FamilySearch. RecordSeek. Question: Is "RecordSeek" still is a Third-Party Affiliate Product for/w

LegacyUser

Brett said: FamilySearch

Record Seek

Question:

Is "RecordSeek" still is a Third-Party Affiliate Product for/with FamilySearch"?

And, if it still is, what does that mean?

I have read through a number of previous posts (both, old and recent) in this Forum where "RecordSeek" is discussed/mentioned.

And, I know that there are Users/Patrons of "FamilySearch" who still use "RecordSeek".

But ...
That said ...

I am a little confused - and, I am easily confused.

There is in the "FamiySearch" 'Wiki' an article regarding "RecordSeek":
RecordSeek
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/...

Where from the outset it states that:
Quote:
----------
What is RecordSeek?
RecordSeek is a free third-party affiliate product for FamilySearch ...
----------

Now ..
Here in lies my confusion ...

"RecordSeek" DOES NOT appear in the "Solutions Gallery" of "FamilySearch".

Hence, my initial question.

And, is "RecordSeek" still Certified/Compatible/Authorised/Approved (whatever the technical term is) to work with "FamilySearch"?

I refer to this "Knowledge Article" in "FamilySearch"
How do I find partner products?
https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...

Where it states ...
Quote:
----------
Information
You can find third-party products, services, and websites in the FamilySearch Solutions Gallery. These programs offer a wider variety of functionality to enhance your experience using Family Tree, Memories, and other FamilySearch experiences. Some offer enhanced printing capabilities. Others provide ways to analyze Family Tree data or engage your family members with their history.

FamilySearch Compatible applications (meaning they integrate with FamilySearch) show a small green tree icon in the lower right corner of the description of the application.
----------

Whereas ...

"RecordSeek" is NOT found in the "Solutions Gallery" of "FamilySearch"!

[ Further Question: Should that "FamiySearch" 'Wiki' article regarding "RecordSeek" be removed from the "FamiySearch" 'Wiki'; if, "RecordSeek" is no longer a Certified/Compatible/Authorised/Approved (whatever the technical term is) to work with "FamilySearch"? ]

I know that "RecordSeek" is about helping us (Users/Patrons) make "Citations" for EXTERNAL "Sources" for "FamilySearch".

Quote:
----------
RecordSeek makes it effortless to record your source citations from the web. Get started, and start saving sources
----------

So, I was even just wondering if there was even a need for "RecordSeek to be Certified/Compatible/Authorised/Approved (whatever the technical term is) to work with "FamilySearch"!?

Hence, my confusion.

Just curious.

'Thank You' in advance.

Brett

ps: I had heard such good reports about "RecordSeek" in the past; and, I was considering getting into it.

.

LegacyUser

Lynne VanWagenen said: The wiki's wording may be outdated regarding the certification. In 2018, FamilySearch changed some of the requirements for getting apps certified and getting them listed in the Solutions Gallery

RecordSeek does not use the FamilySearch APIs, so it doesn't go through a formal "certification" process. Nor does it have to be listed in the Solutions Gallery.

All it seems to do is identify the relevant text off of an Ancestry page, copy it into a window. From that window, you can adjust the text (if needed) then copy the text into a Family Tree source.

Just because it hasn't been certified doesn't mean usage is discouraged. If you need to copy source citations from Ancestry and put them in Family Tree, give it a try.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Lynne

'Thank You' for responding in this post of mine.

'Morning' ('G'Day), from my 'neck of the woods' ...

I was under the impression that "RecotrdSeek" created "Citations" for just about any external "Source" to "FamilySearch", not just "Ancestry.com".

Many, many of my "Sources" are external to "FamilySearch", and, certainly, not just from "Ancestry.com"; so, an application to render the "Citation" (well, at least, create in the first instance), would be helpful. But, if it only creates the "Citations" from "Ancestry.com"; then, such would not be of much use to me.

And, even though "RecordSeek" is not "Certified", is "RecordSeek" still promoted/approved for use in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" by "FamilySearch"?

I know that "FamilySearch" changed some of the requirements for getting Applications "Certified"; and, getting the "Applications" listed in the "Solutions Gallery" of "FamilySearch".

Correct me if I am wrong; but, was not "RecordSeek" one of those "Certified"/Approved" Applications before the aforementioned changes to the Application Program Interface (API)!?

I do not want to use an Application (eg. 'all-be-it' an 'Extension') that is NOT Certified/Promoted/Approved for use in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" by "FamilySearch"!

If the use of "RecordSeek" is NOT "Discouraged" for use in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch", WHY does such an Application NOT appear in the "Solutions Gallery", NOT as a "Certified" third-party product; but, as an "Affiliate" third-party product?

Again, just curious.

Again, 'Thank You'.

Brett

ps: Can you please respond to a previous recent post (where I have referenced you), either, in that post; or, directly (ie. privately) - 'Thanks'.

.

LegacyUser

Lynne VanWagenen said: Using RecordSeek is just fine. In fact, you'd find many FamilySearch employees who use it.

RecordSeek was listed in the App Gallery several years ago. In 2018, we changed the requirements for listing apps in the Solutions Gallery, and some developers chose to not list their products.

Apps that use our APIs must be certified and listed in the Solutions Gallery.

If an app or browser plug in can be used with FamilySearch but doesn't use our APIs, then we don't certify it. The developers can choose to list these products in the Solutions Gallery, but they aren't required to.

We don't prohibit the use of apps or plug-ins that aren't in the Solutions Gallery. For example, if you wanted to use the Grammerly Chrome plug-in to check a life sketch or story that you typed into Family Tree, it would probably work.

If you don't use Ancestry much, it probably won't help you much. But you can install it and see whether it picks up the citation information that you want from other sites.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Lynne

'Thank You' for that.

I do utilise "Ancestry.com".

But, I also use many other external "Web" Sites (including Government ones).

I was just hoping that "RecordSeek" would work for just about anything.

You have allayed any concern that I have - especially, if "FamilySearch" Personnel use it.

'Yes', I thought that I recalled seeing "RecordSeek" in the "Solutions Gallery", some time ago.

I just think that, if the use of "RecordSeek" (and, such like) is NOT "Discouraged" for use in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch"; but, 'OK'; then, "FamilySearch" SHOULD have such appear in the "Solutions Gallery", NOT as a "Certified" third-party product; but, as an "Affiliate"; or, "Acceptable"; or, "Approved" (whatever), third-party product?

But, perhaps that is just me ...

Again, 'Thank You'.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: Just to clarify, RecordSeek can be used on ANY website and used to link to persons in Either or Both FamilySearch & Ancestry.

A great resource for those who believe in the VALUE of sources. I just finished linking a 1758 news article to an individual from Newpapers,com ($ @ Ancestry, but available at FHC)

Other than as a frequent USER, I have no connection with RecordSeek. https://recordseek.com/



I Just found out from their website if even works on a cellphone!

LegacyUser

Brett said: Robert

'Thank You' for that clarification.

'Yes', I thought that "RecordSeek" could be used for creating a "Citation", for a "Source", from ANY "Web" Site.

'Muchly' appreciated.

'Thanks' Mate.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: By the way, I posted the above because I do not consider record seek to be an affiliated company in the normal sense of the word. It is really immaterial to your points.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Tom

Way too technical for me.
I do not really care what term is used.

But, if a 'Third-Party Product' is considered acceptable (O.K.) to use (ie. certified or not) by "FamilySearch" with "FamilySearch"; then , it would be nice if such product and information was included in the "Solutions Gallery" of "FamilySearch".

Just my thoughts.

Brett

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The way FS has things set up, to be listed in the Solutions Gallery, a product must be certified at some level and use the FS-supplied API. See https://www.familysearch.org/developers/ and note that "to be eligible" and "authorized" is used in several of the explanatory paragraphs.

By putting a product in the solutions gallery, FS is taking on a certain amount of responsibility with regard to the product and how it impacts the data provided through the FS site.

Record Seek is independent of the FamilySearch website and creates its source citations independently of any site and interface (other than using the user's browser). It can, in essence, be used with any site that displays a URL for the site and information on that site's page.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Tom

I understand than.

But, if "FamilySerach" Personnel use "RecordSeek"; then, it seems to be a reasonably acceptable product to use in conjunction with "FamilySearch".

I am not say that it fits into the LEVEL of being "Certified" or "Authorised" to be used with "FamilySearch" (even though it may have been some time ago); but, surely, it would be good for "FamilySearch" to indicate to the Users/Patrons, a "List" of 'Third-Party Products' that are considered acceptable (O.K.) by "FamilySearch" (or, at least, by a number of Personnel) to use in conjunction with "FamilySearch".

This goes beyond the LEVEL of just being "Certified" or "Authorised" to be used with "FamilySearch".

I am certain there are many such products that I have not even heard of, I know that training and classes for "RecordSeek" and the like, appear on the "FamilySearch" 'Wiki pages of a number of "Family History Centres.

It would be nice to have a consolidated "List", rather than the disjointed set-up that we have at the moment (eg. This Forum; the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum; the various "FamilySearch" 'Wiki pages; etc).

Again, just my thoughts.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: I use recordseek, and have interacted with the developer on a number of bugs, and he has mentioned FS changing the API recently, and adjusting accordingly.

I think it would be worthwhile to get an official opinion on it, but I believe it IS considered a supported product (affiliate if you will) from comments (perhaps misused words), and from THIS forum...

For instance, when I create a new topic, I see a way to tag my post with a couple of specific tags on the right side, and I see the following:



And I don't recall it being there a month or two ago.... (faulty memory being what it is)

so... take it for what it's worth.

I would also suggest not falling into a trap of thinking "If familysearch employees use it, it must be approved."

It's a tool. A good tool at that. I use it all the time, and if I knew how to code in javascript, I'd be helping develop new features for it (I've been invited).

That said, he's made a LOT of improvements and bug fixes lately, and it works a LOT better now! It still occasionally drops you in with a blank source, but you just close that window and re-do it, and it seems to work fine then. If you run a script blocker like I do, then it has problems working on a web site (for sources), if scripting can't run on that web site. I temporarily allow it for recordseek to work, but if the web site has been aggressive in trying to block content or trying to push services I don't want (you should see some of the trackers on these sites!!!), I'll use the recordseek tool on a benign site and manually modify/copy/paste from the site I want, and use recordseek for attaching a source to multiple people.

It provides a MUCH needed improvement to FamilySearch as it relates to attaching a source to multiple people.

If it's NOT using an API, then... it's caching my credentials somehow, because it welcomes me back by name when I go to create a source. So take that for what it's worth...

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: I know that a few years back, RecordSeek WAS using the FS API. In their blog is an instance where FS changed the API and RecordSeek was in the process of adapting to it. Now apparently from the "horses mouth", the developer has related to Justin that they've had to adjust the app due to FS changing their API.

This seems to contradict what Lynne VanWagenen told us in her first post above:

RecordSeek does not use the FamilySearch APIs, so it doesn't go through a formal "certification" process. Nor does it have to be listed in the Solutions Gallery.

Also in her second post, Lynne VanWagenen further emphasized:

Apps that use our APIs must be certified and listed in the Solutions Gallery.

and yet, it is not. Brett's original question on this topic seems to be still legitimate.

An app that throws up a login screen to FS that requires me to enter my FS password, but is not FORMALLY certified or identified as being recognized by FS is an issue. For all we know that login screen could be a spoof to collect our user names and passwords.

(I'm sure that the login is legit and is only a pass-through to the FS website, but there seems to be nothing showing that FS formally recognizes RecordSeek as a legitimate certified tool safe to use with the FamilyTree)

LegacyUser

Brett said: Justin

(Morning)
'Thank You' for that.
Muchly appreciated.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Jeff

'Thank You' for that.
I am not very articulate.
And, am very verbose (to put it mildly) at the best of times.
'Yes', that is why I raised the 'Question' in the first place.
I have only heard good things about "RecordSeek".
Whereas, not so the same for likes of, "Hope.Chest"; or, "Take.A.Name"; or, like.
Just curious.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Brett, you're welcome.

Jeff, not sure there is NOTHING about it... I pointed to the reference to RecordSeek on THIS (getsatisfaction) forum. So... maybe some hope...

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: I couldn't post this picture in my reply just a second ago...

But I was suggesting this improvement for recordseek... (which is where he invited me to help do coding, but I don't know the language.)



Maybe it will spark some ideas here... I was looking at faster ways of attaching the same source to multiple people, using the family as a nexus.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Justin,

Yes you did. I didn't even know that was there :-)

However, if you look at it's details, it only raises MORE questions:

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Oh, well you had to spoil the fun with that, did you? Lol.

I've never clicked it, and so I never saw that.

Thanks for pointing that out!

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: If I remember correctly, the way RecordSeek works now, is that after you attach the source to someone, you can then attach it to another, and another, etc..

Since you have to uniquely search for and identify each person and their PID, you'd have to go through and manually create your list before you could go and use it to attach and tag the source to everyone. But with the current arrangement, by the time you've collected all the names, they are ALREADY attached and tagged.

As a result, the list approach that you suggest just adds an extra step at the end of the current method. It also demands a lot more screen space as well (try using it on a cell phone).

Furthermore, the preset categories would likely be an issue. For example, one of the things that folks might use RecordSeek for is obituaries. They can list full families (both living and dead) and extended families (e.g., step parents, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews as well as other cousins and sibling spouses). having a predefined list like that would be very large on screen and problematic. Unless the list is already pre-populated with all of those categories (making it large even when there is nothin in it), you will have to ADDITIONALLY assign categories as you enter the names. This is also something that you don't have to do with the current way it works.

I also believe that the current mechanism also allows custom notes for the source on each person it is attached to (need to confirm this). So for each person in the list you've shown, you would need to also add a LARGE Source Notes field under each Reason for Change field. Since the note would be very similar for each person but slightly different, you would not have any simple way to automatically forward what you entered on a previous attachment to show up for tweaking on the next. I believe you already have the capability in the current mechanism as well.

Since RecordSeek isn't really used for Indexes, there would be no way to auto-populate the list either.

In Summary, when you get into the actual workflow that such a UI would have to support, there are items that would be self-defeating in the list approach.

I do know that you can put the source into your source box. When doing multiple attachments, using your source box is an alternate way of doing it but I suspect you couldn't easily get the unique notes on each source though. I'd have to look at it in detail though to determine if it was faster or not.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Sorry...

I suppose I could have also pointed out that it works on any number of different browsers and NOT just on Chrome, but I didn't...

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Jeff, I'm not understanding about the extra step.

I approached this with an initial FSID, which seeded the filling/auto-population of that page with people related to that person (nexus). With the page displayed above, you'd tag the people with any related categories, and add the comments for each on.

(This was born out of doing obituaries, so when you mention creating the list, are you talking about creating people who don't exist already? Because as far as I know, you can't use RecordSeek to create people - remember, you need a FSID (or enough unique details) to *FIND* someone.

NOTE: I've always used FSID #'s, and thiss may bias what I'm saying, or clouding what I am understanding from your post.

The process:
(In RecordSeek)
Yes, you're correct that you can enter custom notes for each person, but as I've experienced it, after you enter the 1st person's info and added the comment, you're invited to attach that same source to a new person.

You find the next person, modify the tags if needed (since not everybody is dying, you don't want death tags transferring to other relatives), and add a comment to save. (Rinse. Lather. Repeat)

(In FamilySearch)
Doing it via familysearch is tedious, requiring the source to be created for the initial person,

You then have to get to the next person (however many clicks that is), then once on that person, select Source, then Add Source, From SourceBox, find the source, click the checkbox to attach, add custom comment, and save. (Rinse, lather, repeat)

So, basically, what I was envisioning was something like this:

Pick an an initial person (FamilySearch or Ancestry). Scoop up their immediate relatives (up (parents), sideways (spouse(s)) and down (children), and display it on a list with those (FS related) tags and a place for comments for each.

Once done, you save it(them), and can pick another person. Perhaps you pick someone just on the periphery of the prior selection screen (say a son/daughter, since a child's family is also included in the obit as grandchildren)

You shift the "center of the nexus" to that child, and they'll have stuff populated already for those you already had filled in (parents/siblings), and you continue on with the next group of relatives.

Hopefully that makes it clearer. (I'm open to understanding a different point of view if I'm "stuck in a rut" in the way I attach sources.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Sounds like you are basically describing what the FS source Linker does now when you change the focus person from the tree in the right hand column. The challenge would be that unlike the FS linker, you are working with unindexed sources, so automating most of it would be tricky

I can see what you are suggesting. I just suspect that the devil is likely in the details. The name list that you want to auto-populate is like the names in the right hand column on the source linker, only instead, now you can't automatically limit the size of the list. When you pick the initial person, in addition to the parents and children, how do you get the grandparents, aunts, uncles, sibling spouses, cousins and spouses, step parents, etc.?

Unless you are planning to show just the immediate names, then "shift the nexus" to a peripheral name (e.g., grandson), and then later shift to another (e.g., cousin) and keep shifting around until everyone is attached. That kind of breaks up some of the list concept benefits into smaller lists that have to all be put together in order to get the job done.

What might be interesting would be to have the ability to just easily index the source yourself so that the multiple citations would already exist. But again, ultimately you have to deal with each person on the sources and without pre-existing indexes it would be difficult to automate much of it.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: It's similar to what source linker does, but with a non-FS resource that you're linking to.

When dealing with a non-FS source, you have to add the source by hand to each person, and this is where RecordSeek significantly speeds things up over FS.

And yes, you're correct, devil in details. As the RecordSeek developer explained, packing a lot of functionality like I'm proposing can cause the browser to slow down significantly (unless you get pre-compiled code, which is a new thing I just learned about yesterday, but has to be precompiled for the far end server)

Also an issue is how to preserve "session-state" across multiple requests made to FS from outside, so that it "knows" about the previously checked people, and doesn't try to "save" a 2nd source reference to the same people again. You basically put that load on the RecordSeek folks to manage.. and I don't see them doing that (and I don't blame them.. I wouldn't want to take that on either.)

Hence, native built-in functionality (doing my best Jedi-wave towards that giant building in SLC)

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Yep. I had even forgotten about the internet interface issues that you get with browsers. Significant challenge.

BTW, even thought the "Reply" windows in GetSatisfaction have the ability to put images into them, it IS possible to also put images into "Comment" windows as well. While editing a "Comment", you can pause for a moment and scroll down to the bottom of the topic where the "Reply to This Topic" box is always located. Add your image to THAT box, then cut the HTML for it out of the box, and then paste it into the "Comment" that you are editing.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Thanks for that sneaky workaround!

LegacyUser

Brett said: Justin & Jeff

Sorry, to have missed your latest posts (after mine of 18 Hours ago), we have been at the "Temple" all day and night.

Just got home, almost MN, I take a look at them tomorrow (well, later in the morning).

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Lynne VanWagenen said: I double checked my answer with our partnering team. RecordSeek does use our APIs. It is part of our solutions program, and we have verified their compatibility with our systems. But that they have not yet finished listing the app in the Solutions Gallery.

Brett, you try it with the other sites you use. It does really good job with Ancestry citations and on several other sites as well.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Lynne

'Thank You' so much for that.
That makes sense.
I had heard so many good thing about it, I thought I would give it a go.
But, was concerned when I did not see it in the "Solutions Gallery".
All in good ("FamilySearch") time.
Again, 'Thank You' so much for your diligence.

Brett

ps: In that case, all good (and, safe), I will give it a go.

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: All

Interesting.

Seems to be a "Browser" Extension.
Was expecting to see it in "Connect Accounts", in my "Settings"; but, it was not.
Possibly, because, the "Process" in regard to the "Solutions Gallery" in not complete.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Yep. It's has historically been a script that you load into browser as a bookmark. By going to RecordSeek.com there is a button there. You must drag and drop the button onto the bookmarks bar (or wherever you want) at the top of your browser.

Note that they seem to be developing formal extensions for this that you install the way you do an extension. I tried this on one of their new extensions and had problems with it, so I went back to the bookmark method.