Working together in FamilyTree with other community users.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: see response in post below, 'comments' seem to get lost

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Exactly. There needs to be a distinct and very literal traceability from any new implementations to specific problems that existed or essential needed capabilities that were not in the system. Many of the "nice to have" features don't solve any essential needs.

The KISS process is a forgotten idea sometimes.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: Adrian,

"All schemes for control by patrons run into the same issue."

ALL "schemes:???

"What happens when the controlling patrons don't react?"

Any "control" suggested (by me) would be short term - temporary. (And noted as 'monitored by a group as "watchers." who are collaborating?? - which might 'caution' people proposing corrections?)

"Perhaps because they're dead or otherwise incapacitated?"

Then they likely will NOT respond.

"Well, we know from experience with so-called locked profiles of famous people - someone simply creates their own version of the real life human being and we end up with duplicates that aren't quite the same and no ability to merge even if the "truth" gets agreed."

I agree, do you have a solution? In general a well documented PID SHOULD win over an unsourced one - and they can be merged (when the sourced is unlocked.- If not, we just get MORE of the same.)

"Collaboration - yes. Control of profiles by tiny groups of self appointed custodians - no."

Currently, by restricting the ID of "Watchers" ( who, likely, are those who are very interested in the PID) FamilySearch has stymied most meaningful collaboration. NOT "control," just acknowledged "collaboration."

Personally, I 'watch' a few hundred of my thousands in my branch. The biggest problems seem to be early immigrant ancestors. (I don't have an extensive LDS ancestry.) Current message response, in my experience is less than 30 % - I receive VERY few FSemails origianating a discussion.
May I suggest reviewing the White Paper goals?

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: In your second point, what if the "certain users" that are "trying your sanity" are the ones that really know what is going on and YOU are the one making the ridiculous, uniformed, and undocumented changes?

Should it be possible for the "idiot" to isolate himself in the system so that he can continue to do his damage in peace?

When you already have a user agreement on the use of this site that clearly lays out rules of civility, those that have created the site and laid out the rules (i.e., Family Search) are responsible for policing them. Customer Service should be instructed to deal with human type issues such as this and inform the "uninformed" when they are in the wrong. This can all be done in a very congenial way if FS chooses to do so.

Muting or opt-outing of collaborative communications is senseless in a shared environment of just about anything.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Paul,

For my part, in my comments, I was not suggesting the ability to email patrons directly. Only by the current messaging capability. That would automatically be forwarded to a person's email the way it is now--only with the inability to turn that off.

The situation with people that don't reply shouldn't be a problem. I usually make a documented correction FIRST in a record and THEN I send a message to the person letting them know that I just corrected a record that they had modified. The content of that message usually contains a copy-paste of the reason statements or Notes that I entered in the record. I close with a statement something like "If for any reason you don't agreed with my changes, or have extra information related to them, please send me a note so that we can get this record documented accurately"

If I get no response and they make no further changes (that record is on my watch list), then I am done.

If they respond with further information, great! We can resolve any misunderstandings either of us may have about the record and get it updated.

BUT if I get no response and they just go in and change the record again (usually without a reason statement), I will return to the record and correct it a second time, again messaging the person afterwards informing them of the second reversal of their changes and indicating why I did this. If I again get no response but they go back and change things once again, there is now enough evidence in the change history for the record AND your messages log to that person about the record (showing their absence of responses), that it can all be submitted to Customer Service to arbitrate on.

Since you KNOW that the other person has received your comments (remember, opt-out shouldn't be possible) then it is up to Customer Service to contact them and inform them of their violation of the collaboration process.

Unfortunately, so far it sort of appears that Customer Service either just doesn't want to get involved, or they have been directed to stay out of such situations. If this is still the case then you have no recourse at all to FS's irresponsibility.

This whole topic thread on discussions about messaging any of the people interested in a PID is all about improving collaboration. When somebody refuses to abide by the rules of collaboration (most of which are just items of civility and communication) then somebody needs to arbitrate the issue and the fact that someone is not abiding by their user agreement. Again though, in this case, the only people with the authority to arbitrate appear to be choosing to avoid any entanglements.

You can add all of the inter-patron communication capabilities that you want, but if someone refuses to use them, they are useless. Furthermore, if the capabilities that are added that actually HELP people to AVOID collaboration (e.g., opt-outs), then it is worse than useless as it destroys collaboration.

LegacyUser

m said: Thanks, Amy!

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: In your first point. Getting messages because you simply touched something in a PID record might create a lot of noise for you depending on how it is implemented. But right now I have NEVER received any message about setting a standard value because nobody considered it an issue. And if they did , they SOULD be able to message me. It works fine.

But if the fact that you touched something on a PID automatically added you to a big message broadcast list, then YES I would want to turn it off. It would be far better just to not have the automatic attach to broadcast lists in the first place.

And with the unmarking angle, if someone did have a question or so about their side of the unmerge, I would tell them that that is not a line that I am researching (i.e., I’m not related). However, inevitably because I was researching in order to correctly unmerge, I will have come across items that that person might be interested in so I would use the opportunity to pass that information on to them. So in this case, have the system works now again would seem to be appropriate.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Here is a thought, and I did not take the time to read through the last few comments (since I last responded), but suppose that clicking on watch automatically and without recourse, opens up the user's account to receiving messages about the person they are "watching."

Lack of response to collaboration messages could result in the person no longer on the user's watch list.

Note, I have seen a number of changes that were good and required no action from me, but I still like to see those, so if I wanted to continue to see changes to that person, I would have to respond to a message (not just a change) that was sent to everyone on the watch list.

Of course, there is the case where a user does not log into FamilySearch for extended periods of time (months or even more than a year), but then, why are they watching any person in the tree, anyway?

LegacyUser

Paul said: Jeff

When you read Joe's post carefully you see he does not directly refer to the negative side of things, just how we might be able to improve collaboration on a one-to-one basis or as a group who share the same (ID) interests.

As far as the related matter we are more concerned about - irresponsible users who add / change data without reason, then after we have changed it back with a clear reason statement, still go and change the detail back without them adding any reasons / sources - there have been posts raised here for many years. Unfortunately, FamilySearch employees have made it clear this is not considered as "abuse" and they do not intend to take any sanctions, whatever the level of unacceptable behaviour. If any FamilySearch employee refutes this, let them come here and give examples of how they HAVE ensured certain users (abusers) only have read-only access or have received any other sanctions for their disruptive work.

Joe is probably correct when he says, "This may never be implemented", even though his comments deal with positive ideas on collaboration. FamilySearch management has never shown any interest in the realities (positive or negative) of dealing with fellow FT users and I can't see why any change of attitude should be forthcoming.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Robert - I really don't want to spin off more off-topic items so I'll just say that I totally agree that by hiding the Id of the Watchers, then yes, FS have stymied collaboration. Control is another matter that we'll have to leave for another thread.

I'm impressed that you even get 30% response rate, and no that's not meant to be ironic.

As for White Paper goals - I'm not LDS so I have no interest in any LDS goals. I am simply trying to keep my relatives straight because I know that crud in one place seeps across to other places.

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: I like Tom’s idea about how clicking the watch button would automatically open up the user’s (clicker’s) account to receiving messages, but it needs more. We need to see who the watchers are. Can there be a second “Watchers” button that when clicked would display user names and contact info for all the watchers?

FSFT says it is collaboration software, but in reality it’s not. It’s simply an open edit database with millions of submitters who write on top of each other. The last one in wins!

The other missing piece in the collaborative effort is the inability to see/know which PIDs have notes and discussions. Right now the only way I know that is if I happen to stumble across them. Sometimes I write discussion posts that I wish someone would respond to, but I know they won’t because no one knows they are there. I may as well dig a hole in my back yard and bury my discussion post there for all the traffic it will get.

I work with hundreds and thousands of PIDs. Once I finish a PID I am not likely to return to it, but I sure would if I knew a discussion or note had been posted for it.

Could there be some way of notifying watchers of newly posted discussions and notes?

Collaboration happens when two or more persons carry on a discussion with each other. That can’t happen if we don’t know who else might be interested. Hiding the watchers squelches all collaboration. - but then I think I’m just repeating what all the rest of you are saying and singing to the choir at the same time.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I'm inclined to say, Jeff, that I agree with your logic perhaps more than I agree with my own! (I did say there were counter-arguments...)

But I do worry about the (emotional?) reaction of many users of this site if they can't opt out of some new facility - too often I've seen massive disagreement with changes that make perfect sense to me, so my "muting" suggestions were designed to deal with that before it happened.

The other aspect that I am concerned about is that I have absolutely no idea what the messaging volume could be like if someone was able to message all watchers and previous-contributors with one click. I always put any of my relatives that I've updated (and their children) onto my watch list - my watch list report volume would surely therefore be similar in size to my proposed bulk messaging volume - i.e. perfectly acceptable. For those people who say that they have updated tens of thousands of profiles, their volume might be different and they might need a muting facility.

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: Receiving notice of newly posted discussions and notes could be an option that one could turn on or off

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: Adrian,

(30% was perhaps too high)

The White Paper defined the goals of FamilySearch TREE to correct the problems with the "old" "NewFamilySearch"

It's well worth reading (IMO) to understand WHY this version of FamilySearch Tree was created. http://broadcast.lds.org/eLearning/fh...

The only "LDS" mention was this "Since its release, it is apparent that the duplication of information was a more serious problem than previously understood. Some individuals have hundreds of duplicate records.
They have thousands of pieces of information, mostly inaccurate.
Many of these large records are early LDS Church members with many descendants."

Germane to THIS topic, it states - "Community roles will provide expert
community members the tools they need to monitor activity in the tree, resolve issues, and “lock” ancestors when heated issues need a chance to cool before further changes are made."

I do appreciate your input and your attempts in "simply trying to keep (your) relatives straight." It greatly aids the ENTIRE FStree - It would be great if more would understand!!

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I'm inclined to say that new and updated Discussions (probably not Notes though the distinction seems hardly worth making...) should automatically be advised to all watchers and previous-contributors. The All-W-&-PC messaging facility is fundamentally about discussions and if we're not careful, the current Discussions facility will get sidelined by it. So why not blend the two...?

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "Community roles will provide expert community members the tools they need to monitor activity in the tree, resolve issues, and “lock” ancestors when heated issues need a chance to cool before further changes are made."

Oh crikey... Progress towards that aim? Not a lot?

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: I would include the notes. There are times when I am really not sure of what the difference is between Notes and Discussions, so I would like to see both.

And, from my perspective, it won’t make much difference in the volume of notifications received. I so seldomly find Notes or Discussions anyway that I would be overjoyed to be notified of either.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "There are times when I am really not sure of what the difference is between Notes and Discussions, so I would like to see both"
Well, precisely. I'm fairly certain that the typical reason I've used a Discussion recently is because I understand it can't be altered by anyone else, and not because it's actually a discussion.

So yes, given the way I've mixed the 2, they might as well be handled the same for this notice of new & updated posts....

LegacyUser

Denelle Bledsoe said: But, only if Notes cant be altered by another individual—Discussions remains the only place I can put a PID of the individual he should be connected to—but I cant keep the relationship due to the Williams Tsar that disconnects everyone she disagrees with on my early Colonial NC-VA ancestor.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I have found in a number of cases where a note and discussion were both entered for a person's record, but there was essentially no difference between the two. The discussion happened to be one of those "Legacy" things and the note contained on the year of the person's birth (which had been fully sourced and documented). Neither was useful.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: The original topic dealing with inter-patron communications seemed focused on messaging solutions, but the following issues keep coming up in ration to it.

For as long as there has been Genealogical programs, there has ALWAYS been the ability to record NOTES against a specific person's record. This is a standard, ESSENTIAL feature and exists everywhere. Those notes have always been capable of being moved between databases or GEDCOM files as easily as the normal vitals in a person record. They identify not-so-obvious reasons that the conclusions for vitals were derived from. They are a legacy part of Genealogical documentation.

Discussions are totally different. They are proprietary to FSFT and usually CANNOT be transferred between databases or carried in GEDCOM records (obviously because they don't exist anywhere else). I believe that they were an experiment in collaboration that FS tried which didn't quite hit the mark, and they remain as an evolutionary artifact. They are usually not used as FS intended, but rather to be able to mark a person record with permanent text that cannot be erased by anyone else. Since their text migrates along with all merges, it is being used by many as a tool to combat individuals who insist on repeatedly changing well documented records without providing any justification for it. Since FS seems to be ignoring all situations like this and providing no support to people having to deal with it, Discussions are the only limited tool that anyone has as recourse for these types of situations--e.g, see:

https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

Since these "Discussions" are really just NOTES that people want to protect, when I create a discussion to mitigate people continuing to merge the wrong individuals together, I will also make a duplicate of that discussion in a note so that when I sync other databases with FT (such as my Ancestral Quest DB), I will get a copy of those notes coming across as well.

The usage of the traditional notes are being watered down a bit by their removal from the main details page and being hidden in a "collaboration" area. As a result, people are now using the Life Sketch section on the details page as a substitute for the traditional NOTES since it is on the main details page where most people will see it. So you see more and more Life Sketches that don't really contain Life Sketch type information.

It's sad to me that so many of these data fields are not being used for their original (and in some cases traditional) intents, and this because people are using them to deal with much larger problems that FS has not mitigated yet.

LegacyUser

David Roderick McLean said: I don't see a problem with "evolution". I agree discussions are not being used as intended. I don't see this as a problem.

The life sketch is a better place to put these because people will actually read them. Again, I don't see this as a problem.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Do you think the Life Sketches would really be read if they were buried down in another tab call "Collaboration"?

And many People DON'T actually read them. Many (like myself) keep that box closed, and if possible would have moved it to the bottom of the page so that you don't always have to always deal with the nuisance of skipping over it every time you need to deal with one of the many other vitals/events on that page. A Life Sketch is a summary. The details page is all the vitals that the Life sketch supposedly summarizes. If NOTES and SOURCES do not belong on the details page, a Life Sketch certainly doesn't belong there either IMHO.

And when you say that "The life sketch is a better place to put these because people will actually read them", What you are talking about is Notes or Discussions and NOT Life Sketch data. Why are people putting things which, by definition, are NOT Life Sketches in the Life Sketches data field? Because they are trying to force people to read it by virtue of the fact it is at the top of the Details page (and not the fact it is where Life Sketch information belongs)

Again, people are trying to accomplish things other than what those fields were intended for.

What does the instructions "DO NOT MERGE" have do to with a person's Life Sketch? This is what is happening.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: An admirable summary Jeff. I think FS need to take note of the evolutions.

1. I think that at one point it was suggested in GetSatisfaction that there was a need for a "Look you really need to read this bit, no honestly you do..." section on the front page of a person's profile. Which is part of what Life Sketch is being used for, I suspect.

2. The permanence of Discussion notes (the phrase "Discussion notes" implies something...) results in their use for "Notes" that require permanence rather than discussions.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Life sketches are also pretty useless at really summarising someone's life in reality as well. The reason is that because they are not automatically, procedurally generated they suffer from a massive case of database rot and quickly become stale, outdated and divorced from the actual contents of the FSFT profile. That is an inherent problem in having something like the life sketch on any family tree, and is the more so when dealing with a multi-user system as only a very small fraction of the users will be motivated to update the things at all.

I'm another person who basically ignores life sketches and keeps that portion of the screen collapsed. My experience is that the vast majority of profiles don't have a life sketch and that those who do have a life sketch very, very rarely have much of value in the said life sketch. Proper source citations are vastly more valuable, useful and easy to maintain than a life sketch.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: I hate to suggest that it appears that yet another 'collaboration' discussion has bitten the dust. Our resident intrepid users' forum advocate & frequent forum participant's topic has . . . . . Met his prediction. Sad!

Joe M: "Working together in FamilyTree with other community users.
Here is an idea I've been considering but would like some feedback. THis may never be implemented."

Even with a credible 50 replies (aka feedback) from 18 respondents, the discussion lasted only a month.. . . I'm unsure as to what it takes to institute positive change in FS.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: So true.

What is somewhat surprising, but not really, is that while some ideas have been partially set up, others have not.

One of the major blocks to truly collaborating together, would be the ability to send everyone who is watching a person, a message. Yet, we are blocked from seeing who is watching any given individual. We know the number, but not the who.

Furthermore, it appears that while FS has put together a really inane attempt at communicating to more than one user at a time, they have yet to put together a means to communicate with the watchers of any given person.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Yes, we want to be able to send a message to more than one user at a time, but it doesn't not stop with that ability.

It goes to the heart of the request, which is to be able to send a message to everyone who is watching a given person.

Even more important, would be the ability to reply to everyone to whom the initial message was sent.

That way a true discussion thread could develop,much like a discussion thread in this forum.

community.familysearch.org is a start toward that, but the problem is the underlying code. It is slow and sluggish, looks like it isn't working, then finally starts (s l o o o o o o ... o w l y) populating the screen.

If FS spends some time on the community code, to get it to act at least as fast as bringing up a person's record, then they could adopt that system to set up a message thread page in messages wherein all those watching could see and participate in reading and responding in a truly collaborative manner.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Thanks, I should have sent a reply sooner.
I noted that this may never be implemented, as I have no authority to make anything happen. Just getting your thoughts on collaboration points I outlined.

I'm just having a problem consolidating the various viewpoint and teasing out key take-aways from this thread.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Just to refresh this part of the thread...

The compare screen used with merging two records from the massive tree together now displays the Life Sketch if any exist. The screen also displays all reason statements attached to conclusions where they exist.