Suche in den Katalogen
Wenn ich über die Kataloge nach den Quellen suche werde ich z. B. HIER fündig.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSGB-GS8G-X?i=124&cat=54786
Das war bisher alles immer ganz wunderbar. Aber es passiert immer öfter, dass sich mir eine neuere Version präsentiert, die sehr unvorteilhaft ist, weil sich die Seiten nicht mehr beliebig vergrößern lassen und ich dann zusätzlich eine Handlupe benötige. Außerdem lässt sich die Website dann nicht mehr so verkleinern, dass ich zurückfinde zu den zahllosen Seiten, die ich scrollen kann. Das ist sehr umständlich, dann das entspreczhende Buch ständig neu aufrufen zu müssen, nur um die Seiten scrollen zu können.
Ich bin Deutsche aus Deutschland und werde aufDIESE Seite geschickt, anstatt dass ich Feedback geben kann.
Answers
-
Currently, there's no predicting whether a link to the Catalog's image viewer will result in the old, good one (with the black background) or the disimproved new one (with the white background).
Whenever I get the new one, I make use of the Feedback tab to complain about each specific disimprovement that I come across. I always include my email, but have not gotten a response yet.
Note that it is a known problem that adblockers and similar browser add-ons inhibit the use of the Feedback tab; if it keeps sending you here, try turning them off or excluding FS from their scope.
1 -
If you hover your mouse over the boxed link to View Original Document before clicking on it, you can see if the URL is the short form (leading to the old viewer with the black background) or the long form (with the new viewer which can be problematic). The URL will display at the bottom of the page.
If hover shows the URL is the long (undesired) one, I right-click and copy the long URL, then paste it in a new tab (not paste and go), then truncate it to the short form, to avoid the new viewer altogether.
1 -
Translation of original question: "If I search for sources in the catalogs, I find them HERE, for example.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSGB-GS8G-X?i=124&cat=54786Everything has always been wonderful up until now. But it happens more and more often that I am presented with a newer version that is very disadvantageous because the pages can no longer be enlarged as desired and I then also need a hand-held magnifying glass. In addition, the website can no longer be reduced in size so that I can find my way back to the countless pages that I can scroll through. It is very inconvenient to have to constantly open the relevant book just to be able to scroll through the pages.
I am German from Germany and am sent to THIS page instead of being able to give feedback."0 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile, you're talking about a different viewer, associated with the editor and the Images section. That one can (thankfully) be "controlled" via the URL.
What I and I believe the poster here are talking about is the revision to the Catalog's viewer that's currently on "occasional roll-out". It shows up unpredictably and uncontrollably, and manages to infuriate me in short order, every time.
The next time it shows up, I will attempt to remember to test the zooming and thumbnail controls, which I think are the parts that are giving the OP trouble. I know that image zoom is still there, controlled by my mouse's scroll wheel; one of the disimprovements is that it now "bounces" the same way that the Images section's and index-editor's zoom functions do, making me nauseous as well as angry. (Image motion often makes me seasick.) (Angry because if you could zoom in that far while I was actively zooming, you can very well STAY zoomed in that far when I let go of the controls. Bouncing back to a lower zoom level is like sticking a middle finger at me.)
1 -
Got the disimproved version. Have lost track of the number of times I've used the Feedback button in this session. Managed not to submit any profanity. Just barely. Silver lining: got screenshots.
1: View Single Image -- opens the selected (blue-outlined, see arrow 5) image. Superfluous button, as simply clicking the thumbnail does the same thing.
2: Zoom -- changes the size of the thumbnails. In this view, the mouse scrollwheel does not correlate with these buttons (see arrow 3).
3: Scroll. This is a change from the old viewer: click-and-drag on the thumbnails section no longer works. You have to use this scroll bar, or the scroll wheel on your mouse.
4: "Viewed" indicator. Another change: unlike the old viewer, all thumbnails here are already "resolved", not just the ones you've looked at, so they've added the eye icon to indicate which images you've viewed in this session.
5. Current image. This is what will open if you use the "view single image" button (arrow 1). You can move the blue box using the arrows on your keyboard. (Technically, you can also move it by clicking a thumbnail, but that also opens that image, so it's not quite the same thing.)
The main difference in the single-image view is that they've moved all of the buttons. Going back and forth between two consecutive images is now a full-on mouse exercise session.
Note that your mouse scrollwheel (or equivalent pointing device control) has completely different functions in the two views of the new viewer: in the thumbnail view, the wheel scrolls up and down, while in the single image view, the wheel zooms in and out.
0 -
Thanks.
Are these newly-available record images? Just wondering if that might be the reason for the different display format? And a harbinger of things-to-come.
I have not, yet, run into this format.
0 -
Nope, the ones I happened to be looking at were the Budapest Lutheran registers, which were filmed in 1960 and still haven't been indexed.
Which viewer you get has nothing to do with the specifics of what you're looking at. I think it might have to do with which FS server (or other part of the magical web infrastructure) your request ended up on, which in turn mostly depends on time of day and local traffic.
1 -
Thank you so much for your comments. The programmers of Familysearch are obviously reading this and have solved the problem. Thank you so much especially to them.
0 -
Leider habe ich zu früh die Lösung des Problems verkündet. Weil ich von FS keine Problemlösung mehr erwarte, habe ich selbst das Problem gelöst, indem ich das bei FS hochgeladene Dokument erst runtergeladen und als Erinnerung wieder hochgeladen habe.
Et voilà!!!
https://www.familysearch.org/memories/memory/209294186?c=my-memoriesHier bei den Memories gibt es immerhin eine sehr gute Lupenfunktion, was bei Dokumenten wie diesem hier dringend erforderlich ist, weil das Dokument so viele genealogischen Daten enthält, dass der Schreiber sehr dicht gedrängt schreiben musste, um für all die Daten Platz zu haben. Im 19. Jahrhundert war für eine Eheschließung die Erlaubnis der Eltern erforderlich. Wenn ein Vater oder eine Mutter der Brautleute derweil verstorben war, sodass ihre Einwillgungen unter keinen Umständen mehr möglich war, dann mussten die Brautleute das Ableben ihrer Eltern dokumentieren. Wollte jemand als Vollwaise heiratetn, der (oder diejenige) benötigte dazu sogar die Sterbedaten seiner Großeltern.
Darum sind diese Dokumente so wichtig. Dazu kommt, dass Napoleon darauf bestanden hatte, dass die Zahlen nicht als Zahlen geschrieben werden durften, sondern der Zahlenwert musste ausgeschrieben werden, was noch mehr Platzmangel nach sich zog.0 -
Bettina, for me, the Memories viewer's zoom function (magnifying glass) is completely identical to the disimproved catalog viewer's: the same controls (the identical two buttons in the exact same top right corner, or using my mouse's scroll wheel exactly the same way) and the same infuriating and nauseating "bounce" at the ends, where it's willing to zoom in further while I'm using the scroll wheel, but then when I stop, it zooms out again.
(The top is where I pushed "print screen" with one hand while zooming in with the other hand; the bottom is as far as it's willing to stay zoomed.)
Like many unwelcome things, the disimproved viewer only shows up when you don't want it to, so I can't test whether it offers the same level of zoom as the Memories version, but I suspect it does: I think both viewers are actually the same code, underneath their different "frames".
0 -
Ja. Inzwischen in das so. Aber als ich die Datei hiochgeladen hatte, war die Lupenfunktion großartig. Sie wurde geschwächt. Aber was haltet ihr von der Idee, all die auf dieser Website
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSGB-GS8G-X?i=124&cat=54786
geannten Personen so zu markieren, dass sie wie Erinnerungen mit ihnen verknüpft werden?
Ich habe den Upload also wieder gelöscht und den relevanten Auschnitt als Erinnerung hochgeladen. Ich hoffe, dass die Lupenfunktion nicht wieder minimiert werden muss und dass dieser Upload auch für Familysearch akzeptabel ist.
https://www.familysearch.org/memories/memory/209353289?c=my-memories0
