Tag a vital name as relevant
There seems to be 2 reasons why the Vital name of an individual is modified by a user :
1 - Because it is irrelevant (erroneous or wrongly associated with the individual)
2 - Because the user has find another relevant name for that individual
The user could be asked if the vital name he is replacing seems relevant. Then, the system could allow him to submit his name. When processing data, the system could consider differently vital names that are potentially relevant
Comments
-
I don't understand what you are saying is special about names in this regard. In the open-edit Family Tree, pretty much every detail about a person can be edited. We trust that when someone makes a change, it is because they have a good reason (which they should supply in the reason statement), and preferably backed up by a source (which should be attached to the person and tagged to the particular conclusion).
If something is irrelevant to a person (e.g., someone added a residence where you have good reason to believe was not a place they lived), you delete the conclusion and give your reason. Of course the primary name for a person can't be deleted -- that really wouldn't make any sense, since you do have to identify who the person is behind this particular profile. So the way I would look at it is to have the perspective of the improvement -- if I have a better, more accurate name (or any other conclusion), then I supply it, with my reasons and sources. It doesn't particularly matter precisely why the old conclusion was incorrect or inadequate.
3 -
@Alan E. Brown I will give you more explantion on my idea by responding to what you have said.
We trust that when someone makes a change, it is because they have a good reason (which they should supply in the reason statement), and preferably backed up by a source (which should be attached to the person and tagged to the particular conclusion).
What you say is true if a skilled genealogist makes a change, I agree. One problem is that not every users that makes modifications on an individual are skilled. Some people could make a mistake when naming someone. Some people could make a change accidentally...
I'm following many individuals in the family tree and I've have discovered that users are often removing useful informations from individuals ! Why ? I don't know ! But, users are allow to erase informations (or part of a name) it is accepted by the system.
If something is irrelevant to a person (e.g., someone added a residence where you have good reason to believe was not a place they lived), you delete the conclusion and give your reason
Since I'm following many individuals in the family tree, I can assure you that very often, people don't give any reason for a change.
Of course the primary name for a person can't be deleted -- that really wouldn't make any sense, since you do have to identify who the person is behind this particular profile
Really ? When I modify the primary name of a person, what happens to the previous primary name, the one that the previous user gave to this person ? It is thrown to a change log, it is some sorte of deletion to me. Because it it no more used actively by the system.
So the way I would look at it is to have the perspective of the improvement -- if I have a better, more accurate name (or any other conclusion), then I supply it, with my reasons and sources. It doesn't particularly matter precisely why the old conclusion was incorrect or inadequate.
Yes, you are doing that ! The problem is that I'm observing what many, many other users are doing in the family tree. And you would be surprised to discover that some of them are changing a revelant name for a poorer one.
It is also allowed to replace a revelent vital name by another revelent vital name.
For example, an individual has the vital name : Paul Jones
Someone, can modify it for : Paul William Jones
Then, somebody else could even rename it for : Jacky Jones
All those names are revelant for this individual, no error, no mistake. BUT at the end of the process, this individual vital name is Jacky Jones with no alternate name because everybody has edit the same unique vital name
So, when a user modify the primary name of an individual, the system could at least forced him to indicate if the system he's trying to modify is relevant. Then, he save the new primary name, the second one fall into the change log, but is has the mention that it is relevant! So, it is not totally inactive. The system could consider this forgotten name in further search into the database to retreive useful information to give to the user.
More revelvant names are use to do the search, greater are the chance that the system finds information for you :)
0 -
To medicate some of this and as a practical matter, I will also record his/her birth name in the Other Information/ Alternate Name/ Birth Name field. So when someone comes along and changes James Robert Jones to Bobbie Jones, the name they knew him as for forty years, I will have preserved the birth name. Same thing for an adoptee, other legal name change or assumed name. I just view the Vital name as temporary subject to change (right or wrong) at any time. As suggested elsewhere over the years, a lot of these issues could be avoided if Alternate names were also listed in the Vitals area. Just my 2 cents.
3 -
@Chas Howell thank you for sharing your experience !
I'm doing the same as you do for alternate names : making a copy of the Vital name into the Alternate, because someone can change the Vital name at any time.
Over the time, I have developped many mechanisms to avoid some minor problems due to the way the vital names are managed.
0
