Glitch with display order of parents

LegacyUser

David Roderick McLean said: I would like to report an unexpected behaviour of the user interface related to sex of parents. The mother is shown in the typical father position.

History:
1. I created a parent "Mary A" for Curtis Palmer Brockman (L6S3-9DS). Accidently she was assigned as male.
2. I changed her sex to female.
3. I added a spouse "Shackel Palmer" as male

The display order is still shown incorrect with the female on top even after several refreshes.

I know how to correct this; but I have left it as-is for an example.

I also realize I am working out parents for multiple individuals who probably mistakenly share a PID at this point.

.
.
.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Definitely a glitch created by the following sequence of events:

1) Create a person with the wrong sex (male).
2) Add a child to the person with the wrong sex.
3) Change the sex to the correct sex (female)
4) Add the husband.

The problem occurs in step 2 and places the person (parent) created in step 1 in the Husband's position when the child is added to the parent.

When the sex is changed in step 3, the system does not correct the position for the parent to that of mother.

Verified with Chrome on Windows 10.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I just signed into the beta site and it has the same problem when I tested the process.

Part of the problem is when the father is added, the parent positioning is still wrong, even when the sex is changed for the mother (from male to female).

This may be part of the changes being made to accommodate **** couples. In actual life, **** couples can adopt children and so their positions in the Family display is not impacted by a change in the sex.

I don't know if there is a way to move the person in the "Father" position to the "Mother" position, but that needs to be an option when this situation is created.

Now that I see what is going on, this is not a glitch but a working as designed feature. It just needs some additional capabilities.

LegacyUser

David Roderick McLean said: I think I could easily fix the situation by detaching each parent and adding them back in their proper position. I just wanted to put this glitch on the engineers radar.

Thanks for verifying the sequence which creates the problem.

The "****" union thing is definitely a challenge for the engineers. It just opens up so many new family relationship possibilities.

LegacyUser

Jessie Hearle said: There is an option to reverse the displayed position of **** spouses or partners.
For opposite sex parents, the option only shows if the female is shown on the upper level.

LegacyUser

Jessie Hearle said:

LegacyUser

Jessie Hearle said: https://familysearch.org/ask/productS...

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: That's cool!

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Thank you, Jessie, for the screenshots.

LegacyUser

David Roderick McLean said: I did not know about the Switch Spouse Positions. It only shows up in special conditions. I have made the correction and now the special option does not show.

Thanks for the screen shots!

LegacyUser

Brett said: All

All we need now is the ability to "Switch" (ie. "Swap") the Children of "Multiple" Births, into the Order, in which they were Born, if that is known.

Brett

ps: Just to be certain, I just checked with a set of "Twins" that are in "Family Tree", the ability to "Switch" (ie. "Swap") the Order in which they appear in "Family Tree", into a different Order, if the Order of Birth is known, has not (yet) been included.

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: All

All we need now is the ability to "Switch" (ie. "Swap") the Children of "Multiple" Births, into the Order, in which they were Born, if that is known.

Brett

ps: Just to be certain, I just checked with a set of "Twins" that are in "Family Tree", the ability to "Switch" (ie. "Swap") the Order in which they appear in "Family Tree", into a different Order, if the Order of Birth is known, has not (yet) been included.

.

LegacyUser

Juli said: Birth order for multiple births is so seldom of any consequence that I doubt a feature specific to it is ever likely to happen, but a more general reordering of siblings would be useful: quite often, I know the birth order from how they're listed on funeral notices, but I only have dates for one or two of them. In the current setup, the ones with dates are at the top, chronologically, and the rest are below them, alphabetically -- which is basically never the correct order.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Juli

I am certain that for some Users/Patrons the "Order" of "Multiple" Births is of little or no consequence; as, it is often the case that we do not have evidence of the "Order" of Birth; and, for some even if they have evidence of the "Order" of Birth.

Whereas, I am equally certain that for some Users/Patrons the actual "Order" of "Multiple" Births is a consequence; especially, if they have evidence of the "Order" of Birth.

I have added the actual "Time" of recorded Birth, where listed, with the 'Date' for some individuals/persons (and, 'Yes', still "Standardised" the 'Date'); and, it is lucky that only the 'Year' appears for the list of Children.

I have know some Users/Patrons to have 'played around' and "Deleted" (or, at least, tried to "Delete") individuals/persons; and, re-enter them, just to get them in the correct "Order" of Birth, where known.

I have not been looking at such for a little while; but, I cannot recall the "Children" with the SAME Birth 'Date' appearing in "Chronological" Order (according to 'First' name) - but, you could be correct, my recollection is that they appeared in the order that they were entered into the "System", regardless of their 'First' name.

As I indicated, some Users/Patrons will consider the "Order" of "Multiple" Births is of little or no consequence, even if order is known; whereas, some Users/Patrons will consider the "Order" of "Multiple" Births a consequence, especially if order is known.

Granted, this is not a 'big' problem/issue in the 'scheme of things', due to the many competing priorities in "Family Tree" (and, the Other parts) of "FamilySearch"; and, the very limited resources available to "FamilySerach"; whereas, it appears that such could be "Coded" for in the Programme; and, the priority for such would be very low on the list of priorities - but, that does not mean that such could not be considered and added to (ie. somewhere in) the ever increasing list of priorities.

Just my thoughts.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Just to clarify, there is not a problem with which spouse is shown on top by default?

Regarding the order of children, there is a future design that would allow specifying the order of children, say when years birth date is not known. But it is doubtful that would ever be implemented. For some cultures it can have importance, say in the case of inheritance, where the first-born has special privileges.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Joe

'Thank You'.

So ... one of 'around to it' situations' ... that most likely will never eventuate.

We can live in hope.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Where family order is known, but not the birth dates, I use the "About" feature with a note that the order was determined from such-and-such, but the actual birth dates / birth year has not been determined.

LegacyUser

Paul said: It's disappointing that Joe believes "... it is doubtful that would ever be implemented" regarding ordering children with unknown birth dates. (Not criticising you, Joe, for advising this - "don't shoot the messenger", etc.!)

For those of us who can trace families beyond the start of parish registers, the only date available usually relates to a death - found in the probate documents. However, some of my ancestors / relatives have clearly recorded (in their wills) all their children in order of birth.

However, the only "workaround" in displaying any known order of birth is by adopting Tom's suggestion of attaching "about" dates for each of their births. However, I strongly dislike the idea, especially as - if not viewed from an individual's person page - it appears elsewhere (Landscape view, etc.) they WERE actually born in, say, "1522" instead of "about 1522" - which, in some cases could involve up to a +/- 10 years margin of error.

There have been good enhancements to enable us to reorder items in Family Tree (specifically, in the Sources section) so I hope Joe is being unduly pessimistic and a feature to reorder children will be introduced. This would even be useful for those users who (for cultural reasons, or whatever) might wish to list children in other than chronological order.