Review Layout
Related post references:
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/516827
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. Similarly, the Source-Linker could be updated to allow more detailed entry for tagging (see the referenced posts for details on the S-L app).
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.
Up until I started indexing, about 2 weeks ago, I was only using FS on mobile browser (MB; not app). Working on the FS Indexing Project is much easier on the desktop browser (DB)
Now that I have tried to use the desktop browser (DB), I am seeing some logic and the cause for my experience being different/difficult to others' with whom I've been in contact on the subject - see related posts.
If anyone has not used both, this might be unclear.
Layout on DB:
- "Person" page layout can be changed by user on the DB
- "Other" is on the same page as "Vitals" and is in fact together under "Details" on the DB
- Therefore "Occupation" is readily visible - if it is used (see related posts) - on the DB
By comparison, this single page Layout is divided into tabs on the MB:
- "Details" giving way to "Vitals and "Other"
- Occupation, under "Other", is thus invisible
Specifically with regards to "Occupation":
- In either case Occupation is not-source linked (see related posts)
- in both cases "Occupation" listed under "Events" not "Facts"; which doesn't really make sense for older ancestors who rarely changed jobs and therefore don't need place and date
- Because Occupation often coincides with related Vitals, like death; but also Relationships, like marriage, or even census records, which all come with date and place - it should be included when indexed
- Alternatively, the Source-Linker could offer additional entry fields (as done with Residence, Baptism, and Probate - see related posts)
Reviewing the MB layout (to mirror DB layout?) and the placement of Historical Details --that verify one ancestor from another-- is how to resolve this visibility issue, and improve the Time/Energy cost, decrease erroneous merging and dismantling.
Comments
-
Indexes aren't meant as, and should not be used as, replacements for the document itself. Yes, sometimes the index is all we've got, but we should never take it at its word: conclusions based solely on indexes should be avoided when possible, and the unavoidable exceptions should be clearly marked as uncertain or tentative.
Source Linker is not meant as, and should not be used as, an alternative mode of profile editing. It is simply a tool for linking index entries with profiles, and it is very good at that. As Gordon wrote on another thread recently, with Source Linker, you can "link even the most convoluted historical record to even the most complex Family Tree record." I would add to that: with Source Linker, you can link even the most thoroughly misindexed historical record to even the most complex Family Tree family.
1 -
Thank you for your response. I would like to state as a general headline before responding:
To make it easier to deal with each point, and keep posts at a workable length, I posted each suggestion separately. Naturally, this could cause / has caused confusion as the discussion is dismantled and now viewed outside of some useful context. I hope you were able to see “the bigger picture” through the related posts linked?
I am replying to your comments about the S-L app here, except that here my post is about LAYOUT so it really doesn’t fit this conversation - adding confusion. But I am doing so anyway for the benefit of those that come after.
I'll also add that this is only a suggestion and perhaps I’ve not used the right language to describe what I’ve experienced and observed. However, it warrants considered response, in support of the FS mission, not as frivolous complaints or opinions.
I looked at the post you referenced and in fact it serves as exactly one such example of my suggested improvements to the S-L, (in the S-L post, not this post about Layout)
The S-L app is only available on the MB, which I’ve also pointed out. As you accurately put it in your comment there, many folk race ahead only to realise they’ve missed a bunch of steps linking sources—which could easily have been done on your behalf by improvements to the currently available tools such as the S-L app. From this I feel we are actually aligned in our thinking and on the same page with why my suggestions could be very helpful for the wider community, but especially in guiding the newer, less experienced, uninformed or simply naive users. The bigger picture.
The mission and purpose of the FS project is to make one tree and represent every person in the world. Honouring history, the documents and reporting each document fully, rather than follow an inappropriate template, is surely a worthwhile pursuit and better supports the bigger picture?
I’m not sure that I asked for indices to become guarantees or replacements of anything. But FS has taken on this work and is doing it superbly, and has asked for ideas for improvement. Since much of what I am suggesting is modifications of already existing functions within the S-L app (as one part of my full discourse), I do think that an application can be updated to be more widely applicable and therefore more useful, quite easily.
Of course looking at the actual image/document is superior, but is the document always available? No.
Is NAAIRS, the source of many South African documents easy to navigate itself? Definitely not.
So, if someone (a volunteer no less!) has taken the time to pull the information and has done so incorrectly, or been restricted by an inadequate template, and the image is not readily accessible, isn’t that a redundant exercise on their behalf, in view of FS mission?
If the index tool can add extra entry lines, it can add extra field boxes. Simple adjustments such as that can make huge differences.
I hope I’ve correctly understood your reply and responded appropriately. Let me know if not.
0
