Alternate names deleted- provide a way to restore and explain why they are important
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Shari Duce said: So disappointed that all of the alternate names for a Danish ancestor were deleted. She was known by many names and put together a difficult story to document. All of these names were deleted and for what purpose? There is no capability to choose "restore" and explain why they are important.
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Jordi Kloosterboer said:
You can click restore in the changelog.0 -
Shari Duce said: I dont see restore available on any of the names. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...0
-
Jordi Kloosterboer said: Filter the results to see only alt names. Then you can easily see restore on the names. You can only restore deleted names.
0 -
Jordi Kloosterboer said: Since all the alt names were deleted, all the ones that have a name that you cannot restore are the deletion events. However, you restore the creation events.
0 -
Shari Duce said: This was helpful, thank you. I don't know why I didn't scroll down to see the restore.0
-
Jordi Kloosterboer said: You're welcome.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: Yes - it's not intuitive, is it? Basically, you don't revert the deletion, you repeat (or restore) the previous amendment / creation.0
-
joe martel said: What in the world were they thinking when they designed this!?
There are multiple approaches to revision and change histories.
One looks at it as a hardset sequence and you can back out one version at a time, going back in the sequence of time. So a Restore in this model would revert back a step at a time.
Another approach (FSFT) looks at the change history as a sequence but does not lock you into sequencial version at-a-time reversion, and you can, say see a value 10 versions ago, and restore that value.
One of the possible enhancements is to jump you back to the previous value. This is accomplished with the filtered view of the changehistory, but only works for vitals. It would be nice to do that to all conclusion types (Other Info, Notes...) and to be able to jump to the very first value.
Yes, deletions are a bit different than edits. But still follows the same model : Restore this value.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Thanks for the insight Joe.
I've been reflecting that it must have been like this for ages, but I've never had the not-intuitive reaction before. I think that it must be because it's a deletion. If it was setting an updated value, I'm sure that I'd think that I need the setting of the previous value, ie the previous update. But for some odd reason a deletion doesn't work the same in my head - it feels like the reversal ought to be there, not on the previous update. Curious...0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: I gave up on using the Revert function a long time ago. After several attempts of using it and having totally unexpected results that I have to go and tweak again anyway (not to mention the fact that you cannot enter a REASON for having to do the revert in the first place), I just decided it was easier to re-enter the data or upload it from my Ancestral Quest backup.
The change history logs have had many issues over the last couple years, and many of which were reported, but have still not been corrected. Now with the "New Look and Feel" even MORE capabilities have been broken or lost. So I try to avoid them as much as possible, relying on comparisons with my AQ database for identifying changes. In fact, I don't even bother wasting time on reporting issues with those histories anymore unless they are fairly gross since I have work arounds.
When changes have been made to data with no reasons at all, I will usually just change them back to what they were and provide a reason that "Previous change had no justifying reason provided". But since the revert function didn't even allow for reasons to be provided, I have never trusted using it.0
