Editing a source changes it for every person
Hmmmmm! Every time I attach a source and edit it it changes all persons attached to it to the new link or info.
Any way to get around this?0
Gordon Collett ✭✭✭✭✭
@David Oltmann There is no way around having that one source that is in the source box but attached to multiple people not change on every one of those people if you make an edit. The whole purpose of having the source box is to give you place to edit a source and have the edit show on everyone.
What you can do instead to keep a source stable on one person, is to create a copy of the source, edit the title, edit the source, and attach that new source to just one person:2
@David Oltmann, I'm afraid that if I wrote a straight-up reply extolling the virtues of the Source Box and its linked instances of a source, you'd take it for sarcasm -- but it wouldn't be. I truly believe that FS's sourcing is brilliant, because it gives me the ability to attach a funeral notice to everyone it mentions, while only needing to enter the transcription or translation once -- and I can correct any errors in said transcription or translation by editing the source just once, on whichever profile I was looking at when I noticed.
Unfortunately, you're trying to use a shoe as a hammer, and all of the features that make that shoe incredibly comfortable as a shoe are rendering it highly unsuited for use as a hammer.
As Gordon wrote, if what you actually want is unlinked, single-instance sources, then you need to use the Copy function. Alternatively, you could simply create a new source each time. It sounds like you're essentially doing that anyway.0
I don't deal in shoes nor hammers in family tree but note that it would be nice in "Source Box" to be able to attach a source to a number of people but not to everyone. Thanks.0
I don't think I'm understanding you: "able to attach a source to a number of people but not to everyone" -- um, if the source doesn't apply to someone, don't attach that source to that person?
Can you perhaps explain a bit more about what you're doing and what you expect or would like to happen when you do those things?0
A source may be constant but the link and info in it to a particular person changes.
Reference in particular a census:
The census is the same but the individual family and the image link is different though individual family members may all be the same.
ie. 1901 census of Canada
Household of Joe Blow (All family members are the same info and link but each family is different info and link)
https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item/?app=Census1861&op=img&id=4108656_00064 (All family members are the same info and link but each family is a different info and link)
At present when your source is changed or edited in either the source box or on the source list everything on everyone's attached source is changed regardless of when it was attached and to whom it has been applied.
Result is of course glitches and misinformation galore.
It would be nice if that were not the case but it is.0
This comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Source Box works.
At a guess I'd say you're a lumper rather than a splitter. Your conception of the Source Box has been that each entry in it you've created is a single source.
In reality the people who created the Source Box are splitters. Their conception and how the program works is that each entry in the Source Box is an individual source citation for a particular profile and thus a particular person.
The Source Box was created by splitters and thus works for the workflow of a splitter.0
Yeah, um, as davidnewton2 says, that's not how the Source Box works.
Say you have a fact: Aldeman is dated as a surname to 1196-1237 in Essex. Here are a couple of possible source citations for this:
P.H. Reaney and R.M. Wilson, A Dictionary of English Surnames. Oxford University Press, 1997.
P.H. Reaney and R.M. Wilson, A Dictionary of English Surnames. Oxford University Press, 1997, s.n. Oldman.
The advantage of the first one is that it would work equally for the facts that "Aluric is dated to 1066" and that "Bartholomew Gregos is found in Suffolk in 1305". The analogous level of detail for a genealogical source would be something like "United States Census, 1920, FamilySearch" -- enough to give some idea of the context, but not nearly enough to actually re-find the specific record.
A sourcing system that used this level of saved source would have very short lists of saved sources, but each use of a saved source would require separate (re-)entry of the specifics: you'd get the 1920 census for Uncle Howard, then you'd add the state and county and enumeration district and page and line number. Then you'd move to Aunt Susie, and again type in the state and county and district and page and ... And then the same thing again for each of their children.
FS's Source Box doesn't use that model. It uses the second type of saved source: enough information right there to re-find the entry. Yes, you need to re-type (or copy-and-paste) the authors and title and publisher if you want to give a citation for Aluric (under Aldrich) or Gregos (under Graygoose). The genealogical analogy is something like "United States Census, 1920, FamilySearch: State, City, District. Howard Smith and family, page 30B, lines 3 to 9." Yes, when working on Howard's brother's family in the next state over, you wouldn't re-use Howard's source citation; you'd re-type (or copy-and-paste) the "United States Census, 1920, FamilySearch" portion before adding the applicable specifics.
Which would you rather re-type: the general part, or the specifics? In which part would a typo be harder to recover from? I think it's clearly easier to figure out the abbreviations and typo in "R&W DESN OUP 1979" than it would be to track down where to look for Gregos if I'd accidentally written in the citation for Aluric.0
Doesn't make sense to me either.0
Gordon Collett ✭✭✭✭✭
This discussion of the source box is getting a bit confusing with its talk of splitting shoes and causing lumps with hammers so since, @David Oltmann, you stated "Doesn't make sense to me either," but I'm not sure what you find does not make sense, I'm going to step back to the very basics of sources in Family Tree, starting out with my own analogy.
Back in high school when doing a research paper, we were taught that during the initial research (at the library, with books) that we needed to have a stack of 3" by 5" index cards. For each source we found, we were to take one card, write the book title, author, and the information or quote we were taking from that source. Each source had its own card. When working on the paper we could then shuffle the cards around as needed and at the end use them to write the bibliography.
This is exactly how sources in Family Tree work. A source in Family Tree whether created by FamilySearch or by a user is a 3x5 card that contains at least a title and at most a title, URL, citation, and notes.
When you "attach" a source to a profile in Family Tree, all you are doing is putting a note on the profile that is a pointer to the source. You are putting a note that says something like "see card 825." You are not actually doing anything to the source or moving it anywhere.
While FamilySearch system sources created from indexed records are designed to only be attached to only one person profile so there is really never any reason to put them in the source box and while user created sources are designed go be attached to however many profiles you want through use of the source box, in reality it is possible to attach any source to any number of profiles. But, and this is a major point, there is never more than one copy of any one source. There is never more than one index card. It is just that that one, single index card can have several profiles pointing to it like this:
When we are looking at a source on a person's profile, we are looking at an optical illusion. That source is not on the person's profile. We are looking through a little tunnel at the index card. That is why we occasionally get weird, incomprehensible references on a person's source page when the servers are having problems and that "tunnel" is not functioning correctly.
When you understand that this is how Family Tree sources work, it should be obvious why editing a source "changes it on everyone the source is attached to." That is because there is only one index card and when you change the writing on the index card, everyone looking at the card is still going to see the same thing.
If you want a person profile to see a different index card, then you have to create a new index card and use the new one instead of the original card.2