People list
I use Family Search for my personal searching but I also use Family Search when I am searching to learn the history of people who are buried in a small local cemetery. My problem is now when I am doing personal searches I have a long History list of people many of who I have no interest in. I want to be able to edit the History list on the screen.
Answers
-
You can edit your Recents list -- just not in Source Linker.
3 -
Sorry for doubting you, Julia, but I just had to try this myself.
Although I was still working on the relative for which the source appeared as a "Research Help", I deleted her name from my Recents list, and found she had indeed disappeared from the History List, too. Common sense, I guess, but I, too, wouldn't have thought of reducing my History List by removing names from my Recents list! Perhaps it is again a problem with inconsistent terminology - same list, different titles.
2 -
Long ago, the list of persons you had recently visited was called the History List, and that's what it was called everywhere. Then it changed to be called the Recents list, and it was renamed to use that term almost everywhere. Apparently the usage in the source linker was overlooked, so it is still called History List there, even these many years later. But there is just one list, even though it may be shown in different places and have somewhat different names:
- On the Home page itself, there is a box labeled "Recent People"
- On the Recents tab of the home page, the title is "Recently Viewed People"
- In the Family Tree section of the site, it's called "Recents"
- And as noted, in the part of the source linker that lets you add a new person, it's called "History List"
They're all the same list, but may have some slight difference (e.g., in Family Tree and the Home page's Recents tab you will appear at the top of the list and an Edit capability is provided, but you are omitted in the other places and there is no Edit capability).
3 -
Have you considered using a different account specifically for your Cemetery work - so the two areas of research dont get intermixed.
0 -
Your suggestion appears to be one involving the opening / holding of more than one account. I have been told that this is not a requirement, even for LDS Church members. Given that, I would be strongly against a registered user opening multiple accounts.
I wonder how many socieites would be happy to agree to an individual holding membership status under different aliases? Okay, one doesn't get extra voting rights through holding multiple accounts here, but the appearance would be given of different individuals making contributions (either here in Community or in Family Tree) and it not being clear that "Paul W" and (say a) "John F" comments / inputs came from the same person.
I believe there needs to be a very strong reason for FamilySearch admin allowing users to hold multiple accounts (even two), which could suggest to other users that there were at least two users of the same mind, instead of the thoughts, or work, being that of just one person.
1 -
there is nothing to "allow"
a person can just go in and create a 2nd one . . . no one needs to or does give permission,
Most Family Search employees - have multple accounts to differentiate between work and non work activity. Various non employees also take advantage of this to accomodate various circumstances
I have asked various FS employees - if there was anything wrong with creating a 2nd account - and they all said no.
it just like creating multiple accounts on Ancestry, Findagrave, Facebook, Linkedin, and actually most on line services - that all allow it.
but for the average user it is not needed and not required - and can even be quite confusing (and thus usually avoided) - UNLESS you have a specific need to differentiate the work under the two accounts - which some people do have the need.
0 -
My point is that it is something that should only be "allowed" in certain circumstances, not (as I know) is easy to do right now.
I am hoping FamilySearch management will see the pitfalls in allowing individual users to hold multiple accounts and, if they can't withdraw these now, only permit them in future where a user can demonstrate a clear need for requiring the ability to pose as different persons - both here, but especially in using Family Tree. I remember one user actually boasting that she could use one of her many other aliases if she was banned or otherwise restricted from making her ludicrous inputs to Family Tree.
I admit I am also not happy that those of us who believe in holding just one account have less opportunities than those who choose otherwise: e.g., this seems rather a devious way of getting around FamilySearch's limit of 4,000 names per "user's" Following list - just open a few more accounts to get up to 16,000!
Update - immediately after writing the above, I saw a response to my comments at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/521914#Comment_521914.
In spite of my taking this issue so seriously, I did have to chuckle at the mention of the known workaround!
(Apologies to Dale Garvey for pursuing this issue against this thread - I'll add no further comments here.)
0 -
the curent design is intentional
Of course I totally agree - that use of accounts for deception and avoiding account shutdowns - is totally a NO- NO - and can be reason for being banned from FamilySearch all together. I totally support that. I know it has happened - and I know cases people faced consequences for illegiitmate behavior.
BUT I cant imagine the current allowance of multiple accounts changing - there are valid reasons for it. Its been this way for years for legitimate reasons - many systems across the entire Internet allow for it - for good reasons.
BUT It should not be used for getting around a former account being deactivated or for illegal activities or actvities against policy. FS has certain ways to detect those cases - they dont need approvals for that.
As far as I understand using two different accounts to differentiate work - such as work on a cemetery project that has nothing to do with your personal ancestry - is a perfectly legitimate case - and I very much support it - its so much cleaner to have them differentiated.
As to things like record count limitations (per account) - they are in place simply to ensure that a given one account can actually run - and doesnt get bogged down in performance hitting the database and returning query results that are so huge (per account) that they crash / bog down the system.
0
