FamilySearch. WHAT'S going on? Attach 1911,England&Wales,Census to Family (Individuals). FIND it att

LegacyUser

Brett said: FamilySearch

WHAT is going on?

I Attached a "1911, Census for England & Wales" for a Family, to the individuals in that Family, through the "Source Linker" - all good (for that).

NOW, I go and find it ALSO attached to "Couple Relationship" of the Parents; and, the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children, which I DID NOT so attach!

WHY would the "System", through the "Source Linker", go ahead on its own volition and so attach the "1911, Census for England & Wales" to the "Couple Relationship" of the Parents; and, the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children, when I DID NOT, do it; OR, want it, to be done/so?

WHY were we NOT advised/informed of such AUTOMATIC action by the "Source Linker", on its own volition!!!???

WHO is supposed to be DRIVING this "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch", the Users/Patrons; or, the Developers and Designers and Programmers!!!???

==========

Related posts:

Weirder. Attached "1911,Census of E&W" to individual+Family, went OK; but, ALSO finished up being attached to "Couple R/Ship"+NO Event Date! ... 4 Months ago
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

Weird. Attached "National Registration Act,1939" for 'E+W.' to individual, went OK; but, ALSO finished up being attached to "Couple R/Ship"! ... 4 Months ago
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

Neither, of which were ever responded to.

==========

I really would appreciate some sort of respond from an "Official 'FamilySearch' Representative" on this post; and, those related posts.

[ Addendum: Version 1 of this post was responded to by an "Official 'FamilySearch' Representative" ]

'Thank You' in advance.

Brett

ps: Version 2

LegacyUser

Brett said: Joe

Simply awaiting any response on the analysis of the problem/issue.

'Thank You'

Brett

.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Sorry for the delay, I needed to check and make sure that my answer was correct, and we are very protective of our engineers time.
The two relationships that you mention, child to parent, spouse to spouse, are what actually form the tree. Without them you have no tree just individuals. The source linker has always been set up to include those relationships automatically wherever possible. Nothing has changed, it has always been that way. When looking at a census record it does make the assumption that it is a family you are looking at. If, for instance there is a boarder listed you should not add that person to the tree from the census record or they will have a parent child relationship to the head of household. Exceptions need to be entered manually, otherwise the assumption is that there are relationships. By design.
Thank you for your patience.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: As a note to everyone, I am attaching this here in hopes that it will be copied by others and, thus, spread throughout the community.
GetSatisfaction or Feedback, as the link appears on all pages in FamilySearch, was meant as a way to communicate to our engineers. It may include opinions about new features or enhancements needed, and comments about ways to improve current experiences or new changes implemented. And, in some instances, when bugs are discovered--hopefully of a non-critical nature since this is only just a back channel for reporting bugs and may or may not be faster in resolving. The primary way for reporting bugs, especially critical ones is through our support channels (phone is best for emergencies or outages). Again, we do not mind having bug reports here, but support does not monitor this forum so on any given day it may take a few hours before the right people are made aware.
As always when reporting a problem or issue please include all of the detail possible so that the issue can be recreated by our engineers. We do not record a shot of the screen you are on when you click on Feedback, so please provide all of the context or even consider your own screenshots.
One final note, this is intended to be one-way communication to engineers. There is no promise that you will receive an answer. Quantity of reported issues on a like problem raises the importance, so please do continue to give feedback, even if you never receive a reply. There are many who monitor this forum for the engineers, like myself, who do so as time permits. Our intent is to leave them to their programming, and to help them identify the big issues and problems. Questions asked or guidance required on product usage is left, in most cases, for the community to answer.
Thank you all for your participation with us, your input, ideas and suggestions are invaluable and appreciated. Your kindness and civility in pointing out issues and toward everyone on the forum is also greatly appreciated.

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: Jim, I appreciate you comments but my own experience is that when there is a "bug" or problem, I get better faster response by posting in get satisfaction than by going through support. When you go to support, it gets processed through so many levels before it gets to the engineers that it almost appears to be a "black hole". Support does not pay attention to the issue unless there are multiple reports and they tend to assume the issue is with the user rather than the system. Just so you understand why so many users have found Get Satisfaction to be a better place to report Issues with the system.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The recent changes that use the source linker to attach relationship sources (marriages, census records, etc.) to persons involved in the relationship is a good one. I have no problem as long as it is handled in an efficient manner.

Right now the Family Section of a person's details page needs a lot of work. There are major flaws with the use of modal windows, rather than an optional full window in its own tab or window. Those have been raised in other (now older) discussions.

But right now, there is a major sourcing issue, not only with family events and relationships, but with the "Other" section on the details page as well. Until those are fixed, the sourcing of the relationships has got the cart not only before the horse, but not attached to the horse.

To use Jim's original analogy from long ago, it is like a car traveling down a road, but with its engine somewhere else.

Once the sourcing issue is resolved, then this is an absolutely needed feature. But a lot more has to be done long before it is ready for "prime time"

LegacyUser

Paul said: Brett

I'm sorry if this makes me seem completely thick, but I haven't got a clue what the problem is here. I just found a 1911 census record that had not been attached to an individual or any of her family. As is the usual situation when they all have IDs, I went through the whole family - parents and siblings - attaching the record to them individually. I just don't see anything different to how things have always looked after completing such a process.

Naturally, as you have not provided an example (screenshots, etc.) I can't see what you're seeing, but am quite happy with the process as it stands.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Totally Understand gasmodels. I did not mean to imply that you shouldn't use this channel, and I am delighted that it is faster in many instances:). However, there is no guarantee with this one that we will spot it and forward it expeditiously if it is a critical issue.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Paul

I am not certain; but, this may be 'intermittent' ...

As indicated in my original post, a similar thing happened some x4 Months ago ...

In the recent particular incident, like you I attached a "1911, Census of England and Wales" to a Family as normal, all good, they all got their particular reference to that Census attached to their individual "Sources" 'Tab', no problems/issues.

Later, when I was "Fleshing" out the Children created through that Census, 'lo and behold', I found that that the "Source" of "1911, Census of England and Wales" was NOT only attached to the "Sources" 'Tab' of the individuals/persons (which is the norm), I found that that "Source" of the "1911, Census of England and Wales" was ALSO "Automatically" attached to, both, the "Couple Relationship" of the Parents; and, the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children, when I DID NOT, do it.

I am NOT say that attaching the "1911, Census of England and Wales" to the later is wrong, just that I DID NOT do so; and, yet MY "Contact Name" is recorded as doing so.

There are Two (x2) cases here:

(1) When did the "Source Linker" start ARBITRARILY, on its own accord/volition, "Automatically" attaching "Sources" to, both, the "Couple Relationship" of the Parents; and, the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children - when the User/Patron did not do so, nor intent to.

AND, ...

(2) In doing the former; and, then, using the User's/Patron's "Contact Name" as being the one that did so, is a "Security" VIOLATION of one's Account, by the "System".

I do not know if the same thing that happened to me, happened to you, in the above situation.

Can I suggest, that if you have not already done so (which you probably have), check out, both, the "Couple Relationship" of the Parents; and, the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children, in that Family that you just attached the "1911, Census of England and Wales" to see if the same thing that happened to me happened to you.

Perhaps it did, perhaps it did not ...

As I indicated, it could be 'intermittent', thus hard to track down ...

If it did not happen to you; then, you are lucky.

I was not, in this instance; and, now have the added 'task' of spending my time 'fixing' the situation created by the "System" - there was a few Children in the Family.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Brett, I apologize my answer did not answer your question. I misunderstood. Give me a couple of days to track down an answer on the sources.
Thanks
P.S. Please explain your reasoning as to why attaching your name as the contributor is a security violation? I need to be able to explain the logic to the engineer, and I feel I don't have enough info to do that.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Jim

For years, I was a staunch advocate and user of the 'Support' Case system ... NO More.

I became tired of my 'Support' Cases getting STUCK with the FIRST Level of 'Support' (with the inexperience and lack of understand), bouncing backwards and forwards, until finally (after years in some cases) being passed up/along the 'Line', where the cases were resolved in next to no time, at the higher level.

I now generally ONLY use 'Support' Cases in situations that are MANDATORY (eg. 110 Year Rule. etc).

I have had matters dealt with in this "FamilySearch" ("Get Satisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum MUCH faster than in the 'Support' Case system.

You really have had to experienced things from 'the other side of the fence' (like many of us, for years) to understand our frustration with the 'Support' Case system.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Great comment Brett, thank you, I will use them as we meet with support and explain things. Keep using GetSat by all means!

LegacyUser

Brett said: Jim

Personally, if I was you, I would not bother to reference to the matter with 'Support'.

I had a 'sit down' meeting with the North American 'Support' Manager of 'Support' (and, another), in the "Joseph Smith Building", in "Temple Square", in SLC, a few years ago now, when we were travelling the world.

I proffered what I just did above, in some detail, they understood where I was coming from and the plight; and, said that they would address the problems/issues; but, nothing really happened.

Nothing much changed over the following years, so I began actually using the "FamilySearch" ("Get Satisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum, which is still the best.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Jim If you have not already, can I suggest that you make contact with 'Joe' from "FamilySearch", who is already onto this, through Version 1 of this post. Brett .

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: thanks. Joe and I have talked, I will leave it to him.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Jim

That "ps" that you just amended your original "Reply" with, astounds me.

Why does such need explanation?

Very simple, I DID NOT attach the "1911, Census of England and Wales" to, either, the "Couple Relationship" of the Parents; and/or, the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children; nor, I want to do it.

The "System" ARBITRARILY doing so, on its own accord/volition; and, then, using MY "Contact Name" as the one who did, is a "Security" VIOLATION by the "System", in my 'logic'.

I DO NOT want the "System" doing something in MY Name that I DID NOT do.

As I indicated, very simple ...

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: ☺

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Thank you, I understand now. I think it was a semantics issue, I believe what you are describing is a privacy issue not a security issue. I will take it forward as such.

LegacyUser

Brett said: ☺

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Brett, the changelog shows you attached the record to the Person. I am not referring to the relationships in this paragraph. If you did attach to the PID then there is not a "Security violation of one's Account" as you initiated the sequence of transactions related to this Source.

Some records have extra meta-data that allows them to be attached to the relationships as well, say for a marriage, or birth. In those cases that Source is also attached to the relationships. This has been requested for years and has been slowly being carried out. It is not available for all such records. 

If you believe that these tagged Sources don't belong to the relationship you can remove them from the relationship or from the PID. But that seems counter to the desire to provide evidence of the relationship.

Perhaps the UI could show that the Source is being attached to the relationships, but that may not be possible at the time, before the user does the attach to the PID.

Again, its not a security violation. There are other places attribution happens and is not explicitly shown the user (Source field's in a Source creation; vital fields in a Person create; relationship fields in a Relationship create or edit; most the fields and relationships in a Merge...) 

 Hope that help you know what's going on.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Brett,
You are free to disagree with me. You asked and I took the time to investigate this situation and I wanted to help you by explaining what was going on.

There is no system that has its own arbitrary volition. It is software that is deterministic and operates based on data and business rules.

I don't believe I can do more than communicate what I already have and prefer to not be continually yelled at with your all caps.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Joe

As always your assistance is very much appreciated.

Even if it does not always seem so.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Paul

I just wondered if you checked; and, found the same as I did?

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Brett

Only just returned to the forum today (1155 BST), hence the delay in responding to your last message.

Maybe due to the way I have things set-up when attaching sources (tagging, etc.) - but I cannot find ANY sources in my Parent-Child Relationship or Couple Relationship Sources sections. I'm sure I'm "wrong" especially in not adding marriage sources to the latter, but I have always been happy to attach everything just to an individual ID.

Assuming the explanation sources do get to these Relationship areas (at all) is connected with tagging, maybe there was a bug that caused them to be carried across in spite of your settings.

In summary, I am probably the last person who could be of assistance here - as you can see! A shame that another user cannot identify with your problem and be able to offer a theory (possibly from their personal experience) of why you are likely experiencing this behaviour.

However, the fact that nobody else is joining this discussion indicates the problem cannot be widespread.

LegacyUser

Brett said: ☺

LegacyUser

Brett said: All

FYI

I am working through the Family that I referenced (above) with the problem/issue with regard to the "1911, Census of England and Wales" where that "Source" was also "Automatically" attached to, (1) the "Couple Relationship" of the Parents; and, (2) the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children, by the "System", in MY 'Name' (ie. "Contact Name'), NOT by me personally and do wanting or intending to do so; thus, WITHOUT my consent (implied or otherwise); and, I find out something equally disturbing ...

The SAME has occurred with the "1901, Census of England and Wales" where that "Source" has also been "Automatically" attached to the "Parent-Child" Relationships between the Parents and Children, by the "System", in MY 'Name' (ie. "Contact Name'), NOT by me personally and do wanting or intending to do so; thus, WITHOUT my consent (implied or otherwise).

This is disturbing ...

NO such action should be taken by the "System", in MY 'Name' (ie. "Contact Name'), without me personally actually doing so, wanting or intending to do so. Doing such action in MY 'Name' (ie. "Contact Name') WITHOUT my consent (implied or otherwise) is just plain WRONG.

The "System" should NOT use a Users/Patrons 'Name' (ie. "Contact Name') to do ANYTHING, unless actioned by the User/Patron themselves, personally, actually doing so (ie. wanting or intending to do so). The "System" doing such action in a Users/Patrons 'Name' (ie. "Contact Name') WITHOUT their consent (implied or otherwise) is WRONG.

The "System" should ONLY "Give" the Users/Patrons the OPTION to so "Attach" the "Sources" to the various "Relationships", through the "SourceLinker", if the User/Patron so desires.

Just my thoughts.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

FamilySearch Moderator said: Brett:
Per the privacy policy that every user of FamilySearch.org agrees to when they establish their account, and is available as a part of the Terms of Use link at the bottom of every page, it states in part:

"We collect personal data that (a) you actively submit to us, (b) we record, and (c) we obtain from third parties. We may process your personal data with or without automatic means, including collection, recording, organization, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure, or destruction of your personal data.

"a. Actively submitted data. You submit personal data to us when you join the Church, seek Church ordinances, request Church materials, request access to Church tools or services, or engage in other interactions or communications with the Church. When you interact with the Church, we generally process name, birth date, birthplace, telephone number, email address, physical address, photo, gender, donation/payment information, and so on. You may provide us with additional information to participate at your own initiative in surveys, contests, or other activities or events. Participation in surveys, contests, and similar activities is optional. If you do not wish to participate in, or provide personal data in connection with, such activities, this will not affect your membership status or ability to use available Church tools or services. In each such case you will know what personal data you provide to us because you actively and voluntarily submit the data."

Therefore,
Every time you log into the system and make a contribution of any kind we record and display that information. When you created the new people from the census record you were recorded and displayed as the contributor. In creating these people as a family, which you did when you created them through the source linker tool, you established them as a family in the tree and the census source was automatically attached to each individual and to the relationship automatically created when they were formed as a family. As a contributor you created the people, and created the relationship, and were listed as the contributor. This is how it works with most census records. There is nothing happening that is contrary to our privacy agreements. If you don't approve you can opt out and discontinue adding sources or people or contributing to the tree.
There is no point in trying to rally people to your cause. It is the way the system works. You have a choice to participate or not. There is no violation of privacy.

FYI, Security is how we handle access to the system, including logins, usernames, and passwords, and how we make sure no contributor does so without valid credentials, as a logged-in authenticated user. This is not a security issue in any way as you are were a logged-in authenticated user when you added this family from the census source.

Now, having explained that all to you, we are going to lock this thread from further additions.