Tag a source with relationships
Comments
-
Tom Huber said: Welcome to the community support forum for FamilySearch. FamilySearch personnel read every discussion thread and may or may not respond as their time permits. We all share an active interest in using the resources of this site and as users, we have various levels of knowledge and experience and do our best to help each other with concerns, issues, and/or questions.
The relationship sources in the Family section of a person's profile is very new and not fully developed.
Source tagging, from the source linker, is a major issue, not only in the Family section of a person's profile, but also in the "Other" section.
Right now, I'm of the opinion that the whole grouping by type (which is where a problem exists) needs to be eliminated and sourcing done strictly by event, both in the Other section as well as the Family Section (from the source linker).0 -
Wallace W Carroll said: Enhancement to incent contributors to attach sources to child parent relationships
When contributors can see displayed in the Relationship screen the number of sources attached to each child-parent relationship, I predict that contributors will want to attach more sources to relationships. The count of sources could be displayed in the vertical line above each child’s name and icon. Clicking on the number could list the sources.
In the Sources screen, the Tag popup window for attached sources would need to be enhanced to include the option to tag the source to each parent. Source linker could likewise be enhanced.
In the Couple Relationship screen, it would be nice to display tagged source in a way similar to the Edit Birth screen.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: I agree completely that tagging of sources to the relationship vitals should be consistent with the way they are handled elsewhere.
That being said, supporting tagging of sources on relationships is a little trickier than normal vitals like Births. With a normal vital, when you go to find a source citation to tag, it opens the list of citations (sources) for that person. However, a relationship is common to two different people, so if you wanted to tag source citations for a Parent-Child relationship, the tagging function would need to show you the citations from BOTH of the individuals involved in the relationship.
For example, say a father and daughter both show up on the 1910 US Census. If the Census is indexed (as is usually the case), the citation for the father in the father's source list and the citation for the daughter in the daughter's sources list are DIFFERENT (even though they both reference the same source, they reference different places, i.e., indexed data, in the source). As a result, BOTH of those citations would need to be tagged to the one common Parent-Child relationship.
So yes, tagging of sources to relationships would be ideal although the "behind-the-scenes" software would need to handle both structures.
FS has attempted to automatically implement relationships in another way and instead of the relationship being the common item, they attempted to kludge this by making the source the common item. They did this by monkeying around with the titles of the sources and only attaching one of the 2 pertinent source citations. After fouling up several source citation titles and seeing how it still wasn't working effectively, it appears that it has been dropped for the time being.
When you have indexed sources, citations to a given source will usually be unique for each person in it. Since there is ALWAYS 2 persons in any kind of a relationship, there will typically be at least 2 source citations (each citing the same source such as a census), that would need to be tagged to the relationship, one coming from each of the person's source lists.
I really hope that FS finally gives up on the course they are on for supporting relationship sources AND NOTEs by duplicating citations all over the place. I do not believe that approach is going to ever be sustainable. As Myesha Tamma Gilliland originally posted, this all needs to be handled in the same way as other things in the site. Birth and Death events are vitals, but so are relationships. They are a little bit different as vitals, but they should NOT have a totally different mechanism in the user interface for documenting their sources and notes.0 -
Time to update this post. I agree, we need to tag relationship sources. Right now, we only have Vital Tags and Other Information Tags (Alternate Name, Residence and Custom Tags). I believe we need to do it the same way that we do for the existing criteria just mentioned. Do it after the source has been added (only takes a minute or two). This should be done for spousal and child to parent sections. We got the identity of the person down with Source Vital tagging but that is only 25% of the battle. The other 75% needs to be addressed. Biggest complaints on social media and other groups are incorrect relationships, not so much identity. There is a lot of hesitancy in rightful merges because of either the lack to know-how or desiring to go through all the sources for both profiles to check to see if these folks are really related even though they may or may not have the same or similar identifying information. I spend a lot of time in these groups assisting others, so I know first-hand what the major concerns are. Once it catches on, I believe the quality of merges will increase as well as efficiency in time spent. It also gives those of us assisting, another tool in our toolbelt to ask, "How did the "Tagged Relationship Sources look as you reviewed them?" 😃
0 -
With the 'edit every field' indexing app - which is rolling out to some collections - you have the ability to tag/link relationships mentioned in the record. So I think this feature is available for some record collections now - and hopefully other record collections will follow suit. But I think Sources are linked to persons - not tagged (almost the same thing). Hopefully this will assist Source Linker with keeping those Sources tagged/linked to the appropriate Tree relationships (they should match the family in Tree). From what I have seen this can be especially valuable for Hispanic birth records - where both sets of grandparents seem to be commonly mentioned.
0 -
Relationship events can be tagged to/with sources, but the source has to be in the relationship's sources section, which is completely separate from the "component" profiles' sources lists.
0
