Source-Linking Application and Indexing

KJUSTB

Related post reference: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/147159/user-experience#latest

Source-Linking Function desktop browser (DB):

• Source-Linker application is not being used - odd in itself.
• therefore, the details provided in record are not pulled through to Person page 
• related facts are not tagged with the attaching of a source (touching on the Marriage source-linking issue clarified in more detail below)
• in fact, the date and index of the source are "undone" leaving "+ADD" for the date and removing the image!?
• increased/too high Time/Energy cost

Whereas on Source-Linking Function on mobile browser (MB):

• uses Source-Linker application, which
• automatically tags sources and updates information (although needs some tweaking, see below)
• 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 

Specific to Events (Marriage/ Probate/Baptism/Residences):

• the Source-Linker creates the event/fact but doesn't attach the source:
• the details of "place", and related "facts" are not always pulled
• source later needs to be tagged to event - particularly odd as the source-linker did half the work, and normally completes this for you when any "vitals" are linked
• vitals tags need to be updated individually, as linking the source now manually completed without the S-L app.
• additional steps required saved the record to source box before it can be tagged in the event even if already in the sources tab; whereas all the vitals offer sources to tag from the source listed under source tab.

Creating Source-Linking Function for Occupation:

• the function already exists, as Residence, Probate and Baptism are pulled, although also dysfunctional:
• Residence falls under Events and the Source-Linker should then ask for standardised date, place and offer the description textbox, but doesn't
• Baptism somehow fall under "Other" not under "Christening" (updated to "Christening/Baptism"?) in "Vitals" and 
• Probate falling under "Other" and "Custom Event" (a vague and unhelpful placement and descriptor but the placeholder itself appreciated and can be later modified by user, and hopefully improved in time by FS)
• S-L app should be available and fully functional for any details provided in the image record - such as middle names, or other persons mentioned in the record - allowing user to add fields for the Source-Linker to include
• In fact, all details provided in the image should be indexed ie considered valuable and not excluded by unsuitable template or unilateral dismissal as "unnecessary" or other irrelevant opinions.
• relates to Indexing Project for the same/similar reasons

Sometimes the key fact distinguishing one family from another is something small and perhaps overlooked; like Occupation. For example, after I lost my beautiful post yesterday, I went on a deep dive of all the FS sources and the sources of the FS sources, to (finally!) discover a small detail - my ancestor's middle name - which had not been included in the FS index. My sanity and years of time might have been saved had this been included from the outset.

An example of this in the Indexing Projects, is the records for SA Dutch-Reform churches, where Baptisms could have up to 8 people on record. In the Indexing Project the template only asks for 2 peoples' names and surnames, other than the principles' name and surname.

Technically, a button could be added so as to insert fields for the entry to accommodate additional details. Or several fields could be added to the general template, and simply filled as "Blank" where fewer persons are recorded.

For now, mentally, a Volunteer will likely guess which of the 8 to include and disregard the rest, or as I have seen in other cases, fill out only partial details like a single forename, but not the sex, or the location or the occupation

This is not only a waste of their effort, but will only cause trouble for every user who comes after, that needs those disregarded details to find and/or verify their ancestor. Or those who naively dismantle another's tree/hard work for lack of visibility of all the facts.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

I've tried to read your post three times now, but each time, I've come to a screeching halt right at the beginning: what do you mean by "Source-Linker application is not being used"?

KJUSTB

Hi again @Julia Szent-Györgyi

Have you read the full discussion with the related posts? Could you ignore that line and finish reading the full post, so that you find the context and explanation you are looking for? Even I have adjust my thoughts since then, and have updated my posts accordingly for those that come after. https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/147230/attach-marriage-record-to-both-sets-of-parents-function#latest

Referencing the exact same post you linked to in the comment on my Layout suggestion, you will find Gordon reiterates exactly what I've said and even shows examples. https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/517002#Comment_517002

Would you like or do you need a fuller reply to the comment you've made? Let me know.

KJUSTB

After some reading of the latest replies, I realised I have actually missed something regarding the S-L app. That in itself should (hopefully 😊) trigger a response from FS. But also, because the triggers are quite different, there needs to be clarity on how to get the better one when doing a search for records.

Thanks to @Alan E. Brown and @Gordon Collett - read the full post - here is a summary:

Don't use this tool:

Instead use this tool:

If you've already made loads of progress, use this chart to see "gaps":

Julia Szent-Györgyi

The thing is, you don't get to choose the source-creation tool: if there are index entries associated with an image, then the "Attach to Family Tree" button is greyed out, and if there are no index entries associated with an image, then Source Linker doesn't apply and cannot be invoked.

Sometimes you can get around this because a page was filmed twice but only indexed once, but those are relatively rare in my experience.

Gordon Collett

One of the nice things about FamilySearch's design of the website is that so often there are so many different ways to accomplish a task and we can, with experience, figure out what method works best for us for what we are trying to do.

The whole discussion of attaching historical sources to corresponding profiles in Family Tree is a good example.

For indexed historical records we can:

• Use the Source Linker page on the website.
• Use the Source Linker page on the mobile app.

We can enter the Source Linker page from:

• A person's profile page via a hint on the website or the mobile app.
• The Recommended Task list on website home page.
• The Ancestors with Tasks and Descendants with Tasks lists on the mobile app.
• A historical record Search result list obtained through the Family Tree Detail page FamilySearch search link, the main Search page, or one of the sub-category Search pages.
• The list of Similar Records found on any historical record when viewing the full record.
• The Hint icons on the various pedigree charts.

For non-indexed records we can:

• Use the source creation function on the record image.
• Manually create a source and add it to our Source Box for attaching to multiple people.

For non-FamilySearch sources we can:

• Manually create a source and add it to our Source Box for attaching to multiple people.

Just use the right tool for the right job and things work great. Even though the Source linker page is now one of the oldest pages on the entire website, its flexible design lets it perform its primary purpose of attaching sources very efficiently.

It's secondary usefulness of adding new information to a profile page is actually starting to cause more problems than it is worth as record collections are being more completely indexed with different formats than in the past. I'm to the point of recommending that one almost never move over information in the source linker but rather just attach the source then go the profile page and make use of the new Sources side panel to copy information from the source into the person's profile.

For example, I can use the Source Linker page to incorrectly move a christening event over as a custom event under Other Information then go to the profile page and move it, or I can just attach the source then go take care of actually adding the information correctly the first time:

It's quicker to just add the information from the side panel with all the correct formatting in this last image than to click Add in the Source Linker, check the formatting, correct the formatting as needed, go to Other Information, copy the information from the custom event and enter it in the right spot, check formatting again, then delete the custom event.

Going through all the information in the source in the side panel shows you all the information you cannot see in the Source Linker and make sure everything needed has been moved to the Details page. You can also access the actual source, that is, the scanned image, right from the side panel if an image is available.

Regarding the fan chart, although the view showing number of sources in interesting, I don't find it helpful because the number of sources that any one person will have can vary so widely. A Norwegian child who died shortly after birth before being christened, for example, will only have one source.

The fan chart is much more useful when set to show Research Helps. Then you can see all the people that have hints that need evaluation:

Gordon Collett

Regarding indexing, I'm sure we will see all sorts of improvements in new indexes over the next twenty years. I'm also sure we will be terribly impressed and suitably horrified over the next update to the Source Linker that has got to be in the works somewhere.

But we will alway have to check original sources. We will never be able to rely on an index. We cannot expect that indexes will someday become full transcriptions. The fuller the transcription, the higher the cost in terms of time to create one record and in terms of storage space. Also, the fuller the transcription the more errors there are going to be in the transcription.

Also, I would not expect and certainly do not want FamilySearch to go back and "re-do" all the indexes from the past fifty years of indexing. Re-indexing all of them would be a tremendous waste of time and resources. We can find records in those indexes pretty well even though they are very incomplete. For example, here is a Norwegian birth record indexed back in the 1970s:

I can use this to easily find the original record at the Norwegian archives (or thirty years ago I could have ordered the microfilm and viewed it at my local family history library):

even though the index is missing the birth date, the parent's occupations, the family's residence, the church the christening took place at, and all the witnesses.

I will mention that recently the Norwegian Archives, FamilySearch, My Heritage, and Ancestry did a big project to re-index these parish registers. This is the result:

The birth date is incomplete, the church is still missing, the mother's last name is wrong (it should be Reinertsdatter), the mother's residence is a combination of the couple's occupation and residence (Gaarfolk, actually Gaardfolk, paa Rommetveit means farmers at Rommetveit), the event type is wrong (should be christening), the original event place is wrong, the auto-standardized event place is even worse, and all the witnesses are still missing.

Indexes are great and absolutely necessary to efficiently find records because the search routines are so good you can compensate for all the flaws in the index. But even a complete transcription will never replace the original record and the more complex the transcription, the more complex and error prone the source linker would need to be if one is to require that it be an information transfer system rather than just a source linker.