Allow memo to be recorded directly onto Vitals

LegacyUser

marlenepitman said: FamilySearch doesn't currently allow for a memo to be recorded directly onto Vitals - that adds information to the date/place already recorded. Examples might be death on xx date yy place 'age 1 month' or for a marriage date/place + 'residence of someone...'. To bury this extra related information into a separate note on another tab is clumsy.

I've noticed that people sometimes put this useful extra information into the 'reason for change' field but that isn't actually logical. If someone else makes a change and writes their reason in that field, the useful piece of information is then buried in the audit trail rather than being readily available.

Is this something that is on FamilySearch's roadmap?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Welcome to the community support forum for FamilySearch. FamilySearch personnel read every discussion thread and may or may not respond as their time permits. We all share an active interest in using the resources of this site and as users, we have various levels of knowledge and experience and do our best to help each other with concerns, issues, and/or questions.

We are in a holiday couple of weeks and the full staff is likely not going to be available until next week.

Regardless, it appears you are addressing the "Source Linker", which is what FamilySearch uses to attach a source (actually an index entry) to a person's record.

I and others have realized that the comparison screen used by the Source Linker could use a lot of work, primarily in the area of expanding what is in the original record, including information that is not in the source, but in the record. When and if FamilySearch has the resources to do something with this screen (the organization has limited resources), they may or may not change and/or expand the actual screen where sources are attached.

This kind of thing has been requested a number of times, but as to whether improvements are on a priority list and where they are on that list, is not something that FamilySearch is in the habit of publishing.

The reason that the source linker does not allow updates to be made to existing data in the person's record is because there are a number of instances where users (often, but not always, inexperienced) will add a source, simply because a hint was presented to them. The information may or may no apply to the individual.

The typical FamilySearch response is to have users add or change the conclusion for any event or fact (it doesn't matter if it is in the Vitals section or not) manually, where they can view the entire record and are in a better position to decide if the information from a newly-added source actually applies.

LegacyUser

Brett said: marlenepitman

I really do not think that we need a "Memo" as you suggest.

I quite often add things like, the actual 'Time' of Day of, "Birth"; or, Death" (if on record); "Killed in Action"; "Killed by Accident"; or, "Lived till he/she was 98"; or, the like onto a 'Date'; but, am still able to "Standardise" the 'Date'.

I also quite often add things like, the exact name and number of the street (right down to the "Building" name, if there is one); and, the like, for 'Places' of "Birth"; "Christening"; or, "Death"; but, am still able to "Standardise" the 'Place'.

If the "Memo" is important enough, I quite often add it to more than one place. Sometimes, to all, "Reason Statement"; "Life Sketch"; "Other Information" Section (including: either, a 'Custom', "Event"; or, "Fact"); and, "Collaboration" Section (both as, "Notes"; and, "Discussions", sub-sections). At least, as a "Discussion", it cannot be "Deleted"/"Removed" by another User/Patrson.

I totally understand what you are say, when you say that other Users/Patrons can "Delete" or "Overwrite" what is in a previous "Reason Statement".

But, the same would hold true for such "Memos" as you suggest.

Apart from "Discussions", everything can be "Changed".

Personally, I am not against what you are suggesting; but, I think that there are enough "Fields" now for most average Users/Patrons to handle, without adding another such "Memo" field, which would just complicate what there already is.

Unlike, 'Tom', I do not think that you were specifically referring to the "Source Linker", just the ability to add a "Memo" to the main "Vitals" fields.

That is just my take on it, just my thoughts.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

marlenepitman said: Thanks Tom and Brett for the feedback on this suggestion. As Brett has rightly observed, my comments did not relate at all to the source linker (which I agree could use a lot of work but is still very useful), but relate to the events listed as Vitals.

I take Brett's points but disagree. Almost all other types of events have a 'description' field in addition to date and place. Many of the desktop programs I've worked with use a description field in association with vital events.

And while I agree it is possible to squeeze extra information into the date or place fields (I do it often), it isn't 'natural'. I agree also that information can be put in other places, but if it makes most sense right there next to the date and place why not have the ability to put it there.

So for example, died about 25 June 1888, , aged 1 day makes very good sense to me to be put in but requires a description/memo field to record it sensibly. And no, the 'aged 1 day' does not belong in the discussion field.

You are correct that it can be deleted but that will be because someone either has better information or has reason to disagree with the information. If recording this in the reason field as a de facto memo field, it can and probably should be overwritten by someone who is changing some part of the information and recording the reason why they did it. The previous information is still accessible in the audit trail but that isn't where important relevant immediate topical information should hide.

So with thanks for the comments, I stand by my proposal.

Kindest regards,

Marlene

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: If FSFT is about recording stories, as we have been told that it is, it is profoundly illogical to not have the ability to record a story in a memo against every event and attribute - not just the Vitals. So I totally agree with you.

Yes, there are Memories that can be used for this purpose but they are split from the basic fact details. Besides, how can I have Memories of someone who died before I was born?

There is also the Life Sketch but again that is split from the basic fact details so requires them to be repeated to construct a sensible biography. Repeated or contradicted???

And if FSFT is supposed to sync with desktop software (that does have a Note against each "fact") shouldn't it do a proper sync including all the data?

LegacyUser

Brett said: Marlene

Personally; as, a regular and reasonably experienced User/Patron, I am not against what you are suggesting; but, I simply think that there are enough "Fields" now for most average Users/Patrons to handle, without adding another such "Memo" field, which would just complicate what there already is.

Not to mention the EXTRA work (both, Design; and, Development) involved for the Programmers.

Just my thoughts.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: User interface complexity is an important consideration, Brett. It's certainly the case that some people might confuse the proposed "Memo" with the existing "Reason Statement" - not least because it's easy to imagine text serving both purposes. (And let's not mention Notes, Discussions and / or Memories!)

So if this were to go forward (which I'd like) there needs to be some explanation of what it's for - don't just release it into an unsuspecting production during a quiet lunch break while the software engineers can watch - and probably a little bit more text in the UI which seems to have way too many single word descriptions and titles in the browser version.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: There has been the desired enhancement "genealogical proof statement" that could apply to and across conclusions (vitals), relationships, and Persons. It what you see in well researched genealogies. That's a long ways off in design and implementation. The user interface could get quite complicated and then the whole aspect of open-edit make it more so.

For now here's what I do:
1. In the conclusion provide the more detailed info in the user-supplied field for the place and date conclusions, as well as Sources to back it up.
2. If that isn't sufficient, add an Other Info -Fact/Event.
3. I don't like to use Notes any more because that feature has been reduced to a collaboration tool. But in the Relationship object Notes has not been diluted- so I'd use those for relationship based detail.
4. Life Sketch is another option, but I tend to think of Life Sketch like something you hear at a funeral - high-level, not tiny details.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: That would certainly provide a way to tie together the multiple notes, rather than creating another.

Speaking of which, my classic uses for notes (in my desktop s/ware) are:
- against the source-record saying why the Fred Bloggs in the source is my Fred Bloggs and not another of the same name;
- somewhere against the event saying why the birth event (say) takes its place from one source but the date from another;
- against the event giving a bit of a story about that event.

The last of those 3 is, to me, equally important, yet appears to be overlooked by many. Example of that type is one I was creating today in my desktop s/ware where I noticed that two couples marrying on one page were each others' witnesses. Did this indicate a dual wedding? Probably not as the same thing happened the previous day. That's a story (mostly) about the event that I'd like to see recorded somewhere.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "Correct use of terminology for what is actually meant"
Yes, like my bete noire of "Memories"! What are they actually used for?

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Hi Joe,

Thanks for the thoughts.

The things I was talking about above is part of the K.I.S.S. principle. I see many items on FS beginning to become way over complicated and I really wish it would stop. In spite of all the good we can do with this site, entropy is destroying some things. E.g.. I really hope that they are NOT attempting something such as a "Genealogical Proof Statement". It will likely just provide more redundancy and more complexity to add to the system. Shoot we can't even seem to get something as basic and simple as vital derivation Notes implemented as indicated by your point #3 (which I agree with although I don't see the Notes on FS as even being a useful collaboration tool either. It' just becoming so diffuse, no one knows how to use them)

Notes were always pretty obvious but their intuitive and useful value seems to have been destroyed by all of the new ways to put the same notes into many different places now. The system is so flexible it's becoming less useful and more confusing.

Part of my personal issue, I'm sure, comes from the fact that I spent many, many years writing requirement documentation. When doing so, you have to have clear and consistent meanings to ALL of the terminology used. Also, any statement of a product fact must be placed into a SINGLE place that is intuitive enough so that all users of the document can always easily find it. That requires a structural understanding of what is going on in order to organize things properly.

If I want to find the description of WHY a Birth vital exists, I shouldn't have to not only look at the Birth field tags, but also the Notes, Life sketch, Discussions, and the entire history of changes for each of the "Reasons this data is correct" in order to determine why the Birth Field was set to what it is. A single statement in an obvious place easily accessible from those vitals (e.g., tags?), should be all that is necessary.

The problem comes when there are so MANY different ways to accomplish something where only one simple one consistent across the entire site is necessary. Putting identical vitals documentation in more than one place, and then having to maintain that consistency forevermore is not an appropriate documentation technique.

BTW, I also believe that a Life Sketch is NOT a vital, and therefore does not belong on the top of the vitals page. If anything, it is a memory as it is usually provided by a single person from who-knows-where, as you can't attach sources to it. I personally ignore life sketches as they are redundant to all vitals and are PROPRIETARY to FS as far as a pedigree and personal data records go. I also don't have the time every time I change a Vital to go in and verify that everything in somebody's Life Sketch matches it.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: That is why it is good to have all 3 of those points you made documented in the same place. If you've missed one, somebody else can add it.

"Correct use of terminology for what is actually meant" like not defining ALL Couple Relationships types as Marriages and making a clear delineation between Couple Relationship "types" and Couple Relationship "events"--especially in the cases of Marriage where it can be EITHER a "type" or "Event".

LegacyUser

ATP said: marlenepitman,

I know it is a step or 2 more than just adding a note onto the vitals page, but, if you have not tried it, the following might be something you might wish to check into.

Go to the Sources heading and create your own source by recording your information and saving it in Sources which then will have been added to Sources, if any, on the Vitals page of the individual adjacent to Name.

To do this, under the Sources heading click add source, and in the pop-up window, create a descriptive title, and add date if you like, then scroll down to Describe Record (Notes) and enter your information and save. Disregard the steps between Add title and Describe Record (Notes). Needless to say, creating a descriptive title to identify such is essential.

Though, it links to no primary record(s), your Note is at least recorded in Sources and links directly to the Vitals.

I use this method to especially record deeds' records since no category for primary Deeds records is available to link in familysearch.org. And for me the establishment of movement is vital in validating identity when given names for generations were repeated over and over. But, I digress...

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Just to add an example of possible use of a note / memo against any event, not just a Vital Event:

See https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... - in that thread, the OP wants to record a cremation and the fact that the ashes were given to the family. In this scenario, the ultimate fate of the ashes is not yet known.

One possible way of doing this currently is to use the Cremation event and add a note somewhere on the profile saying "Ashes given to family".

It would make more sense if it were possible to add a note / memo / whatever directly against the cremation event saying something like "Ashes given to family - current status unknown". This needs to be a separate text box from the "Reason this information is correct" text box because (a) it serves a different purpose and (b) when someone alters the "Reason this information is correct" from "Great-aunt Nelly told me" to "From Funeral Home records", we don't want them accidentally deleting "Ashes given to family - current status unknown".

NB - this example is intended to show a potential use for a note / memo / whatever directly against any event, a use that is different from "Reason this information is correct". It's not intended that this reply should generate comments on whether or not that's a good idea for cremations, thank you - the other thread is for that.