check mark
I've using familysearch for years. I log in every week to work in my tree. I go over and over, over the same name sometimes, it would be so much helpful to make a check mark on those poeple you already checked. Another check for people to review again.
Comments
-
There are already three ways provided of effectively being able to address your problem. Firstly, by use of the "Recents" list and, secondly, by adding names you are likely to return to regularly to your "Following" list. From there they can even be labelled, whereby you can filter on names in a particular category - e.g. "Ancestor", "In-laws", "Interested In".
You could even create labels for "Checked" and "To review", although I find I still keep a look out for those names I have "thoroughly" checked, as there is always the likelihood of new facts being found, or new sources for them being added to FamilySearch.
Finally, there is always the FIND function, which can help you find "lost" relatives, etc.
1 -
You could even create labels for "Checked" and "To review", although I find I still keep a look out for those names I have "thoroughly" checked, as there is always the likelihood of new facts being found, or new sources for them being added to FamilySearch.
@Paul W You are pointing out the mashed context of My Tree versus Family Tree. If the My Tree research state were in its own dynamic state/space one could review changes in that context, compare agreement/disagreement with My Tree, accept changes 'provisionally' (for later research/verification), verify that changes make no substantial difference to 'profile completeness' (meaning you don't need to make a change in My Tree or Family Tree) - and do this in a context which transmits your research state level of agreement/disagreement to Family Tree - such that people could view/compare such differences and come to their own conclusions about which tree/profile is correct and which is conflated or in a state needing work. So there would not be an artificial 4000 profile limit (not that My Tree currently has need for more but some people seem to state capacity/need of Following more! Really!?) or 10 label limit - you could just follow/work in My Tree - and that tree state could comment on Family Tree state. This is the topic of my Idea found elsewhere. If FamilySearch is interested in preservation of My Tree - which is its own collaborative work (points out the collaboration debt/gain which is obscured in Family Tree) - there really should be this capability.
@RicardoBocaz You have a valid Idea/point. If there were a My Tree dynamic state/context you could just follow - 'your tree' - it might be easier there - but you could still have the Recents/FIND capability. The Following feature kind of drops off in My Tree context - you already Follow your tree. But as far as dynamic relation between those contextual states - yes, any profile in My Tree could be a 'Following' profile in Family Tree.
0 -
I like to use the Change Log as a marker of what has happened to a profile since I was last there.
After you have thoroughly gone over and are happy with all the information on a person, create a custom event or fact with a title "Checked" or something that makes sense to you. Put in a description of "Completed evaluation of all information on this record and all previous entries in the Change Log and all appears correct." Then delete the event or fact.
The next time you come to the profile, if the first entry in the Change Log as seen right there on the Details page is a deleted event with you as the contributor, then you know you have gone over this person and nothing has happened since you were last there. If that is not the first entry, then you can open the change log, and check the actions that have been taken on the record just down to where your deleted event is to confirm they are all correct. You don't have to go past that point because you have already checked everything older than that. Then you can set another flag if substantial work has been done and you need a new marker.
This functions as a permanent check box on what you have previously checked and confirmed..
1 -
That is a good Idea - for working within Family Tree! That there is no Review Task/To Do task with such integrated ability (meaning all this has to be manually user initiated) - suggests possible future development Ideas.
My point is that if My Tree state already includes my conclusions - then I really should be able to just access My Tree versus check in Family Tree. That there is no 'review'/'compare' - dynamic state between My Tree versus Family Tree points out a potential development path (yes I am aware of GEDCOM import and My Trees compare process - which as has been pointed out on many other threads has 'problems').
0 -
"You are pointing out the mashed context of My Tree versus Family Tree"
"If there were a My Tree dynamic state/context you could just follow - 'your tree'"
Would you be so kind as to expand on what you are conveying in those two statements? Probably my ignorance, but I can't figure out the context in which you are saying "My Tree". I have gone through past threads and found - apart from those who talk of "my tree" when they are really referring to the branch(es) of the tree in which they have an interest - you are the only person I can find alluding to what seems to be a separate program ("My Tree") of which I am not aware.
1 -
Subtlety... yes, I could be one pointing out differences... but yes, you have the gist of it ...
'My Tree' := There are basically three ways I am using this terminology:
1) There is such a separate 'program' found in Genealogies - of which you are likely aware - because it is commonly discussed so perjoratively here in Community. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/import/files - clearly these are My Tree(s) (small 't' tree/branch - but with big T to show the importance of such contribution - My uploaded GEDCOM - "Upload Your Tree", "My Uploaded Trees")
2) 'My Tree' is any tree which could have me as the starting point in my immediate family.
3) Within FamilySearch Family Tree (FSFT/FT - big T Tree) there is a 'mashed up' context of 'My Tree'. My Contributions contains changes I add to the FT (not sure of date of this feature addition but with New Pages). But it does not retain the tree ('My Tree') structure (meaning I would prefer them linked to 'My Tree(s)' rather than Family Tree) - the contributions are 'sequenced as the occur - and I think there is a maximum/limitation to the list (could be wrong and haven't checked/looked for documentation as I type this response). So the My Contributions - would also be an area for @RicardoBocaz to search through.
So what I am pointing out in some Ideas - is the potential development of My Tree(s) state which adds comment to Family Tree (the ability for users to focus - on research of their relations - in a dynamic tree space - separate from FT). I see the two tree spaces as complimentary - not adversarial - as so many posts/threads here in Community portray. The fact that I can upload such trees should allow me to focus my work in such 'dynamically' and have residual comment into Family Tree (such is currently not the case and ignores the collaborative aspect of such trees - instead forcing the user to choose whether or not to adopt working within Family Tree - wiki open-edit context). What I am trying to point out - My Tree needs to 'communicate' with Family Tree - have residual comment - if preservation is valued. Otherwise people will continue duplicating research that could have already occurred or else conflating such profiles with others which such research clearly should demonstrate they are not. I just wish for a smoother transition between these trees and to impeded incorrect conflations - preserve an accurate Tree. For those wishing to - you can explore my longer (some may call it boring - yet still incomplete) exposition.
I plan on continuing to point out the differences in user-contextual trees versus Family Tree - which again mashes all these contexts - not to say that is necessarily bad but which does not preserve My Tree. Instead it favors the Latest/Recent Changes (which could be bad/conflating for the profile). This prefers the ease of making the change versus the need to recover from such. This means it truly is not collaborative - in the sense that is accepted by all Following a profile - because it essentially/potentially ignores all the previous collaboration which went into the previous profile state. So rather than this collaboration model I suggest a model which takes advantage of 'My Tree' and allows such collaborative comment to Family Tree - this preserves 'My Tree'/My Contributions and does not mash it into Family Tree context.
0 -
So basically, if I understand you correctly, you would like to see pulled into FamilySearch what is currently available in a limited fashion through Ancestry and MyHeritage. That is, the ability for everyone to have a separate, personal family tree on the FamilySearch website that fully syncs with Family Tree.
Not being a big fan of any type of wide scale automatic manipulation of data (We've had too many examples of the pitfalls of this whenever FamilySearch tries this. Most recently with the damage that was done to the place names in the historical record databases.) in Family Tree and being skeptical of the existing syncing people can do between Ancestry or MyHeritage and Family Tree, I must say I would be very reluctant to endorse giving everyone on FamilySearch a place to put their 40,000 person tree and the ability to move all their data over to Family Tree with one click. I would be very concerned that this would lead to even less co-operation and even more extensive data wars than exist now.
2 -
Thank you for clarifying. I guess why I failed to understand is due to the fact that - apart from within my personal software - I do not have any trees / branches that include me. All my work within Family Tree starts with my grandparents' generation and the branches I have added to Genealogies purely relates to my (direct) ancestry - i.e., no other relatives included, just ancestors.
On reflection (and these comments apply generally - say to Gordon's comments, as well as those of the originator of this post, Ricardo), I wouldn't have a need to mark profiles in this way, as I never think any one as being "fully checked". I feel there is probably a need to revisit all those IDs I have added to Family Tree, from time to time, as no records are likely to be "complete", even if for relatives who lived centuries ago.
As an example, for around 30 years I was convinced my 2x great grandfather Wrightson had just three siblings - all male. Then birth registrations for England & Wales were put online, showing the mother's maiden name, and there (among the scores of other Wrightsons born - no baptism records - in the same area during that period) was the record of a female sibling, who died in infancy, so never appeared in a census record. Likewise, I have made many other discoveries - years after my main / "completed" research on a particular person: e.g., second and third marriages and illegitimate children.
In short, I would not wish to identify ("check mark") those I have researched / am researching in this way. However, I naturally accept we all have different ways of researching, so would not wish to reject such a suggestion if it could be helpful to others.
0 -
NO!
The collaborative model I propose (see my lengthier exposition) - actually prevents or does not comment on the import/synching (such syncing capability already exists)! It only communicates/exposes acceptance, rejection, or provisional statuses from 'My Tree' to Family Tree - and allows the user to compare differences and come to their own conclusion.
It is an entirely different collaborative model than currently exists. So yes, allow other 'My Tree' providers to develop such a specification with FamilySearch if they wish but no - the Idea I propose does not comment on such.
0 -
On reflection (and these comments apply generally (say to Gordon's comments, as well as those of the originator of this post, Ricardo), I wouldn't have a need to mark profiles in this way, as I never think any one as being "fully checked".
The wiki open-edit model essentially requires one to continuously 'review' persons you 'Follow' - upon any Changes. The model I propose would essentially allow you to Accept, Reject or mark as Provisional such change - based upon your prior existing 'My Tree' (in fact you may be able to mark some profiles 'sufficiently complete' in 'My Tree' such that any Change would be either an automated Rejection or Provisional - especially if such Change were attempting to affect Vital conclusions). It would further - allow users to compare Family Tree versus 'your Tree' and allow them to conclude which profile they accept and which they reject. It would hopefully impede conflating profile changes - seeing all the collaboration of previous tree(s) or tree/Tree state.
"Fully checked" can have different meaning to different people. Changes can be advantageous, not profile altering (they don't really input much but don't detract), or they can be harmful (profile morphing/conflating). There needs to be a way to prevent the harmful Changes - such that a 'correct'/accurate profile/Tree is preserved.
For example of morphing/conflating changes/Ideas to prevent such: I suggested in one previous thread the Idea/ability to ADD FACT> 'NO MORE CHILDREN' - the fact a couple may have had 12 children but no more is just as important to know as the FACT they may have had 'NO CHILDREN'. The comment on the thread went unresponded to. To date I have not heard nor seen any FamilySearch representative comment/acknowledgement. IF such a FACT/feature were added to a profile - it should prevent any further/different children from being added than currently exist in the profile. Wouldn't that be preferable than leaving open-edit? Same thing would apply for marriages - Knowing a person was married 10 times might be as important to know as 'they never married' or were 'married once'... with 'no other marriage' - each case could be limiting to further profile marriage recording attempts.
0 -
OK, thanks for the clarification.
@Paul W, the reason I mark individuals is not with the intent of never going back or ever feeling someone is complete. My goal is to go through eight generations of ancestors, their children, and their children's spouses every few years and see what has happened since the last time I was there. Having the marker allows me to just go through the last few years of the change logs of people I am not actively researching rather than the past eleven years of their change logs. It means I do not have to revisit a merge done in 2013 and go through determining, again, whether it was correctly done or not.
I hate to admit it, but I find I just cannot keep up with the weekly notifications on people I follow. Setting aside time once every few years to check all the changes is more manageable than getting this done every week.
0 -
... I hate to admit it, but I find I just cannot keep up with the weekly notifications on people I follow. Setting aside time once every few years to check all the changes is more manageable than getting this done every week.
Exactly! (responding to your post as a whole not just the quote) So why not just focus on researching 'My Tree' - at my own pace - and let the chips fall where they may (allow My Tree to comment into Family Tree?). My Tree is assertive based upon a chain of collaborative relations/records - it has good basis and is usually collaborative (I don't need to import it into FamilySearch Family Tree for open-edit collaboration. My reasons for import are mainly for preservation not conflating/morphing open-edits - which I view as not collaborative) - in addition it has My Memories (ones which others may not be aware and gain which are collaborative in Family Group priority context) ... oh no ... another Idea ...
FamilySearch has the goals/focus of two disparate groups (or tree contexts - however you want to look at it) - preservation of large record collections/quantities as well as one profile for every person that ever lived. As such it necessarily needs to have a larger societal focus/context but also a smaller family/individual profile context. Family Tree implements a larger context in an open-edit platform basically to meet the needs of the correspondingly large mountain of data/record images it has. 'My Tree(s)' assist FamilySearch Family Tree in this smaller but equally important context. The Ideas I am presenting are all about preservation of a correct/accurate Family Tree (larger context) based/built upon (or at least congruent to each other) correct 'My Trees' (smaller context).
Whether you build a tree from Sources (larger societal context) or Memories (smaller family group context) both should collaboratively reinforce/agree with each other (not disagree) - the smaller context should witness to the correctness of the one world, one profile Family Tree. But if the open-edit Family Tree disagrees (conflates/moprhs) my smaller context/assertions of truth - something is wrong - and definitely is not preserving of 'My Tree'. Therefore 'My Tree' should be able to assert (from the 'My Tree' itself - not force/require such from within Family Tree) - this dissent/disagreement - where such exists. That's all - show where I disagree - such that I can compare the differences (or another user can) - and either correct (transfer data - which feature/functionality already exists), or indicate (thumbs up/down) based upon prior collaborative state (Family Tree OR 'My Tree').
Thread context: All of this actually does relate to this thread - helping users keep track of 'Ones work/ My Tree'.
0
