Attach marriage record to BOTH sets of parents function
When attaching a marriage record to say the husband, it will allow the record to be attached to him, and then it will also show the parents above and then the spouse below. Under that it will list the wife's parents, but then there's no option to attach the record to her parents, so then you have to go to one of the wife's parents pages to attach there.
Therefore the suggestion, in the attach record screen for marriage records, provide the ability to attach the record to BOTH sets of parents at the same time.
Below as an example if the link works:
Comments
-
You don't "have to go to one of the wife's parents pages to attach there." Within the source linker you can change the person of focus to be the wife (using the "Change" dropdown option). Then her parents will appear in the Parents section, and you can attach the record to them.
For those who use the mobile Family Tree app, note that the source linker in the app is quite different. For marriage records it does allow you to attach the source to both sets of parents without needing to change the focus.
6 -
To illustrate:
Using the Change link lets you link even the most convoluted historical record to even the most complex Family Tree record.
2 -
Based on your topic title, I thought you were talking about the "Attach to Family Tree" button on unindexed images: using that, you can only choose one focus person, and you can attach only to that person's immediate relatives: parents, siblings, spouses, and children. You have to remember to check the "Add to my Source Box" checkbox (on the previous screen!) if you need to attach to the in-laws.
Because of this shortcoming of the tool, there are probably dozens of marriage records that I've found but only attached to one set of the parents, because I was already too far down the rabbit hole and didn't want to dig myself deeper by opening yet more profiles in yet more tabs. (Or because I forgot the dratted checkbox. Or thought I checked it, but turns out, I unchecked it. Or something.)
0 -
I am commenting in support of your suggestion as a good example of user disconnect and confusion between:
- the various linking methods
- that different linking methods exist for mobile and desktop browsers
- how to trigger the different styles of linker.
I further support the larger point, made by @Julia Szent-Györgyi, which is to maximise time/energy spent by improving the tools already in existence so that sources are fully-linked which:
- prevents added cost to circle back
- having to find these "gaps"
- having to fix these "gaps"
- reduces the risk someone dismantles your work for lack of information
I myself have only now through this post, understood that, using the "Attach to Family Tree" when viewing the record, triggers only a superficial source-linking method, that removes details from the index of the image, and doesn't fully tag the persons profile or the relations even though you selected them)
- the linker looks like that in @Julia Szent-Györgyi's comment
- happens to sources that are indexed, unlike Julia's experience.
- please see a detailed explanation here of my experience: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/147255/source-linking-application-and-indexing
- a screenshot of the outcome by using that superficial source linker on an indexed reecord:
By comparison. the source-linker, which @Alan E. Brown described and @Gordon Collett demonstrated, is far superior (though the mobile version is superior still as Gordon pointed out.)
From their comments, I now understand that "Review and Attach" when viewing the record as a hint triggers the Source-Linker app on the desktop browser, (acting in almost the exact same way as the mobile version) which:
- automatically tags sources and updates information (although needs some tweaking, see my post again)
- allows the improvement and standardisation of details while being linked
- creates Person IDs and Relationships while being linked
- all of which reduces Time/Energy cost
- as well as risk of dismantling.
At this point I would like to share my favourite new FS tool, the Fan Charts - which can be toggled to show "Sources" - and can quickly highlight at least some of the "gaps" I mentioned at the start. This has made great inroads towards saving user Time/Energy spent going profile to profile to find them, so I'd like to acknowledge my thanks and appreciation.
It looks like this:
0 -
@KJUSTB, I'm confused: why do you think the unindexed-image blue button is ever available on indexed images? Your example very clearly isn't; you even circled where it says so in your screenshot.
Granted, I have tons of sources attached using that button that have now been indexed, which doesn't change the text: it'll still claim that "this record has not yet been indexed". I think maybe it needs to be slightly revised: "This record was not yet indexed when this source was created" (or some such wording). That'd help to explain the metric boatload of now-duplicated sources that I'm ending up with.
There are several aspects of the unindexed-image button that I vastly prefer to Source Linker, especially its creation of a linked set of instances of the same source, so that I only need to make a single edit (anywhere that the source is used) in order to make corrections or additions (such as adding the sort-by date). Also, I think I write more useful source titles than Source Linker's auto-generated ones. (Mine is "[town] [denomination] [event type]: [principal's name], [date]" -- although I generally try to remove the date at the end if I get around to adding the sort-by date, because then it's redundant. Obviously, I forgot in the above example.)
Note that there are historical reasons for many of the shortcomings of both the unindexed and indexed source-attachment buttons: when the button predates a feature, it of course can't utilize it. The unindexed-image button is possibly the oldest bit of programming that's still in use on Family Tree; it predates not just sort-by dates and tagging of Other conclusions, but source tagging in general.
0
