A list of all contributors (with contact info) for each individual in FamilyTree

LegacyUser

Kelly Robert Grieve said: How about a button to extract and list all contributors that have added/edited an individual in FamilyTree. Right now, one has to click through all kinds of fields/sources/changes to collect all the people who have ever touched the record. Maybe I'd like to contact everyone to share something I've discovered or ask everyone a question. Yes, the discussion area can serve part of this need. And, yes, if someone is watching a person, they will see the change. But, that wouldn't be everyone who might be interested in some new piece of data. I would see this as a simple addition to the program to harvest the FS IDs of all contributors and their contact info and present the list to me. I can then contact everyone through e-mail (if they have provided an e-mail) without spending lots of time turning over rocks..

LegacyUser

Keith L Russell said: I agree I would also like to have a list like this.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: There might be privacy issues there. In Europe we now have strict rules that someone must agree to the details being used for X, Y or Z. We can be pretty certain that the earliest contributors agreed to no such thing.

However, the counter argument to that is that contributors can be contacted right now - you just have to do it manually, one at a time. (Which is boring and hard work - I know).

So the crux of the matter is whether easy bulk-contacting counts as a different usage compared to one-at-a-time contacting. Not sure - the ease of bulk-contacting could lead to more contacts, which might get annoying to the recipient.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: At the very least a list of the fellow 'watchers' could be provided - which has been suggested MANY times in this forum (even with a suggestion of an email block for those requesting anonymity)

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Agreed.

I do not remember what reason was given for not providing this, but it may have had something to do with the same privacy issues Adrian mentions.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Yes. Logically there must be an easier case for doing something with the Watchers, because they have signed up to explicit communication of a sort.

LegacyUser

ATP said: I concur! Unless a person is willing to provide the kinship relationship without having to be asked, that person should not be allowed to input any information on any person for any reason. If one wants to be part of the FSFT community, then like any community, one can choose to abide by certain rules in order to participate. It's their choice!

Also, the time parameters on performing ordinance work, instead of 110 years, should be raised to 150 years and proof of kinship within those parameters before allowing them to perform the ordinance work.

But, hey, such an old-fashioned ideas!

LegacyUser

Keith L Russell said: The most important thing is to get people out if spirit prison. I do not think we should put long time restrictions on helping them

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: ATP -- at one time, the cutoff was 95 years, but was raised to 110 when too many people would go ahead and without permission from closest living relatives to the deceased request the reservation. The cutoff was raised to 110 years and policies were put in place where evidence of approval had to be provided, along with the name of the person who approved the ordinances.

I agree that 110 years is too short. Besides super centenarians. the descendants can often live long lives, including their immediate (close) relatives (that applies to the children). I've seen it in my own family and when a child is born late in the life of their parents, it is very easy to have a close family member still living for someone who is over 100 years old.

150 sounds reasonable, but there will be a lot of requests made when no living relatives are still alive. The number of long lived families is greater among Church members and a few other groups that have strict health codes (like the Church's "Word of Wisdom"). But still 110 years is too short.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I agree, but in this case, we are talking about recently deceased persons, not those who resided there for centuries of our time. My grandmother lived to be almost 104 years old.

I waited a number of years, even past the 110 years from her birth, to start her work. I was able to baptize her great granddaughter, who was named after her, as proxy for her.