Bug report - Find by ID brings up "Record Not Found - a lot. Please fix
Perhaps this is the engineers' attempt at weaning people off of "find by ID"?
(I continue to be thoroughly puzzled by the reason for its existence, and especially by people's apparently-frequent use of it: if you already have the ID, then why on Earth are you looking for it? Why don't you just use it?)
In spite of your advising of the simple alternatives to using the "Find By ID" function, I'm afraid I still use this quite regularly.
Primarily, I use it to copy/paste an ID reference that has been mentioned here in Community. If I do not have a person page (or another FamilySearch page) already open, I do not think there is any extra effort in getting to "Find By ID" from this page - it takes me a few clicks, and seconds, to get there from here to there!
On the point of getting no results, I think this has generally reported to have happened when a copy/paste action has picked up a space at the end of the ID reference. The fact that few other users are regularly experiencing / reporting this problem does imply a browser or cache / cookies problem.
@Paul W, from here, the steps are:
FamilySearch logo -> Family Tree menu -> Find
(Option 1:) Find by ID -> paste -> Search -> name -> Person
(Option 2:) Recents -> paste -> Go/enter.
So as I said, I continue to be perplexed.
From here, I:
Right click FamilySearch logo to get to https://www.familysearch.org/en/
Left click "Family Tree", then "Find" to get to https://www.familysearch.org/search/tree/name
Choose FIND BY ID option. Paste in ID.
I suppose I got so used to doing it this way it's become automatic. One or two extra clicks have never worried me too much, but my son still shouts at me for using the mouse / menus (in Word, etc.), instead of keyboard shortcuts!
I use the Find By ID quite a bit, too. Can't tell you why. It might be because I use the Recent's menu so rarely for anything. In any event, one thing I have always liked about FamilySearch is that there is usually a couple of ways to accomplish about anything. The flexibility is nice. The Find by ID routine is there, people do use it, so it really should function properly and really should be able to ignore leading or trailing blank spaces or other invisible characters. One thing they did improve with the new release, is that it capitalizes (not that it cares if you put in small letters) and puts in the hyphen automatically if needing to type in the ID.
I use it a lot and I can absolutely explain why. I research family groups a lot. I will have a father open. That is my home base window and I don't want to lose him by clicking on ANYONE to open in that window. I can click children, spouses, siblings and parents to open in a new window or tab, but sometimes THOSE rabbit holes get lost into in-law branches, and then I lose the ability to easily have side by side windows of in-law relatives. When I want to have someone specific in a window beside another window, I go back to my home base, get the ID, then go to the window in the side by side situation and search by ID and bring it up. It is SOOOOOoooooo much more convenient than getting a person in a specific window by searching by name.
In response to the original posters question when Find by ID results is the message record not found it is frequently associated with an incorret ID being entered. This can easily be caused by mis-typing sometimes a 5 can be confused with S etc. Other issues after recent changes are that Find by ID will not take you to deleted records. However, the recent menu will take you to them.
Like others I have my own preferences and I always use the recents drop-down as described by Julia as it is one less click. I agree that each can develop their own preferences and whatever method you are most comfortable with is what you should use. However, the recent degradation of Find by ID not showing deleted records is quite troublesome to me.
@Gail Swihart Watson, but why use "Find by ID" instead of the box at the top of the Recents menu? If you already have the side-by-side window set up, with a Tree page open in it, then it's three actions: click Recents, paste the ID into the box, and go (either by clicking the button or by typing enter/return). The Find by ID route is a minimum of five actions: click Find, click By ID, paste the ID, go, then click somewhere on the grey field. What advantage do those five steps have over the three? What can you do with them that you can't do on the shorter path?
@Julia Szent-Györgyi Thank you for the tip! I will look for recents and see if I can get it to save time.
Hubby started his tree in 2018 already. I started recently...We've both got identical records of each other, yet if we type each other's ID in, to link our two trees, it says record not found...Can anyone assist please ?
His ID is L1XW-Q15, mine is GXD8-PQL. On his tree my ID is GW3T-KVZ
Many thanks in advance, we are Eric & Theresa Badenhorst
You cannot the others living records because they are correctly marked living. Any living record in your tree (entered by you) cannot be seen by anyone else and any living record in another tree (entered by them) cannot be seen by you. This is privacy protection feature of Family Tree.
My experience, also, is that living persons records cannot be successfully searched by their ID. I have an ID listed for my living mother, for example, that is a DIFFERENT ID than the one she shows for herself. If she were deceased, my understanding is that those memories and details can be merged. Deceased persons should ultimately be searchable by one common ID.
BonnieLichfieldAnderson and Theresa326 Living persons can never be seen by anyone other than the person who created the record. Every child of a living parent who creates a FamilySearch account will need to create a separate record for that living parent. If there are 8 children, there will be 8 records of that parent, provided they all create a FamilySearch account and build their own beginnings of a tree to connect to the world tree. A deceased ancestor is the only way you can connect with other family members to see the same record. After the living parent becomes deceased, each child with that parent in their tree will have to mark that parent deceased. Then, one by one, all the 8 records can be merged as people mark that person deceased. I have never understood this hyper vigilant method of protecting privacy. It is self imposed, otherwise Ancestry would not allow me to invite people to my tree and give them permission to see living people on my tree.
AND, let's say one of the 8 children does NOT mark that parent as deceased, and further, has done a lot of work, added photos, sources, information, etc. to the parent who is deceased, but not marked deceased. If that person abandons the FamilySearch or dies themself before marking the parent as deceased, all that work will forever be invisible. No one will be able to access anything other than photos which had been tagged to additional, deceased accounts and sources which had also been added to additional deceased accounts. The rest will be lost forever, or until FamilySearch implements a process to gain access the account of a deceased person (which again, Ancestry has such a process so it must be legal). What a shame.
I use 'find by ID' if someone in community or elsewhere has asked for information about a specific person in their tree. I need to get to the correct person quickly without having to check other people with the same name.
Find by ID is quick and easy to use and I know I have the person a community member is asking about. That person is important to them.
Another good reason is if one of our family members wants to join FamilySearch and needs to set up their tree, first they add themselves and any relevant living members of their family. Then if we give the the PIDs of the first deceased persons in each line then they can populate their tree without having to check if they have the correct 'John Smith,' 'Joe Brown,' or 'Mary Jane' as getting the wrong person can seriously mess up the World Tree thus messing up 'our' bit, not something anyone likes correcting.
Happy ancestor hunting everyone.
@Cedar Kedar, once again: you don't need Find by ID for any of those things. You can use the box at the top of the Recents menu (which is available, among other places, on the main Find page). It saves several steps compared to Find by ID.
when I tried to open my family tree it says not fund when ID is there, do not understand.
it says the person PID not fund when i open family tree,any reason for that
@pedrosousa4, as has been discussed in a few comments upthread, the most frequent cause of "not found" is typos or unwanted characters (most often spaces). The next most common reason for such error messages is trying to access a profile that's in someone else's private space. (If a profile is for a living person, then it is only visible in the account where it was created.) This has also been discussed upthread.
Using the "Enter Name or ID" box in "Recents," is a learned process. Until one learns that process, any normal usage in the Tree would lead one to think they must use "Find" in order to "Find By ID." Thank you for pointing out the "Enter Name or ID" box in "Recents."
Just so everyone knows the find by name in Recents only looks at your recents list which is the last 50 persons pages you have opened. So if you are looking for a general Family Tree record by name you must use the Find. However, the find by ID option has some issues so if you are searching by ID several have suggested using the recents drop down. Two different searches depending on what you want to do.
I'm afraid I just disproved this suggestion, by pasting an ID into "Recents" that I probably hadn't checked out for years! So, sorry, you are wrong over this one, gasmodels - any valid ID should work just fine by using Recents or Find options.
I agree it should Paul but if the record has been deleted you cannot find by ID using Find by ID - At present the only way to locate those records is to either dig through the change log or use the recents drop down. It is a deficiency with the Find by ID. Since much of my effort in Family Tree is undoing incorrect merges when I want an ID number I use the drop down under Recents. I just wanted to point out that you cannot use the drop down to locate a record by name unless it is in the last 50 you looked at.
Please read my comments again. I just tried this - admittedly not with a deleted ID, but you did not qualify that in your earlier comments, just "..find by name in Recents only looks at your recents list which is the last 50 persons pages you have opened". My point relates to that statement, not connected with deleted IDs.
Yes, I guess I was drifting off topic from the issue of finding deleted IDs, but my response still stands for general searching - finding "live" IDs (via Recents) does not depend on their having been recently examined.
I just tried this for a deleted ID - and it worked for that, too. Please try out yourself and you'll discover all IDs should be able to be found by both methods.
Oh, I do see a different behaviour now! Searching for the deleted ID using "Find" took me directly to the ID with which it had been merged. Using "Recents" took me to the actual ID I had inputted - which provides a link to its "replacement", of course.
Still, whatever the method, I am not getting a "not found" message anywhere.
I think Paul and gasmodels were talking at cross-purposes about a couple of different things.
One: the box at the top of the Recents menu works very differently for IDs versus names. When you type or paste in an ID, hitting "go" or "enter" just puts that string at the end of the profile-detail-page URL and takes you there. It therefore makes no difference whether you've ever been there before, or whether it has been merge-deleted. Typing or pasting in anything that isn't in the form of a PID, on the other hand, filters your Recents list by that string, in a rather literal-minded way. (Typing in "tere" doesn't bring up Theresia, only Teresia.) In other words, the Recents menu is not the place to go to search for anyone by name.
Two: the Recents box and Find by ID do not do the same thing. This is most noticeable if you input a merge-deleted ID; since Recents is just generating a URL for you, it'll take you straight to the archived profile. Find by ID, on the other hand, is smarter than thou: it'll take you to the surviving profile instead. Eventually. After several more clicks.
Sorry but maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was only given a PID and a name in a question, there were no other links to that particular person, and there were others with the same name, so I needed to use 'find by ID' as it was impossible to be sure I had the correct person any other way. Once used then, yes, I can find the person in recents.
Sorry, but as Julia notes, we were talking at cross-purposes, as I had carelessly missed you were talking about "find by name" (using "Recents") rather than the "find by ID", which was the original topic of this thread.
To be honest, it would never have occurred to me that I might use a name instead of an ID - even though the box contains the text "Enter by Name or ID" - well, certainly not in the context in which the issue is being discussed here. For names, I would either scroll though the list of "recents", if I thought I had been viewing the profile recently, or go straight to "Find By Name", or (more commonly) my "Following" list - where I have probably added the names of individuals to which I am likely to return to carry out further work.
Bug report - Find by ID brings up "Record Not Found - a lot. Please fix that is happening to me too and my tree family private or not has to be fix otherwise cannot do my work.