Add the ability to Temporary add data.
Sometimes I have a date or name etc. bit of info and I don't know if its right. I'd like to know if it makes a difference in hints on the right hand side of the FamilySearch.
I don't want to add it because I'm not sure it is right. Thus I have bits of paper all over the place. With sometimes cryptic notes beside it of possible dates and data.
I wonder if there were a box beside lets say Death date, that you could click and this would either remove the data after 1 hour or perhaps pop up a box after some period of time and ask if you wanted to make it permanent. To repeat so there is no confusion. The reason for this is to have Familysearch db to grind away and possibly find helpful information based on the new temporary info. If it finds nothing that is relevant then the death date you entered will either disappears or put red flag beside it or again gives you a pop up and asks if you want to keep it.
An alternative to this is a search window in the persons data window. That automatically populates a search with all of the current extant or existing data for that person , but then lets you add other search data that is not included.
The reason this would be handy is that I'm constantly going back and forth copying data and getting lost with 20 or 30 windows open or bits of paper, that has the current persons data on it. In other words each time I search I have to add the data again for that person. It would be great if I could add the info automatically then change and add the new research data.
Anyway I know that I assume money time, poor description etc. (possibly a dumb Idea) will prevent this but thanks for letting me vent a little.
Regards
😀
Comments
-
I like the general purpose, but I'm not sure temporary data is the way to handle it. It can take days, months, or even years to find the correct information, so having it autodelete or become permanent could be troublesome. Maybe instead, you could attach "Possibilities" to vital information (which wouldn't change what the Vital already displays), and then clicking on the Vital would give you the option to see Possibilities, similar to how the sources already get shown. Also similar to the sources, a Vital could also display how many alternate possibilities have been attached to that Vital, so you know they're there without having to click the Vital first.
0 -
AGREEMENT
Yes I like that.
Possibilities.
I mean I don't know if your like me but I look at Query 1 I have which takes me to Q2 that jumps off to Q3 by the time I'm finished I'm at Q10 and forgot what on earth Q1 was. However Possibilities & Needs Verification seems nice. At the moment once you enter the data, while editable, its kind of assumed that it is correct. There is no other option to try or test it other than I suppose putting it in and then deleting it, or of course keep putting tries of data into the search engine.
SEARCH BASED ON CURRENT PERSON
This is why I also think that the ability to search based on current persons criteria would be helpful. I mean I know that further hints are given at the side and if there are none nothing will show up. But If you could click a button that says "Base search on current person" then opens a dialog box that shows the current person criteria in a search box that you could then edit and change to see if something else comes up is unobtrusive in the current persons data because its just a search. Right now when I do a search I have to keep Re-adding the same data adding the data, as I go from person A do some research then to person B and do research and then through the alphabet, but then say hey I d like to go back to person A. Now I have to enter the data again. Yes I could keep my browser open, but after a while I have so many windows open I spend 5 minutes trying to figure out which is the one Im looking for. The above Idea (searching based on current person) which I admit is never trivial to change and interface. However it's really just creating a new Query box grabbing the existing fields into a new search window. I know I can hear the programmers probably rightly enough saying, that's easy for you to say! However we are just presenting our ideas. Priming the pump as it were. Perhaps you will glean some small nugget from these thoughts.
HOW ABOUT SAVING SEARCHES ?
One additional thought because I know your sitting there on your hands saying Oh please give us something to do, Yes I'm being facetious. Correct me if I'm wrong, if you don't my wife will, I don't think there is a way to save searches?? So at lease I could look up person A and then save that with my own title and then it be stored in my profile for me to use later on. OR am I wrong and you already have this ?? As I say I do miss things, my apologies.
Regards to all and Happy Thanksgiving/Harvest Home🍗, depending on which month you celebrate.
0 -
@ColinM0288, the tree already has two tools that may do what you're thinking of: Search Records - FamilySearch, and Tools - Find Similar People. Both basically pre-fill the search fields using information from the profile. The one does it in Search - Records (i.e., it searches for indexed records), the other in Family Tree - Find (i.e., it searches for tree profiles). Like all searches, you can alter the search terms and/or filter the results.
When a conclusion is uncertain, you can use the reason box to record the other possibility -- or, if there are too many variations to comfortably fit there, then you can put something like "please see notes" in the box, and then write a note listing everything. (If things were that uncertain, though, I'd probably leave the conclusion blank or generic: "about 1850" and "Pennsylvania" rather than "1848 or 49, but maybe 1851, or possibly as late as 1855", or "Bucks, or Berks, or maybe Butler or Blair county, PA".)
By the way, yes, there is a way to save a search: it's all in the URL. Copy that and paste it into a text document, and you can always go back to it.
2 -
Thank you for your helpful suggestions I will look into those options.
Ohhh the URL sure that makes sense, thanks.
Appreciate your input.
0 -
What you're asking really is for the ability to enter speculation and hoping the system matches something to it. The problem here is: What if it does find something? At that point you can't really say for sure the source belongs to the specific person you're editing because you had no solid basis for it in the first place. What I'd recommend is just doing a plain old search records that fit, and if you find any that might fit and aren't attached elsewhere, just create a new profile for those sources. That way you can find additional sources to go along with the records you found and build that profile up until you have enough information to prove it's a duplicate, or a conflict that proves it's not, at which point whatever other sources you've connected to that new profile won't be mistaken as sources for your person.
1 -
Your right!
Speculation is a good word for it and I understand your point of view. Your strategy is a good strategy. My only response is that I am slow to add a new person. That may be just me. Also the queries are not using information I have but rather trying to run a new query on information I'm intelligently suspecting. Indeed I am looking for the system to find new hints. I don't really need to create a new person, with all the same info of the person I'm using as my base person. Allowing the software which is smarter than I am, which is not saying much, to do the work. The method that you suggest is one that can be used right now, but may not be one that is obvious so new, to me anyway, which is no indication that it may be completely obvious to all others. The key with any software is to make it somewhat straight forward and clear on how to use it. People could argue of course that one or other ideas are not obvious. So there you are. There are some other things I could say, but I do think the conversation has run its course.
Thank you very much for you contribution to my submission. From this point on I will remain silent on the issue. I think I have made my point and will allow it to stand or fall or branch off on it's own and will allow it more likely to be lost in the detritus of the internet.
With respect and regards.
Without prejudice.
0
