New - Unfinished Attachments Feature

LegacyUser

Brett said: I just WISH we had the ability to "Dismiss", that NEW facility/feature/function of "Unfinished Attachments" in the "Sources" 'Tab', for individual "Sources".

LegacyUser

Brett said: Bryce

Oh ...

I forgot ...

I also detest those "Unfinished Attachments" 'Boxes' in the "Sources" 'Tab', that relate to "Sources" of the "National Registration Act, 1939, for England and Wales"; especially, for ALL those "UNKNOWN" individuals/person, who are "Closed" Records, that cannot be identified.

'Yes', they are generally "Family"; but, sometimes you cannot identify them.

Brett

LegacyUser

Paul said: Bryce

Please note users' comments at https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... as I believe it is important that the engineers / developers are advised of the flaws in the current feature and, hopefully, work to address these. Thanks.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I'm conscious that individually dismissing unfinished attachments, as has been suggested, has unclear scope since I'd not want Paul's dismissal (say) of unfinished attachments on a census record to affect my view of the same census record.

I suspect that lots of us want dismissals to apply just to our own view of stuff, so that (e.g.) Paul's dismissal doesn't affect my view of the same record, as per my "not want" above. But I also have this horrible feeling that is likely to consume data storage like no-one's business...

If the consumption of data storage makes impractical the idea of dismissals applying just to our own view of stuff, then I personally won't mind because the pessimist in me suspects this to be the case. But if so, can this please be explained clearly rather than just ignored or hidden under vague phrases like "operational difficulties"?

PS yes, phrases like "operational difficulties" were the besetting sin of my own industry - railway passengers dislike the phrase, though they often turn green when you relate the exact difficulty....

LegacyUser

Brett said: Adrian

If the consumption of data storage makes impractical to implement the ability to "Dismiss", that NEW facility/feature/function of "Unfinished Attachments" (Box), in the "Sources" 'Tab', for individual "Sources"; then, I for one, want that NEW facility/feature/function to, either, be "Switched Off"; or, taken away altogether.

My principle concern is that with this NEW facility/feature/function, some well meaning; but, new or inexperienced Users/Patrons, will come along, see the "Unfinished Attachments" (Box), believe that those people who are not "Attached" should be; and, without the proper research, go ahead and create individuals/persons and incorrectly add them to a Family - like it or not, it will happen, sooner rather than later - don't we have enough of a problem/issue with the ability to add a GEDOM File in "Family Tree", lets not make it worse.

Brett

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: After repeated checking of these "unfinished attachments" and discovering I just checked "that one" once again, I have decided I will ignore the feature UNTIL a method of noting that I've already checked is added.

Simply (?) adding a little check box, saying "DONE" in the notification box would suffice.

Other than that, it's a good idea, BUT it currently wastes more time than it saves, IMO.

RSVP, Bryce - it's been out for a month now, and someone asked for a fix the same day!

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Yes, I think that those are valid concerns.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Here is a problem that I just came across:

I had previously attached this record to the couple. But then, this popped up and in exploring what happened, I found this:

It turns out that the Unfinished Attachment is for the officiator!!! While the officiator could be related, in almost all cases, the officiator will not be related!

This is an excellent example of where I need to clear the record for the family with a "Finished", "Done", or "Dismiss" entry.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Or "Officiators" should never generate an unfinished attachment for exactly that reason.

LegacyUser

Bryce Roper said: We hear you and are working on adding a link so you can dismiss the Unfinished Attachments so they wont appear any longer. This has always been our plan and I did a poor job of informing you of that. Our original plan was to have released this additional feature by now but we had some technical issues I won't bore you with.

We are working on this and it will be released SOON !

LegacyUser

Brett said: Bryce

'Thank You' so much for this information.

Brett

LegacyUser

Brett said: Bryce

'Thank You' so much for this information.

Brett

LegacyUser

Brett said: Bryce

'Thank You' so much for this information.

Brett

LegacyUser

Brett said: FamilySearch

'THANK YOU', 'Thank You', 'thank you' ...

The ability to "Dismiss" that NEW facility/feature/function of "Unfinished Attachments" (Box), in the "Sources" 'Tab', for individual "Sources", is NOW there ...



I have not tried it yet; but, it looks good ...

Again, 'THANK YOU', 'Thank You', 'thank you' ...

Brett

LegacyUser

Brett said: All

FYI

Just tried the NEW "Dismiss" for that NEW facility/feature/function of "Unfinished Attachments" (Box), in the "Sources" 'Tab', for individual "Sources" ...

When you select the "Dismiss", you get the following WARNING ...



Brett

LegacyUser

Brett said: It Worked ☻

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The following is a repeat of what I posted in the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... "Unfinished Attachments Feature" discussion.

Okay,

I need some help here.

Example:
Source A contains persons 1 through 7.
A is attached to person 5.
A is attached to person 6
A is attached to person 4.
Unfinished attachments exist because A is not attached to person 1 through 3 and 7.

Now, someone dismisses unfinished attachments for person 6.

From what I gather, hints for source A will still exist for persons 1 through 3 and 7.

From reading through the comments, Person 6 will no longer show any unfinished attachments regardless of who looks at the source in person 6's source list. Is this correct?

My primary question: Does persons 4 and 5 still show unfinished attachments for that same source (A) in their individual source lists?

IF, hints still exist for persons 1 through 3 and 7

AND persons 4 and 5 still shows unfinished attachments for source A

BUT person 6 does not show unfinished attachments for source A.

THEN I have no problems with the way the dismiss feature works.

LegacyUser

Brett said: FamilySearch

Now ALL we NEED is the feature/facility/function to "Search" for ALL those "Unfinished Attachments" in/along our Ancestral lines.

I am still concerned with other 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.

'Thank You' for your consideration.

Brett

LegacyUser

Woody Brison said: I am the Lorax (and I speak for the trees) and now I'd like to speak for all the household servants who appear on census records. Many of these were orphans (we had one such in OUR family) who are not adopted but just hired as cooks, housekeepers, etc. In many cases this census record is the ONLY thing on earth that remains to testify of their existence. Could we please get rid of the DISMISS function and instead provide some kind of button on the Source Linker page that would create an individual record for this person and attach the source. Then their individual ordinances could get done by someone. This would go a long way toward bringing sanity to this benighted world.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: If they were an orphan they would also appear in the parish poor law records or whatever the local equivalent was.

So Woody please stop making a mountain out of a molehill with respect to these records and this feature.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: To be clear, I am in total sympathy with wanting to restore the memory of people lost to knowledge. I did exactly that with my grandpa's 2 sisters who died very young and whose names had been lost.

But I don't think that removing the Dismiss facility will help at all, while the suggested facility to quickly create profiles for these unattached source record entries for farm servants, etc, will, so far as I can see, cause many more problems than it might solve. And I might add that the profiles generated from the census etc records will (usually) have no genealogical data such as parents, spouses or children.

LegacyUser

Woody Brison said: Adrian: "The extra effort merging people is far greater than that involved in later attaching another source record. "

My wife sometimes asks questions that I really can't frame a logical answer. In this case she asks, "Don't ya just press Merge?"

LegacyUser

Woody Brison said: Thanks everyone for the enlightenment. On another thread you can see that some information that was withheld has now been revealed: https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

I suspected that it was the servant that was triggering the Unfinished Attachments but without the article it was a mystery. Every person on there that could be attached was attached. You see, inaccuracy in words can cause trouble. "Unfinished Attachments" seems to urge the user that they should do something.

I also surmised that if I clicked on that Dismiss button it was irreversible. But I wasn't sure exactly what would be irreversibly dismissed.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Good question Woody. I would try to answer by saying that in general:
1. If I merge, I want to double check the profiles that I'm merging in first, just in case they contain the relics of badly merged profiles themselves. Easier to pull them out when they're 2 layers down (say) rather than 3 layers down.

However, by definition, when I'm attaching an index record, I'm only attaching one event.

2. Merging means I have to wonder which way round to merge things: A into B or B into A? Again, I don't need to do that with attaching another source.

3. If I'm merging a profile with relationships to other profiles, I need to remember to move all the relationships from the right-hand side (in a browser based merge) over to the left-hand. If I don't do that then the spouse (say) of the profile that I'm merging in, loses the relationship with their own spouse and ends up orphaned in FamilyTree with no apparent spouse and perhaps no other means to identify them - unless you dig down into the Change Log. And that's hard sometimes.

4. And if it is a family that I'm merging with another - say 2 parents and a child - then it's not 1 press of Merge but 3. Err - providing I haven't lost track of them by forgetting to move over all the relationships from the right-hand side.

In contrast to all this, attaching a source is just - attaching a source. Though even that's not true if I need to mess about with who attachs to who.

And if anyone can make that shorter and more memorable, I'd be grateful.

LegacyUser

iLoveMyLife02 said: I sometimes create an unrelated individual when it is obvious that there was a particularly poor transcription of the servant's name. Cajun names in strange handwritings can sometimes confound non-Cajun transcribers, but are quite easily read by Cajuns who know the typical spellings. Then, the person (and the source) can be found EITHER by searching sources or by searching the FSFT, and with some luck, his or her descendants will find g-g-g-grandpa working as a servant in a 19th-century household.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Now that's a good counter-argument to me saying that I wouldn't create an unrelated individual because I wouldn't understand their details. You can see information that I wouldn't and the indexers didn't, so it makes sense for you to create that profile.

LegacyUser

Madeline Brubaker said: I was wondering if this feature will make its way into the mobile app eventually. I do most of my work there and would love to see this!

I did see in the article that it is not currently available.

LegacyUser

Alan E. Brown said: The mobile team is pretty small, and it's impossible for us to implement everything that all the other teams are doing. So the mobile product manager has to pick his battles carefully. I don't know if or when the Unfinished Attachments feature might be implemented on mobile. It certainly won't be very soon (vague description of a possible time frame chosen intentionally!).