Please add a "servant" or "lodger" category when attaching census records
I think this would help because it would help us track servants or lodgers who sometimes spent years with a family. It would help to gather the information on them and perhaps help us to "Get it right" when we add them as an unconnected person. I do not feel comfortable adding someone on the basis of one census with informaiton given by someone who may not have known the real facts, but two or three census with matching info would be different. It would also help us to see at a glance if all the family is accounted for without having to click on the record to see, as all in the record would be accounted for.
And to whom would you connect them?
Adding them as a 'new' person would simply leave them isolated from anyone else.
I believe the index for the person still remains (If searched for)1
In a quick check, I confirmed that the 'dismissed' person CAN be found in a subsequent search.😊😊1
This is a great idea! I would like to be able to create and attach sources to some lodgers and servants as well as tag photos that they are in so other families are able to connect. We are all connected in this tree even if they are not direct relatives.0
Another option is to just make a profile for the person. Very often FT hints will pop up immediately.
I have worked many census records where the family has not been attached to PIDS (my work) but others in the household have been attached already.
Where I struggle more is with officiants and witnesses on marriage records.0
OK, I still have trouble with type of thing. Today I am doing an obituary. The ministers name leaves it in the "Unattached Persons" or what ever category. I know the PID of the man but there is no way to attach this record to him. If we cannot attach these records to people like this, then maybe there should be a way to maybe click them off the list?0
There is a fairly easy way to attach the officiant's record to his PID.
The source linker page has change menus on the left and right sides, above the name of the focus person.
Since you have the minister's PID, you can change the left side of the linker to make him the focus. Then on the right side, in that change menu, paste in his PID.1
On the contrary, I wholeheartedly disagree ...
'Yes', the 'Officiants'; and, the 'Witnesses', on "Marriage" Records, SHOULD be "Indexed'.
I have seen many cases where, either, one; or, both, 'Witnesses', were related to, either, the Bride; or, the Groom; or, both (eg. Father; Mother; Brother; Sister; etc).
And, if I recall, in one case, the ('Officiating') 'Minister', was the Father of one of the parties.
[ Mind you, that could have been a "Christening"/"Baptism" ... ]
Just another perspective.
ps: Although, in relation to the original suggested enhancement, I personally DO NOT, generally "Create" a NEW individual/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', for, "Unrelated"; and, "Unconnected", People in "Sources" - I have enough Work to do, in relation to my ACUTAL Ancestors and Extended Family.
Officiants and witnesses on marriage records should not be indexed and existing instances should be removed from the indexing.
I'm not sure about officiants, but witnesses should absolutely be indexed whenever possible. They're often family members. (Now, granted, sometimes there just isn't enough information to determine which family member. I have one particularly memorable one where I cannot figure out if it's the cousin or the uncle. I've resorted to attaching a citation to both, with a note.)
(I have multiple ancestors who were ministers, i.e. they were the officiants for thousands of events over their lifetimes. I would not want to be faced with the task of dealing with source citations for even a small fraction of those events.)0
@Andrew VK, are you aware that you can turn off the Unfinished Attachments feature for your view of Family Tree? Just go to any profile's Sources tab, click Options, and uncheck the box next to Unfinished Attachments. The setting will be applied to all Sources tabs that you look at while signed in as you.
For the rest of us: indexes are finding aids. More names indexed = higher chance of finding and identifying a record. That's not a waste of anyone's time.0
You are so far 'off base' ...
What makes you think, that you do more "Volume" work, than many of the rest of us!?
I DO a considerable amount of "Volume" work.
In my "Source Box" alone, I have over 31,700+ "Sources", that are attached to individuals/persons; and, relationships.
So, contrary to what you suggest, Users/Patrons who do "Volume", do WANT, "All" those OTHERS 'mentioned' in a Record to be "Indexed".
And, in a number of cases, those OTHERS 'mentioned' in a Record, are actually REALTED the "Principals" in the Record.
Plus, more often than not, such is useful and relevant, for 'Building', a bigger 'picture', of a Family.
If a family member, was the "Witness", for a "Marriage", that certainly DOES give one useful information.
▬ Confirms that family member, WAS "Alive", at the time of the event.
▬ Or, in the case of a Father, that "(Deceased)", under his name, confirms he died, before the Marriage.
.... [ Unfortunately, that 'fact', is NOT "Indexed" ... should be ... ]
And, with experience (such is NOT guess work), quite often one DOES have an idea that OTHERS 'mentioned' in a Record are actually REALTED the "Principals" in the Record.
Those OTHERS 'mentioned' in a Record, DO NOT, waste our time, with being "Indexed".
What nonsense, that the OTHERS 'mentioned' in a Record, that are "Indexed", slows down legitimate work.
Granted, that they, may not, be REALTED to the "Principals", in a Record; but, sometimes they are RELATED.
Genealogy/Family History work, is a 'Marathon', not a 'Sprint'.
'Yes', dismissing, those "Unattached Attachments", for those that are NOT relevant, to one's particular Ancestors, can be monotonous; but, such IS necessary, like it or not.
And, I would rather dismiss those those "Unattached Attachments", for those that are NOT relevant, to my particular Ancestors, rather than leave them available for an inexperienced User/Patron, to come along; and, 'make a mess of'.
No one's time is being wasted, with regard to the "Indexing", of OTHERS 'mentioned' in a Record, that are NOT necessarily the "Principals" in the Record.
Explain to me how you can confirm a witness's relation to anyone without it explicity mentioning it in the source?
Usually, it boils down to addresses, although the occupation and age that are sometimes also included can help greatly. Like most things in the great genealogical puzzle, it's not a single clue, but a combination of many clues, that leads to a conclusion.0
How can it not slow someone down when you have to click on "dismiss" 15 times in a single record?
Huh? You have to click "dismiss" once per source citation, regardless of how many people in that index group are attached or unattached. I don't understand what you're so worked up about.0
I am neither, slow; nor, inaccurate ...
I also do "Volume" Work ...
[ When I am not trying to help/assist here in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum ... ]
I actually prefer, QUAILITY, over 'Quantity" ...
And, regardless ...
Genealogy/Family History work, is a 'Marathon', not a 'Sprint' ...
I am out ... it is not worth my time ...
Good Luck with your Genealogy/Family History.
ps: Each to their own ..0
Clearly you have never worked on large families in Indiana.
Well, no, since my immigrant ancestors are my parents, and none of us have ever been to Indiana....
But more to the point: yes, there are aspects of working in FamilySearch Family Tree that I find incredibly tedious. Cleaning up index-based legacy duplicates is at the top of that list, and I wish often that those profiles had not been imported into the current tree. But I don't accuse those bygone indexers -- no matter how clueless they were, sometimes -- of wasting my time or anyone else's. No matter what FS did or didn't do with their work, the index serves its purpose, and the more information in it, the better it serves its purpose of helping people find records.0
No pain, No gain ...
When phonetic spelling prevails, the more names on a record the better. I have used witnesses on records to confirm the identity of a couple whose names were spelled phonetically.
Also, in 19th century America there were waves of migration connected with religious movements. The Mormon migration is one of many. A great way to trace these movements is by officiants' names on marriage records.0
I know of two cases where a marriage record was found based on an officiator's name on a family document. In those cases, the discoveries depended rather heavily on the memory of a specific researcher, who knew which church's records to look in, based on the officiant's name. I'm of two minds on this: on the one hand, those finds would've been a whole lot less miraculous-seeming if those church records had been indexed and those indexes had included the officiant's name. On the other hand, I'd really rather not have to ever deal with records of the thousands of baptisms, marriages, and burials that my grandfather officiated at.0