Gender of Children and One Other
I just wanted to briefly leave a message- as we used to be able to do- not join a forum discussion that is not easily found- nor will I attempt to find it again.
I find that I am constantly annoyed by the message that children must have a gender. This is practical- not political. Obituaries CONSTANTLY mention children that die in infancy- without naming them or identifying their sex. I just entered six additional unidentified children, today, and ignored entering ten the other day, because of the ridiculous guideline of entering sex of unidentified children. I deal with this every day, as I am entering obituaries for an entire county. It seems a ridiculous requirement- when, obviously, all children dying in infancy cannot be named or known by sex. We used to be able to do this. It is not an improvement. At any given moment a novice genealogist will see that message and either remove the children or merge them. This is too much work to constantly have it undone.
My second message is in response to attempting to post this message- it is too difficult to find; forum format is undesirable for those just wishing to leave a comment; I shan't monitor this as it was never my intent to precipitate a discussion. Life is too short to get bogged in the weeds of non- genealogy.
Comments
-
If you are talking about adding children in the Family Tree program, why can't you add them with Sex as "Unknown"?
From your second paragraph it seems you have just posted these comments to get something off your chest - i.e., if you don't intend to monitor any responses ("Life is too short...", you say) then why waste your time in the first place?
Actually, I assume I'm wasting my time, if you are not bothering to read any responses to the two issues you raise here. Perhaps I'm having this "discussion" with myself!
0 -
@Paul W –– Profiles can have sex "Unknown" but that causes a red flag warning icon on the profile and in descendancy tree view. The flag cannot be dismissed.
@mayflower63 –– I sympathize!
0 -
Sorry, I did not test this first - as you can see from my comments! Naturally, I can now see the point being made. Perhaps a moderator could pass on to a "specialist team". I don't recall the issue being raised previously. Why have this ("Unknown") option if the warning flag cannot be dismissed?
Yes, @mayflower63, you have raised a valid point and I apologise for my earlier response to you.
0 -
FYI
[ Just in case, you are there ... ]
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
You are not alone ...
As far as I can recall, over the recent Years ...
There have been MANY "Requests", to ALLOW (or, enable) the "Data Problem", of "Male or Female is Required", to be "Dismissed".
As yet, to NO avail ...
Please be, aware; and, advised, that ...
The "Data Problem", was created, as an "Aid", to Users/Patrons, who are Members of the Church, in relation to doing "Temple" Work, for the individual/person concerned.
Unfortunately ...
Such is NOT, "Technically", a "Data Problem", in the sense of a data problem.
[ And, should NOT appear as such ... ]
The Problem/Issue is twofold:
Firstly, that "Data Problem" appears on the "Person/Details" page/screen, of the individual/person concerned.
Secondly, that "Data Problem" CANNOT be "Dismissed".
So ...
That Said ...
Rather than a "Data Problem", on the "Person/Details" page/screen, of the individual/person concerned, the situation/circumstance SHOULD be an, "Advice"; or, "Warning", 'Message', that CAN be "Dismissed".
But ...
That Said ...
With the latter in mind, there SHOULD also be an a corresponding, "Advice"; or, "Warning", 'Message', on the "Ordinances" 'Tab', of the individual/person concerned, that CANNOT be "Dismissed"; which, would ONLY be 'seen', by Users/Patrons, who are Members of the Church.
Having the BOTH,
- A dismissible, "Advice"; or, "Warning", 'Message', on the on the "Person/Details" page/screen, of the individual/person concerned.
AND,
- A non-dismissible, "Advice"; or, "Warning", 'Message', on the on the "Ordinances" 'Tab', of the individual/person concerned, that would ONLY "Clear"/"Disappear", if a "Gender" is designated/applied,
would certainly alleviate, the concern and distress; caused, by the CURRENT, "Data Problem" - for ALL.
As an aside ...
Here is a relatively PREVIOUS post, on this matter, of which I am aware:
Suggest an Idea
HOME > SUGGEST AN IDEA
Please Remove the Data Problem of Having Male and Female be Required
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
1 -
I have raised the issue here previously.
1 -
FYI
It's 'Brett'.
You are not alone ...
As, I already indicated, in my previous post ... MANY have ...
This Problem/Issue, NEEDS, to be addressed/fixed, by 'FamilySearch'.
[ So; as, to, STOP; and. alleviate, the concern and distress; caused, by the CURRENT, "Data Problem" - for ALL ]
Hopefully, the problem/issue, has been considered; and, is ALREADY, on the "To Do" List, to address/fix.
But ...
That Said ...
There is an ever increasing "To Do" List; where, matters are subject to "Priority".
Remember:
There are many competing "Priorities", in the "Family Tree" Part (and, of course, the OTHER Parts), of 'FamilySearch'; and, there are LIMITED "Resources" (eg. "Fund") available to 'FamilySearch'.
We can but live in hope.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
ps: But, that said, it certainly would be nice to know/be told, whether or not; such is, "Being Considered"; or, "On the 'To-Do' List"; or, "Under Construction"; or, "Been Considered; but, Rejected".
pps: The inability, to provide, a tentative implementation 'Date', is quite understandable; and, NOT expected.
.
0
