Unconnected People List
This is Major feature, That is really needed on Family search. One of your Competitors all really have this. It is a page that lists a link to every individual that is not connected to any body. This fix Lots of issues, and make the tree much cleaner and much better for every one. Yes at first the List will be very very huge, over time it will shrink.
The Issues this fixes
- Get rid of Duplicates
- Get rid of Duplicate places
- Hasting the work, which help those that want the Mormon temple work done.
- Also shows people what needs to be done, for those that want to help others.
- It speeds up building the tree, by allow people to help others.
- it will also help improve search results.
- Many other Things and other Opportunities to help improve the tree.
Comments
-
Ditto. Follow them and add an UnConnected label.
Or search and add a connection - then they won't remain unconnected - unless you can't find a connection.
If you connect them then I guess you can unfollow them - you were only following because unconnected - that will add an available space to the following list (4000 limit).
0 -
Does not answered what I am saying, 🙃
0 -
For those that want more detail of what I am ask: take a look at this https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Unsourced_Profiles it would nice to have a list like this where is show people that not Connect. It will fix many of the issues as stated in the Topic post.
Scroll down and you will see a list of People. In my thoughts this is a huge feature needed, because is make things easier for others in many way. Not that in my other opinion it is a disgrace, in many ways. One is for those that want to help others.
0 -
@s10297588641, the tree on FS is at least an order of magnitude larger than WikiTree's, meaning that defining -- never mind tracking -- its "connectedness" is a highly non-trivial endeavor. There are likely hundreds of thousands of discrete sections of the FS FT that contain hundreds or even thousands of profiles each, but are not connected to other such sections. Would you call all of those profiles "unconnected"?
1 -
Juila people need a massive wake up call, If they don't do this is: how can people help others. How can people know what needs to be done. If people start to fill in then others will find more info. Next if A person builds a site better than Wiki Tree, and Combines a few features, from others, Does a tree dump of family search and does what I have suggest, then family search will have to do this, because people will come to the other site, because they will be able to help others, more quickly, will know where the help is needed. they will build a tree much much faster, where others can help more faster and more effect.
people are missing the Point. The point is the following, Unconnected is Meaning they are not Linked at all to any person, Aka Dead ends, or ends of lines, not any one. True and dont get me wrong about the Large number of names, but that list will wind down, when you link them up to people because you un-list people when they are linked to people.
0 -
I would be interested in some actual numbers, but it is my (strong) impression that completely-unconnected profiles are just as rare on FamilySearch as they are on WikiTree. People don't enter profiles without some reason for doing so, and that reason is almost always a relationship. Even the legacy data from FS's previous systems is mostly three people: parents and child.
(An end-of-line profile is by definition not unconnected: it's connected to the line that it's the end of.)
0 -
I'd be interested in Tree statistics.
Every once in a while you see someone claiming this or that (FamilySearch employees do make some interesting claims). It'd be interesting to know where one can find out such (obviously someone seems to have greater access - if making such claims?). I'd be interested in knowing if there are 'larger Tree sections' connected only by small/thin connections or if most branches are sturdy/well connected to the main trunk. I can't recall ... the old One World Tree app - I think - used to call it 'the star field' - kinda like the Hubble/JWST view of Family Tree.
As far as unconnected profiles - I'm fine with the Following feature - but if Family Tree users would find it helpful/useful - I'm not opposed to a 'list'. It just would not contribute anything to how I personally use the Tree - but maybe others might get some use... I would prefer something related to an Idea I'm working on - but either way ... As for end-of-line profile; yep it's connected in one direction but not the other - so could use a 'review'/Search hint/task once in a while.
1 -
I would be concerned that if FamilySearch generated a list of 1,000,000 names, which would be 0.083% of Family Tree, that have no parents, no spouses, and no children, and most likely no sources for us to take a random name, try to figure out who it was originally supposed to be, and connect it to correct relationships, this probably fruitless endeavor would be a tremendously huge waste of time and lead to a very high rate of errors.
I would vote to just leave them in peace. They are certainly not hurting the database any.
2 -
Gordon, I see that Point also, but Family search wants a world tree, Ask your Self these questions how are you going to build the Tree? How are you going to fill in the missing branches? How Many are Duplicates? Gordon I already thought about the Issue you are thinking of before I posted this and I also thought of many other issues. I can think of many other questions to ask. Also I see both sides of the Coin, and every time, you remove a name it gets smaller.
Julia True, about the End of line, Main they could have another list, for those. The major point is having a list where people can help other if they want. One good speech about Genealogy I heard, is how People lack Communication with others, and how people need to better communicate so they can help build a tree. Also how many just follow their own tree branches and find it hard to help others, and that is just a simple version of the meaning of the persons over all talk.
0 -
Julia also True, about ends, but in Genealogy terms, they are only connected to those people and no others. Many would still classify them as not connected. Family Search needs to make it easier for those that want to help fill in dead ends, or People that are not connected at all. you could have many different lists. The issue about the lists is major because how it open the lines of communication, and allows others to help others. It gives them a starting Point. Which let Peoples build on top of that starting point in both directions. if they can link things up they can do so, which builds the tree and its branches even better.
0 -
"how are you going to build the Tree?"
The only sane way to build the tree is to concentrate on your own relatives. These are the people that you know about - either from real life conversations, or because you've researched back out to the more distant branches of your tree. You should be seeing whether these people are already in FS FamilyTree as isolated singletons, or perhaps isolated triplets (more likely if they've been involved in baptisms).
Let me be brutal about this - you should not go looking for profiles that have no real-life connection to you, just so you can fill in something for these profiles. You will, I suggest, have enough to do dealing with your own relatives.
I'm pretty relaxed about what makes a connection - I don't have a problem with in-laws of in-laws, e.g. - the key thing about that is that you've worked through to those people and have built up knowledge that I wouldn't have. I'm also relaxed about someone doing a one-name study or a single-village study - both cases imply that you've already discovered lots of stuff to get there.
What I don't want to see happening is people grabbing my relatives out of nowhere and assuming things like there's only one Theophilus P Wildebeest in Bristol (say) when there's actually two - him and his cousin - names are changed but I had to split a profile that had been merged because someone had indeed assumed that there could only be one of a certain rare name. I knew there were two, not because I'm clever, but because I'd spent time working on the family - time that someone picking out unconnected people in Bristol won't have spent.
Like I say, sorry if this is brutal, but I believe that expanding connections to / from your own relatives is a far better use of your time.
2 -
Adrian, After Helping others, By Putting info that is not on FamilySearch. I have a different point of view, on things, I am not trying to taking People away from doing their own research and work, As I have stated, A listed would be nice for those that want to help others.
0
