Design Review Important Info vs Important Note

lyleblunttoronto1

Design is looking for feedback on a new impedance feature. The features purpose is to allow users to prompt a warning banner that is a quick link to special information about the person. If no information has been flagged or provided the banner will not display.

Option 1: Important Info

New section for Important Information

Option 2: Important Note

Move notes to Details and add Important Note indicator 

Paul W

@lyleblunttoronto1

Not exactly the type of response you are looking for, but please change the spelling of "Their" to "There" in the heading / message!

(Will try to make a more constructive response later.)

lyleblunttoronto1

A few answers to questions that I know are coming. 

• Either option will have further enhancements and visibility during the merge flow.
• If notes are moved from Collaborate, Collaborate will be renamed discussions.
• There are further plans to enhance discussions and notifications about discussions.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

I already get constantly muddled about the difference between notes and discussions: in my mind, those are just different names for the same sort of thing. Adding another label/type ("info") to the mix ...would not help. So I can't recommend Option 1.

However, I'm afraid that Option 2 would make Notes even less visible than they are now. (Which is saying something.)

One advantage of the separate tab/area is the counter: it tells you that notes exist for this profile. Everything below Family Members is already a backwater on the Details page; I don't think I'd ever see Notes if they were added down there, and it would take a serious reworking of my workflow to learn to check. So the banner across the top would be crucial -- except it's kind of redundant: at that point, why not just put the Note there? I hate those kitchen cabinets where there are drawers behind doors, and this would be the UI equivalent.

There is another, even more remote, backwater connected to the Details page: the couple relationship section. I just this morning revisited a profile where Recent Changes claimed that the most recent activity was the addition of a note -- except the Collaborate tab was empty. I finally ended up looking at the full Change Log to find out that the note (added by me!) was in the couple's relationship area (concerning where I'd looked and failed to find their marriage).

I like the idea of the ability to mark some notes as "important", resulting in a banner and priority position in a merge. But I think all notes (including ones added from the couple relationship area) should stay together on their own tab, with a counter on the tab label to alert to their existence. This way, notes would not get eaten by the mangroves even if none of them were marked as important.

Chas Howell

First quick look, I like the concept of the Alert Banner and its placement at the top and that If no information has been flagged or provided the banner will not display. I would like the ability to just add the comment directly into the Alert Comment Box. In the comment box you can direct the reader to various sources/discussions/notes etc depending on where they end up.

Kimball G. Carter

First, thanks for listening to our feedback!!

I like the banner a lot! I think it would be a good solution to the problem and would be appreciated by many users. Language could be modified just a tiny bit. I agree with Julia Szent-Györgyi about the word Information, I would suggest something as simple as:

There are important notes to review before making changes to this ancestor. Please read before making changes.

Although I would still love to have the Life Sketch at the top of the page, I think the banner, if implemented would address my primary concerns of having a way to alert other users to important research information. I understand the language probably needs to be toned down from "warning."

Below is a modified mockup incorporating the suggested change from "information" to "notes."

Let's keep this ball rolling!

Chas Howell

As far as the banner language, I would like to see the word Ancestor dropped. Most of the time you are not dealing with ancestors but relatives at best. Person would be better.

Along the lines of "Attention: Important Information related to this Person. Please READ before making changes." 

Shanna S. Jones

Change Their to There. Is this banner going to be visible on the merge screen? Will we be able to read the information or just see that there is some information to ignore? This is very important when merging and preventing bad merges which is a HUUUGE problem. If we can't see the information that tells us that this Lyle is not the same as the other Lyle with the same name, note their addresses, even though both Lyles married the same named woman and lived in the same town. So, please make sure There is some important information to review is visible when merging and not just the blue warning. Thanks!

joemartel

Background: In the original version of FS FamilyTree the Notes were on the main Person page. They were conclusions about that Person, similar to Other Information conclusions. A few versions later Notes was buried in the collaborate tab with Discussions. To me this was wrong because they were conclusions and collaboration was suited by features like Discussions.

Overloading the word "Note" to include this new intent seems like a further confusion of Notes. The Notes shown in the example are better suited as DIscussions. "Information" is to ambiguous.

The intent of this new feature (to off-load the LifeSketch alerts users put in it) is for Users to "Alert" other users about this Person - i.e. not to merge because... don't this... the maiden name...

So how about calling this "User Alert" ? Or something along that intent?

With the longer blue banner "User Alert: There is important community 'comment' about this Person..." ?

Cindy Hecker

Reviewing the options you show. I prefer the 2nd where a note could be flagged as important over adding another area called important information. I agree with others the language of the alert could be adjusted.

I am happy this is being developed. I am happy that it will get a prime spot at the top to be seen and during merges.

Cathy Pearce Anderegg

I prefer Option 1. Thanks for doing this. It is badly needed

James Tanner

dontiknowyou

Tighter language please: "Before making changes to this ancestor profile please read important notes."

I do not like how FamilySearch lately is mis-using the word ancestor. Not all persons in Family Tree are ancestors; only those with living descendants qualify. Also, when there are living descendants too often the word ancestor is used as evidence that only a direct descendant or only a direct descendant in a male line may work on a profile.

Ottley BQ

@lyleblunttoronto1 thanks for the opportunity to comment on the design features:

Just a few comments about feature preference, and resulting changes mentioned:

1) "Design is looking for feedback on a new impedance feature." COMMENT: If the goal is to implement an impedance feature, then it appears the placement is important. Notes and Discussions are similar, and many I've reviewed imply that Notes are considered facts discovered by the user, whereas, Discussions should be more collaborative in nature. Based on these definitions, it would appear that, a) the Discussions, instead of Notes, should be moved to the bottom of the page (beneath Life Sketch, or in place of it, if it will be relocated); and b) the Collaborate tab should be renamed Notes, instead of Discussions. Option 2 would be my preference, since an individual Note "Title" or "Subject" would identify its purpose, whereas Option 1, being similar to Life Sketch functionality can become convoluted. Would individual Notes still be editable by anyone, including the "Important Note" tagging feature?

2) "The features purpose is to allow users to prompt a warning banner that is a quick link to special information about the person. If no information has been flagged or provided the banner will not display." COMMENT: It would be important to continue showing a count, where zero (0) Notes (old Collaborate, as suggested in 1 above) would, of course, not display the banner. It may even be prudent for the sake of user knowledge to have the banner displayed at all times with the count (even 0, if applicable) of Important Notes (see uploaded image below).

3) "If notes are moved from Collaborate, Collaborate will be renamed discussions." COMMENT: See number 1 above; rename Collaborate "Notes" and move Discussions as suggested.

4) "There are further plans to enhance discussions and notifications about discussions." COMMENT: It would be beneficial to understand what enhancement/notification plans are being considered. As noted above, it appears Discussions are collaborative in nature, whereas, Notes are facts discovered by the user and are currently editable.

To me, the ability to Follow a person is currently more effective to quickly correct relationship or other undesirable changes to a Person than any of the current gatekeeper tools (Collaborate, Notes/Discussions or Life Sketch notations); however, it would be helpful to have more effective deterrents, as being discussed for impedance features. Thanks for your work!

Julia Szent-Györgyi

I don't remember where Notes and Discussions were before the multi-tab layout was introduced. (I do vaguely recall that, unlike the Life Sketch, they already existed. I think.) @joemartel, do you know if anyone has old screenshots somewhere?

I disagree that Notes are conclusions. Research notes can be anti-conclusions: "these are the places/times I looked for this event and didn't find it". And they're an important part of collaboration: "note to other researchers: there's a very similar couple two streets over, please make sure not to conflate them." Other contributors need to be able to correct that to "three streets over", so Discussions do not serve the purpose nearly as well. (In fact, I'm not sure what purpose Discussions really serve, except to enshrine people's old typos.)

For the impedance tool (that people used the Life Sketch for), I like the idea of a toggle or checkbox that marks a particular note as "important" and triggers a banner across the top of the Details page. It should also give the note priority placement during a merge. (And the rest of the notes should also be visible during merges. The Collaborate tab is currently completely invisible in a merge.)

The exact location of Notes (and Discussions), whether they're marked Important or not, is actually not nearly as important as having a counter or other indicator somewhere at the top of the page. It would be a Very Good Idea for said counter or indicator to also serve as a link or shortcut to the location of Notes (even if said location is further down on the same page).

dontiknowyou

In fact, I'm not sure what purpose Discussions really serve, except to enshrine people's old typos.

I use a Discussion when another contributor repeatedly deletes my Note.

As an active contributor I find those counters to be very important, not extraneous.

Gordon Collett

I’ve spent the past day thinking about the design proposals presented here. I did read the first two comments, then decided I really didn’t want read any more of them before I put down my own thoughts. So some of this may be repetitious.

The Notification Banner

Pros:

• I really like that it is very visible but non-obtrusive. The size and shading keep it from interfering with working on the page. 

Hesitations:

• If it is only visible when there is a flagged note or piece of information, many people will never realize it is available and continue to put warnings in the Life Sketch no matter how you try to publicize this. Should it always be present? Maybe in a pale grey with slightly different wording when there are no flags? 

Cons:

• The wording.
• “Important:” Everyone thinks the note he or she puts on is important. This will prime people to flag every note entered.
• “Ancestor;” This will prime people to think that the John Smith they are looking at is their ancestor John Smith “because FamilySearch says he is” and ignore any warning not to merge them “because FamilySearch says I should because there is only one John Smith in my family and FamilySearch is saying this is my ancestor.”

Suggestion:

• Have blue banner say: This person has critical research notes and warnings. Please read before making changes.
• Have grey banner say: This person does not have any critical research notes or warnings. Click here to add if needed.

Possibly Impractical Suggestion:

• Could the presence of the blue banner lock out any editing on the page, that is, disable all Edit links, until it has been clicked on to force people to at least lay eyes on the information before starting to make changes? With a flag so that the banner only needs to be clicked on once per login session? Or would this just foment hostility? Or cause some users to just remove every warning they run across?

Banner Workflow

Pros:

• I like that when clicked, the information/notes immediately pops up in a view only mode but with the option to jump to editing if needed.

Cons:

• None

Suggestions:

• See below under "New Placement of Notes Section.

New Important Information Section

Pros:

• It is always there even if the banner is not. Being put at the bottom of the screen and closable keeps it out of the way.

Cons:

• It is a fifth place to have to monitor notes (Life Sketch, Notes, Discussions, Couple Relationship Notes, and now Important information. This is too many.
• Labeling it Important Information will lead some people to put absolutely every kind of note and comment here because, of course, everything they say is important. 
• Having this at the bottom of the page and closable will cause many people to close it and ignore it. 
• Having this at the bottom of the screen but movable will give those people who drag it to the very top of the page thinking that no one could possibly overlook it then a false sense of security when they do not realize that the people they most want to see this information will never move the section to the top of their page but will instead just leave it at the bottom, close it, and ignore it. 

Suggestion:

• Rather than create a new section, just improve the Notes section.

New Placement of Notes Section

Pros:

• None

Cons:

• Putting the Notes section back on the Detail page could potentially make the Detail page far too long.
• It makes the Detail page to cluttered and depending on how the notes are written, too messy. 

Suggestions:

• Keep the Notes section where it is.
• Cause clicking on the blue banner to have the tiles of just the flagged notes pop up as they do as presented but have a link to then jump to the current Notes page.
• Or drop the intermediate pop up and just have clicking on the banner go directly to the Notes page so people can see the tiles and first four lines of all the notes and realize they really do need to read them.
• Have a sort that causes any flagged notes to be listed first on the Notes page.
• Put some type of emphasis on the titles of flagged notes.

Modified Add Note Pop Up

Pros:

• Very straightforward way of setting the flag.

Cons:

• Wording needs to be adjusted. For some people, every note they enter is important so they will flag every note and the real warnings will be lost in a sea of trivia.

Suggestions:

• Change wording in first line to: Mark as a Critical Research Note or Warning
• Change wording in second line to: By checking this box, users will be advised to read this note before making changes to this person.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

I have just one nitpick for Gordon's excellent post: "...before making changes to this profile." (We can't change people.)

HESM

I would like to see the life sketch and a warning section both left at the top of the page. The value of the life sketch is that a human being who is actually on the page and working in Family Tree can type in the appropriate conclusions that should be appearing on the details screen. For example, I can type in this ancestor was born X, died X, married X on X date, and had the following children X, X, X. After I have taken time to type that in, the only way it can be changed is for another patron to come in and actually physically edit it to different conclusions--it should not be allowed to be edited from a third party software program or through a gedcom upload. That life sketch then lets me quickly compare a human's contribution to the messes that are brought in through 3rd party interaction. I can go to a page, read the life sketch, recognize that someone has deleted a couple children, or someone one has drastically altered the birth date, or done a bad merge, or added a bunch of wives. I can then review the differences between the detail screen and the actual human written life sketch, and I can research to determine which is correct.

I also think a warning section is important on some records. Not all records need it, but some do. I don't think this warning section should be a collection of notes, and I don't think it should be research suggestions or logs or hints. I think the warning section needs to be available as a single entry that can be edited that can address the common errors that I know are going to be placed again and again on the record. Some examples: LDS Church Membership (and Susan Easton Black's book) confused one of my ancestors with another man. LDS Church Membership is typically considered a reliable source, but in this case it isn't, and there needs to be a prominent warning on his page so that patrons don't recreate that error. Another example: On one line, a professional genealogist created an extensive genealogical hoax that looks very convincing until further examined. The ancestor where the hoax begins needs to have a clear warning on it because the hoax is perpetuated all over the internet and has been copied in family records for years. Another example: in the 1940s a relative linked an ancestor to an incorrect father, but the error was put into the TIB, Ancestral File, and is all over the internet in hundreds of online pedigrees. There needs to be a prominent warning to not recreate the now corrected error.

I really find that a well written life sketch tends to be the most stable and accurate piece of information on Family Tree. A few rare profiles do need some extra warnings. Notes/Discussions are valuable research collaboration, but research collaboration and warnings are not the same thing. I don't see these three items as overlapping or being redundant. Each one has its own purpose.

If we really are wanting an accurate tree, then I think the warnings and life sketch in particular need to be at the top of the screen.

genthusiast

Just a few more cents - quite rambly but got to get the thoughts out there...

I like the suggested idea and a banner to notify users to read Notes - and I like many of the comments here...

I personally like the idea of having the Notes stay in the Collaborate tab - but to me I think having the banner and the important Note (I don't care what the verbiage is too much...maybe ! Conclusive Research Notes?... or maybe just ! Conclusions !) pop up together when a user accesses the Profile would possibly make it more likely that someone would read it. Maybe just attach the banner atop the Note. I possibly also like the idea of multiple important Notes (so like email Preview - enough for the reader to get the gist of the important topic) - otherwise would users just continue adding to the 1 important note? Notes from others should be uneditable I guess ... if it ends up being 1 Note. Maybe only allow 1 important Note per profile from each user but make it so that they can go back in and Edit/Delete it? So...that is probably the main difference between Note and Discussion - a Note is from one person to everyone/or to themself - a Discussion is a dialogue (between more than one person) on a particular Note/topic ...

Having more than one Important Note makes me think about possibly having a Conclusion Note for each Vital Detail and Source - and perhaps each of these contributing to a cumulative Profile Conclusion - whereupon if these are truly conclusive - why would the Profile need to continue to be editable in those areas? Maybe someone could disprove a conclusion to make it editable again? But that would require them to REPLACE profiles - they would need a set of Vitals and Sources that are different from the existing Profile...but I digress...

So my vote - have the banner and the Note appear together on Profiles that should be read and require the user to clear that popup before the profile is available (much like the screenshots attached to this idea - except both at the same time - no click required to open the Note). Possibly make the Note have a checkbox: I have read this note. - before they can clear it? I can understand it would probably confuse users to start out with and many probably would complain/ignore - but the point is to hopefully get them to read the Note(s) before they go in and Edit something - and make it as least intrusive as possible - but effective... for this reason maybe ONLY have this required notice appear during MERGE (as suggested above)? I can see value in having it in both places...

CONS: I guess this is all fluff if users go ahead and edit things willy nilly...

I suppose this might also introduce a new Note/Conclusions icon in the Tree view - something else to identify that there is something important to read on that profile. I like the lightbulb icon.

And since this idea is topic tagged Life Sketch - why don't we make Life Sketch a default Memories> Story for each profile? That way it could include pictures if so desired (although it would be nice if pictures could be placed in sequence in a Story)... and give the user the option whether to display Life Sketch OR Life Summary on the ABOUT tab? Also - if made a Story people could comment - without editing the sketch that perhaps someone close wrote up... (yes most Life Sketches would not be written by a close relation - but I usually don't feel qualified to write a Life Sketch for someone other than a close relation. I dunno... just some thoughts).

genthusiast

Sorry, more rambling...

Yes I can hear it ... Notes are not necessarily Conclusions! But I believe they should minimally and typically be leading to some conclusion - else why note them? That Conclusions have been mentioned previously obviously points to the relation between Notes and Conclusions - that we are talking about it means at least that. Even anti-conclusions are preliminary conclusions on the road to a more concrete/definitive/final conclusion.

I guess my thoughts here are that Vitals and Sources should be conclusive for the profile - thus any notes attached to each individual item (birth, marriage, death, census, newspaper, etc) should have research conclusions - and where is a FamilySearch user to put those? This conversation started from Life Sketch - which I agree likely would contain many of the Profile conclusions - kind of like Life Summary tries to implement (just the facts ma'am) - but may be a more personable and conclusive portrayal. It seems the only other good place to put conclusions is Source Notes or Collaboration Notes (or both) - which is kind of the point I am trying to make. When attaching Sources/making Vital assertions one is building a set of records that are all asserting/concluding something about a unique person/relationship(s). Sometimes sequence of events/relationships matters to whether some records are attached. Once one birth record asserts/concludes that they were born [Date] [Location] [Parent Relationships] - that should uniquely exclude being born somewhere else to different parents, etc. ... Yes there might be duplicate birth records - but they should/likely would support the same approximate/exact conclusions. These conclusions build the Profile and combine as a unique set that should be required to be disproven anytime some other user believes they have a better record and want to Edit the current one. But they should also be required to disprove/replace the entire set of existing attached records and be required to read the entire set of attached Sources, Source Notes, Vitals and Vital Notes - otherwise if they click Edit on just one existing record/fact - they could be required to at least read that individual artifact Note/conclusion with any attached Sources. I guess if we were perfect genealogists we would all read the Notes and not need to have a requirement - but I think we can agree that there are obvious cases where a user has not even paid attention to what changes they attached to/merged a profile. This sort of process may also help reduce Record Hints for profiles already containing Vital/Source Note conclusions - why continue hinting for a similar record when one exists attached already? Someone has already created a profile - is the record that similar that you want them to select Not a match? Or are you hoping they will create the other profile and attach that record? So basically this means making the currently named MERGE process, more onerous - something I would prefer to call Profile Replacement rather than Merge...merge should mean two Profiles are really the same person? If they aren't the same person then there should be more than one Profile.

Thus perhaps what I am am rambling about may affect more than Life Sketch, Collaboration Notes, etc. - It probably means I need to go back and review what Notes I have attached to Profiles for which I have contributed...

lyleblunttoronto1

Thank you for the quick feedback. We’ve made a decision on the data structure for the caution banner. We are going to go with marking a note as important. We still have a few days before the UI development work begins, so we are still looking at feedback there. I’m sorry if we didn’t pick your favorite choice, your input has been valuable. Please continue to help us understand your needs, desires and workflows. 

Here are a few notes on the implementation:

We will reword the text in both the banner and the important check box labels. Leaning toward using the word “Caution” and not using generic words like “information”. Probably dropping “Important” as well (You’ll see me still use “important” until we have the words figured out) 

Notes that are marked as important will be limited to 3000 char. Studies show longer text does not get read, so we are forcing users to be less verbose in the caution notes.  (“I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one.” Mark Twain)

There will be a limit to how many notes can be flagged. (“If everything is important than nothing is.” Patrick Lencioni) This should lead users to choosing and consolidating.

During a merge, if both persons have Caution notes, the survivors notes will stay marked and the duplicate will be unmarked. If only the duplicate has marked notes, they will stay marked. 

Julia Szent-Györgyi

I got one of those dummy-text generators to give me 3000 characters of "lorem ipsum":

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim. Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui. Etiam rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem quam semper libero, sit amet adipiscing sem neque sed ipsum. Nam quam nunc, blandit vel, luctus pulvinar, hendrerit id, lorem. Maecenas nec odio et ante tincidunt tempus. Donec vitae sapien ut libero venenatis faucibus. Nullam quis ante. Etiam sit amet orci eget eros faucibus tincidunt. Duis leo. Sed fringilla mauris sit amet nibh. Donec sodales sagittis magna. Sed consequat, leo eget bibendum sodales, augue velit cursus nunc, quis gravida magna mi a libero. Fusce vulputate eleifend sapien. Vestibulum purus quam, scelerisque ut, mollis sed, nonummy id, metus. Nullam accumsan lorem in dui. Cras ultricies mi eu turpis hendrerit fringilla. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; In ac dui quis mi consectetuer lacinia. Nam pretium turpis et arcu. Duis arcu tortor, suscipit eget, imperdiet nec, imperdiet iaculis, ipsum. Sed aliquam ultrices mauris. Integer ante arcu, accumsan a, consectetuer eget, posuere ut, mauris. Praesent adipiscing. Phasellus ullamcorper ipsum rutrum nunc. Nunc nonummy metus. Vestibulum volutpat pretium libero. Cras id dui. Aenean ut eros et nisl sagittis vestibulum. Nullam nulla eros, ultricies sit amet, nonummy id, imperdiet feugiat, pede. Sed lectus. Donec mollis hendrerit risus. Phasellus nec sem in justo pellentesque facilisis. Etiam imperdiet imperdiet orci. Nunc nec neque. Phasellus leo dolor, tempus non, auctor et, hendrerit quis, nisi. Curabitur ligula sapien, tincidunt non, euismod vitae, posuere imperdiet, leo. Maecenas malesuada. Praesent congue erat at massa. Sed cursus turpis vitae tortor. Donec posuere vulputate arcu. Phasellus accumsan cursus velit. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Sed aliquam, nisi quis porttitor congue, elit erat euismod orci, ac placerat dolor lectus quis orci. Phasellus consectetuer vestibulum elit. Aenean tellus metus, bibendum sed, posuere ac, mattis non, nunc. Vestibulum fringilla pede sit amet augue. In turpis. Pellentesque posuere. Praesent turpis. Aenean posuere, tor

That's actually not so short, so I'm tempted to suggest a single flagged note per profile. This would make it easier to figure out where to put stuff.

genthusiast

Question: is there the possibility in the future that family groups/associations can make a joint Caution Note? I like this idea because having a group of people as signers - agreeing on a Note - might carry more weight for helping others accept a profile in current state. Or maybe also make Notes have the option for all readers to agree with the Caution topic/content. I guess any that might disagree could start a discussion...

Chas Howell

“During a merge, if both persons have Caution notes, the survivors notes [will] stay marked and the duplicate will be unmarked.”  

This gives me concern, the merge (possibly a bad merge) has the effect of eliminating the Cautionary notes that may have been put in to prevent that very merge.

Shanna S. Jones

Will this new area still be visible like this Life Sketch is here on the merge screen?

genthusiast

@Chas Howell

It doesn't say the note will be deleted - only unmarked - so I think someone could go mark it important again... Unless someone else already has added another important note and the profile is at the important note limit. At least that is how I am reading what Lyleblunttoronto1 wrote?

Chas Howell

@genthusiast, you are right, it does not say the note is deleted, but my thinking is, if you unmark the note it removes it from the Alert/Caution banner right? So in my mind the practical effect is to eliminate the Alert or Caution. I doubt that the person who did the merge is going to go back and find the note and mark it. How maybe the note remains in the Caution section, but I did not read it that way.

This Is kind of like sources on a merge. FS brings all the sources over automatically, then it leaves it up to the person merging to detach incorrect sources. I think maybe the same method could be used with the Marked Alert/Caution notes.

Ottley BQ

@lyleblunttoronto1 Just a comment about Old vs New vs Future method of displaying Notes and Discussions, and functionality.....

Current OLD method of displaying partially-CLOSED Notes allows the Note and/or Discussions headings to be displayed - PREFERRED (by me, anyway):

Current OLD method of displaying OPEN Notes allows headings to be opened individually (for comparison):

Current NEW method of displaying Notes allows only ALL totally OPEN, or ALL totally CLOSED (no headings displayed in a partially-CLOSED position, or ability to individually view):

Is there a functionality plan for Notes going forward? Also, I agree, 3000 characters is very generous--more than enough to make a statement where the objective/point should already be expressed in the Note heading....

Gordon Collett

@Ottley BQ Actually the new Notes pages options are not quite what you describe. There is the new addition that you can completely close the Notes or Discussions sections to ignore either of them completely. But that does not really compare to anything on the old page.

The old page showed either just the title (what you call partially-closed) or the full note which could be opened individually by clicking on the title.

The new page's equivalent function is to show either the title and the first four lines of the note or the full note which again can be opened individually by clicking on the More link. It does take more room but not as much room as showing the full note by default and I do like being able to see the start of each note without needing to do anything since sometimes title do just not give enough information

dontiknowyou

I would rather not see just the first 4 lines. Just the title or the whole note, please. Some profiles have many notes and those are the ones most needing attention.