Push a Catalog result to my SourceBox
When I find a reference Book for one of my line in the Catalog, I would like to Attach that Book to the Books subfolder of my SourceBox.
This would allow me to attach that book to the profile of the Author and the focal/root persons of the lineage described. More importantly, edits to the description flow to all the person's to which the SourceBox record is attached AND it is possible to see a list of all the Person profiles where that source is attached.
An IDEAL world, it would be possible to associate a World Tree profile to the catalog record for the Author, titular persons or "Surname Subject" lineage anchor person. Doing this should create a symmetrical source record to the Catalog Item within the Profile. (This would simplify maintenance of the birth-death year info for the Author list in the catalog.)
Also in an ideal world, a report would be able to be generated of the Connection of the Author(s) to the focal/reference Profile. e.g., a book written by a person's grandchild may inspire more confidence that one written 4 generations later.
@BrianMcCullough Although not automated as your idea requests - there are several ways to add the Catalog reference/URL to your Source Box> Books folder:
1. Manually create the Source in your Source Box.
a.Copy the URL from the Catalog Reference:
b. Then Create Source and input the URL, etc.
c. move the Source to your Books folder.
d. Then you can attach that Book source to Tree profiles of interest.
2. Install/Use RecordSeek browser extension to somewhat automate the process of creating a Source and saving it to your Source Box. On the RecordSeek page select your browser and follow any prompts or contact the developer if you have problems adding the extension.
a. When on a URL you would like to use as a Source - select the RecordSeek extension and login to FamilySearch (if needed).
As far as tagging Tree person(s) to page references within Books - I think the book would have to be in the public domain before that idea could be useful. Otherwise you can just attach the Source to each person (and tediously reference any pages as you wish - thus creating a person index for the book).1
Yes. I had already performed option 1 before ever posting this Suggestion. I found it far more awkward than one should expect when 2 online databases are owned by the same operator and intended tone used collaboratively. And the manually input format is too prone to inconsistency between users.
The RecordSeek auto-formatting is more consistent. But it unfortunately clashes with FamilySearch's built-in hint system. So that sources created with RecordSeek will likely be made redundant when the hint system finally locates the same references... creating a future mess that will have to be cleaned up. (As an example, if FamilySearch's record search fails to locate a FindAGrave memorial even though it is an exact match (which seem to happen frequently), then I have used RecordSeek to add the memorial as a source. But later, FamilySearch mysteriously discovers that same memorial. So, to clear the hint, I have to add the source... but that leaves a redundant RecordSeek variant source that needs to be deleted so that the Source list isn't cluttered.0
There is no need to 'clean up' a duplicate/valid Source - either it is a correct source or not (thus the only Sources needing 'clean up' would be deletion of incorrect Sources).
A source does not have to use a FamilySearch link to be valid (thus the options which are available - so there is no need to clean up any non-FamilySearch duplicate). Yes it would be a nice idea to be able to indicate/group/combine duplicate sources (for ease of sorting the Sources List - but I don't understand persons insisting a particular source has to have the FamilySearch link). Yes attaching FamilySearch Records Hints is fine - as are duplicates if created.
Comment on sorting Sources List:
There are two options for sorting - Chronological and Custom.
I do not recall whether this is a per-user/account setting or whether this changes per PID/profile (I cannot seem to locate the pertinent Help Center document either - the one I do find does not explain this either. The Sort order appears to change per PID/profile not per-user/account - which is a little bothersome). I usually choose Chronological (thus any duplicates - if Dated - will appear next to each other (otherwise un-Dated sources will appear at the bottom - which might help separate duplicates also).1
Cleanup is necessary so that you don't waste your time and the time of future genealogists wanting to proper research.
Keeping with the example of FindAGrave... I often find a reference to a FindAGrave source indirectly pointed at from an Ancestry source. Those Ancestry sources are a misery for those of us who cannot afford the exorbitant subscriber fees. (I'd rather be able to buy groceries.) They just say FindAGrave without giving the memorial number... you can only see that if you click that Ancestry URL with an active account. Otherwise you are redirected to a subscribe page.
Setting the Ancestry tease aside, when there a multiple copies of the same reference in a profile with a couple dozen sources or more, you waste a lot of time reloading to verify what is a duplicate & what has different nuggets of data. For a lot of volunteers, they are laboring under data caps, throttling & bandwidth limits. Since FindAGrave pages have massive advert overhead & FamilySearch scans might have several thousand slides with very inefficient loading, trimming duplicates is simply being considerate.0
A Source being valid is different from a Source being paywalled (not accessible). I certainly would be in favor of valid Sources created by a paid account being able to provide a 'shareable/permanent link' - otherwise you are correct - a Source linking to a paywalled message is not a 'considerate' Source (though such may be out of the paying customer's control). 'Proper research' is indicated by 'proper sources' - a valid source is a valid source (whether it is a duplicate or paywalled).
So keeping with your FindAGrave example - both Sources would be valid - one just results in a paywalled message - but does not invalidate that Source. Again, yes it would be nice to group FindAGrave sources together so that the researcher could immediately see ... 'oh this is just another reference to FindAGrave that I have already seen.' Since that is not currently an option - you may want to suggest another Idea about identifying/grouping/combining duplicate sources - rather than your Source Box Idea above?
I don't have a problem with duplicate sources for the same event - I just sort them in Chronological order and let them fall where they may (next to each other or at the bottom). As long as they are valid sources I am not concerned with the standardization of Titles or entry in a particular format I might personally like. I just accept it as a valid of source - or else delete it - indicating my Reasons for Deletion (i.e. not a valid source for this person).0
To me, @BrianMcCullough's suggestion has merit. I too use the FamilySearch Library Catalog and would like an Add to Source Box button. What would be nice is to have it on the book page viewer, so the source link would be direct to the page image.