Connecting sources to persons connected through "Other Relationships"
I think it would be great for "Other Relationships" that have been added to be available to attach to a source. This is especially useful for census records if you wanted to add a source to a person that you have already added and attached to the head of household as an occupant. If they were included in the dropdown selection on the page where you attach a source, this would save from having to leave the page to get the information.
Comments
-
You can attach sources to Other Relationships, but like all relationships, it's a completely separate section and process.
Perhaps someday (soon, I hope) the engineers will figure out a way to handle two-person data without segregating it like this, but for now, this is the structure we have.
0 -
I love this idea. Yes, there are workarounds, but I love the idea of making it something that can be done from the source page.
1 -
It's right. The best user experience in FamilySearch would be to open a popup window to view information.
It happens a lot when I use the new version of "Tree" which doesn't display all the information without having to enter the "person" record. Is a good sugest.
0 -
At a superficial level, I can see why people might hope that sources for relationships might appear with a person's sources. But sources for a relationship (just like events, facts, and notes) apply to that particular relationship, which involves two people (or 3 in the case of a parent-child relationship). Such sources do not apply directly to the person.
So it would be confusing to mingle sources that apply to just one person with sources that apply to pairs (or triplets) of people. And it makes no sense at all to say that sources would be special; if somehow sources for all of a person's relationships were to be shown with the person's sources, then you would have to do the same for notes, facts, and events. That seems like it would be a confusing mess.
1 -
Actually, @Alan E. Brown, every source for a relationship also applies to each individual in the relationship. (The converse is often but not always true: some sources only mention a single person, but every source I can think of that mentions multiple people is also a source for the relationships between those people.)
The fact of the matter is that, because of FS's segregated handling of relationships, the vast majority of them do not have any sources specifically associated with them. We all just stick with attaching the indexed baptism to the parents and child, individually.
0 -
Well, @Julia Szent-Györgyi , that is obviously true, but I don't see what it has to do with what's being suggested here. Nothing stops you from attaching any source that mentions a person to that person. That's always been possible.
But maybe I don't understand what's being suggested. Are people just hoping that sources would be removed from relationships as a feature altogether?
1 -
The way I interpret it -- perhaps influenced by my own thoughts and wishes -- is that people wish that relationships behaved the same way as conclusions in the Vitals box: they want to be able to tag them with sources right from Source Linker.
2 -
I'm with the thoughts of @Alan E. Brown here. In my early days of using Family Tree I didn't even see the need to add sources to parents relating to the christenings of their children - I argued the source (detail) was easily found, just a click or two away on the pages of the children themselves, so why bother? (Creates too much clutter in the Sources section, etc.)
Anyhow, I was eventually persuaded of the usefulness of doing this - especially relating to the fact that if I didn't attach the relevant sources, they would be "available" for another user to add to a completely unrelated profile.
But, who am I to argue about the usefulness in implementing this particular idea? It's just that I can't see I would be taking advantage of any such feature so, personally, would place this way down on my list of the many items I feel would constitute a genuine enhancement to my everyday work in Family Tree.
0 -
So I can give a different point of view. For those who conduct lineage research, on the check list of "must haves" for every generation is documentation which connects child to parents. When doing my own family research I also used to think that putting, say a death certificate, on everyone's source list who is on the document was excessive. After training for and becoming a lineage researcher, I now know that these connections must be documented and the best way to document that children and parents are connected is to put all sources which name both sides in the sources for both sides. I'm not out to "convert" anyone to my way of thinking. I'm trying to point out that many diverse users are active in the World Tree, and have many purposes for their work. I think FamilySearch is the most perfect environment to work in for all of us doing diverse tasks. So, switching my discussion to the actual original topic, "Other Relationships", that, too, plays heavily in lineage research. When parent/child relationships cannot be found in traditional documents, the researcher goes wide to friends, relatives, etc. Who are all these OTHER people listed in the probate, guardian, obituary, etc documents. Those relationships must be documented if a chain of logic to prove parent / child can be obtained and used. Think back to high school math. If A=B and B=C, then A must = C. That logic can be used with sources when they form a chain of logic to prove a child / parent relationship. I was on the verge of doing just that when an orphan's pension file fell into my lap and named parents. All I could find for a while was these kids living with a variety of different people.
0 -
I guess I'd still like to see more direct examples of how this suggestion might provide benefit, compared to the current situation - especially in already being able to add sources (to anyone and everyone) through use of the Source Box.
In fact, there is one example (which arose on another thread yesterday) whereby, yes, I would see a use of being able to attach a source to an individual, where I am unable to do this directly at present. That example is found in England & Wales census records where a family household has been indexed in two separate sources, due to some members appearing on different pages in the original records. Yes, I can see it would be helpful in this case to be able to add the source including children of the head of the family (that have been included in a different source) to their parents.
In the case of a probate source, my experience with these is only with those like the one below. In examples like this, I can add the source to Robert Flowerday, too (whoever he might be - perhaps a relative or just a solicitor with only a legal link to the Tungate family).
Maybe I am just missing something here - is the "clue" in the specific "Other Relationships" situation? In my illustrated example, I still have to work out Robert Flowerday's connection / "other relationship" to the prime individual in the source, which - in itself - is straightforward enough to attach to all three individuals mentioned.
I accept "it must be me", because Julia and Gail seem to be acknowledging there is a problem here. Maybe my personal way of working within Family Tree is just blinding me to the exact nature of instances where the need for this "enhancement" would apply.
(It might help to understand my viewpoint by my advising that I have never added any "Other Relationship(s)" to any of the profiles I have worked on! This is of no importance to me, as - apart from adoptive and step relationships - I do not see "others", such as next-door-neighbours and close friends, as forming a direct part of my genealogical research. If these relationships have proved of any great relevance, I would just add a Note in the Collaboration section.)
1 -
@Paul W @Alan E. Brown An example of what I was suggesting is this: Two men resided in the same household in 1850 and 1860. I create a household relationship based on that fact. When I find the 1870 census for one of the men, I would like for the relationship that I added to show on the right hand side in the source linker along with other familial relationships instead of having to go out of the source linker, copy the ID, and paste, to attach to this person. Hope that makes more sense.
0 -
I have to say the programmers for FamilySearch are really good at their jobs. The new Source Linker which can be seen in Beta and which is gradually being rolled out already includes this feature:
(Actually, checking the old source linker in beta, it has this feature, also. I don't have anyone to test this on in the old source linker in the production site to see if it is there.)
2 -
@Gordon Collett Thank you for pointing out that they took care of it! Yay.
0
