New - Unfinished Attachments Feature

LegacyUser

Bryce Roper said: We just released a new feature in Family Tree called "Unfinished Attachments". From the sources page you may see the message, “This source has not been attached to all people found in the record,” on some sources. It means that the source contains information about one or more people and that the record is not attached to them.

This feature will help you find your ancestors who are not in Family Tree but are listed on a record. You can click the "Learn More" link on the sources page for more information on how to use this feature.

LegacyUser

Kevin Augustus Long said: Wonderful! Now, perhap, give us a way to dismiss those for non-family members. Of course, sometimes those extra people really are family... Or... a way to flag that I have reviewed this "unfinished attachment" so that I don't keep looking at it over and over.

What a great addition! I love it.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Bryce

'Yes', the NEW facility/feature/function in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" of "Unfinished Attachments" in the "Sources" 'Tab' is a good facility/feature/function that is very much appreciated.

And, I have read the associated "Knowledge Article" of "How do I handle unfinished attachments in Family Tree?" ( https://www.familysearch.org/ask/sale... ).

But ...

That said ...

( Suggested Enhancement )

Can we please have an ability to "Dismiss" that facility/feature/function for individual "Sources"!

Let me explain ...

I am well aware that the WHOLE facility/feature/function in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" of "Unfinished Attachments" in the "Sources" 'Tab', can be 'Turned' both 'On' or 'Off' (ie. 'Show'; or, not show), for the "Sources" 'Tab' of an individual/person.

What I am alluding to is that the facility/feature/function in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" of "Unfinished Attachments" in the "Sources" 'Tab' NEEDS to have the ability to "Dismiss" for individual "Sources".

I do not want well meaning Users/Patrons coming along, later down the track; and, "Creating" an unrelated individual/person in "Family Tree" and, inadvertently, including those unrelated individuals/persons to the, individual/person; and/or, family, that is the principle focus of the "Source" - it CAN and WILL happen.

I am taking about "Sources" such like:
(1) When an individual/person is included with a Family as a Servant/Broader/Lodger/Employee/etc - so that, the other unrelated individuals/persons to/with the Servant/Broader/Lodger/Employee/etc;
(2) Likewise, with a Family group which includes a Servant/Broader/Lodger/Employee/etc; so that, the unrelated individual(s)/person(s) Servant/Broader/Lodger/Employee/etc is not associated to/with the Family group;
(3) With "Institutions" (eg. Hospitals, Mental Institutions, Schools, etc)/"Barracks"/"Boarding Houses"/"Poor Unions"/and the like); so that, the other unrelated individuals/persons are not "Linked"/"Connected" together.
- (Rightly or Wrongly), it CAN and WILL happen.

As an aside, I may NOT want to IMMEDIATELY "Attached" a RELATED Family member to a Family at this stage, until I have done more extensive research into the other/additional individual/person.

I do not want some well meaning; but, new/inexperienced User/Patron coming along, seeing this "Unfinished Attachments" suggestion/hint; and, taking it upon themselves to "Finish" the "Attachments" with little or no, knowledge of; or, regard for, ALL the individuals/persons concerned - it CAN and WILL happen.



'Thank You; in advance.

Brett

LegacyUser

Juli said: Thanks for the KA link, Brett -- so few of the sources I work with are indexed that I have yet to find this new feature anywhere, and reading between the lines on GetSat only goes so far in describing it.

LegacyUser

Chas Howell said: Agreed, it would be much more useful to be able to dismiss the Unfinished Attachments message by source rather than by the universal action described in the KA. At a minimum we should be able to dismiss the messages by PID.

LegacyUser

Kay Merkley said: Bryce,
Is it useful to attach a source to a newly created record for a non-related person (or as yet unknown relationship), as long as the person is not incorrectly attached to family? For example, is it useful to create a new record of a farm laborer on a census and attach it to the census? This may create a new Family Tree record or possibly a duplicate family tree record, that could later be combined.
What is preferred here for persons of no or unknown relationships?
To create a new person in the tree attached to the source, unattached to family, OR
To leave the person not attached to the record, no record created in family tree?
Thank you for your help.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Kay

The person cannot be detached from the census record itself - only left unattached to an individual in Family Tree. If you find a need to create a record for, say, a servant (or farm laborer in your example) that is entirely up to you - I'm sure there is no FamilySearch "policy" on the matter. Obviously, you should try to see if there is a duplicate of that person if you do go ahead. Personally, I would find no use in adding unrelated individuals - especially if I could find no other family member to which they could be connected. So I would advise to do as you choose.

LegacyUser

Paul said: As Tom Huber has pointed out elsewhere, there is a problem with dismissing these "Unfinished Attachments" messages in the context of an open-edit program. For example, it might be helpful for another user to see these messages in the Sources section of my ancestor if they knew THEIR ancestor was employed by him at a particular period of time. A click on the Unfinished Attachments link would reveal, say, a servant's name (in a census record) straightaway.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I tend more and more to the opinion that I would not attach such a source to either an existing or a new profile in FSFT if the people are not my relatives. That might be thought selfish but the chances of me getting it wrong are quite high, I would suggest. If I have a census for a farm where I'm related to the farmer's family of three and there are three labourers (say) that's doubling my workload. If the extra work were trivial, it wouldn't matter but it's not necessarily easy to sort through the options of deciding whether X is already in FSFT or not. A relative might be better placed to know that Pleafs is likely to be a transcript error of Pleass, or that a birthplace of Widdenbury might be an error in the original as it's a phonetic version of the correct Wybunbury.

I don't save that person's real researcher, who knows these things, any time - probably waste it, in fact since it takes longer to go through the merge than do the attachment.

No, I think I'll stick to using this for apparent relatives. I think. Probably.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Yes, I would be very concerned if my dismissal of such a message dismissed it for everyone. In fact that sounds like a really bad idea....

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Please don't think that I'm dismissing this change as pointless - anything that does a cross check has to be a good idea. The classic case will be grandchildren living with their grandparents - the person who originally attached the source to the grandparents might not have known who the missing generation of parents was and so left the grandchildren off. This will act as a reminder to say, "By the way, how about finding out who those parents are?"

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The idea of something that can be dismissed for you but not the rest of world is something that should be considered. The dismissal would need to be tied to your account. Some user choices are tied, but not all of them.

As such, the idea of being able to dismiss individual Unfinished Attachments is a good one.

However, it is an all or none option on the source page using the Options at the top of the sources on any person's source page. It is a universal choice that impacts all sources on all persons.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: About the only thing that I've run into is with marriage records where the record had not only the people getting married but each person's parents. During the last few days, I've run into at least three records where the Unfinished attachments were for one of the spouse's parents.

I found that to be very unusual, but can see with this feature could help in further identifying members of the couples' families.

That said, the servant, laborer issue in census records also comes to mind. I have a number of cases where the family would have a young person who is related but not to the head of the household listed as a servant or laborer, but no relationship indicated. But on occasion, I have run into instances where the relationship is listed, but the person in the census was not attached, possibly because of the work involved in trying to find the person in their own family.

Then there are the census enumerations where a couple is living amongst a list of workers for a Railroad company or similar situation, and all are listed together in the census, not separately. I'm not sure how those are treated by the feature.

Do I think the idea is a good one? Yes.

But I am fully in agreement that we need some means to dismiss the unfinished attachments in a given person's source list.

Technically, that should be something that can be done by the person's ID in which the source appears, without impacting any of the other person's to which the same source is attached.

LegacyUser

Christine said: What happens is that these people who are not family members are often given the same last name, entered as a family member, and then sealed to the parents, by some well meaning person, even though the record clearly says they are servant, or nephew, or boarder. The problem is when people do not look at the original record and only rely on the index.

LegacyUser

Brett said: All

In regard to the NEW facility/feature/function in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" of "Unfinished Attachments" in the "Sources" 'Tab' of an individual/person; and, my suggested enhancement regarding the NEED for that NEW facility/feature/function to have the ability to "Dismiss" the "Unfinished Attachments" facility/feature/function, for individual "Sources", for an individual/person, I am ONLY talking about this "Unfinished Attachments" facility/feature/function; NOT, the "Sources" themselves.

The unattached "Sources" would/should STILL be associated with the relevant individuals/persons; and, be displayed as "Hints" for those individuals/persons.

I do not want well meaning Users/Patrons coming along, later down the track; and, "Creating" an unrelated individual/person in "Family Tree" and, inadvertently, including those unrelated individuals/persons to the, individual/person; and/or, family, that is the principle focus of the "Source" - it CAN and WILL happen.

Another one of the situations that I did not mention, that is of concern to me, is the "National Registration Act, 1939" of "England and Wales" for "World War II"; and, the individuals/persons whose record is "Closed" (ie. This record is officially closed") where the name of those individuals/persons is recorded as "UNKNOWN". My concern is that with this NEW facility/feature/function of "Unfinished Attachments" that many UNNECESSARY individuals/persons may be "Created" with the name of "UNKNOWN" and NO details by, newcomers; and/or, the inexperienced Users/Patrons.

The same concern hold true for those individuals/persons (ie. Parents and Spouses) that are RIDICULOUSLY recorded in "Sources" as "/"!

All I am asking is to have the ability to "Dismiss" the "Unfinished Attachments" facility/feature/function, for individual "Sources", for an individual/person; NOT, the "Sources" themselves and their "Hints" for/against individuals/persons themselves - if that makes sense.

Brett

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Considering what we are asking is actually a feature request, it could be anywhere from a few weeks to months before the feature is implemented.

This same thing happened when the index correction feature was introduced. A number of problems were identified and not everything has been implemented that was discovered. One of the representatives (Phil, I think) mentioned that feature updates are not treated the same way as fixes to actual problems. And yes, it has been months since the index correction system was released on a very limited basis and appears to be currently stalled.

Same thing could happen here with this request to be able to dismiss the notice in a person's source list, rather than universally turn the feature off for everyone as it now operates.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Since Bryce made the announcement, I'm sure he has received the message and is either involved in a solution or has passed the request to the appropriate development team.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Lets hope so - sooner rather than later.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Excellent point, Adrian. I'm sure I have left grandchildren alone on a number of occasions - usually due to lack of identification at the time, especially if the surname differs from the grandparents. The message would serve as a reminder to check again to see if I ("by now") I have established the parents of the grandchildren.

Also, for distant relatives or unrelated persons, I have often not added children (which I frequently do when working on a census source) due to lack of time. In the same way as with your grandchildren example, this can serve as a reminder that these individuals still need to be attached to their parents.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: When it was suggested and I supported the idea of turning off the notification on a source for a person's record, it was based upon the idea that it would be tied to just one individual, but this is something that I had not considered. But usually, if a relationship is indicated in a census record (or even an obituary), I'll work to find out the connection, and then add those mentioned in their proper place in my local database. In many cases, especially with obituaries, there are living persons in the record. That is also true of even the 1940 U.S. Census.

My feeling is that if we have the ability to dismiss these, that they still should be limited to the person's record, but only tied to the user's individual account. They should not be universal in any way in terms of dismissing the message. The checkbox is tied to the user, much like several other areas in a person's record, which is fine with me.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Given the nature of some of the actions, this particular request not only needs to be tied to individual persons on their source page, but also the specific user that dismisses the hint. The action needs to be left in the hands of the individual users and right now, the "all or nothing" option is there for the individual to use.

To take it to the next level, yes, it would be nice to dismiss (rather than the "all of nothing" option) individual source messages and I support that, but only at an individual level for the user.

I've seen a number of requests that are now part of the system and they tend to work very well. It has taken time to see them implemented from when they were first requested, but there is definite movement by the development teams in the area of listening and implementing requests.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Tom

I agree.

I have just had enough of seeing these "Unfinished Attachments" that relate to OTHER than Family members (eg. Servants, Borders, Lodgers, Patients, Pupils, etc); but, I DO NOT want to turn the "Unfinished Attachments" facility/feature/function 'Off' altogether, just in case there are, in fact, Family members that have not be addressed.

It is "Step" 3 in that "Knowledge Article" that concerns me ...

-----

Quote:

If you do not want to see the unfinished attachments messages, click Options (which is located at the top of the Sources tab), and then click Unfinished Attachments. This option remains off until you turn it back on again.

-----

Does that (Step) mean that you are turning the "Unfinished Attachments" facility/feature/function 'Off' ONLY on the "Sources" 'Tab' for the individual/person concerned?

OR,

Does that (Step) mean that you are turning the "Unfinished Attachments" facility/feature/function 'Off', across the board, for ALL individuals/persons?

(Relates to what you are talking about, to some degree.)

That point is NOT very clear in that "Knowledge Article".

I have not tested what happens when you turn the "Unfinished Attachments" facility/feature/function 'Off' - I am NOT game, in case I miss something.

I hope that 'Bryce' may be able to clarify that point/question; and, of course, that that "Knowledge Article" is amended to clarify that point/question.

Brett

LegacyUser

Dorene Smith said: The "Unfinished Attachments do have a benefit for those sources that were never linked to others mentioned in the source. However, if i am reviewing the sources for a person, and I check all the unfinished attachments and find that those not attached to not belong in the family, I should be able to check a box showing that I have reviewed them so I don't have to record everyone that I review. If I turn off the feature, there may be ones that I accidentally overlooked when I attached the source that are part of the family, namely census records that have several individuals listed. But I checked and found that if you click to remove the unfinished attachments, it does this to everyone in your account, even ones who are not related. I vote for one person's unattached sources, or one record that can be turned off.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Dorene

Firstly, "Welcome" to this "FamilySearch" ( "GetStaisfaction" ) 'Feedback' Forum.

Secondly, "Official 'FamilySearch' Representatives", do monitor; and, sometimes, participate in, this Forum.

Thirdly, I am just another User/Patron, just like yourself (and, happen to be a Member of the Church).

Many Users/Patrons who regularly participate in this Forum who have a great deal of knowledge and experience with "FamilySearch", like to assist/help other Users/Patrons like yourself.

Finally, 'Thank You' for "Testing", I was not game; and, I suspected as much.

'Yes', the "Unfinished Attachments" facility/feature/function definitely needs reviewing/refining; and, that "Knowledge Article" definitely needs amending (even as an interim measure).

Brett

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Dorene and Brett - your desires re the switching off of a warning to be confined to each person in a source are perfectly sensible. It's exactly what I was thinking.

However, I suspect that we shouldn't hold our breath over this. I can't be certain but I have a feeling that what we would like to have would be impossibly huge in terms of the data it needs.

Currently all the dismissal markers (eg not a match) will be held once (eg against the profile in question - or perhaps the two profiles for the not a match)

But the dismissal markers that we'd like to have would need to be held for each user in FSFT referring to each person in each source record, because clearly Brett's dismissals shouldn't affect my dismissals if we both looked at the same Cheshire source (say). Nothing that we have so far is kept at that level in that volume.

I'd be certain that right now, there's not that much data to save but over time????

I am trying to think this through in my head with insufficient understanding, it has to be said, but it's not looking good for the data volume, it has to be said.

It would be nice to have the exact effect of switch off clarified as you suggested - though Dorene's work helps - and it would be nice to have a view from FS about whether our desires over switch off are feasible

LegacyUser

Kevin Augustus Long said: Another benefit of this feature came yesterday when I was using it on a close relative. I was routinely reviewing sources with unfinished attachments when I discovered a missing family member.

Someone has merged him out of existence, taken his wife and children, BUT not copied over his parents, nor his 20+ sources (weird, huh!). The surviving person had different parents, the stolen wife and 8 children, but only one source.

Familysearch.org support said I would have to recreate my person. Fortunately I have my personal database and was able to do that.

Next I had to replace the spouse of the wife (the kids came along with her) with my new person. Then I connected the correct parents.

Now, the next benefit of the new unfinished attachments occurred to me.

I was able to restore most of the sources to my new person by reviewing the unfinished attachments on the wife's, and on the parent's, pages.

That actually went fairly fast.

LegacyUser

Kay Merkley said: I seem to be of a minority opinion, but I like to attach the census to non-related people (creating a new record for them, not linked to the family). Particularly in census records, the people not living with family can be difficult to find in the census, and it seems that if I create a clean record of the person in the tree with only the census record attached (no wrong family links), it gives the researchers searching for this person another way to find them.

LegacyUser

Brett said: All

Interesting.

I just came across/found a "Source" for the "1901, Census of England and Wales" for an individual/person, who was a "Boarding Pupil" (14 Years of age), where the whole 'Page' contains MANY non-related individuals/persons; and, when attached, there is NO "Unfinished Attachments" (Hint/Box) for that "Source" in that individual's/person's "Sources" 'Tab'!

I wonder if there is some work going on behind the scenes with this NEW "Unfinished Attachments" facility/feature/function!?

Brett

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I've seen the same thing for any location that has numerous unrelated persons living there, such as public institutions and hospitals, hotels, apartment buildings, and so on.

I think there must have been some trigger that basically determined if the unfinished attachments would be displayed or not.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Brett raises a very interesting point. I have been examining different examples relating to individuals in the England & Wales census collections.

The census for 1841 does not generally break down individuals on a page into households and each person is usually marked as "Principal", rather than how related to others on the page. However, I am still getting the "unfinished attachments" message for other names on the page.

In the case of a person who was at school for the 1871 census he is shown as an individual, hence no message. This also applies to a person who was a patient in hospital in the 1891 census - i.e. only person in the FS record, so no message.

I wonder if there are key words - "scholar", "patient", etc. - that prevents some individuals being grouped together. In another example, a person who was in the workhouse in 1841 has "Institution" at the bottom of his record.

However, Brett's example is interesting in that it DOES show all the pupils in one record (unlike the example I found), yet the programming still manages to omit the other pupils on the page.

So, as he suggests, is this a work in progress or will we continue to have inconsistencies in where the message appears - particularly when there is a whole page of individuals that are NOT divided into groups / households? For example, why no message for the other pupils (in Brett's example) when there is one for other individuals that appear on the same page in the 1841 census record?

As always, it will be a disappointment if a FamilySearch employee does not respond - in this case, to explain exactly how the programming has been applied. Would be grateful to Bryce Roper for a response on the issues raised by users in this thread and others on this forum, which relate to this new feature. He might also wish to touch on the query of why (prior to this feature being introduced) some institutional records (say for a school) have been split on a person by person basis (as in my example) but others left to include the whole group of pupils in one record (as in Brett's).

LegacyUser

Brett said: Bryce

I am sorry; but, I am totally OVER "All" the infernal "Unfinished Attachments" (Hint/Box) in "Source" 'Tab's', that I CANNOT individually "Dismiss"; due to, UNRELATED individuals/persons (that I DO NOT want to CREATE as "Unconnected Person[s]").

The latest, tonight, is the Page for a "Source" that relates to a Workhouse; where, x3 of the individuals/persons on the Page relate to my Ancestral line; whereas, the other 'umpteen' individuals/persons DO NOT relate directly or indirectly - in anyway.

We ONLY need a WAY to "Dismiss" the "Unfinished Attachments" (Hint/Box) in "Source" 'Tab's' of a particular individual/person, that is all, NOT any "Hint" applicable to other individuals/persons appearing on the "Sources" that have NOT been attached.

PLEASE, Please, please, make it SOONER, rather than later; OR, as an interim measure, put that infernal "Unfinished Attachments" (Hint/Box) in "Source" 'Tab's' on HOLD, at least, until suitable way is devised to dismiss them individually.

I am sorry; but, I have had enough of them.

And, for those that will ... Turning them "OFF", 'per se', for "ALL" individuals/persons (or, even for a particular individual/person) is NOT an acceptable option - so don't start.

Brett