"Changes to People I Am Following" list is incorrectly labelled
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Jeff Wiseman said: This list is not functioning according to it's name. Although I currently have about 15 names that show up as having changes to them, 714 names in the list have no changes at all. The name of the view only applies to 2% of the records in the view which is totally counter-intuitive.
Since the old "Watch List" was trashed, it seems that FS is still having a problem cohesively separating the new "following" list from it's various sub-list views.
The good news is that it is FAR easier to scroll through the entire list than it is from the so-called modal "Following" list
Since the old "Watch List" was trashed, it seems that FS is still having a problem cohesively separating the new "following" list from it's various sub-list views.
The good news is that it is FAR easier to scroll through the entire list than it is from the so-called modal "Following" list
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Jordi Kloosterboer said: Yeah maybe it should hide all the ones that have no changes to display by default, but allow you to show all people you are following too, because it may be helpful to see someone you are following, even if there ar no changes to display. That is kinda what the "Following" button does, but you cannot search in that or filter it. So maybe get rid of that and be able to unfollow right on the main page. And then rename it to People I Am Following instead of Changes to People I Am Following.0
-
Tom Huber said: Hm. I just checked and the earliest change in the list if from the end of July of this year. I know that earlier changes showed up, so the list simply does not go back in time beyond the end of July. I don't know why this is the case, perhaps it has to do with loading requirements or maybe something else (a glitch of some kind?).0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: I would guess that's probably when the software was changed. They only every had about 60 days worth of changes.
Back when this renaming and reorganizing of the Watch list occurred, I indicated that the list needed to be labeled as "Recent Changes" and not just "Changes" (which of course, implies ALL changes). In fact, in the Options collection, there is an "All Changes" selection which is also wrong. It should be labeled "All RECENT Changes" or just plain "Changes".
I really wish FS would stop using such misleading terminology. It's no wonder why people get confused trying to figure this stuff out.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: indeed - what is that Following button for that creates the pop-up if "Changes to People I Am Following" also shows all people that I am following?0
-
Adrian Bruce said: " It's no wonder why people get confused trying to figure this stuff out. "
Yeah.0 -
Tom Huber said: This gets back to FamilySearch not having/using a style guide that includes terminology and functionality. I agree that "All Recent Changes" would be much better than the current "All Changes".0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Exactly. ALL of these different views, sorts, and filters are applied to your Following List, and yet the ability to see that actual is obfuscated in a modal popup as some kind of afterthought. You should be able to start with your Following list and THEN be able to change the view on that list by sorting it, or filtering it, or just displaying items from it that have had recent changes.
This is how it ALL worked in the old "Watch list" before all of the "improvements" were made.0 -
Tom Huber said: Improvement? What improvements?0
-
Tom Huber said: The change was made to accommodate being able to pull temple-shared ordinances. We lost a lot of capability in the process.
My bad. The change to "following" didn't give us any real improvements and actually lost something in the process.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: As far as I can figure out, the only "improvements" were that FS supposedly was putting in new common software widgets of some sort that will help them do maintenance on the pages easier.
But that doesn't explain why they didn't just change the existing structure to use the new software. So yes, I also have seen NO improvements due to the structural changes. The original structure was far more cohesive.0
This discussion has been closed.