The recently modified Find function will not locate tombstoned records
Records which have been merged into other records could be located using the find by ID option. With the new modification that ability has been taken away. If records have been incorrectly merged for example and you have the ID of the original record you cannot use the Find function to take you directly to the deleted record if you desire to restore that record. The present Find by ID takes you to the current record in Family Tree which the deleted record has been merged into. This creates a significant difficulty in attempting to restore deleted records.
As an example. Consider the record -- Anna Katrina Persdotter Deceased • M9FC-QWG. This is a deleted record that was merged into --- Anna Cathrina Persdotter 9 March 1860 – deceased • M9DQ-S6M and then merged into ---- Anna Katr Petersdotter 1860 – 1899 • GZZB-QZK. If you use Find by ID and search for M9FC-QWG it takes you to GZZB-QZK and if you look at the merges associated you will not find M9FC-QWG because it was merged with another record that was merged into the final record. To get to the original record one would have to search through all merges in an attempt to locate the original record. Find by ID used to take you to the deleted record so that it could be restored if necessary.
You can still go to the deleted record by entering the ID number in the recents dropdown but that is the only option now. The article from the help center -- How do I restore a deleted record for a person in Family Tree? -- indicates that you should use Find by ID to locate the deleted record. It does not mention using the recents dropdown. Thus we have an article that explains how to do something and a system that does not work.
Please modify the Find by ID operation to go back to taking you to the deleted record or provide another function to get there so that deleted records can easily be restored.
Answers
-
If this were under the Suggest an Idea category it would have a Vote button and I would Upvote it.
0 -
The other option for getting to the merge-deleted profile is from the survivor's change log.
(I still don't understand why anyone uses "Find by ID" for anything. If I have the ID, then I don't need to find it, now do I?)
1 -
We use Find by ID all the time. When someone asks why a certain person has certain issues, we Find-by-ID to look at the person.
1 -
Whilst I agree with you on this for searches when one is working within Family Tree, I would still be inclined to get to the IDs referenced here in Community by opening (in another tab) FamilySearch, then Family Tree, then Find. Using that method seems silly if you are on a Family Tree page, but searching via "Find" seems a pretty direct path from here, and probably other parts of FamilySearch.
1 -
Regarding the main issue, to be honest I don't remember the outcome in searching for deleted / merged IDs under the previous version of "Find". However, it does appear to be yet another issue that needs to be addressed by the engineers, who - sadly - seem not to have arranged for adequate user testing before the revised version was released.
Perhaps @Norm Jones or another moderator would escalate the issue to the appropriate team.
1 -
I suppose if you're on a non-Tree page (where there's no Recents menu), Find and then By ID is as good a "door" as any, but I'd personally just use Find and then Recents. It's fewer steps/clicks.
Hmm: one difference is that the Find page doesn't log you in. (Unlike, say, Family Tree - Tree.) If you go to the Find page without logging in, then of course there's no Recents menu; perhaps that's why people aren't in the habit of using it from there? But you can't look at a profile without logging in, so I see no point in delaying that step.
What isn't clear to me is whether the new smarter-than-thou behavior of Find is meant as a feature or is an unintended flaw. My interpretation leans toward the latter, but I have an aversion to machines behaving as if they know better than me.
2 -
Often I get to a profile on the tree by substituting the PID in the URL of a another profile page I am looking at. I use Find by ID when I want the new profile in a new window.
0 -
I had forgotten the work around of substituting the ID in the url to reach the deleted record. I never use that my preference is to use the dropdown in recents (each of us has their own personal way of navigating the system). The issue really is why would a programmer make a change that makes a help center article be incorrect without notifying the help center managers so that if necessary the article can be revised or the programmers approach could be modified. I have no personal problem with the changes. I can still do what I need to do but what we now have is a procedure documented to help users restore incorrectly merged records --- How do I restore a deleted record for a person in Family Tree? ---- And the procedure in the help center article is useless. There needs to be better coordination between all functions of Family Search. It should not be just what some program designer wants but needs to consider everyone including the users. A similar situation exists and is discussed in other threads with the exact criteria and the Find function.
0 -
I have raised the issue with engineering using the analysis by @gasmodels .
2
