own.
- The preferred spouse or parents remain set until you change it.
- Setting a preferred spouse or parents affects how Source Linker works. The Source Linker only aligns the preferred spouse and children of that couple.
- The person page displays couples by marriage date. Setting the preferred parents does not affect the order in which the parents are shown on the child's person page.
------------------
I know, that this certainly may not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
1
