Allow multiple facts for each vital detail -- let everyone be entitled to their own facts! :)

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Please forgive/correct me if this has already been requested. I searched but I'm not sure I thought of all appropriate keywords. But it seems like this has come up before.

How about allowing multiple versions of each vital? So a user could enter an alternate birth date/death date/ death place/etc. Then treat the field like we do the portraits: each user can select their preferred vital detail, just as they can select their preferred portrait.

I wonder if this could help dissuade edit wars and the persistent and unending damage from copy/pasted genealogy. A user who sees something on another website and wants to see that hearsay on FSFT will be able to see it there. Those that prefer evidence-based facts will also be able to see their preference. What I really like about this idea is that sources could be attached to the vitals they support and detached from vitals they do not support. So there could be a hundred versions of a vital detail, but a person who desires evidence-based information could quickly see which ones have sources.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Forgive me but - what then, would be the point in having FamilySearch FamilyTree? We might just as well load our own trees up into "Genealogies".

And, although I'm not a Church member, I struggle to see how LDS ordinances would work if there are several different sets of parents for each person.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Vitals are not relationships; I'm not suggesting allowing alternative relationships. I think there is a way to make that work, but no point in delving into that if this is a bad idea even just for the vitals.

Uploading all trees into genealogies produces a million trees to search through. This suggestion still has only one tree, with all suggested vitals compiled in a single place.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Hello again Brett! Thanks for sharing your opinion. It helps to see how vehemently you disagree! You know, you and I actually agreed once--don't know if you remember that but I should have marked it on my calendar so I could send you a card on each anniversary of that momentous occasion!

(Just ribbing you--no offense intended. I sincerely appreciate the response)

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Brett I gotta ask and I hope you'll forgive the distraction from the topic at hand--I've been curious how you choose between single quotes and double quotes--does it have something to do with the source from which you are quoting? It hasn't seemed random to me but I can't seem to pin it down.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Nathan

'G'Day'

No offence taken - 'mate'.

Brett

ps: I both, "agree"; and, "disagree", with everyone ... I am not biased in that respect.

pps: And, in regard to the "Quotes" ... just how I feel at the time ...

.

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: I side with Brett on this issue, I believe the it is very infrequently that there are really different Vital Facts. Sometimes birth and christening are mixed up and also death and Burial but that is user issues not a real difference in correct information.

As a side point Nathan. We now cannot each choose the portrait. What one individual chooses everyone sees. So we can have portrait wars if two people want a different portrait to display. I believe the option to have each his own choice caused too many issues with the system.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Yes, thanks to both you and Brett for correcting me on the portraits functionality. We still have preferred parents and preferred spouses I think, so perhaps that is a better analogy.

If my OP suggested there is more than one absolute truth when it comes to vitals then I apologize. The suggestion was to allow multiple versions regardless of which one is actually correct.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: "A user who sees something on another website and wants to see that hearsay on FSFT will be able to see it there. Those that prefer evidence-based facts will also be able to see their preference"

Genealogy is all about "evidence-based facts". There is no place on the FSFT for "hearsay" that is not backed up by evidence.

There is already provision to add notes and discuss a person with other users. This allows for comments about differing hypotheses, uncertain or disputed facts, and common misconceptions/"hearsay" about the person to be recorded.

If a date is disputed or uncertain, then put an approximate date, and include further details in the notes.

LegacyUser

Cary Holmquist said: Not sure about how much this applies here, but one of the points I learned along the way and have been teaching ever since, is in order to establish a Person’s unique identity, the Person’s verified Vitals are necessary. To be verified, the Vitals should always be sourced—and documented. That way the Vitals become a part of that Person’s unique identity. So, multiple Vitals, such as multiple births and deaths entries, would inevitably confuse the uniqueness of an identity. In order for an identity to be defined by verified, documented Vitals, there logically cannot be more than one birth or death or any other Vital.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: You are describing how the system was designed to be used. I agree that if most people used it that way, this idea would be a waste of time.

Most people don't use FSFT the way it was designed to be used. They don't follow the rules.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: The search of the million trees can be done in one query. There may be many results but each set will be consistent according to the beliefs of the original author. If all those are merged into one profile, then I struggle to see how the several versions of each vital event can be matched one with another - how could we tell the dates input by Aunt Nelly from those created from source data? Sure we can look at each event's history but what if Aunt Nelly entered several sets of data?

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Didn't New Family Search attempt to keep the different versions of dates, etc, separate? There may have been a "prime" / "preferred" value - dunno, before my time. But the point is that Family Search had that (whatever "that" was) and had to give up on it ,either because they believed that patrons couldn't cope or because the IT was horrendous.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Many results indeed. Most repeating the same information. One tree would have only one version of that information. One copy. Not a thousand results all saying the same thing, with one or two buried in the middle of those results that actually have something different.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "I'm not suggesting allowing alternative relationships"
But that is inconsistent with alternative event data.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: I don't follow the Aunt Nelly issue. The details associated with sources will have sources attached. Those that do not have any evidence backing them up will show no such evidence.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: "But that is inconsistent with alternative event data." please be more specific.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: A lot of guessing and speculation here. If it happened there could be a million reasons why it didn't continue and yet still be a viable and valuable option.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: More specifically - if you allow both a baptism at X in 1790 to parents Thomas and Mary and a baptism at X (the same place) in 1791 to parents Thomas and Margaret, then you have two alternative vitals (as allowed by your proposal) and two sets of relationships - which you propose not to allow.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Those who see the confusion can then do research and figure out that a different fact is more correct. Those who do not care so much about being accurate can still see their set of facts. The great thing about this is that the good data will not be overwritten by the bad.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Nathan

'No', certainly NOT, 'guessing'; and/or, 'speculation' here - that IS the way it WAS and the reasons.

Brett

ps: I remember the days of "New.FamilySearch" very well.

.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Note Adrian's own phrasing. He was guessing by his own admission.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Brett, since you insist that was the reason--what was it exactly? Adrian gave an either/or. Can you give details? What precisely was the issue?

LegacyUser

Brett said: Nathan

'Adrian' may have been 'guessing' ... but, his 'guess' was spot on.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: The word "guess" did not appear in my reply. I proposed my understanding for discussion.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Adrian

Do not worry about that ... suffice to say that your understanding was correct.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "Can you give details? What precisely was the issue?"
You are asking for the next level of detail. Are you seriously expecting Brett to repeat the design strategy of FS FamilyTree? Shouldn't that be the role of FS Engineers?

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Are you both kidding? You are the ones who are insisting it wasn't a viable option before. Is it strange that I would want to know why?

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: People aren't baptized to parents. Also, FSFT already allows people to add more than one set of parents if they so desire. And you can choose which set is your preference.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Nathan

Do you remember the days of "New.FamilySearch"?
Were you a User/Patron of "New.FamilySearch"?

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: Yes. Yes. Why?