Why does the hints not transfer the birth year sometimes?
I am adding hints to people who don't have a birthdate. The hint does have a birth year and it does not transfer it during the process. It does it sometimes and then it doesn't.
Answers
-
I find that it does not transfer across if there is already information in the birth section such as a place of birth even if there is no date.
Regards
Graham Buckell
0 -
I don't understand why it doesn't transfer when we are in the business of finding the dates so we can do temple work.
0 -
Well, yes, in an ideal world it should transfer. The system is not perfect. You could try posting to Suggest An Idea but, with so many demands for upgrades and changes, I suspect it will not be high on the priority list.
0 -
As Graham stated the hints do not overwrite. I wish we could choose if the hint has better information to allow overwrite much like you can do with merge. But presently you have to copy, write down or whatever and then manually replace. I know there was a lot of discussion regarding this issue when hints were first introduced several years ago and the decision was made not to allow hints to overwrite information. Maybe it is time to revisit this issue.
1 -
Now that dates and places in attached sources are shown in a sidebar when an event is edited, it usually is not necessary to copy-paste to a file. That said, manual editing remains necessary.
I work with this in mind. I start by attaching sources, merging, attaching any more sources, detaching sources that don't belong, etc. Then I review all events on the profile, editing and standardizing as I go, and removing events for which there is no evidence. (Many such events are debris left behind after a conflated profile was deconflated aka split.)
1 -
One other issue is when the birth in the source is a "Birth Registration" date. These events go to the Other Information section, not to the Vitals section. The same is true of a "Baptism" event. Even though it is likely to be identical to the "Christening" the source linker drops the details into Other Information instead of Vitals, and you have to add the date (manually) yourself.
0 -
0
-
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ... ]
Just in passing ...
Further to, what 'gasmodels' has proffered ...
One reason, that we DO NOT want (nor, need) the ability, to 'Transfer', the "Details", from a "Record Hint", to overwrite the EXISTING "Details" of a record of an individual/person, is that too MANY "Inexperienced" Users/Patrons, would do so, without regard for correctness (ie. WITHOUT checking/researching).
I can guarantee that ...
In other words, they would overwrite, an already CORRECT (and, acceptable) record, with possibly, an incorrect one; or, less specific (ie. NOT "Full") one.
As such ...
That is WHY ...
IF, the "Record Hint", does have the BETTER "Details" (ie. "Information"), that we must take note of such; and, make the relevant "Change"; AFTER, the "Record Hint", has been attached.
Otherwise, too many too many CORRECT (and, acceptable) record details would be inadvertently overwritten.
We DO NOT want (nor, need)
(1) the ability, to 'Transfer', the "Details", from a "Record Hint", to overwrite the EXISTING "Details" of a record
(2) NOR, such to be revisited.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
Hi Brett
But why the inconsistency (as you'll probably agree) when it comes to carrying a Marriage event across? One can carry any number of these over during the source linking process (when attaching different sources, of course!) and (as you know) the one with the earliest date will always be the one that populates the box on the person page, often "overwriting" the already inputted correct marriage detail. (e.g. in a situation where marriage banns/licence records have been added to the system as if they related to the marriage event itself.)
I know that Couple Relationship events work differently from those relating to an individual, but the same unwanted effect is produced because of the inconsistency with the behaviour experienced when attaching a marriage / relationship event as opposed to birth or death related ones.
1 -
Further to my earlier comments, I attach a screenshot to illustrate that with some birth events the date is not carried across even if the Birth field in the Vitals section has no existing inputs.
There is even an anomaly with Death records when users come to attach Death registration records (for England & Wales) to IDs. Even though they relate to the same type of (registration) record, some are added to the system as "Death" events - meaning they do get carried across if the Death field in the Vitals section is empty - whereas others are recorded as "Death Registration" events, meaning (as with Birth registration records) the detail only goes across to the Other Information section (not the Vitals) when the source is attached.
I could illustrate this, but am concentrating on what I think may be your problem here (over Births), rather than what others have suggested. However, "as usual" it's probably me that is misunderstanding your issue!
The 1840 birth (registration) detail will not go across as a Vital (mainly due to the fact he could have been born in 1839 and the birth registered the next year), but will go straight to the Other Information section on the person page.
0 -
Paul
It's 'Brett'.
It will ONLY allow one, to "Copy", a "Record" over, if it is NOT either, existing; or, an DUPLICATE, when it comes, to the "Other Information" Section.
Personally ...
I am more concerned ...
That the "Source Linker", DOES NOT / WILL NOT, have the ability, to overwrite EXISTING Records, in the "Vitals" Section; as, I care little, for any superfluous (Duplicate) details, added to the "Other Information" Section, which can easily be "Deleted".
I just DO NOT want, the ability, to 'Transfer', the "Details", from a "Record Hint", to overwrite the EXISTING "Details" of a record.
Which, I CAN "Guarantee", WILL happen, by "Inexperienced" Users/Patrons, that would do so, without regard for correctness (ie. WITHOUT checking/researching).
I would rather, that we ARE required, to go in after attaching a "Source", to make the necessary "Changes".
At least, there IS a "Buffer", that CAN / DOES allow, time for "Checking"/"Research".
Whether, that "Checking"/"Research" is done, is another matter ...
But, at least, GOOD "Details", CANNOT be summarily overwritten, WITHOUT due care and attention.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
I think you have misunderstood my point, Brett. I am not talking about the Other Information section in discussing the inconsistency between marriage events as opposed to death/burial or birth/christening ones.
Multiple marriage events can be brought over into the Relationship Events section - whether they have the same detail (perhaps in a slightly different format), have more vague detail, or are totally different to each other. I sometimes go to the box to edit "the" event (maybe it needs standardising) only to find there are fout other versions of the event there. These are usually for the marriage event itself (church one), a licence or banns record (indexed as a "Marriage" instead of a "Marriage Notice" as is the more recent practice) and a civil event.
The point I am making is that, even for a Vitals event (well, just the marriage one), we can currently mess thing up by being allowed to carry more than one event across. For several years I've been requesting the ability to do this to be stopped.
0 -
Sorry to the original poster for going slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to illustrate the point I am making. I have just carried over two further "versions" from the "Marriage" field whilst adding multiple sources. Where there has been an exact match of the date and place, no duplication has been allowed, but if there is a differently recorded event, one can carry this/these across. Not a good idea, as in this case (as illustrated) the "1845" detail has caused one of the more detailed records to be forced off the display view on the person page. Just making the point for not allowing for a similar ability to be introduced for the other vitals.
Where there are multiple versions of the same event in the Relationship Event section, the one least wanted can take precedence when it comes to the display on the person page:
0 -
I am grateful for this feature, for exactly the behavior @Paul W illustrates. I find so many profiles conflated, and the clear evidence of conflation very often is in these details carried over.
0
