seeking examples of reason statement asking patrons to enter a reason statement

LSMarvin

I feel like I already do a good job entering reason statements that justify the vital or relationships made. So I am not seeking advice on how to enter a reason statement in the generally accepted sense.

I frequently run across records where the patrons create PIDs, and enter vitals that are not supported in any way, no sources, no documents, no memories, no reason statements.

So, I am seeking advice on how to enter a reason statement that requests others to enter a reason statement. Would doing such even be allowed within FS guidelines, and if so, any suggestions how to craft the statement to remain within polices per the situation?

Do any of you folks have examples of such statements that FamilySearch would consider appropriate. Could it include links to Family Search resources on how to enter a reason statement? Links to the policy that a reason statement is required?

I'd remove the relationships or vitals and leave the request for reason statement in hopes to dissuade their restoral unless a statement is provided.

Thanks!

Julia Szent-Györgyi

As long as you avoid profanity, I don't think FS cares one way or the other about what you write or don't write in a conclusion-reasoning box, and I think it is completely reasonable for those kinds of reasons not to be required. I've basically entirely stopped using them, now that source-tagging applies to both Vitals and Other.

To be clear: I'm talking about the kind of reason box that is persistent and editable, like the ones attached to events and facts on a profile's Details page. The other kind of box, for explanations of one-time actions such as merges or hint dismissals, is an entirely different beast; I always use those.

But back to conclusion-reasoning boxes: they're only visible if the user has Detail View turned on for that section. If a user has that slider set to Off, and sees that someone (i.e., you) has ::gasp!:: ::horrors!:: removed the title of Doctor from His Very Important Ancestor's name (because there's no evidence for it anywhere), he's just going to go and edit the name to add it back in. Yes, the reason box will be visible on the name-entry popup, and the system will even prompt him to change it, but what are the chances of him entering anything useful? If he's accustomed to using the Tree with detail view off, he thinks those boxes are invisible most of the time (because for him, they are).

Then we get to the other part of your questions: reason boxes for relationships. My initial reaction was, "wait, what? There's no such thing, is there?" I've checked, and I'm effectively correct: you can edit a relationship to add a reason, but while you're adding the person, there are no reason boxes of any type to be seen. (I tested: I went to the beta site and gave my illegitimate great-grandmother an imaginary father.) If you do go through the extra steps of adding a reason to a relationship, it's effectively invisible: it shows up (in tiny type) on the Edit popup, and that's it. In the Change Log, it just says "relationship changed".

So all in all, reason boxes do not seem to be a good communication tool, especially not with users who aren't making use of the boxes.

LSMarvin

Julia,

Thank you, you have provided some points that may be helpful.

It seems most of the patrons I am working with have details turned on. They will delete/change vitals without any explanation, and even delete my reason statements, without explanation. I was pondering the idea of leavening a statement with FS policy and links of guidance in hopes it might encourage some observance in entering reason statements. If all else fails and I involve FS staff, there would be the audit trail of them being reminded and ignoring the input of reason statements.

I was just hoping someone might already have an appropriate and already prepared statement I could use.

If not, here is one I am considering, does anyone see any issues with it?

==============================

This record/vital has no source, documents, memories, or reason statement.

It seems to be perhaps a spurious mistake, and thus I have removed its unproven relationships, and/or vitals.

Fellow patrons, before reattaching this record and/or vitals, please ensure there is a reasonably helpful reason statement for each. Please ensure the statement is supported by a credible source, document or memories.

FamilySearch helps can be found: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-are-reason-statements-in-family-tree and https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/tips-and-tricks-writing-a-good-reason-statement-for-changing-a-record

Thank you very much!

==================================

Does the above seem workable? I haven't as yet found any policy link whether reason statements are required or not.

Thanks!

Gail Swihart Watson

Before you decide a date or some other vital is not sourced, you should check the source list. There was a point where I didn't realize I had to tag sources in order for them to appear associated with vital information that came from them. I believe one of my most frequent violations was when I added citizenship petitions to people. Most of these petitions had the wife and children listed with all of their birth dates. I always religiously type in the birth dates for everyone listed but before I understood tagging, there would appear to be no source associated, yet there was.

Also, not everyone would agree that it's correct to add a citizenship petition source to anyone other than the person who filed the petition. In those cases where people added this type of source only to the primary in the petition yet typed in the birth dates for the whole family would create the situation where all the children's birth dates appear to be unsourced.

I hope that helps as well!

Julia Szent-Györgyi

Gail's point is valid, but it goes a lot further than mere forgetfulness or learning curves: on old profiles, the sources may have been attached many years before the concept of tagging was added to the Tree, and even on profiles from only a few years ago, you can expect everything under Other to be untagged, since that section's tagging capabilities are very new. (I lose track, but I'm pretty sure it has been less than two years.)

But, conversely, as I alluded to in my first response, now that we do have tagging, conclusion reasons are largely superfluous. I see absolutely no reason to spell out that the reason for this residence is this directory, if I've attached and tagged the directory as a source for that residence. Ditto for every single conclusion on most profiles.

As for the "are reason statements required?" question, the answer is no, thank goodness, they're not. Very few things are required on FS's Tree: you must have at least one character in one of the main name fields, and you must make a choice between "deceased" and "living" — and I believe that's it. You can even add a child with unknown sex, although there will be a red warning and you will not be able to add spouses or children to that profile. (And you cannot add spouses or parents of unknown sex.)

When adding a new profile via Source Linker, it used to sometimes require input in a reason box (which was labeled differently in Linker versus the resulting profile, meaning that whatever you wrote to match the one label/question would be nonsensical once viewed with the other label). Knock on wood, but that seems to be gone. If so, then good riddance: I always filled it in with an exclamation point (as a stand-in for the expletives I actually wanted to use).

One practical/logistical question: which of the half-dozen Vitals reason boxes would you put your message into? And the corollary: is there a reason you don't want to put it in the Collaborate section? I would argue that the latter is where such things belong. No, most users don't bother with it — but ditto for reason boxes, so it's not like you'd be losing any readership.

LSMarvin

Thanks everyone, it seems we may have side tracked. I have already made a determination said PID or vitals are erroneous. I am more interested in how to communicated that to other patrons? Is my example statement OK? Will it offend anyone? Is there a better way to say it? Repeated below:

==============================

This record/vital has no source, documents, memories, or reason statement.

It seems to be perhaps a spurious mistake, and thus I have removed its unproven relationships, and/or vitals.

Fellow patrons, before reattaching this record and/or vitals, please ensure there is a reasonably helpful reason statement for each. Please ensure the statement is supported by a credible source, document or memories.

FamilySearch helps can be found: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-are-reason-statements-in-family-tree and   https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/tips-and-tricks-writing-a-good-reason-statement-for-changing-a-record

Thank you very much!

==================================

Patrons keep restoring PIDs or vitals without any statement, I just want to encourage them to enter a reason.

Thanks!