Relationship adding errors with children and parents, visual explains.
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Pioneer42 said: 
Why do I have to take extra step and delete child from the single mother, when before it would just combine? Flaws in new software. Old was better, prime example.
Why do I have to take extra step and delete child from the single mother, when before it would just combine? Flaws in new software. Old was better, prime example.
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Pioneer42 said: The second statement below the top is just giving another example of what could have been done, but with same result flipped with the husband instead. Get the Picture?0
-
Tom Huber said: Deleting a child from a mother that is in its own family group (the husband is missing) has always been a necessary step.
The child could be adopted by a parent that has not yet been added to the couple. Therefore, in instances where both the parent and the child have already been combined, cleaning up couple relationships is a necessary step that sometimes needs to be done.
Secondly, there are instances where a child is the product of a one night stand and it is necessary to show the child with only the mother. Later, when the mother is married, that separate relationship still needs to be shown and the Father needs to have the relationship (other than biological) established (step- adopted- guardinan are examples).
That is the reason the system maintains the two until the couple relationship is eliminated. Deleting the child or adding the existing father are two different, but viable ways to do that.0 -
Paul said: Yes, I've had to do that before the change, too. Providing the child was not illegitimate and/or involved in a "step" relationship, I remove him/her from the relationship with the mother with the reason statement, "Positioned under both parents on Tree", or similar.
Unless you are talking about more specific circumstances, the issue is definitely not a new one.0 -
Pioneer42 said: Incorrect Tom! I have been using this program since the beginning, and it ALWAYS used to combine them until 2017! You simply do not get it. They did this with the new version and it didn't always exist! Do you think I'm bringing these things up out of being some kind of rookie at this?0
-
Pioneer42 said: Do you see now that the old program was better yet?0
-
Pioneer42 said: Want me to go on? What about the family tree interface? Do you think the new way or the old way was better? This will tell me what I want to know from you0
-
Pioneer42 said: No im just saying how it used to just combine them, now you have to take a extra step and remove the child from the single parent. Its really just stupid is all. I am pointing out the flaws of the new program to the old one0
-
Pioneer42 said: older was much better0
-
Pioneer42 said: I know why they made some of these changes, the group leaders told me in a email. It was for the older generation, that do not understand how to work this program. So, the old program was designed for the people in the computer world now, the new one is designed to get people to read more, get them to understand how to use a computer. It's sort of like a win win strategy, but the problem we all have with it, is it has become cumbersome to those that do the majority of its work. Many things are broken that once were and now you have to go about it the long hard way. LAMO0
-
Pioneer42 said: Problem is though, it will be years before it ever goes back to the original, and im not talking 2012 version, that had issues, the program was really good from 2015-2017. No more IOUS and no more couldnt merge that guy or this guy. Everything was good until August 2017 before the system fell apart.0
-
Pioneer42 said: The 2000-2012 version was the worst of all, terrible program, and people were merging everything! LOL it was sort of hillarious and STUPIFYING0
-
Tom Huber said: You claim that many things are broken. Please, instead of repeatedly making claims about how this or that are a problem, be specific in new threads, and as Joe Martel pointed out, read the code of conduct at https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal... and particularly pay attention to
We do not permit the following behaviors:
The moderators of this forum are reasonably forgiving of the above two, but if the violation becomes excessive, they will comment and/or take action.
...
* Using formatting techniques to shout, such as ALL CAPS, repeated characters (such as !!!!), or excessive boldface.
* Conjecture, gossip, or debate about the priorities, motives, processes, policies, or competence of FamilySearch or its personnel.
* Thread bumping and repetitive comments.0 -
gasmodels said: You can remove this issue by a merge if you will add a dummy father to second relationship where Elizabeth shows with no spouse. I do it all the time when there are multiple children connected to the wife or husband with no spouse. Just add a temporary record and then merge it with the real missing spouse and all is well. Personally I consider this a minor issue at worst. It is certainly not an issue that should be a high priority modification to remove. It may be bothersome sometimes but it is easily solvable and also easy to explain the issue to novice users.0
-
Pioneer42 said: Ok says policy police Tom Huber0