The ability to attach an image in unindexed sources is great. Can I attach the image to multiple per
I type in an ID number, a person's name appears and I attach it.
A dropdown list appears and I often find other relevant names on this list.
If I need to attach the image to other names not on the dropdown list, I have to go to each individual and attach the source to their record, which is slower. Is there a way to keep adding names by ID number, even if they are not on the dropdown list?
Best Answers
-
Another way to do this is to put that non-indexed source into your source box. Then go to each of the person record source lists, and do an "Add to list" from your source box.
0 -
I don't know if you are aware or not, but when you share a common source like this, if you edit it (e.g., change the title, description, or notes) all of those changes will show up everyplace that source has been attached. However, if you have a source that is an entry in an index file (like most of the census and marriage records on the site) each index file entry is distinct. So if you were to attach a family of 5 individuals in a census record to those 5 persons via the source linker, each of those links is done with a separate distinct source (i.e., there are 5 distinct index sources created--one for each indexed member of the family). Even if the system initially and automatically gave the census reference in each person's source list the same title or description, you can change it on one and the others all remain untouched.
And remember that it's preferable to only put shared type sources in your source box (like the single image one you are talking about). If you copy an index source to your source box and then paste it to others, the source linker will get confused and you will get unexpected side effects that are undesired. Since an index source derived from some image record is only ever for just one person, in the FSFT it will typically only be attached to one record in the tree.
0 -
Also, in general sources can be tagged to each of the specific vitals/conclusions that they impact. Memories can only be attached to the person record and makes it more difficult when providing tricky details on specific conclusions. Also, since the concept of digital sources has been around much longer, the detailed tagging of sources to conclusions can be maintained when transporting records into or out of the FSFT to most other genealogical tools such as Ancestral Quest, RootsMagic, MyHeritage, or Ancestry.com, etc.. Memories tend not to transport with GEDCOM as they are a MUCH NEWER addition to the digital documentation of genealogy, and different sites handle them differently if at all.
All sources in FamilySearch also adhere to national digital archive processes such as the use of persistent URLs. If I remember correctly, memories do not. That means if a memory gets moved, the URL reference to it may stop working. If a persistent URL gets moved or changed, the original URL will also still work.
Another thing is that the historical records collection including both indexed and unindexed sources is extensive. Usually you will be able to find pre-built sources in the historical records databases. I have several person records with 60-80 DIFFERENT sources attached to them, all of which come from the FS historical records (both images and indexes). I only have one or two (if any) of my own Memories for those people. There is far more genealogical evidence for those persons already packaged in sources in the FS databases than I could ever get from memories.
Lastly, when you are trying to document conclusions in the detail pages for person records in a way that others do not come along and arbitrarily change them, having a series of sources (and perhaps a note) tagged to a given conclusion is far more obvious to others looking for the reasons that a conclusion was set to what it is. With Memories, you have to spell it all out in a collection of Notes referencing the appropriate memories and itemizing how to interpret them. And you have to repeat this for each conclusion on the details page.
If someone were to change a value (such as a birth date) for no documented reason, with sources you just tell them to look at all the sources attached to the death vital and then explain to you why the value they put in was better than the one that was already there. Here's an example of genealogical evidence based on sources:
Can you imagine trying to explain all of that evidence if it was all in Memories?
Memories tend to be more useful for the general Family History and culture of individuals (and occasional documents that aren't already available in sources or index sources elsewhere). Sources are more for the genealogical evidence and proofs side of the house. And since FS has provided a way to easily create a source from a memory, when your memory has genealogically supporting evidence in it, it's better to use it as a source attached to the associated conclusions than just a memory attached to the person record.
Anyway, hope that this gives you some ideas
0
Answers
-
Thank you, Jeff. Sounds like the best way to accomplish what I want to do.
0 -
Jeff. This is insightful. I am on the verge of doing lots of research and I appreciate knowing this now. Very kind of you to take so much time to explain this. Donald
0 -
👍
0 -
I have to be honest - I make heavy use of the Memories feature of FamilySearch - and almost no usage of the "Sources" area. I mean - I totally understand - generally speaking - the need for sources and citations etc - I totally support that and think its great when things are cited and sourced. but for various reasons my focus has been FS Memories items.
But just wanted to get some general feedback from others who make heavy use of things like photos, bible records, census records, probate records, family registers etc.
what are the advantages of creating sources for these - or just going with FS Memories and not really using the source options.
???
0 -
FamilyBible: It is my understanding that memories can only be modified by the person that created them. If you create a "memory" instead of "source" and you make a typing error; nobody else can fix your typo.
0 -
Thanks for the information.
you state this:
Memories tend to be more useful for the general Family History and culture of individuals (and occasional documents that aren't already available in sources or index sources elsewhere). Sources are more for the genealogical evidence and proofs side of the house. And since FS has provided a way to easily create a source from a memory, when your memory has genealogically supporting evidence in it, it's better to use it as a source attached to the associated conclusions than just a memory attached to the person record.
So is there anything really wrong - or not the best
if I simply create things first as a MEMORY linked to the PERSON
and then later, with time, also create a SOURCE linked to that same MEMORY?
(bible records are a great example)
0 -
There is certainly nothing WRONG with it. What IS wrong is documenting conclusions or changes to conclusions (e.g., vitals, alternate names, residences, etc.) without providing any sources or memories from which those conclusions have been derived from. It should be very easy for anyone to look at a conclusion in a person or relationship record and quickly determine the reasoning for why it is there.
In my experience (i.e., my OPINION) I believe that there are many reasons why using sources attached to conclusions are better and more efficient. They are designed (in pretty well all genealogical tools that use formal sources) to specifically serve the purpose of documenting justifications for conclusions in the person and relationship records. Memories really aren't set up to be effective that way. How would you set things up to show where the contents of a memory justify the death date of a person? You can't tag the memory to a specific conclusion, you can only show it as a memory related to that person (which is the way it should should be IMHO). You can use them as "sources" if you like, but once you start getting a lot of genealogical supporting records in the system (i.e., sources), the memories tend to be ignored a bit by people trying to figure out the exact details of families and their vitals.
"Memories" are not named "Sources" for a reason (even though sometimes they can contain source type information). Memories should be manly for items that nobody else can find because they are in some private records.
Another thing that can confuse stuff a bit is if you have a paper copy of a certificate or something (e.g., a death certificate). This is a source, but the way to get it into the FSFT is to scan and upload it to MEMORIES first before you turn it into a digital source that you can attach and tag to various conclusions. Furthermore, later on you may find that the record is already a formally indexed source in the system. When you attach that indexed source to a record, any memories or sources built from memories for that same document become redundant (and possibly ambiguous). I typically will remove any memory based sources and the memories when I attached a formally released digital image or index source to a record. It keeps the clutter down and reduces all of the custom source structures that exist on the record.
And by the way, If you first have memory that is attached to a person and then later create a source from it that you attach to the person, you now have multiple redundant references to the same source information that can create ambiguity (and clutter) in all the text references that are necessary to call out the source information.
But yea, if a source is attached to the record and tagged to the appropriate conclusions, it is far easier to see the genealogical evidence it provides and how it's related to the conclusions than if you just leave it as a memory.
0 -
Great feedback and all that you share makes sense to me.
My heavy usage of FS memories has been for items that would probably NOT be found in official indexes or formal collections
things such as
Family Bible Records
https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/116375979?cid=mem_copy
Needlework Samplers with Family Info
https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/116628728?cid=mem_copy
Funeral Cards
https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/109160371?cid=mem_copy
Family Registers
https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/106325682?cid=mem_copy
Family Fraktur Documents
https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/116624225?cid=mem_copy
and even Jewelry
https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/93800557?cid=mem_copy
BUT I totally support all that you say - of when entering facts and citing supporting evidence that the SOURCES is much more appropriate.
BUT also that my understanding is a Memories item can be used as a source and a link made to it.
can this not be done without duplication??? cant a source merely link to a memories URL without the duplication?
0 -
Exactly! When you create a formal source from a memory and attach it to a person record, you can go back and remove the direct attachment of the memory to the record leaving just source attached.
A lot of folks starting out in Family History actually start with a lot of pictures and records that need to be scanned in. This is why many folks get familiar with memories first and then move onto formal sources later.
One concern that I've have about creating sources from memories though. Currently whenever sources are created in the FSFT for attachment to person and relationship records, they are set up as part of the digital archive by using persistent URLs. If you attach an index source to a record, the image source that index was derived from is also stored with a persistent URL. However, the memory items do not use persistent URLs, and since they are non-persistent URLs that are used in the source citations, I just wonder how stable that will be over time. Maybe someone else from FS could comment on this
0 -
LOVE the Jewelry ... perhaps add more info ..
0 -
What I posted is in most cases - all that I know.
0 -
this is my FS album for "mourning jewelry" if you didn't see the whole album.
https://www.familysearch.org/photos/gallery/album/657902
0
