Making Alternate Name easier to find

LegacyUser

Carol Anne Lethaby said: The Alternate name can be a valuable resource, but many people I help do not know it exists. Could it be made a bit more visible or easier to find?

LegacyUser

Brett said: Carol

It is NOT about making the "Alternate" Name "... more visible or easier to find ..."!

It is about, getting "Ward/Branch, Temple and Family History Consultants"; and, "Staff Members" at "Family History Centres", geared-up to TEACH and TRAIN!

The Church had provided, the Resources and Materials; and, through Leadership from the Top, re-emphasised the importance of 'Temple and Family History' Work, now it is up to the Members with the 'Callings' to do what is required.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Remember the old adage, 'you can lead a horse to water; but, you cannot make it drink' - no matter how "Easy" things are made for us, we still need to be taught and trained, time and time, again and again.

Brett

LegacyUser

Phil Jeffrey said: So let me ask. How would you make it easier to find ? Brett is right as no matter what FS does people just need to be trained.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Brett

I find this a rather strange response! True, Carol is an LDS Church member (I've seen other posts of hers) but she is speaking of what she feels is a general problem. So what would you advise those users who have possibly never been anywhere near a FHC?

An Alternate Name probably is easily missed by some users and Carol appears to wish to see it more easily noticeable - surely a point for the program developers, not for the wider membership with "callings" to address?

LegacyUser

Brett said: Paul

'No', not a strange response at all, everything can be missed, no matter were it is placed or how prominent it is.

And, 'Yes', the lack of TRAINING and EDUCATION, in "Family Tree" and "FamilySearch", of Members of the Church, is a "General Problem"!

I would suggest that that is one of the reasons that the Leadership from the Top, re-emphasised the importance of 'Temple and Family History' Work.

I am NOT going to enter into a discussion about the the 'On-Line' training and education in "FamilySearch"; or, the lack thereof, that is another matter and problem/issue that has been discussed at length in this Forum.

As a "Programmer" once said to me, "... you cannot make a "System" foolproof; because, fools are so ingenious ...".

It really all boils down to TRAINING and EDUCATION.

Oh, and, of course, to be using the "System" on a REGULAR basis,

Brett

LegacyUser

Carol Anne Lethaby said: Well Hi Guys...Never thought there'd be so many comments already!

I am a FamilySearch Missionary...so very LDS!!

We were told that 60% of our patrons are not members of the Church, and when helping those patrons...they don't know to get training or where to go (As mentioned, this is a whole other issue!). I just see a pattern around this particular option and know it would really help. Personally, I leave Alternate Names that have been added there, just so people are aware of it being an option (even if they should actually be removed as they are the same name). I also correct things like eg. Elizabeth "Lizzie" Smith when I see it and move Lizzie to Alternate name.

Perhaps some place near the other name in Vital Information could be used. I only know that when I do show people, they are really happy to know it's an option. Lately I have actually seen 2 names showing in Vital (3 examples)...using the alternate language option, so it made me think it's possible.

Trust me...we do our best as missionaries to Ask, Find, TEACH...but we only see a small percentage of actual FamilySearch users.
Sister Lethaby

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Many (I don't know the demographics) non-Church people do not get involved with the massive tree. They use FamilySearch for research and to be honest, the site is getting worse for that... I just ran across some records whose images. that were previously available and now, when I try to get to those records, I either get

Newbies to the tree are often confused, thinking that it consists of personal trees. We even see some of the articles that talk about "your tree" -- a good example is some the one that deals with "Where the Ordinances Ready feature searches for names" The fourth item on the list is "Green temples" from your tree.

We are constantly telling newbies that there is no "Your" tree or "My tree" on FamilySearch. And yet we have people composing and approving articles that contain those very words. Even when we talk to people, we, who should know better, use the terms "your tree" with them.

Part of the problem is that we tend to try to not be technical. In reality we need to be more precise. I tend to talk about "your ancestral branch" or "your ancestral line" rather than use the word "tree" (unless, of course, I referring to "the massive tree."

This goes back to the old PAF program and when FamilySearch was started. At that time, Jim Greene talked to us (I was a missionary in the Church and Family History Mission at the time) in the training zone and he said that "we" meaning the Church and its leaders had failed to recognize that family history was for all mankind and that FamilySearch was created to bring it all together, that "we" had been thinking individual trees and that newFamilySearch was the direction they had wanted to move, but found that it had some severe limitations, so FamilySearch Family Tree was born. Even the Church's genealogy program gave the wrong impression the PAF (Personal Ancestral File) did it.

So now we have something that is new to the world of genealogy (there are others -- Wikitree) and we don't even know how to talk to others when we discuss the massive tree.

You may note that Family Group Sheets typically do not have provisions for alternate names, except as a note or by including alternate names in parentheses and nicknames in quote marks. That doesn't work well with computers which need "precise."

So, Phil brought up an interesting point -- how would we make the alternate names more visible.

In thinking about this, I think we need to do some subdividing (with headers, if nothing else) of the "other" section on a person's details page. My suggestion is to use facts (or non-events) and events. Alternate names fall under facts (non-events) and as such, could have a "header" in the "Other" section. If there are no alternate names entered, then the Other section would have a header "Alternate Names" and below that, "None entered" with a help "bubble" that says, "Use this section to record Also Known As, Birth (if not recorded in Vitals), Married, and Nicknames."

I believe having such as section in "Other" would help people recognize that they need to record alternate names.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: In a way, this gets back to developing and using a "style" guide to be used by FamilySearch and Church leadership/membership, a little along the lines that President Nelson suggested when he announced that we should be saying that we are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not "Mormons".

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Incidentally, I was looking at The Family History Guide to see if the authors had talked about entering alternate names, and saw that they also use the phrase "Your Family Tree".

The material in section 6 of the guide does link to two articles that talk about entering names (https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...) and deleting alternate names (https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale...).

The entering names articles talks about entering the birth name in the Vitals section and other variants in the "Other Section" but does not mention "Alternate names"

So the articles could also use some help.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: FYI: I have altered the way I interpret what "my tree", "your tree" means to users.

Yes there are some who are confused that the FSFT is one big community tree and we need better on-boarding there.

But it is common for users, and even me to say "... in my tree", "go look for ... in your tree". I know its one big tree but when I say "my tree" I'm thinking about SOI - scope of interest, where the people in the tree are closer to me. So when a user say I want to find the "Smiths" in my tree, (which you can do in a record manager) they are asking for the ability to see Smiths 1 generation, 2 gen, 3gen ... away from me. I tend to care more about the SOI closest to me. It 's like when you say "my street" "my neighbors", they don't belong to me but they are close to me and they are everyone else's neighbor. I love it when someone say "Oh you're from Provo, do you know..."

LegacyUser

David Robertson said: Great idea!

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: I do see how that if people are not aware that alternate names can be entered and have never seen alternate names, that finding that option under Other Information could come as a surprise. Here is a mock up of something similar to Tom's idea that would certainly add emphasis to the ability to add alternate names.

Without any names present:



With names present:

LegacyUser

Carol Anne Lethaby said: Yes...that's kinda what I was picturing. Nice mock-up!

LegacyUser

Carol Anne Lethaby said: Yes...that's kinda what I was picturing. Nice mock-up!

LegacyUser

Carol Anne Lethaby said: I just say "the tree".

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: That works for me, too.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Gordon

Like the intention; but, I would prefer the "Alternate Names" to a distinct (ie. delineated) 'Sub-Section' of the "Other Information" Section, rather than a separate (ie. standalone) Section.

But, that is just me.

Brett

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I'm sitting here, scratching my head on your suggestion, Brett. In a way, I fully understand and concur that it certainly could be in the "Other" section, but then so could the Family Section. However, the Family Section works better, operation-wise, in its own section.

I am of the opinion that while Alternate Names could certainly be included in the "Other" section, but from an operational point of view, setting it out in its own section is going to help, especially newbies and/or infrequent users, look at and enter alternate names they of which they are aware.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Tom

If the "Alternate Names" were a distinct (ie. delineated) 'Sub-Section' at the "Top" (where they appear now) of the "Other Information" Section; then, they will be easy to spot (see) and identify by, "newbies"; and/or, "infrequent" Users/Patrons.

Of course, naturally, that 'Sub-Section' at the "Top" of the "Other Information" Section, for "Alternate Names", will have a 'Sub-Heading' of "Alternate Names", even if there are NO "Alternate Names" listed/recorded; and, there will be the "+ Add" 'Button'.



Brett

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: At the present time, when one wants to add an alternate name, they click on + Add Information in the Other section and get the following list. Note that Alternate names is already in its own category, but the user has to click on the add function to see it.


And that is the problem. It really does need to be in its own section so that it really is apparent. Having it in its own subsection does not work, unless the subsections are like those in the Family Section on the details page.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Tom

Having "Alternate Names" with a distinct (ie. delineated) 'Sub-Section' at the "Top" (where they appear now) of the "Other Information" Section; and, with a 'Sub-Heading' of "Alternate Names"; and, an "+ Add" 'Button', WOULD work, even if there are NO "Alternate Names" listed/recorded.

I would NOT like to see "Alternate Names" in a separate Section.

Three (x3) main Sections (if you do not count the "Life Sketch"), being "Vitals"; "Other Information"; and, "Family Members", is enough.

Otherwise, we may as well revert back to "5/6 September 2018" version of "Person/Details" page/screen - NOT likely.

Brett

ps: We will just have to beg to differ.

LegacyUser

Juli said: Rewinding Tom's and Brett's discussion above to basic principles: the problem is a chicken-and-egg conundrum, whereby the possibility of alternate names is invisible until/unless an alternate name is entered.

One solution is to make the Other section more like the Vitals section:


This presents the problem of what to do if the Other section is no longer empty -- unlike Vitals, profiles can have multiple entries under each Other type. So perhaps the simplest solution is to re-label the Add link:

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: Brett, how about this?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I'm not differing in principle, Brett. I'm suggesting some thing to think about. The back and forth is valuable because it gives others something to work with. See the responses from Juli and Gordon (both excellent ideas, by the way).

LegacyUser

Brett said: Gordon

Much better.

Only, the "Detail View" 'Button' ONLY needs to appear ONCE, just under the "Section" Heading of "Other Information - not under both.

Brett

LegacyUser

Brett said: Tom

I agree.

Neither is, right; and/or, wrong.

Both sides of the "coin" need to be examined, so to speak.

OR, if you like ...

All avenues need to be explored.

Brett

ps: That is what THIS Forum is all about!

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: If anything like this is ever instituted, I'm sure the designers will do much better at fine tuning it than I have shown in this rough attempt. However, I could picture myself only wanting to see details regarding the names or only the other events, but not both at the same time.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Gordon

Agreed.

I am actually in two minds.

But, leaning towards just one "Detail View" 'Button' for the whole of "Other Information" Section.

But, that is just me.

Brett

LegacyUser

diane ash said: These comments do not make me feel welcome at all....back to ancestry.com for me Your site needs to clean up all the inaccurate information. What a shame that so much of it is not accurate.

LegacyUser

Carol Anne Lethaby said: Hi Diane,
I'm sorry to hear that you feel unwelcome! I'm not sure what, in this thread, has made you feel unwelcome, but it's never the intent. It's a place where suggestions are made and questions asked so we all work better with the tree. Because the tree is used, added to and corrected by users, errors are going to pop up. Also, a lot of data was added back when people were doing a lot of research without computers, so we can now get in there and correct. As a user of the tree, everyone would welcome corrections...but they have to be done by those who actually know the family! Your corrections are welcome and needed to make things better. Sources are VERY welcome!
If you phone or email FamilySearch (Contact Us under Help), you can ask very specific questions like "how do I add a source?", etc. Or under HELP, there is a Help Center where you can type your question and articles come up that may have the answer. "Your Site" is your site as well (that's how wiki's work), and I would love if more users would actually correct as they go.
Don't give up!
Carol