Help! I hate new format!
Answers
-
Scott Hill said: Joe knows...could have used other examples like db 4, DOS 4.0, etc, of course these were jumps into GUI, not a step backward.0
-
Margaret Wicker Taylor said: The problem with your advice is it's wrong (sorry). I needed to add children to a known father but unknown first wife. After I posted, I realized I still needed to detach the children of the first marriage from the second wife. Once the children were split (is that what you mean by a split family?), I was able to add the other children I found.
I thought there used to be a button to add a child to an unknown second parent.0 -
Robert Wren said: Only one has children, born 1904 & 1909 (>4 yrs) - but it seems the hint could be more specific.0
-
JEB said: Joe Martel - Thanks for showing up! It is at least nice to know someone is at least listening. I appreciate that you don't make the decisions and there may be competing priorities but at least we know you are going to share some of these concerns.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Scott, have you rechecked? It's working for me. If not working for you, then you needs to unplug your router and clear cache in your computer. Residue will block unless cleared out by power cycle and cache purge.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Margaret, there was never a button to do what you thought. It's always the same, but slight different than before - the arrow and plus sign are a bit changed but still the same.
In your case, you have to create "Mrs So-so" before you can add children.0 -
W David Samuelsen said: That is the problem - which couple when vitals were stripped out of "Research Suggestions" to absolute nothing helpful. Need to restore to what it was before.0
-
joe martel said: Thanks, but the thanks go to Tyler and Tyler Peterson for triaging and getting defects fixed. The engineers are the heroes in all this.0
-
joe martel said: Plenty of examples then like IBM/Microsoft PM partnership, Ada, ... and there are plenty of oldsters and youngsters there at FS who have lived through more than me0
-
Tom Huber said: I opened a new discussion of the Possible Missing Child issue. See https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Joe has requested that we separate issues/concerns in separate threads.0 -
Scott Hill said: I've cleared cache in Google (current release 68.0.3440.106 for 64-bit) and tried in IE which I never use...same result.0
-
Scott Hill said: holy mackerel, ADA! I was in the Shuttle program during those years when we were using that stuff...UGGGG Never could make Shuttle talk to the Space Station since they were on C...such fond memories or was it nightmares and ulcers?Too long in the tooth to remember.0
-
Tom Huber said: I opened a new discussion on the Couple May Have Children issue. See https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Do you have PDF reader in your computer? I have Adobe and Google. In case of Google, you can change default from Adobe to Google's.0
-
Scott Hill said: I know its working for two of the five PRINT types, but the three I pointed out still aren't working.0
-
m said: Old Format - entire page loads at same time.
New Format -you can see the elements populate the page in sequence.0 -
Margaret Wicker Taylor said: Nope. In my opinion, creating a fictional wife, "Mrs. So and so" can be counter-productive and unnecessary. The way I did it, the children all show up as belonging to their father (the known parent in this case). They just don't have a mother.
However, you have a point. In this particular case, I know that her marriage record was destroyed. I might consider adding a "placeholder" spouse, "Mrs. So and so" after I run out of other research leads.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Margaret, It doesn't sound like you have a fictional wife here at all. There was a real wife there and a real marriage, we just don't know the name and where other records might currently be found.
In this case it would be completely appropriate to immediately add an unknown spouse and marriage relationship (since you already know that there was a marriage and the records were destroyed). There are some Knowledge articles on proper naming in such situations. I believe that you are supposed to use the "Mrs." in the prefix field of the name and then her husband's full name (e.g., Mrs. John A. Smith).
I did a quick check and here's one article I found:
https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...
You can add a source to the marriage or the husband and wife identifying that the original records were destroyed, and where that information came from. This should be a great place holder until some time in the future other records covering things things can be found and can be added and verified then. (by either yourself or others)0 -
W David Samuelsen said: If you're member of the Church, you can't submit for sealings, Has to have Mrs and whatever it is. I have 2 or more such persons, one named Mrs John Bryant. That is allowable. Eventually when you find the actual name, you can always edit to reflect the discovery of the name.0
-
Stewart Barry Smith said: I add my voice to those having problems with the new format. From my point of view:
I like the way any possible duplicates show up without running the duplicate search.
I like the ability to merge by ID when the "find duplicate" function fails (often).
I like the new edit button on the details page that saves me an addition click.
I suggest that the font size on the details page is too small for us more mature folk.
I suggest that the sources, notes and discussions need to be moved back to the details page. It wastes too much time to be shifting back and forth to separate pages.
I also liked it better when the record hints showed up without needing an extra click to expand them.0 -
Jacqueline Maxfield said: Posted same question. It seems to come up on some people but not everyone0
-
Jacqueline Maxfield said: Sometimes you have children from a one night stand that were placed with the father because mother didn't want to raise. How do you add those now? There was no marriage and the button has disappeared0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Stewart,
I do NOT like the way the hints are done now. You can NOT open them automatically in new tab. And they are clumped together. Confusing navigation, too.
Fonts restored to previous version size.
Merge by ID has always been there for long time. I used it all the times.
Several problems have since been fixed.0 -
Stewart Barry Smith said: Yes, I've used the "merge by ID" for years. Now I like the "quick link" that eliminates having to click on "possible duplicates" first.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: The button never disappeared. It had been modified. Look up - to where I addressed Margaret Taylor concerning adding children.0
-
Juli said: David, there was previously an option to "add a child with an unknown parent". See the instructions here: https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...
That's the button that has disappeared.0 -
B.F. Randall said: Stewart, I don't like the way hints are now, either. I have found that I need to manage the "hints" in a separate tab, just like with the Sources. Since the font is so tiny, I have to get out a microscope to make sure I don't hit the wrong function button.
At least I can feel some solace in the fact that people in Africa can use FS now. And I talked my wife into letting me buy 3 more monitors to manage the tabs. Just doing our part!
0 -
B.F. Randall said: agreed on the merge by ID function on the detail page instead of buried.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: B F Randall, it's same font, same layout, etc as in previous version.
Practically no change.
The trouble - the Source Hints as now is = bad configuration.0 -
B.F. Randall said: Agreed it's a bad configuration. We are saying the same thing. One difference is that on the old configuration, there were clearly-marked buttons "Review" and "not a match." The current versions of these buttons is far smaller than before.1
This discussion has been closed.