Mandatory "reason" field
I find that in the 1800's and 1700's, some persons just simply add a name without giving a reason or proving it with a source. I would like to have this as mandatory to list a reason and possibly a source. Or at least a comment that the addition came from "my family bible" or "I think this is correct because my relative told me it was correct". If the "reason" field is mandatory, then at least the clues might possibly be correct. What do you think? It is very frustrating when one finds that the name listed is incorrect. It causes a "brick wall" in the research efforts.
Comments
-
Toni
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Although, I understand where you are coming from ...
There is NO point, in making "Reason Statements"; as, "Mandatory".
As I Programmer (and, NOT from 'FamilySearch') once said to me ...
You CANNOT make a "System" FOOLPROOF; as, "Fools" are so INGENIOUS ...
IF, "Reason Statements", are made "Mandatory"; THEN, in MANY cases, ALL that will be there is "Garbage" ...
eg.
▬ Full Stop / Period
▬ "x"; or, "xxx" (or, the like)
▬ Because it was.
▬ My ["Relative"] told me so.
▬ I think so; or, I believe so.
ETC; Etc; etc ...
So ...
That Said ...
The think that is "Really" NEEDED, is "Education'/"Training" ...
eg. "Tutorials" that one MUST "Completed"; BEFORE, being allowed to "Edit"/"Change", in fact, do ANYTHING.
And ...
"Reason Statements" Should NOT be "Mandatory" (ie, "Requited").
Plus ...
Besides ...
IF, the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is made to 'Onerous'; THEN, people will just not bother to engage/participate.
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this certainly is NOT supportive, of your suggested enhancement ; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
1 -
You're wrong. If a reason field is mandatory, people type whatever minimum number of characters or gibberish will get them past it.
I generally type a period.
0 -
yeh - making a field mandatory is one thing . . . .
expecting that making it mandatory somehow means it will magically be populated with valid/accurate/helpful information is a totally different thing.
I think FS has learned time and again . . . making a field mandatory is not the solution (in and of itself) . . .
though I and so many others are all for making the system more accurate and source based . . . .
0
