Placement of Life Sketch
I know we already have a thread about the Life Sketch, but its focus is mainly how the Life Sketch field has been used for warnings rather than actual life sketches.
In this thread, I want to start a discussion about the placement of the Life Sketch. Personally, I'd like it to stay at the top of the page. I think it's a wonderful way to give a quick overview of a person's life. I've also spoken with multiple people (including @Shanna S. Jones) who say the Life Sketch helps prevent errors. I think it would lose its effectiveness if it were moved to the bottom of the page.
Thoughts?
Comments
-
I use the Life Sketch to add identifying information to people with common names. For example Donald McDonald in Ontario, Canada. I add their property description and occupation to help patrons know which Donald McDonald we are talking about since there are literally thousands of them. In a merge it is up there in a prominent position which is so valuable. I have noticed since I began doing this that other researchers are doing it as well. With literally thousands of people with the same names in the same area because of the Scottish naming pattern, it needs to stay at the top.
9 -
When used properly the life Sketch is a great addition to a person's page and it should remain at the top.
8 -
I would like it to stay at the top as well. My to do list includes writing up some life sketches for my ancestors as I think it will help the records “come alive.” I included a short autobiography of my great grandfather I found in some papers my dad left me and it’s one of my favorite things on family search.
9 -
A few more thoughts (I posted these on another thread, but wanted to include them here as well).
I recently saw an official slide deck explaining the changes. The reason given for moving it near the bottom was that some people misused it--i.e., used it to provide warnings to other users.
So... since some people misused the Life Sketch, it should be moved to a place where it's less visible and harder for all users to use? It just doesn't make sense.
For what it's worth, lately I've seen quite a few pages where the Life Sketch was used correctly. On the few occasions when it was used incorrectly, it was because there isn't currently a good way to warn other users about problems. The solution isn't to move the Life Sketch; rather, it's to create a good way to alert other users! (Yeah, I know Notes and Discussions are supposed to serve that purpose, but they're too hidden. There needs to be something more immediately visible to users.) Moving the Life Sketch doesn't solve the real problem and it creates new ones.
7 -
I am one of those researchers who use the Life Sketch "incorrectly." But, I also use it "correctly." I must note that I'm also a Certified Genealogist and have been researching for over 45 years.
Some of my ancestral lines have been very, very challenging to research and I've spent hundreds of hours researching them and proving relationships. Some of these relationships have required that I write proof arguments with many footnotes. Consequently, I want to ensure that this research is not easily ignored. But, there is currently no "correct" way to do this on the Person Page of FamilySearch's tree. And, so, I, like others, have used the most prominent editable field to alert other users to read my research before making changes. Please, either don't move the Life Sketch to the bottom, or put an editable field for "Alerts" or "Important Notes" or something of that nature. Please include the first few lines of the text entered in view also.
If you want to see how I "incorrectly" and "correctly" use this field, here is one example: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/G996-VMS
John Carter is my 4th Great Grandfather and because of misinformation that was published in the early 1900s in a noteworthy book, his identity has been hidden, and a person who did not exist has appeared in family trees where he rightfully belongs. His wife has also been misidentified and not connected to her parents. I use John as an example because it took me over 40 years to finally find his, and his wife's, true identities and connect them to their children and parents. There is also a 16-page proof argument attached as a memory on FamilySearch: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/memories/G996-VMS (John Carter in "The Misunderstood Ancestry of the Anne Carter Family")
I must also share that I volunteer at the Family History Library helping patrons with German research. I have found in the last few years that more and more patrons are shying away from using the FamilySearch tree and moving to Ancestry as their primary family tree. Invariably this is because they feel that if they put information on the FamilySearch tree it will just get changed - regardless of how many sources they add. There is a real need for a simple and clear way for users to protect their research. If FamilySearch doesn't address this problem I believe we will continue to see advanced researchers avoiding using the tree in favor of Ancestry and other online trees. If this happens, I believe we will see the tree become less and less accurate and seasoned researchers will suggest other trees to those that they influence.
Although FamilySearch has a broad audience, and users that range from professional researchers to children, I know that the goal is for the tree to be accurate. To be accurate, the information that has taken so much time and effort to discover must be protected from the casual user who may unintentionally modify the information that took many hours, days, weeks, months, or years to prove.
I will continue to use the FamilySearch Tree as my primary tree - but I will "incorrectly" use whatever fields that are available to protect my research.
Kimball G. Carter, Certified Genealogist
10 -
I agree 100%. I use it all the time to distinctly identify families who used the Scottish naming pattern. They use the same names over and over again and these are common names like Donald and Mary. It would be a disaster to lose this feature at the top.
4 -
The FamilySearch Tree has a unique challenge - the tree is intended to be a one-world tree, which requires some type of collaboration if the tree is to be accurate. Why do many users love Ancestry or My Heritage? Largely because no one can change their trees - they don't have to deal with the collaboration issue. So, if the FamilySearch Tree is to be accurate and require collaboration, then more importance must be placed on promoting this collaboration. Whatever you want to call it, "Collaborate," "Discussions," "Research Notes" or "Life Sketch." There has to be more prominence, and emphasis on, placement and size/color/etc. on these areas. Burying these areas will make the tree less accurate, which is difficult to imagine!
Personally, I believe "Important Research Notes" (of something like that) should be the first thing the user sees and it should include the first line of text that has been entered. Understandably, it should be aesthetically pleasing, but it also should stand out. FamilySearch should encourage users to post warnings when they are backed up by research, not discourage them. The tree would be better with more warnings, more notes, more sources, more memories, etc. The goal is to be the most accurate one-world tree, isn't it?
10 -
Also see: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/464302#Comment_464302
I like Lyles recommendation for a number of reasons:
- Lifesketch main intent is to "summarize" a person's life. It is totally subjective typically (funeral). It can be a list of facts - derived from Person and their Relationship conclusions, but is just a different view of Person Details, similar to Timeline. Who's to say what is "right"? Even my definition here is up for disagreement.
- Lifesketch other intent is as a banner/warning to other users - typically because the person has alot of churn and confusion with a like-named other Person. So users have "overloaded" lifesketch to support this banner intent. It was positioned at the top of the Person page, so other users would see it, and not have to hunt for it.
Option 1: So Lyle's recommendation creates a new feature, prominent at the top to facilitate #2. We would need to convert the banner existing today to that object.
Option 2: If we keep what we have, if you recall in the previous version to today, a user could move the Person Detail sections as a per-User preference. We lost moving section in the current version. It doesn't fix #2 but seemed to kind of work.
Option 3: Move to top
Option 4: Keep at bottom.
My order of preference:
Option 1 in the long run. But as a temp fix do Option 2 because it worked before. Option 3. Option 4 is the worse.
Opinions?
1 -
Clarity first!
0 -
As long as this continues to show up when a merge is being contemplated I will be happy.
2 -
I would like to see the life sketch remain at the top of the page. I find that the life sketch is a more reliable place for information than the other details fields and sources because a life sketch has to be written by a human being who typically is somewhat familiar with the record (meaning anyone brave enough to write a life sketch has typically read through sources to make sure everything makes sense). Other details fields are easily changed by third party software exchanges, gedcom uploads, and amateur patrons. The life sketch creates a spot where a human being can weigh in on what a human being has been able to gather. My understanding is that life sketches are one of the the few fields (only field?) that cannot be changed by 3rd party programs, which makes them the most stable field on the screen.
I also certainly feel it belongs at the top of the merge screen.
I certainly feel it belongs at the top of the merge screen. I am not clear about why FS is unhappy about warnings being placed in the life sketch. Change the name from "life sketch" to something else if that is a problem? I consider everything in the life sketch field to be a sort of warning. A human being wrote up this life sketch and is warning people that "here is what the details page should be saying, it should have these names, these dates and places, this spouse and parents, these children, and it shouldn't have this or this." That's how I use that life sketch when I come across it, I use it as a guide to warn me about problems that have been introduced onto the details screen by bad merges and 3rd party software updates.
There are a some things that could be improved to make this practice of placing warnings in the life sketch less necessary.
- When two PIDs are declared Not a Match, and a patron attempts to merge them, the "Not a Match" warning message is the tiniest font on the screen. Those reasons statements for "Not a Match" should be the biggest brightest thing on those screens so no one can miss the REASON the two PIDs are not a match. There should be some extra steps to click when two PIDs have been declared "Not a Match". The individual should be required to indicate that they have read the "Not a Match" reason statement, and then also provide their own reason statement about why the two records actually are a match.
- Make a more prominent place on the sources to explain if a source is inaccurate and why. For example, my ancestor actually forgot what year he was born and listed the wrong year on a bunch of records, but realized his error when he found his baptismal certificate and knew that he hadn't been baptized at age 7. Or another ancestor is listed as the son of his step-father instead of a step son. Another ancestor died on a certain day, and his daughter can testify that she found him dead, but the coroner took an entire day to come declare him dead.
If information like this could be made more prominent to prevent other patrons from recreating errors that have already been carefully researched, then the warnings wouldn't be needed as much at the top of the page. However, the human written narrative, written by a well informed researcher, at the top of the page, will lend a huge degree of accuracy to the records--particularly if the intention is to leave everything to be open edited by computers and beginners.
2 -
@HESM Let me address a few comments.
"Change the name from "life sketch" to something else if that is a problem?"
We considered this and analyzed the data. The problem is that there are so many ways this was used, one name would never fit. What about the 1/3 of entries that actually are like a life sketch?
"My understanding is that life sketches are one of the the few fields (only field?) that cannot be changed by 3rd party programs, which makes them the most stable field on the screen."
There is only one life sketch data field and it is just as easily changed as any other vital conclusion using the 3rd party APIs. Because there is only one field, in a merge you can only keep one. Notes are not overwritten in a merge and must be specified by their data id to be edited or deleted using 3rd party APIs. Notes would be much safer option from this point of view.
0 -
Important research notes need to have a prominent place on the person page. In my experience, very few people ever look at the Collaborate tab, so putting a note there is not the solution. There are issues that need to be brought to the attention of other researchers to help prevent needless churn of data. If the Life Sketch is going to be moved to the bottom on the page, then there needs to be a “Research Warnings” or “Research Notes” section prominently displayed on the person page, such as has been suggested in the above posts.
7 -
I fully agree with the concerns about Life Sketch being relegated to the bottom of the new person page. I like the suggestion that it be placed in a prominent, visible location at the top of the page. Call it "Research Notes" and require a check box as part of the merge records process with language something like "I have reviewed both the Research Notes and the Sources for this individual, and have concluded this merge is correct".
Steve Felsted
2 -
Please leave the "Life Sketch" section at the top of the page. There is frequently vital information in this section that would be missed if an individual didn't scroll down or see the comments at the bottom of the page.
It would be a great disappointment and disadvantage to have the life sketch location changed. For example:
Several months ago, I felt the need to review all the current family history data entries on my maternal grandfather’s line. As I completed my review it became evident that our family line totally disappeared into another unrelated family line because the name usage was the same in both families.
After weeks of research, and with a personal family history compiled and published by my grandfather and his nephew (which included family names, dates, locations, etc.), I was able to determine where our line ended in the 1700s and needed to be corrected. It took weeks for a professional genealogist in my ward and myself to correct this problem and get the temple ordinances prepared for my ancestors.
As a result, we felt the need to notify others of this issue as the introduction to the Life Sketch section. We have found this to be helpful for others who have been adding incorrect information in the past due to their family names being similar to our line.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
2 -
I keep thinking about what it means for the Family Tree if the life sketch does get moved to the bottom of the page. I think it boils down to what the purpose of Family Tree is going to be. Is it meant to be a program that novices can visit to have a warm fuzzy feeling about ancestors, or is it going to be a program that allows collaboration between patrons to build an accurate one world tree. If we just want it to be a fun spot to visit, then it probably is appropriate to move the life sketch down the page so that patrons aren't inconvenienced by warnings and research suggestions and helpful facts to aid in further research. If the program is meant to be a means for patrons to work together to build an accurate tree, then the life sketch needs to remain at the top in a prominent position so patrons can place the most important information needed to encourage research and accuracy. That is also the concern I have about the new person details page. It feels like we are just trying to make it a pretty work of art instead of making it a functional get to work space.
1 -
I don't think of Family Tree as being in any way "a spot of fun to visit", as I have been working these past ten years to present my relatives' and ancestors' records as accurately as possible. However, as I have "admitted" previously, I have rarely used Life Sketch to add notes, as I have considered this section to relate to providing brief, biographical details - which I probably will add sometime in future, once I have gone as far as possible with adding the strictly, genealogical details (inputting vitals data) on my ancestors, etc.
If there are any issues I wish to highlight (e.g."Not to be confused with cousin of same name", etc.) I add such notes to "Collaborate". Others would agree of the importance of that section, over Life Sketch, but many users adopt your practice, of course.
I would probably think the idea put (above) by sfelsted4116536 of having a prominently placed section titled "Research Notes", to work as described, would be of better help (than either Collaborate or Life Sketch) in highlighting caution (to other users) before taking certain actions - particularly merges.
In summary, we all use Family Tree in a way that serves our purposes. I am just one of many who believe Life Sketch to be a place to contain biographical notes, and is not of prime importance to my genealogical research.
2 -
Just to add a little perspective to my personal position: I am not a member of the Church, so probably do not have the same need of wanting to identify as closely as possible to my ancestors, as would be the case if I were. Genealogy is my pastime, but one I take very seriously as I endeavour to gather and add as much accurate data as possible to the profiles (IDs) I - and others - have created for them in Family Tree.
Whilst it is fascinating to discover some of the unexpected places where my ancestors lived in generations past, it is sometimes impossible to find even their occupations, let alone what kind of lives they lived - especially the further back I go in tracing their details. This is why Life Sketch has taken a secondary (or rather lower) place in my work within Family Tree. There are only so many hours in a day and I have tried to get back as far as possible in tracing the various branches of my ancestry before getting around to "filling out" their profiles.
This might seem irrelevant to the main purpose of the post, but hope it helps users who feel very strongly about the placement of Life Sketch to understand the different approaches / ideas of others, especially those who think of themselves primarily as "genealogists", rather than "family historians".
2 -
@HESM, you're arguing passionately about continuing to use an axe -- as an anvil.
Yes, both tools are useful and necessary for their respective tasks, but the fact that you've been using the one as the other doesn't mean that everyone else needs to do so as well. Nor does it mean that the axe should be dulled to serve as a better anvil. If people have been unable to move the anvil to use it, and have been making do with the axe, perhaps the solution is to get a smaller anvil, or to put wheels on the big one.
The fact that people have been using the biography as a replacement for the collaboration tools doesn't mean that the biography should be turned into a collaboration tool. Rather, the actual collaboration tools should be given whatever feature of the biography it is that makes it appealing as a replacement.
2 -
I agree that the life sketch should remain at the top of the page. This is especially useful if there are people with the same names that easily get confused. I waste so much time fixing things by well meaning people that were already correct in the tree because they don't read the collaborate notes or do extensive research before trying to merge families.
Collaborate isn't effective and most people ignore it. Maybe a combination of the life sketch and collaborate could be done as a redesign. There's got to be a better way to make sure people don't incorrectly link the families especially for proven lines.
2 -
I do use the collaborate tab. I use the collaborate tab for information about going forward with further research, or to indicate research that has already been done. I also give full and detailed warnings in the collaborate tab about likely errors.
The problem is that the collaboration tab is not readily visible from the details page. Also, even as I'm reading the collaboration tab, I have to flip back and forth between the details page and the collaboration page in order to really do any work.
I do not think all the collaboration should be in the life sketch, but I do feel there are some warnings that are so significant that they are in some ways a part of that individual's life. For example, one ancestor named Caleb Boynton had a first cousin also named Caleb Boynton. Both cousins were born the same year. Many online pedigrees show them married to each other's wives. I feel like a warning about this is significant because it is so ingrained into both Caleb's research.
I have a lot of Danish ancestry. In Denmark, if a baby died, the next baby was named for the older sibling. I feel like that is part of both babies' lives. The first baby's life sketch should mention that a younger sibling was named for this older sibling, and vice versa. I think that is an important event in the lives of those individuals.
Another ancestor was listed with the incorrect father in Susan Easton Black's book on early LDS membership. This incorrect data also appeared in the TIB and on some official LDS publications. The Nauvoo records office even officially was sharing that false information. That is a significant event for that individual--that doesn't happen to just everyone. I feel that is something that should be mentioned in the life sketch.
These are errors that are published all over the internet, and if a patron is going into FamilySearch to make it look like the rest of the internet, there is an urgency to warn that patron. Most patrons I work with never bother to read the collaboration if they think they have found some "new" information on the web. On the other hand, the life sketch at the top of the page is something I've noted that most patrons do read. They recognize that if someone took the time to write a life sketch, there may be something valuable in it.
The collaboration tab is typically full of junk. I see things like, "Did she cross the plains with her brother?" or "My personal records as of [date] show [birth] [death] {all of which are already on the details screen.}" or they will have some person's address who is long dead and gone, or I've seen people put their relationships "This is my great great great grandmother." Also, FamilySearch loaded a bunch of junk in there to begin with. I try to delete junk out of the collaboration tab whenever I can, but it is everywhere. The collaboration tab is not working for actual research collaboration because it is misused and it is not prominent. Also, having the collaborations in a bunch of different notes makes it difficult to do real collaboration. The life sketch is helpful because it reads as a narrative that patrons can edit and correct and adjust as needed, and there is just one narrative to read.
My background is that I have a lot of Church ancestry, and there are a whole lot of false family traditions that need to be addressed. The life sketch is a good place to address these long standing false family ideas. Also, many of my ancestors are high traffic ancestors whose data is constantly getting changed by third party software programs, and incorrect info and merges keep coming into the vitals. The life sketch can't be edited by those third party programs. The life sketch provides a place that a well thought out and researched narrative can be given that is more trustworthy than the volatile vitals.
My question would be whether we are feeling unhappy about the life sketch because it simply needs a different name? Or does having it at the top of the screen really inconvenience anyone that much? Why are we against having warnings at the top of a page? It seems to me like that would be the perfect place to have them located.
I agree that warnings like "don't touch my family" or "don't ever merge this record again" are ridiculous, warnings to alert people to common errors that will be found all over the internet are very helpful.
Why wouldn't we want that at the top of the page?
2 -
So the features of the Life Sketch section that make it useful as a collaboration note or warning are or were:
1. Visibility
2. Singularity (all one text field)
3. Inaccessibility to third-party software
I agree that the existing collaboration tools lack visibility, but I will point out that even in the old layout, the Life Sketch was not guaranteed to be all that visible, either. When the then-new tabbed interface introduced the section, one of the first things I and many others did was to close it, and I, for one, have not re-opened it since, except occasionally to research a Community question. My hobby is genealogy, not biography, so I prefer to get to the Vitals box without a Life Sketch getting in the way.
I also agree that the spread of collaboration notes across two (mysterious-purpose) types and many entries is less than ideal for actually working with other contributors. A single text field for all warnings or alerts would serve the purpose better.
I believe the existing collaboration tools already have the third feature: I don't think third-party software can edit any notes, and of course nobody can edit other people's discussions. (Or is that the other way around? I can never keep track.)
0 -
The fact that we have different views on this subject is indicative of the unique challenge that FamilySearch faces. Many users of FamilySearch have no need, or interest in, the Life Sketch feature. This can be because they are casual users, inexperienced researchers, or have ancestors who left records about their lives that made it relatively easy to identify them and their families correctly. And, of course, there are those users who get into FamilySearch for a few hours in their lifetime and never do anything again, unless someone makes them feel guilty. I would suggest that no other online tree has the variety of users that FamilySearch does - and, I am almost certain that no other tree has nearly as many novices as users.
Those who have been interested in using the Life-Sketch, in the way it was originally designed, are probably more advanced researchers. Those who have felt a need to post warnings are also probably advanced researchers who have invested a great amount of time identifying an ancestor and documenting their findings.
As a researcher, I have many family lines that are not confusing. I have some lines that are very confusing. I have used the Life Sketch on those confusing lines both to post bios and warnings. If you have ancestors that lived in the U.S. back into the early 1700s and 1600s you generally are going to have some confusing lines. If these ancestors came from the south, you are almost certainly going to have some confusing lines. If your ancestors had very common surnames you are definitely going to have some confusing lines.
If your ancestors came from Europe and arrived in the U.S. after 1850 your research experience will likely be totally different than those whose ancestors came earlier. Many European records of births/baptisms, marriages and deaths have largely survived back into the 1600s and some as early as the 1400s. This has made researching these ancestors relatively easy. I have many years of experience researching mine and my wife's ancestors from Germany and England back into the 1600s. I have not needed to use the Life Sketch feature much at all on these ancestral lines. Their lives were well documented - the records are not always easy to read, or sometimes find, but generally they have been available. Because many of my ancestors came to America and settled in Virginia in the 1600s much of my research for them has utilized indirect evidence. Most researchers never, or rarely, use indirect evidence in their research either because 1. They don't need to 2. They haven't learned to. Most people haven't learned to do this type of research, and never will. I see many family history enthisiasts give up when they confront these challenging research problems. In my volunteer work at the Family History Library and as a longtime Consultant in my Stake and Wards I have helped many, many people with their research. Rarely have I found someone who has tackled this type of research. Most cringe at it. I don't blame them, it can be very time-consuming, frustrating and discouraging.
So, I advocate for the small number of users who tackle this type of research. We need the Life Sketch feature, even if we "mis-use" it. If the tree is to be accurate, keep it at the top. Modify and/or rename it. Include the collaborate area within, or linked from within it. Those of us who have used it for warnings have been driven to it because of it's placement on the page and the fact that you can read the first line of text within it - not to mention the fact that the collaborate and discussions are too hidden. We may be a small number, but for many of us we are "that person" in our families that do the real research for the rest of the family. We need this feature. And we need it highy visible, as it has been.
For those who don't use the feature. Just ignore it. That's not really taking away anything from you! Moving it to the bottom is burying our hard work. Don't do it. If you've never used the feature that doesn't mean it doesn't have great value for others.
I posted the image below on the other thread about mis-using the Life Sketch, sorry if you already saw it. My suggestion is converting it to something like this:
7 -
Please review and comment on some up coming designs
0 -
The placement of the Life Sketch suddenly became very personal to me when my mother passed away unexpectedly this last Sunday. My family members and I collaborated on a short tribute and summary of her life. My first thought was, "This would be perfect for the Life Sketch in Family Tree." It would show at the top of the page and anyone coming to her page would see it.
Then I remembered... Life Sketch is at the very bottom of the new person page. I had hoped our feedback would be taken into account and it would be returned to the top (at least on this thread, that's the preference of the large majority of users). But I checked the new person page, and it's still at the bottom. The Life Sketch has become a random footnote that few, if any, will see.
For that reason, I won't be putting anything in my mom's Life Sketch on Family Tree. I'll probably just put our tribute in Memories.
I realize the placement of the Life Sketch is not that significant compared to wars and world hunger. I guess the bottom line is, if the Life Sketch is going to be placed where it has lost most of its value, it might as well be removed entirely. Everything can go in Memories.
Since we started this discussion, I've been paying more attention to what people actually put in the Life Sketch. Almost without exception, they use it correctly. It's a shame that someone made the decision to move it based on the relatively small number of people who "misused" it.
2 -
@kathryngz We are planning on integrating Life Sketch and Life summary on the about page. This would make it so you can replace the computer generated life summary with a human approved and validated Life Sketch. Hopefully this will give you the prominence you are looking for.
2 -
Thanks, Lyle! I hadn't heard that. It's definitely better than having it at the bottom of the Details page.
0 -
I was trying to find a place to put this - I did not see it elsewhere and I do not know if I am part of the beta/early release pool - but I just noticed that now on New Person Page - you can choose the order of cards on the Details page layout settings/feature that was just released!
This should make everyone happy - you can choose the order Life Sketch, etc. appear on the Details tab.
4 -
Wow, that's a huge win! I'm really glad they brought this ability back (or at least are testing it :) ). I also love that the columns can be adjusted. @lyleblunttoronto1 , is the arrangement an individual user setting or does the setting affect all users?
1 -
I believe the setting is per user - once you set it those settings will apply to all Details pages you view in Family Tree. Other users can set them how they would like the cards to be displayed.
2