We need an easy visual way to know that a person has discussions posted on them
Answers
-
Alison Pack said: Point taken. Thank you.0
-
rotkapchen said: JNowak: I also teach a specialized course that I developed to 'certify' our ward members in the use of the system. However, I also design systems, and I refuse to train people to accept flawed designs.
These are design issues of not designing the system for use by real people. This is a new era where we work to change the designs not the people. The design is changed once. Training millions of people to put up with the flaws in the design, is just silly.0 -
JNowak said: I understand rotkapchen. I am not excusing problems with the design. I am just saying that if people are not taught the correct way to utilize the program, if all they learn is what happens when you click this or that, and hop around the program with no organized order, it will still be a mess, no matter how good the design is.
I am so glad that you are teaching people the correct way to use it. Thank you! Some, although not all, of the people I have taught barely know computer basics and after taking the class they not only have a better understanding of using NFS, but they also understand how to use the computer better.
I find that a lot of people feel overwhelmed with the whole thing and they have more confidence when they understand the purpose of the different parts of NFS and that there is an order to it.
As for NFS, it is not perfect, it has a long way to grow I agree. However, I really appreciate what has been done and that they are striving to improve it. It is an ongoing process and it seems to me they are learning as they go. Although I don't want to settle for flawed designs, I do hope that with patience it will be worth the wait and will exceed our expectations. Even with the frustrations, I guess I am an optimistic person. I'm not ready to give up on it. I'm willing to do the best I can and be flexible as they make changes and improvements to the program. I am not a computer designer, I'm a computer end user. And I use it a lot, especially for genealogy. I'm just doing the best I can to do my part with what I've got to work with, while hoping and praying for the changes we all need.0 -
Richard Bitter said: I have had similar feelings. However, after using the Watch feature (although not perfect - it is a great improvement) I have found that there are many who are reviewing the records on my line. I am surprised at some of the relatives, that I know, who say nothing and don't contact me who seem to be active in doing something (maybe just looking and making minor updates) but at least they are starting to do something. I am pleased to see many others who I don't know participating - probably distant relatives. Most of these people (for one reason or another) have not chosen to correspond with me, but I am sure that at least some, if not many, do read the discussions I have entered.
I decided to do discussions for at least two reasons. 1. If the discussion is well written, it can help to eliminate controversy but more importantly, it can be used to teach those who are just beginning what to look for and how to analyze records and determine where errors exist and more research is necessary. 2. As I understand it, the discussions, notes and sources we add to the current system will be transferred to the "Tree" when it is implemented.
I should add that, to me, a discussion should include facts, good reasoning and logical conclusions. Discussions can also include requests for information and other invitations for continued discussion.
Even though the discussion feature is imperfect at the moment, I feel that using it wisely can be very beneficial to all both now and in the future.0 -
Richard Bitter said: NJowak, I agree that education is a real key. I also find myself in a number of teaching responsibilities and situations. If you have an outline of what you teach and wouldn't mind sharing it, I would appreciate a copy so that I can improve the help I give to others. My email address is bittergen@aol.com. Thank you.0
-
Richard Bitter said: rotkapchen, If you have an outline of the course you teach and wouldn't mind sharing it, I would appreciate a copy so that I can improve what I am doing. I am constantly looking for new and better ways to educate and motivate those I am asked to teach. My email address is bittergen@aol.com. Thank you.0
-
Alison Pack said: Thank you for this thoughtful and thought-provoking contribution. it's encouraging to become aware that others are doing their best and making the best of the service that we have.0
-
Alison Pack said: This could be very helpful to us, also, if you are able to share it. Thank you. Alison at pck_lsn@yahoo.com.0
-
JNowak said: Wonderful! I agree : )0
-
JNowak said: If you're sharing I would also love to have a copy. I appreciate all the help we can get, and the talent and all the work you have put into it.0
-
JNowak said: I will try to get it to you tomorrow afternoon after church. I've been going at full steam all day, all over two states and I'm too pooped to think right now. : ) And hopefully you will share yours with me, too. : )0
-
DianneKerr said: I would also love to have a copy. diannekerr@verizon.net. Thanks!0
-
rotkapchen said: For those who provided email addresses. The files have been forwarded.0
-
JNowak said: My email is family8963@gmail.com sorry I forgot to include it earlier.0
-
Sandy Coleman said: My email for printing is cde@atlantic.net0
-
Denise Marie Sorensen said: My email is is dms44@sbcglobal.net. Thank you very much.0
-
Sandra June Kennedy said: My email is: kennedylds@yahoo.com0
-
Lorna Wells Rice said: I would also like a copy. My email is lrice@pacbell.net Thank you for doing this to help us help others.0
-
Wynema Louise Warren said: Please consider placing an alert (perhaps a red flag or red check mark) on the discussions tab when a discussion is generated. I have created a discussion disputing a wrong parent connection, and have uncombined to correct the error, but
someone keeps connecting the wrong parents to my ancestor, obviously he never
read the discussion. Some kind of alert on the discussion tab would surely help.
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Discussions tab alert.0 -
Margaret Faye French said: I would greatly appreciate a copy also. e-mail is mfayefrench@hotmail.com Thank you so much.0
-
Gloria Milmont said: JUST DO IT!0
-
Gloria Milmont said: I would like to join the club. my email is g.milmont@gmail.com0
-
rotkapchen said: Let me just say, "Wow". I do hope that you are all able to glean something of value from the materials. Please report back in either case so that others can assess whether or not they may or may not be valuable to them.
Just for clarification, there is nothing 'specific' about what I've done -- it is simply an outline to augment the existing 'formal' materials which do not adequately focus on the critical element of new.familysearch.org, and the corresponding training materials for new.familysearch.org is overwhelming for the average individual -- they have no idea what they should be focused on and why. Our certification outline, does that: highlights what's most important to be able to do to make your way around new.familysearch.org to get from the research to the results.
I can appreciate why such might not have been included in the manual, assuming that the system would change continuously. But that's the beauty of the certification outline -- it's generic enough that the system can change and the outline is still the same.0 -
Richard Bitter said: Since I believe I am the one who started the series of requests, I will be the first to post my thoughts.
I very much appreciate what you have done and the approach you have taken. I have tried a number of things to motivate both consultants and members with varying degrees of success. I like the certification approach. I think that it will provide a motivation and a degree of confidence to at least some if not many of those I am working with.
Thank you for your thoughts and insights. I am in the process of working it into what I am doing in my stake. May you continue to be blessed in your efforts.0 -
Patricia Helen Young said: I'd love a copy too please - phytjalum at yahoo dot com.0
-
Janine Parsons said: Please send a copy to janineparsons@comcast.net.0
-
rotkapchen said: Let's say we actually had a visual indicator for discussions, now let's get to the heart of some design flaws with discussions in general -- they don't work with the current architectural model.
Let me offer an example. We know that records can be combined and uncombined. If you add a discussion element, it is attached only to the first record in the collection. If any records are split out from the collection, the discussion doesn't go with them (not suggesting this is good or bad).
I ran into a different issue. I separated out a record that has errors, so that it can be corrected. I put a note into the discussion for the submitter (while there is an email, as I noted in another discussion, from my own experience less than 5% of the listed emails ever respond and/or actually are willing to participate in fixing the mistakes they've submitted). But if this record gets recombined with the other records, then a reference to 'this record' makes no sense and no one has a clue which record it is or how to get to it.
Just another design issue that wasn't thought through before the design was implemented.0 -
gasmodels said: Rotkapchen
I understand your overall comment and I agree with much of it. But your example can be solved by referring the the individual PID associated with that single record you separated. That identifier will never change - the record even combined with another record have a different combined record PID can always be found by searching for the individual record PID --- Thus for example if the record has a PID MGY3-ABC (this is a made up number) , you will always find that record by searching and you can look at the individual record in the combined records to see what you were referring to.
Hope that helps.0 -
rotkapchen said: Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was describing. I understand that the individual PID doesn't change. But the problem is that once a number of records are combined, you have no idea which of the records the discussion is attached to.
You can't 'see' the discussion and its relationship from inside of the combined records screen.0 -
rotkapchen said: My/our tender mercy for the day -- a designer that I once hired for a project I was working on (one who is so well-rounded that he's a developer too -- and a really good one), has been hired to join the FamilySearch team. I can stop ranting now0
This discussion has been closed.