We need an easy visual way to know that a person has discussions posted on them

LegacyUser

Landucci said: Ron, when you say that an email notification will be sent (if that person is on your watch list) does that also mean that the discussion will also show up on the watch list and in the recent changes on the person page? I just did a "test" discussion and it showed up in neither place and did not show up when I removed the discussion either. I tested the watch list (by adding a new person) and it appears to be functioning properly.

If you mean that it will only show up in the email notification, I cannot test that because the "save changes" on the settings page is not working (it has not been working for a long time; there is a separate post about "Settings changes are not sticking". Also, I have email notifications set in nFS but I have only received 2 emails and that was a few months ago but have received nothing lately.

LegacyUser

David Fenton Degener said: Could this concept also apply to "notes:

LegacyUser

Landucci said: The [Christmas “Tree maintenance” at a glance] suggestion (http://gsfn.us/t/44g40) should work with "notes", "memories" (Photos, Stories, and Documents) and possibly even with new sources. A video to demonstrate how this suggestion could possibly work is now available at that link.

LegacyUser

Diane Marie Blakely said: I would like to see the comments shared in the 'Why you think this information is correct.' portion of any changes you make to a person being brought through on the Family with Sources printouts. If the change stays the comment is printed like a note for each person. That would be more important to me than the Legacy NFS sources, since most of those seem to be from when we shared things in Ancestral File. Wow, what history. So far I haven't seen one Legacy note that was helpful to me. That doesn't mean there aren't any, just haven't seen one. But when I enter info about why I made a change or what that source was, especially when the Attach Source feature isn't working, would be a great help for me, without having to try to redo the whole thing in my personal genealogy program.

LegacyUser

Tyler Herbert said: It would be nice to have a more visual indication of everything, unfortunately the interface would look ugly if that were done, I propose you let users customize the interface for their account.

LegacyUser

Brian Dimter said: Potentially an icon in the descendancy view. There seems to be lots of room for it there.

LegacyUser

Jonathan B. Sevy said: I can imagine that hundreds of programmer hours could be consumed annually with incrementalization like this. Naturally, they are reticent to expend such resources.

Still, one of the primary reasons for FS/FT is collaboration. Everything that makes life really enjoyable is the result of collaboration - including family history. Discussions are a key element. Let's do all we can to encourage them.

FS/FT already uses the "red circle white !", and I don't know why that could not be inserted with a simple IF/THEN statement. This seems low on cost and high on value.

Thanks for all you do.

LegacyUser

bob smith said: What a waste of time. you all are a bunch of phonies. All these 5 years old messages. Take the dag on board down. Total waste of my and everyone else's time

LegacyUser

George Riley Jennings Jr. said: Phonies? FamilySearch Family Tree is magnificent. Just because they have not trimmed these Discussions is no reason for such hard words, Bob. Actually, I kind of value tuning in to old discussions, it lends a sense of proportion on new ones. If there are some underlying issues engendering your bitterness, please address and post them, stating the facts and avoiding emotion; if not, please consider apologizing.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: No need to apologize. This is a public board and all have a right to their own opinion. Just as you have a right to your own opinion.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: How about drawing more attention to “Discussions” by renaming it Research Notes and Discussions? Also upping the save space, in the newly named Research Notes and Discussions to where it will hold a lot more data, and continue having it to where others can not delete or change anyone’s imputed research or family data.
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

LegacyUser

Gary Christopher said: Why is this topic still "Under Consideration" after 5 YEARS? How can we escalate it into more urgent status?

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Discussions is still underutilized but there is a question of perhaps there's a better way. The question is what intents are discussions supporting. Now with user-to-user messaging and Notes perhaps discussions is not the right feature to accomplish the intent. What intent and uses do you see it for? As for timing I would not expect this to see much attention in the near future.

LegacyUser

Christopher Allen Young said: Ultimately I would think that discussions could serve as a way to record questionable or disputed facts. The open edit structure of discussions is different than Notes so I can see it being utilized on a Community Response like page instead of details. If an agreement model is ever adopted then some discussion like page would be useful

I do find it limited in its current function because it serves on only one ancestors page. I use a Story tagged to multiple ancestors to serve the same function as a surname line discussion. A community response page could serve several functions where discussions would only be one of them. Discussions can serve also as requests for further information or to track down known objects ,records etc from the individual, requests for records searches etc could also serve here.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: There are enhancements that revolve around Research but those are still in early-design. FT has focused on the conclusion part. As part of that there's a desire to support a full genealogical proof statement (GPS) that users can create to describe their conclusions. These would span conclusions, persons, relationships. Discussions is unlikely the correct technology to support those intents. So that's why I'm trying to understand what work users think discussions is for.

LegacyUser

Guy Jacques Confait said: I got a problem to solve. On my family tree Guy J Confait I got Stephanie Aricie Germain married Paul Confais May 21,1859 in Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles. After Paul Confais had two children with Stephanie Aricie Germain and he left Seychelles and no one knew where he went and died. After Paul Confais left Stephanie Aricie Germain had lived in Defacto relation with another Frenchman Joseph Guillaumin and they have another 10 children. How can I place Joseph Guillaumin on the family tree as I have already Paul Confais as father.

LegacyUser

Chas Howell said: Your question does not really fit this discussion topic, "We need an easy visual way to know that a person has discussions posted on them"

No doubt you will get the help you need if you will start a new discussion (Share an Idea) with a proper topic heading and then include the PID numbers associated with your issue.

LegacyUser

rotkapchen said: Having invested over 10 years in putting data into Discussions, because it is the ONLY protected field that carries over (but unfortunately does not 'back out' when an unmerge is done), it is still a salvation to me after I have determined the 'identity' of a record. When I see 2 or more with different references, it is clear that 1. someone has merged the records of two different people, or 2. an unmerge was done and the 'bad data' from the merge has not been deleted.

Now with the new design -- we have no access to our own Discussions so this can't be fixed.

Can you say BIG MESS?

LegacyUser

Mark Mitchell said: Test

LegacyUser

Dro Glekj said: Anna Czarska.

Birth name: Katarzyna Anna Swierzbinowicz (Kathy).

Other names:
Boreham (first marriage) (Kathy, Kat, Kasia)
Kraut (second marriage) (Kathy, Kat, Kasia)

Parents

Andrew Swierzbinowicz
Beata Swierzbinowicz

Children:

Jacob Noah Kraut

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: This discussion is over nine years old. I'm not sure why you posted information about Anna here. You did start another discussion and that is where you'll likely find answers and also requests for what you are seeking to do.