New Source Linker feedback
When I finished trying out the new Source Linker, I clicked on Feedback, as the prompt requested. All that happens, repeatedly, is I get an error message. It may be due to my computer's defenses, or it may be on your end, I don' know.
About the New Soruce Linker:
The new Source Linker looks good, nice and easy to read, colorful , etc.
I was pleased to see it automatically attached more things to the Events part of a person's page.
Room for improvement: In that same Events section, even though it is automatically attaching the Event, it has continued to show Source "0" for that event. Why doesn't it recognize it just attached that particular source, automatically?
I notice I am not the only one that doesn't like going back to the Source page for that person in order to Tag the correct source. If you look at most people's main page in the tree, you will see most of the Sources in Events have a zero, as it is an extra step that most people don't take the time to complete or haven't noticed that it is necessary. "Tag" is unavailable when attaching that new source (or I haven't found it). It seems like an avoidable extra step.
I also like how the page moves when you attach an individual within that source, to make the next person you attach easier.
All in all, a real plus, I like it, though with the different look it will take time to be used to it.
Best Answer
-
Hello Community Friends,
Firstly, we want to express our gratitude for the invaluable feedback you've provided regarding the New Source Linker. As we navigate the constraints imposed by aging technology, adjustments to the Source Linker were vital. Over the past few months, we've progressively introduced the new Source Linker to our user base, and we're pleased to announce that it is now accessible to 100% of our users.
In response to our engineers' recommendations, we kindly request that all feedback be directed to the dedicated Group specifically created for this purpose. Click Here and Join the Group. When offering feedback, we encourage the following:
- Kindly review the announcements detailing Known Issues and Current Status updates before posting your comments or questions. This ensures that your concerns have not already been identified, thereby reducing duplication of efforts and facilitating prompt responses from our engineering team. If you are experiencing a similar issue as the original post, please click on the discussion hyperlink and add to the ongoing comments. Rest assured that we are committed to providing timely updates as issues are resolved.
- Kindly provide actionable insights, including details such as browsers used, accompanied by screenshots whenever possible. These details greatly assist our engineers in reproducing and addressing any issues effectively.
We sincerely appreciate your patience as our engineers work tirelessly to enhance this tool to its fullest potential. It's important to acknowledge that unforeseen challenges may arise during the transition to this new product, and we are dedicated to addressing them swiftly and efficiently.
While the option to toggle between the old and new versions remains available for the time being, we encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the new features as the old version will eventually be phased out permanently. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation as we strive to deliver the best possible user experience with the new Source Linker.
0
Answers
-
I was trying to leave a comment regarding the new source linker and looked everywhere for the "Feedback Button" but could not find it on any page I went to ...including the page with instructions to use the feedback button! In addition, the thumbs up/down rating on the new "Source Linker" page would not work (or at least gave visible sign my vote was recorded). In any case what I was trying to provide feedback on is the following... I was editing the source linked to the file notated below, first un-attaching the source as some items from the source had not been moved to the person's file and after moving the missing information, then re-attaching the record. This worked well in the new "Source Linker until it did not. After a couple of tries and getting the "please try later" message, I switched back to the old source linker and was able to complete the "attaching" with no problem. Just in case it's a glitch.... . The only thing I noticed when it would not let me "attach" in the new version were two "difference" notices... these being typical things that differ from census to census like year of birth and should not have been an issue.
Dave
Mariah J Duffy (Wife) Female 1853-1932 GXBZ-LBF
0 -
@JosGen Thank you for your comment on the New Source Linker, I have copied it and pasted it into a private group that the developers will see.
Thanks for the feedback. Every comment is valuable
1 -
thanks for passing it along! Jo
0 -
I am having the same problem with Feedback. But I have a second error also: When viewing a marriage I click to add the parents in then I click the spouse (so I can add her parents) but every time I get a screen error and have to refresh to bring it back again.
0 -
As another user, I've been wondering about your closing comment for a few days now. What do you mean when you say " The only thing I noticed when it would not let me "attach" in the new version were two "difference" notices... these being typical things that differ from census to census like year of birth and should not have been an issue."?
What do you mean when you say "not ... an issue"? That you could not attach the source at all? That you could not move over information? (We still cannot simply replace existing information with new information. We just can now edit existing information. This does seem like appropriate behavior.) Or are you suggesting that things that are different should not be flagged as being different?
0 -
I'm experiencing the same issue as @davidmburns: the new source linker can handle pivoting one time, but consistently throws an error on the second pivot attempt. What I mean by this is, suppose I am attaching a marriage record starting from one set of parents: I can attach the record to that mother and father and to their child, then successfully pivot to that child's spouse to attach the record to them, too. However, when I try to pivot to the child's spouse to attach the record to the spouse's parents as well, I encounter an error message every time. Similar behavior occurs with multi-generation census households, etc. Refreshing the page clears the error but a more elegant solution would be nice.
0 -
I like the edit existing person record right on the linker page, I like the layout, and I like the ability to add vital information right from the linker like marital status, race, occupation.
What could be improved is these vital information bits should be automatically tagged with the source and not exist as a custom event instead like it is now. That way a person can click on the source from the event and see how it came to be.
Also, I miss the ability to add a spouse easily from the source linker page. It does not exist. 😀
0 -
The engineers are still receiving feedback as of today from users clicking on the feedback button. So this means that it is working for some and not for others. They are exploring this further to see if it might have something to do with pop-up blockers or something else. Will keep you updated as we hear more. Thanks for your patience as we try to figure out what is happening.
2 -
I'm experiencing the same issue as @davidmburns: the new source linker can handle pivoting one time, but consistently throws an error on the second pivot attempt. What I mean by this is, suppose I am attaching a marriage record starting from one set of parents: I can attach the record to that mother and father and to their child, then successfully pivot to that child's spouse to attach the record to them, too. However, when I try to pivot to the child's spouse to attach the record to the spouse's parents as well, I encounter an error message every time. Similar behavior occurs with multi-generation census households, etc. Refreshing the page clears the error but a more elegant solution would be nice.
You may need to post your system information. I can change the focus person as many times as I want without any trouble. This is with iMac, Apple M1, Retina Display 24-inch (4480 × 2520), MacOS Sonoma 14.1, Safari 17.1.
0 -
I have heard back from the engineers and this is their message: "We have verified that Usabilla is working. We have received reports of people fixing their feedback button, and in every case so far, it was a program they had (e.g. Norton Antivirus or browser extensions) that was blocking network requests to usabilla.com. Usabilla is the service FamilySearch uses for the feedback form." Please check your systems to make sure that you are not blocking Usabilla. Thanks
2 -
I have been using the new Source Linker and love it. I love that it standardizes the dates and places, adds race and other information that I was having to add manually. It cuts down my time and I love it!
2 -
I would have to disagree with you about the usefulness of being able to carry across "race and other information that I was having to add manually" as I would have argued for being able to carry across less to the individual's profile / Details page during this process.
I am thinking particularly of census sources, where (in my experience) birth year and birthplace are invariably not accurate. Also, the Marital Status becomes meaningless once transferred to the Details page, as it does not indicate the year / event to which this applies (i.e., if it is added as "Single", what does that indicate if the person got married the year after the census?) The indication of "Race" is also something that cannot be taken as fact. (We know that certain FamilySearch sources are inexplicably classifying an individual's race as "Chinese" when the original record indicated no such thing.)
My argument has always been to add vitals and other information from the Details page, and not to carry such information across via the source linker. As have recently commented on another thread, census records (in particular) are notoriously bad sources for gaining accurate biographical details on ones relatives. Some of my relatives have three different places of birth shown in three successive census returns and their ages vary so much that one would initially be led to believe the subjects were totally different individuals!
I would strongly encourage users not to carry across and detail that is not able to be verified during the process. True, that might lengthen the whole process, but surely it is better to carry across only accurate data, rather than populate the Details page with information (e.g., age, birthplace and race) that is quite likely to transpire to be wrong when checked against original / official documentation.
3 -
Old Source Linker:
New Source Linker:
True, the original document does show this person to be "White", but against "Marital Status" is reads "No", rather than Married or Single, as in other cases on the same page. Also, the record shows she was 53 at the time of the 1840 census, which means she might have been born in 1886, not necessarily 1887.
Extract of image of 1940 census record, including record for S. Elsie Watling. Note the "No" and "Yes" in the Marital Status column (for her and family members), but not the "M(arried)" and "S(ingle)" status that have been recorded for others on the page, but have been still indexed, for the Watling family, regardless. (Surely not in line with the "index what is written" project instructions!)
0 -
Paul W,
I think it depends on the time period. Many people appear in the 1850 US Federal census, where birth place, birth date, race and occupation were recorded for the very first time, and then they died shortly thereafter. In many cases the census is the only source for that information, be it right or wrong. Unless I have a bad memory (impossible!), you can manually make these tags, and I would agree that doing this manually, and not through the linker should be the correct way. I would never want a fuzzy source such as a 1950 census record overriding the exact birth date from a death certificate with an approximate birth date from the census, for example.
Race as relevant information is not always of interest, so if one is interested in that, I would create several race facts in Other Information. Right now with my volunteer lineage research I am documenting an enslaved line. I just looked, and noted that I have not added any race facts even though I have 3 generations of enslaved connected to three generations of white counterpart enslavers via the Other Relationship. It seems unnecessary to add race, but the woman whose lineage I'm researching may want me to do just that. If so, I will.
1 -
By the way, is everybody (except me!) now seeing the new source linker in the production model? I have had to check it out in the beta version, as I don't see the option to switch versions otherwise. Maybe that's what other users are doing (using beta), however.
0 -
Paul W I think I am seeing the new source linker. It certainly is better and I love it. I can now find random images of documents which contain one sentence or paragraph of important information and I can add the image as a source to multiple people at once. I was ecstatic the first time I used it. No more going back repeatedly to the source box.
0 -
Yes, I'm sure some of its features will be of great advantage to many users - though not necessarily so much for those undertaking mainly UK research, where there are no linked* images in the majority of cases: none at all for census records. (* There are lots of images for England records on FamilySearch - even for 1841 census - but they are usually completely separated from the indexed versions of the event.)
Incidentally, separately I have been taking advantage of connecting images to multiple individuals directly via the new Images feature. However, I find it best to give them a title such as "George, Ann & Robert* Bragg in 1841 Census" as otherwise I will end up with my "pet moan" of having the title as "George Bragg in 1841 census" for all individuals to whom I add the source! (*You need to scroll down the list to find him, as Robert Bragg is just off the page in this screenshot.)
Here's an example to illustrate what I am referring to:
0 -
@Paul W But as I recall, the first step is YOU give the title of the source and then click next. You can type whatever amount of detail considered appropriate, such as the one you gave: "George, Ann & Robert Bragg in 1841 Census". Didn't you get an opportunity to give the source a custom name before step 2? That is one of many things I love about this new linker - that and being able to click the family members I want all at one time, or getting one by ID if not listed.
0 -
Under the "old method" of attaching image-only sources to individuals I was used to having to attach them to each member of the family separately, hence I would title them one by one as I attached them. Yes, I quickly realised that I had to title them differently if I named, for example, just the head of household in the title of a census source, using the "new method". I know you are aware of my regular moans about the new title formats, which (in indexed sources) would name just "George Bragg" as the subject, regardless of who the source primarily related to, so gave this as an example of how the source would appear in George's wife's or son's sources sections if I did not name it "appropriately". I guess (again in this example) if George had ten children listed in the census record it would be easier to title it "George Bragg and family in 1841 Census", rather than list all of the individual names (I'd added in one action) of his family members!
0 -
@Paul W, the blue "Attach to Family Tree" button on the catalog's image viewer may be new to you, but it is actually some of the oldest programming still in use on FS. (Possibly the oldest.) I'm not sure why/how you've gone so long without encountering it.
As I've said elsewhere, I consider the "linked set of instances" setup of that blue button's results to be one of the best features of FS's sourcing possibilities. It allows me to avoid duplicated effort in transcriptions and titles and corrections to same. When a funeral notice is attached to all twenty family members listed, that's a significant chunk of work saved.
@Gail Swihart Watson, when you wrote "I can now find random images of documents which contain one sentence or paragraph of important information and I can add the image as a source to multiple people at once", were you talking about the process seen in Paul's screenshot, with the green circular checkmarks at the right? If so, that's not the new source linker. That's the ancient-at-this-point image-attacher. The new source linker is mostly the same as the old, and applies -- by definition -- only to indexes.
0 -
I obviously did not make my point(s) clear enough. Yes, of course I have been using the "Attach to Family Tree" button for many years, but just meant to be highlighting the difference in now being able to attach to multiple individuals at the same time, rather than one by one as before, and the fact there was now a common title attached to the sources once attached to these multiple IDs. I have not tried this yet, but presumably if one later edits the title in one of their Sources sections, it gets changed to the same title for all of those to which it has been attached. (In much the same way as when a source is added to the Source Box, and the title is subsequently amended, the title changes on all the IDs to which it has been added.)
Please feel free to highlight any specific phrase / sentence I used that made you think I was unaware of the "Attach to Family Tree" feature.
0 -
By the way, is everybody (except me!) now seeing the new source linker in the production model? I have had to check it out in the beta version, as I don't see the option to switch versions otherwise. Maybe that's what other users are doing (using beta), however.
Like many new parts of the website, they do slow roll outs to be able to monitor from problems. I'd heard they started this about the first of November. I started seeing the new source linker a couple of weeks ago. Last I heard, the rumor was that about 75% of users have the option to use it. When you do, you start seeing:
It is optional at this point and you can switch back at any time for now:
By the way, I rather like it. But I share @Paul W concern that the increased abilities of the new source linker and the tendency of some users to move over absolutely everything in the source and never return to the person's Detail page to see whether the information was necessary, needed, or useful or not or to clean up the results of their work is going to cause even more unnecessary clutter and more work for others who are trying to maintain the Details pages.
Here, for example, various people have attached a christening record, two census records, and several birth records for children of this person without, apparently, ever looking at the detail page:
So while I am grateful they have help attach all these hints, now I have to delete the baptism because it is just a duplicate of the christening found under Vitals, add a description and complete place names to the two census records, delete with explanations the three children's birth places that are not needed because they are clearly found under the children's birth information, and determine what the vague, undated community name of Fjelberg is doing there and either fully complete the entry with description, date, and full place name or delete it if it is redundant like the baptism and children's birth places. It would have been so much simpler if they had not moved over the unneeded information.
3 -
The blue "Attach to Family Tree" button can attach an image to a bunch of people at once -- as long as they're immediate relatives of the profile you choose as the focus/primary attachment point. For example, the funeral notice mentions all of the siblings-in-law, but I can only attach it to the siblings using the tool.
This ability -- and its shortcoming -- are nothing new. I've been using it since at least 2016.
You'll notice that the process doesn't add a sort-by date to the source it generates, and provides no means of entering one. That's because it predates sort-by dates on sources. You'll also notice the absence of any sort of tagging opportunity. That's because the tool far predates any sort of source tagging.
2 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi Yes, I was not sure what the "new" source linker was, so yes, I was confused.
0 -
On the left side, instead of saying "Change Person," I suggest you instead say "Change Record." The records are on the left, the people are on the right.
0 -
Yes, the left is the index entry, but you're not changing the record it's pointing to, you're changing which indexed person it's using. "Person" is the correct word, unless you want to introduce something new, such as "persona".
1 -
The problem at present is that there are four ways of attaching sources to individuals!
There are two "choices" in attaching an image source - via the Catalog or using the Images section. However, I have just noticed the ability to attach to multiple IDs is available by obtaining the record via the Catalog as well as by using the Images section.
Not a great example here as there is only one person mentioned in the (already attached) source - but the option to attach to other family members is there, nevertheless. The first screenshot is how one would attach via the collection in the Catalog:
Here is the "alternative" way of attaching an image - by finding it in the Images section:
Then there is the method of attaching an indexed record (for the same event as above, which does not have a linked image, via the old source linker:
Finally, here (from beta version, as I do not have this is my production version, as yet) is the same record ready to be attached via the new source linker. Again, not a great example, as it does not illustrate the additional fields that can now be carried across from here*, where this was not possible from the "old" version. (* Like "Race", "Marital Status", etc., as illustrated in an earlier post.)
I have posted these four screenshots to illustrate the difficulty we appear to have had in this thread, in speaking at cross-purposes at times, and with using the appropriate terminology regarding source linking. I apologise where I have not made myself clear, but as Gail mentions in her last post, it has been difficult to understand even what "new source linker" means when many of us have not yet had the opportunity to use it, without going to the "beta" version of FamilySearch.
0 -
This is the reason I tend to use so many images in my posts.
I haven't had occasion to link images directly recently as per the first two images above. It used to be that if a collection was indexed, attaching the image was disabled and you could only attach the indexed version. Is that still the case or has that been changed?
0 -
Here's another source for the same event I just posted examples of - but for a different source - one that is indexed and has a linked image:
There doesn't appear to be the opportunity to attach the image separately - understandable, I suppose, as it can be readily accessed from the indexed source - but I wonder if there are still those sources that only connect to the collection, whereby the image you are presented with might be several frames away from the one you wish to view / save? Maybe that problem has been resolved and all such links now do go directly to the correct image, so doing away with the need to save separately.
0 -
I tried the new source linker and cannot manage to drag and drop name to line up left column names onto right column. The movement is jerky and causes the name to be dropped at random. This is a disaster as I use this all the time. Also, I'm not sure why 'new look' has to have huge colored margins around everything; reduces the visibility of text and cuts down on the amount of info seen per page. PLEASE DON"T remove old source linker, it's elegantly perfect the way it is and I love it! Also, feedback tab always gives an error on this and other test versions I get, which is why I'm posting this here.
0
