Code of Conduct

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: TManning - some of the stuff that you mention (resolution of dupes, standardisation of dates and places, e.g.) are what I, as a non-member, would expect to happen anyway, whether I successfully found all the dupes or not. Some of it can surely be resolved in the User Interface - e.g. validation of name parts. But if there are other aspects, such as needing to keep names stable during ordinances then that's probably worth spinning out on a separate thread so that both sides can understand the issues and put any counter-arguments forward. It's certainly not relating to the Code of Conduct (that may be a personal view but I doubt there's a sensible argument against it!)

LegacyUser

DougHo said: Joe, a specific issue which has come up and I think may have an article only for members is about members removing the period (.) from after a middle initial in the "First Names" field of a person's Vitals-Name entry. As has been discussed elsewhere, a US standard is that a period belongs after letter if it is an abbreviation (but not if it was a single letter used as a name). The field is not called middle initial (in which case it would not be a period), and the initial with trailing period is what appeared in the image of actual record such as marriage record.

As a non-member, I am unable to see such article, so when a member tries to say they are supposed to remove the period, I have no idea if they are misinterpreting something. For example, a field in the census might say "and middle initial, if any" which doesn't need period. Maybe they are referring to that - or some indexing instruction - I don't know.

I try to let it go, but usually that letter with a period after it stands for something rather than just a letter. It helps distinguish the person from others during searches/research. It seems wrong to be removing the period in such case unless there is a clear policy that can be explained to non-members. This is for cases when expanding to a full middle name seems less appropriate (perhaps they didn't like it and didn't use it).

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: For what it's worth, here are a couple from over a year ago

Standards on using periods in name initials:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

Valid names that are classified as Invalid...according to knowledge articles:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

There were 2 knowledge articles referred to in both of these topics, and both of them had problems and conflicted with each other. One of the two articles now seems to have a broken link to it:
https://www.familysearch.org/help/sal...

However, that may have been an attempt to "improve" the system through the simple removal of the article altogether.

Since both articles were member only information, their content had be copied into the text of the two topics for the benefit of non-members, so that is still there.

Bottom line here is that the knowledge articles discussing these issues still don't seem to have been improved upon

LegacyUser

Ron Tanner said: When it comes to parentheses in the name we should help them understand that nicknames or other non-birth names should be put in the Other section as an alternate name. That way the system will match those name with other records.

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: I think its great. Thanks for caring.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I've noted that a number of the issues and concerns that I was tracking have been fixed (usually without fanfare) and that's great. Sometimes, it take another complaint (like the current "suggestion-make pop-up boxes movable" from David to trigger a lengthy discussion about the modal approach. I violated the code of conduct when I recorded

There are areas where the modal window is a really bad move -- specifically when working on a person's family section and clicking on a pencil icon -- previously in the couple area, one could open the area in its own screen. The worst part about its use here is that the window disappears if one accidentally clicks outside the window while editing it. There is no option to save the edit--the window just closes.

I complained about this the first time I saw that the option to open the "fly-out" in its own page was gone and that was acknowledged.

It appears that FamilySearch has no intention of abandoning this horrible method on its site.

But at least the issue about unmovable modal windows has been noted by the Moderator account.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The problem may be associated with Get Satisfaction. For a few days, Get Satisfaction had shut down the FamilySearch portion of their site. It is currently up and working -- somewhat. I've had problems posting comments and replies and clicking on stars, all associated with login problems.

Your experience may be related as FamilySearch attempts to get the site up and working while they find another site and system to host Get Satisfaction. See the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... discussion thread where you can provide your input for the FamilySearch team to consider.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Hi Carol,

In addition to Tom's comments, probably unknowingly, you have also placed your post at the end of an old topic (hasn't been used for 6 months) discussing the Code of Conduct that has been documented for using this forum. Since you have posted about a very different subject, you probably won't get the visibility that you want here.

Go to the landing page of the community and start a new topic or question (e.g., your's might be something like "A Suggestion for Updating Read-Only Records").



When you click on "Continue", it will give you a quick look at some other topics already in the system that may be related to yours. You can then choose to explore them and perhaps add your comments to a previously existing topic, Or just skip them and create your own new topic:



At this point you could just copy your entire message here and past it into the new topic or comment that you are creating elsewhere.

Hope this helps some!

LegacyUser

Carol Jo Menges said: Thanks! I appreciate both of your comments and suggestions. I did successfully post a new--first time for me--comment a couple of weeks ago or so.

Putting my 2nd one into this 6-month-old category I realize is not a great thing to do, but at least you two got it. Maybe one of the techs who ought to see it will get it too, I don't know. That long comment I sent today that got posted here I also posted at a spot for an original post, like I did the first one. The process looks like what you've shown me here in screen shots. I rebooted my laptop first (never hurts...) and after maybe an hour or so the "Continue" button is still in "Continue..." mode. So I guess it's trying to send it and won't be able to. Who knows?

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: THAT is what Tom was talking about. The servers for this forum are a bit problematic at the moment.

BTW, If you find a recent topic already discussing the subject that you are interested in, your comments can add impact to the ones already posted, so sometimes it is better to add your comments to existing discussions. That is not always the case, but something to consider. If you are repeating something that someone already discussed, you might want to just add a "Me too because..." type statment. But if you have something a little different it might be better to start a new topic.

Again, just some things to think about :-)

LegacyUser

Carol Jo Menges said: Right. I didn't take the time to find out first whether anyone had already brought up the situation I outlined. Sometimes it's much quicker to just start a new thread in hopes that it will have something worthwhile in it, or a new slant. It's a bit like a conversation: not everyone has the time everyday to spend searching past records; it might be best then to just start a new post and hope I'm not annoying anyone here. If I am, sorry about that.

LegacyUser

Carol Jo Menges said: Besides, I believe an old answer to a same-type question may not still apply. FamilySearch is changing things constantly. Processes, language, and so forth. I hoped the situation and my ending question were new enough to cover that.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Since Carol pulled this discussion thread into the present, and since FamilySearch will have to come up with its own solution because the owners of Get Satisfaction are discontinuing support for the site, I'm going to suggest that for a new code of conduct item, that the old BBS "Netiquette" be considered (I ran a couple of BBS fidonet forums). Several variations have been posted over the years and a quick search reveals that there are between five and fifteen rules, with some being a bit vague.

Basically, the idea behind netiquette is as follows:

1. Be respectful and discuss issues, not personalities. It is essential to keep in mind the feelings and opinions of others, even if they differ from your own. If you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, don’t say it online either. In essence, don't be critical of others' comments; leave that to the moderator(s).

2. Use normal capitalization, punctuation, and limited html formatting. Posting or replying with all capital letters looks like you are shouting. Excessive use of exclamation points can also send the wrong message.

3. Strong language and telling someone that they are wrong should be avoided. It is okay to disagree, but it is not okay to be disagreeable. You may not like their response but keep in mind that an explanation for what is should be helpful, especially in discussion forums.

4. Be forgiving of others, particularly if they struggle with the idiosyncrasies of the English Language. Not everyone is aware of good netiquette.

5. If you are going to share what someone said, cite your source, even if what you wrote is not word for word.

6. No self promotions of products or services of any kind. It is considered to be spam and not allowed. Vendors are aware and abide by this rule.

LegacyUser

Paul said: At first glance, I would be roughly in agreement with your list, Tom. On a lighter note, I am probably guilty of excessive use of exclamation marks! (There, done it again! Twice.)

I do like the fact that your proposal does not rule out constructive criticism and discussion of theological matters. The current code is a little ambiguous on both. It implies constructive criticism and discussion of issues relating to ordinances could be inappropriate on this forum. I know the moderators would rarely remove such posts, but the current wording certainly needs some modification.

LegacyUser

Janet Marie Hall said: I have not been aware of a CHAT room &/or a code of conduct until today.

In my research & contact in the past with non-LDS people which ended up hearing some rumors and seeing a couple of letters written by officers in the Union army during the Civil War. Because of these things, one person had his military record corrected due to someone from my local historical society, a rumor that a 12 year old shot his father was proven incorrect as the father lived another almost 40 years and had another 6 children, and another child born in a small city far from where that family homesteaded that was discovered and was proven just a very few years ago that baby was indeed a member of the family. (Family history didn't mention the baby was born traveling to where the family homesteaded in the 1870s & was born in a very little farming community in California). These corrections to the family history does make a difference to the present day relatives of that generation of the 1870s. Another question that all the present day families had was were two men of the same sir name by any chance related. Nobody could find anything about it. They were and were orphaned at young ages, with the oldest brother getting married & moving to another state with his wife and sister. Later the sister-in-law did meet the younger brother when he completed his obligation to a family that raised him from being a very little boy. The younger brother wanted to meet his sister-in-law's sister. He did; the two waited a year or two before getting married and had a large family and were married for over 40 years. These family questions, misinformation, &/or rumors were corrected & answered by one of their present day cousins asking the individuals met via internet about these things. Sometimes a chat room has a rule that one cannot discuss family rumors. In these cases, the records have been changed concerning this family's secrets, much to the family's happiness.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: I'm not aware of any rule in the FS Code of Conduct that says family stories or rumours cannot be discussed. Of course family stories and oral tradition is very important in genealogy. "Gossip" about FamilySearch is not allowed.