Source titles in source section. Where did part of source title go to.
Hi
The last few days I have noticed a change in some sources.
It used to show name of person for the record you are viewing or source title, or name "in entry for" xxx
The part that has changed is "in entry for" is being dropped. This is causing problems for me. It makes me think the person has several death dates. I have to look at the source details to get it straight in my mind. This is a huge time waster when trying to verify info.
See record Leroy Peyton Bush MDCV-5LS
Go down to Death records 1930, 1943, 1962.
1930 is his. The other two are children but their names are not showing.
In source dated 1962 it had unfinished links. I opened it up and added spouse of a source to source. In her case Mary Jane McCullough MK7D-QM3 the death source shows it added by me today. The system will not let me copy and paste source titles. It should show up with her name and that of her spouse. It only shows her name.
I would really like it if this issue gets fixed, and the sooner the better.
Thanks Nolan
2 of 3 death titles not shown correctly.
Answers
-
The 1943 death for the daughter, on her father's profile, is in what is sometimes referred to as a "rotated view." If you look at it on the daughter's profile, her name appears. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LTWX-JWR
What you are seeing is how it is supposed to work.
0 -
Yes, I noticed this yesterday. I thought I'd found the death I was searching for, but she was just shown as the spouse of the deceased in a Death record. Hopefully this is not a deliberate change in format / headings of records.
1 -
I am not aware of the titles of attached sources ever changing unless edited by a user. I know for certain that correcting the index is never reflected in the titles of sources that were already attached.
The sources that Nolan pointed out that are missing "in entry for" were attached five years ago or so, and none of them have been modified more recently, so I believe that if there has been any change in the automatically-generated titling of sources, it has been toward the addition of that clarifying phrase, not away from it.
0 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi and @Áine Ní Donnghaile
Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here. Just taking my example (see above), do you believe this is a one-off error in indexing / record details - i.e., Millicent being shown as the primary person instead of the usual / expected "Mentioned in the record of Stanley Sinclair"? I was sure I'd been presented with her death record until I clicked on the image.
The way I would usually expect to find / attach her from this record for Stanley Sinclair is as in the example below - where I have clicked on Jane Wrightson's name after locating the probate source of George Wrightson:
1 -
@Paul W, the Community wasn't showing me your reply when I wrote mine.
I believe I am still correct about source titles not changing once they've been generated (attached), unless edited by a user, meaning that Nolan's examples do not show anything about current or recent policies or practices.
Paul's example has yesterday's date in the auto-citation, but I have no idea what that means about the date of publication of that index entry. Is this really a brand-new index entry? If so, it should be recalled and fixed, because it's malformed. Everyone's marked "principal", and the index detail pages aren't linked to each other.
In other words, I don't think there has been any change in the use of "in entry for" in automatically-generated source titles: if the index is correctly structured, then that's how the non-principals are presented. The trick is that bit about "correctly structured". It seems that the occurrence of incorrectly-structured indexes is nothing new, given Nolan's examples, but there may be more of them nowadays. (Statistically unsurprising: there are a lot more index entries in FS's database now than there were even two years ago, never mind five.)
0 -
I have put in a request to have this looked at. Thanks guys.
3 -
I was taking a look at Joshua Popplewell's Sources section and noticed that these sources are formatted differently. Some just have "Joshua" as the subject and other have "Joshua in entry for (child's name) Popplewell".
They have all been added on September 26, 2023 by the same user and the titles do not appear to have been subject to editing. I reported a similar example about a week ago (sorry, I'm hopeless at locating older threads!) where name of the informant of a death was shown alone in the source heading, giving the impression the record related to her death.
I don't recall seeing this in the past and can't understand that - if there has been any change to produce source titles in this way - why it is apparently being applied to some sources and not others.
Regardless, it is something that needs to be reversed, as it is hiding the subject of the record itself (in this case baptisms of Joshua Popplewell's children), whereas it used to always be clear that Joshua was just being named in the record, rather than it seemingly relating to one of his own vitals.
I would be grateful if this matter could be escalated to the team responsible for such changes.
Maybe the plain "Joshua" presents a clue to what these sources represent, but definitely a disimprovement on the older format.
0 -
For those who want to observe the sources for this person without having to hunt for him, here's the link: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LZ1W-1FK
0 -
Thanks, Alan - I suppose I should have added the link myself, but assumed other users will be finding their own examples, as the issue is not specific to Joshua Popplewell.
1 -
I have another example from I source I just attached. WWII draft source in record LKKC-RKR. Denver John Dapper. He gives a brother as relative. LKKC-5W3. When I looked in the sources attached to LKKC-5W3 I see.
No Vernon "In record of" type of title.
1 -
beta/familysearch.org has been removing indexed information from indexed historical records (no images to verify what should have been on the indexed historical record). they are also mixing the order of the indexed historical records information, so you have a hard time figuring what information belongs to which person. (child as husband of mother???). Because of all the added, extra information to the indexed record the historical indexed record is no longer valid because the added information is not part of the original document that was indexed. Most of Historical Indexed source records are not printable. (Indexed information is gone. 'Similar records with the icons are already attached as sources to this person's detail page which lists all sources attached to this person's FID#). "Attached to Family Tree" PID number is the same as each listed Icon FID# (If different FID# then it may be a duplicate or not for the current person. If no Icon then it may be a record not yet attached to the tree.
0 -
@K S D, most indexed records are not duplicated on the Beta site. Don't base any conclusions about future plans or practices on what you see or don't see about sources there.
1 -
It's already on the regular family tree site!
0 -
On the broad issue of title formats I thought you might be interested in the following.
See https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LHLJ-YGW
The sources illustrated below are all records of baptisms of George Brown's children. It seems they appear, in these examples, in this format because child has been indexed in just their first name (i.e., as "Robert the son of George Brown", etc.)
However, further down in his Sources section there is an 1872 entry, which turns out to be him being mentioned in the marriage record of his daughter! I have found the usual format for this to be (using these names); "George Brown in entry for Marshall Wood" (where Marshall Wood is the groom / son-in-law here).
Incidentally, in one of the 1844 examples (for baptism of son Robert), I checked out Robert's sources and found the title transfers across as:
As these sources were added to these individuals in 2018, it appears (and you will see this when going through all the sources for George Brown) there has been inconsistency and confusion regarding the prime subject of the record for several years. It would be interesting to know how this happens - presumably in the post-indexing "formatting" phase.
Incidentally, this is how one of the baptism records found in FamilySearch appears on a Results page:
I guess the solution where we find the prime subject of these records confusing is to edit the titles ourselves, to make it clear exactly to whom and what they refer.
0 -
I wrote earlier:
I guess the solution where we find the prime subject of these records confusing is to edit the titles ourselves, to make it clear exactly to whom and what they refer.
As I browse through the Sources sections of my relatives and ancestors I see what a silly suggestion that was. It would take me months to reverse all these changes to the original, clearly titled items that refer to my relatives where named in a record in which they are not the main subject - e.g., changing "William Alderson" back to "William Alderson in entry for Richard Gibson".
There can be only one way of solving this dreadful problem - the engineers reversing whatever action their recent change caused the source titles to now appear in their current form.
Please confirm appropriate action will be taken asap.
A further example, showing some sources do still remain with their original titles, but the majority seem to have been changed to the confusing, new format. The events below all relate to the mention of William Alderson in events (baptisms and marriages) relating to his children / son-in-law:
Perhaps the reason there is not more outcry over this issue relates to most users arranging their sources in chronological order, but for those of us who like to put all sources (baptism, marriage, burial, then census, etc.) for the profile subject at the top of the list this is proving a real nightmare.
1 -
For a moment I thought the issue had been resolved! All the sources I have added over the last couple of days have been in the "correct" format: as in "William Alderson in entry for Richard Gibson". However, I just rechecked the examples reported above and see this does not appear to mean all these confusingly headed items - that only mention (say) just "William Alderson" in the title - have now reverted to the expected title description ("....in entry of...").
Hopefully, this "new" way of titling sources has only been applied to a limited number of items - possibly relating to specific (new?) collections. I'm equally hopeful FamilySearch engineers will be able to fix the problem with the affected sources, so there is once again complete consistency and a clear understanding (from viewing the title) on whether William Alderson, George Brown, etc. are the prime individual in the source, or just "mentioned" in the record.
0 -
@Paul W, I know it's the sort of thing that's nearly impossible to prove or show, but have you actually seen an existing source title change? As in, are source titles that were already attached with the format "X in entry for Y, [collection title]" now changing in the profile's Sources list to just "X, [collection title]"?
My impression is that no, source titles do not change for index entries that are already attached. If it was attached as "[mistranscription] in entry for [other mistranscription], [collection title]", then that's what the title will be, until/unless a user edits it specifically, even if the index itself is edited to correct the mistranscriptions.
0 -
My first thoughts were related to the fact that Joshua Popplewell (one of the examples I've highlighted here) is on my Following list, so I thought I would have noticed the problem in 2022 when some of these sources were added. Then I noticed the link at the bottom of the opened record (first screenshot) to "Source modified - See changes). This appears to show the person involved made adjustments to the source title (second screenshot), so I don't know if this helps in deciding when / how this and other differences in the title format occurred.
As far as the title is concerned, I can't work out if Sylvia has attempted to change it to how would be the usual title for such a record - that appears to be the case. In that case, is the current appearance of the title due to her change not being "saved"?
I just tried an edit on the record for a baptism of another of Joshua's children (which was headed just "Joshua..." and the change did stick, however. This is the current appearance of the source's change log:
See https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LZ1W-1FK. Nope, can't work out the sequence of any "FamilySearch" change that has affected some of these source titles, causing them to appear in alternative forms. I wonder if the screenshots provide you with any more idea on how some are appearing in a "clipped" form?
0 -
"Source change log"? I guess that's the right description, but I hadn't even noticed the feature until today!
0 -
This issue is continuing to present me with serious difficulties in organising items in my relatives' Sources sections. I have wondered why there have not been many more complaints, but feel the implementation of this new format has so far been restricted to limited locations. As an example, (for England) I have only noticed it affecting Yorkshire and Derbyshire source titles, as yet.
It is interesting to note the new layout of the source (as illustrated below), whereby the "Mentioned in the Record of..." qualification is shown, albeit a fair way down the page (instead of actually in the title) and - in this specific example - that the relationship has been "calculated" incorrectly: "Joseph Hunton Mentioned in the Record of Martha Hunton (Joseph Hunton's Son), instead of daughter! **
I repeat my gratitude to @Maile L for escalating the issue, but still hope the decision (hopefully, just to "trial" this) will be reversed asap, to stop one gigantic headache for me (and eventually others) in identifying the "true nature" of these sources from within a Sources section.
BTW - I appear to be having an intermittent problem in even editing the current source titles.
** Update to comments: I can now see why it says "(Joseph Hunton's) son" - this is one of the many sources that currently have the sex reversed for the individuals: i.e., bride shown as Male and groom as "Female". Another issue that needs widespread fixing!
0 -
I have now encountered a sources page where yes, the titles were disimproved -- and what's more, fixing them doesn't always work.
I have some theories about possible patterns.
One: I think the disimprovement may be related to the new index editor. All of the sources that had their titles go from "X in entry for Y" to just "X" are in a collection that has recently had the new editor applied to it (the Slovakia Church Books).
Two: I think the edited title fails to "stick" if it exactly matches what the index is supposed to generate (but no longer does). That is, if you use the indexed spellings, then your edit goes away. If you tweak things slightly, then it stays.
When I first looked at my ...5gf's 1st wife? Something like that..., the Sources page started off with ten functionally identical entries: only the sort-by dates were different. I've fixed half so far, but that still leaves five entries to experiment with.
The 1772 entry is the baptism of Sara's daughter Elisabeth.
So the correct auto-generated title should be "Sara Biró in entry for Elisabeth Szabó, ...".
I click "Save" ...and the title goes right back to just "Sara Biró, ...".
I've repeated these steps several times, just to make sure it's not a case of "third time's the charm" or whatever. Every time, if I add "in entry for Elisabeth Szabó", my edit evaporates. However, if I remove the diacritic from the surname, then the edit stays put.
I have experimented with other tweaks: changing "for" to "of" works. Also, editing a previously-edited title so that it matches the supposed-to-be title stays put, so I could re-edit Elisabeth's surname to Szabó. Or I could just edit each title to some interim state, save, and then edit to the correct format, and it should stick.
I'll try to keep track of things and report back if my edits go away again or something.
1 -
As with another thread in which I participated today, my hope is that more users would find some time to check out Sources sections for this issue and experiment / try to find some common factors attached to the issue.
As I commented in another thread, I had originally thought the problem with making the edits stick was connected to the new index editor. However, I quickly realised that most of the sources I was / am dealing with cannot be edited (the source titles can be, of course), as they have no linked image.
Hopefully, the engineers are aware of this and, not only will be able to revert the titles back to their previous format (so we can tell immediately who they primarily refer to) but, meanwhile, figure out why editing the title sticks on some occasions, but not on others.
To me, this is by far the biggest pain I have had to endure when a FamilySearch change "goes horribly wrong", as I so rely on an easily sortable Sources section - especially in comparing different profiles, side-by-side, to examine if they are duplicates, or for individuals of very similar identity. (Seeing "Joseph in entry for Martha Hunton" is especially helpful in immediately knowing if a source has been added to the "correct" Joseph Hunton (e.g. where I have two individuals of similar identity and know one of them did not have a child named Martha. A record merely titled "Joseph Hunton" is not quite so helpful here in seeing to whom it relates and/or should be detached - especially if there are about ten of them all shown with just the father's name!)
0 -
Paul, I think I have figured out "why editing the title sticks on some occasions, but not on others." If the resulting title exactly matches what the system thinks was there in the first place, i.e., the "in entry for" text that it's supposed to be auto-generating, then it discards your edit and just uses the auto-generated title. The problem is, what the system thinks it's generating and what is actually showing up are now two entirely different things.
You can "turn off" the auto-generated title by editing it to something that doesn't match the template, and once it's off, it stays off.
I can imagine that this is especially difficult to track down in English: there are no diacritics to tweak, and fewer indexing errors. But I finished editing all of Sara's sources last night, paying close attention to the index, and my index-matched initial tries never stayed, while my slight tweaks always did.
(Paying attention to the index involved screenshots, since scrolling down to the index info section of a source puts the "Edit" button offscreen, and the edit popup -- while moveable -- blocks any scrolling on the underlying page. This is an unfortunate layout decision, to put it mildly.)
2
