Status of new idea
A few weeks ago I submitted a new idea concerning the titles of the sources. How can I know the status of my suggestion?
Many thanks in advance
Answers
-
Unfortunately you don't get to know the status, other than by perhaps eventually seeing the idea implemented. We gather that suggesters may get contacted if more information is required, or the engineers may post here on Community about the idea if they think the matter needs discussing here, but I don't think we get told if the idea has been rejected - @Sam Sulser can you confirm one way or the other please?
1 -
Should it be possible to get a tracking number when suggesting an idea so that we can follow it and also see, if rejected, why it is the case? Another option is also seeing the other open and closed ideas, that we don't suggest the same idea twice.
I know I should suggest an idea for this but then I'm stuck in the same position as before…
0 -
Previously, we could see the other suggestions, and at one point, we were even able to discuss and upvote/downvote. The function was changed, and we can see nothing.
I suppose if all of us make the same suggestion, that would have the same effect as upvoting.
2 -
I have questioned the current dysfunctional process several times and always get told it's 'working as designed' and isn't going to change...
3 -
On the subject item you have submitted via Suggest An Idea, I assume you are finding a problem with the current format of source titles, whereby the prime person to whom the source relates is no longer shown (unless this is the individual concerned, of course).
Unfortunately, when I have previously raised this issue (on this forum) I have had little support from other Family Tree users, so I very much doubt (unless multiple users request the same thing) the developers will see any need to revert to the former, more helpfully presented source titles.
It remains a mystery why the need was seen to "clip" the source titles to display only the one name (usually the father or spouse of the main individual to whom it relates), as this has really made identifying events in sources sections quite a challenging experience.
In this example, father James Batley had four children baptised on the same day. Four of the source titles helpfully show the exact nature of the event - but the Bishop's Transcripts versions of the same, respective events require "opening" of the sources to understand to what they relate. Unfortunately, this seems to cause little worry to the majority of Family Tree users, otherwise I think this issue might have long been addressed, notwithstanding any Suggest An Idea submissions.
4 -
Unfortunately, this seems to cause little worry to the majority of Family Tree users
It may indicate how few actually examine the full source. 😇
4 -
Thank you @Paul W for addressing the issue. It is indeed the case that the current source titles are not helpful at all. The former titles were a bit more helpful but I suggested even more information in the source title, like for example "Baptism of Robert Batley, son of James Batley" for the last source in your example.
In this case you know the event type and the relation only by looking at the source title. The record collection seems to be for me information that is already included in the details and doesn't add value when being in the title.
2 -
You may know this already, that it is possible at the user level to edit each source title in a person's profile to more closely fit your needs. Of course this doesn't resolve the system-generated "truncating" issue at the macro level, but it does enable more precise source titling.
3 -
Yes, I do attempt to edit the titles as time allows. However, I have personally added around 25,000 sources in the last three years alone to profiles in which I have an interest. Add to that the thousands of sources that have been added by other users (just to those individuals on my Following list) and you will understand your idea would be totally impracticable for me - and many other FT users.
Of course, many sources still do have a title that provides an indication of the (usually two) individuals named in the event and many do relate just to the prime individual named in the title, but that still leaves me with a huge task in editing the remainder - still involving sources of many thousands.
I had hoped the engineers would realise the implications of the piece of programming that led to the disastrous consequences and amend the coding to allow us to know at least (in the example I have illustrated) whether James Batley was, say, the person baptised or married, or whether these events related to his children.
Unfortunately, it appears these Sources sections (many of which can have around thirty to forty sources included) will continue to be of much less usefulness than before the truncation exercise was introduced, as there seems no willingness to address this matter any time soon..
3 -
I would suggest that this should be considered a bug, since even if this change was a conscious piece of design (rather than some sort of collateral damage) the effect is clearly negative (and 'working as designed' is not a get-out clause). I'd flag a suitable post as a bug, therefore.
3 -
As another example of the absurd overload of work that this ambiguous source titling leads to, I'd cite a recent profile I was working on where the chap married and had his first child baptised in the same year. There's probably 2 source records for the marriage, and 2 for the baptism, except that this one was double indexed for an unknown reason resulting in at least 5 source attachments all with the same title and date. Then repeat for each persona on the index.
And yes, it does matter which is which when occupation and/or residence change between marriage and baptism.
Frankly, while I like to expand source titles to read sensibly, FS has set the apparent bar of acceptability so low, and increased the workload so much, that there are times I give up.
4
