An idea to help mark children that you have already verified.
This is just a suggestion. I have a lot of families with large numbers of children and It is difficult to figure out who I have completed. For example ID #KPQ8-PDK has 9 children and the documentation that I have is not in the same order that it is in family search. I was thinking that some sort of a bullit or check box (that doesn't do anything) beside each child would be nice so that when you complete someone you can check it off. That way you could see which children you haven't done yet. Maybe this is just a dumb idea.
Comments
-
What I do is to create a "Note" item in the Collaboration section of, say, the children's father. I head it something like, "Children of John Smith" and add appropriate comments as to what I have found / completed to date.
For example, I might put, "Children added from census sources. Exact details to be verified and records checked in order to add any children who might have been born / died between one census and next."
Yes, it is often difficult to be sure if there are more children to add, etc., so make a note of their parents' IDs (and add them to your watch list) so you can revisit their pages later on.
0 -
part 1
Paul, I have found that adding personal notes to the public shared records in the FSFT is not always the best way to go about it. Anything that you are putting in those public records should be for everyone ELSE to see and use. When folks come along and find lots of notes cluttering up the person record, each acting as a personal scratchpad for some other person's evolving research records, they will simply remove it since it is not really intended for group collaboration and it clutters up the significant data that is there. Who cares whether or not some other person with a FS account has completely validated a specific person record? I sure don't, since the only real validations that I can ever trust are the ones that I personally perform.
A person's own personal research notes and statuses probably should not exist in the collaboration space of the FSFT records. Unfortunately, the only really appropriate place to record research notes in FS is in the extremely wimpy To-Do list. What GayleTaylor6 is suggesting would be one way to implement this very useful research tracking information. But I suspect that an implementation like this could be problematic. Since there are currently 1.3 billion names in the FSFT (and growing), each person with an account in FS would need to have a private record of their own for which of those 1.3 billion names they have validated and which they have not.
Note that the new Labeling feature in the Following List could probably be used this way (e.g., create a label named "Validated"). See the December 9, 2020 update at:
https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/familysearch-updates/
You would have to put the person in your following list first, but that is ok. Obviously if you have decided that the data for a person that you've validated is acceptable to you to some extent at that time, you would certainly want to know if someone else had modified any of it later on.
(to be continued)
0 -
part 2
Anyway, since FS has previously never provided a good way to handle this essential tracking information on a per patron basis, and since they've done nothing to improve the To-Do list:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics/useful-enhancements-for-the-to-do-list
I have been forced over the last few years to use the following approach:
(Note that although I use Ancestral Quest, other tools or sites could also be adapted to this approach)
1) When I finish "validating" a person record in the FSFT, I will link it to my AQ database and sync it with the corresponding record there. That way I have a copy (or "backup") to the FSFT record that I have validated.
2) I will then add that FSFT record to my "Following List" so that I will be notified of any changes to data that I have validated. (Note that at present, all of my 900+ "Following List" records are ALL of this category)
3) The feature to "label" records that is just being added to the FSFT has already existed in AQ for years. Furthermore, the labels that you create in AQ have little colored squares associated with each of them so they are very easy to see in pedigree and descendancy charts (which the new labeling feature in FS cannot do). You can use multiple colors as well so that when you "validate" a record, you can show how confident you are in the validation (e.g., adequate to uniquely define the individual, or "I'm done with it for now but I'll need to revisit it later", etc.)
4) When keeping basic notes on things such as "complete adding the siblings of John Smith XXXX-XXXX", the To-Do list is usually suitable (if not very clunky) to use. But if extensive research notes are needed on a per person or per family basis, the built in Research Tool in AQ is orders of magnitude better than the To-Do list in the FSFT
0 -
GayleTaylor6,
ANYTHING that enables a person to keep track of where they are and plan on how to accomplish something (especially in such a massive system as the FSFT) is definitely NOT "just a dumb idea"!
:-)
These types of things would be very useful in the FS toolset, so always share any ideas on how the tools might be improved. Those ideas might get used or they might just inspire other implementations by the engineers. I've been watching this forum for several years now and I don't ever remember someone suggesting this very useful type of feature. Great suggestion!
0 -
Jefff
I was just making a suggestion, based on my way of using Family Tree, whilst Gayle (and all of us) await the introduction of her sensible idea.
I'm afraid I disagree with your feeling about how Collaboration should operate. No, maybe what I do is not in line with how the section is meant to be used, but any ID of particular interest to me (even on a temporary basis, whilst a "work in progress") I add to my Following list, so I can see any changes made by other users.
My personal software (AQ, etc.) is reserved primarily for my ancestral lines - i.e. no siblings, even - as this is my main interest. That said, I have used RootsMagic to record my extended relationships. However, I do not have the time to use different packages, so have chosen to utilise Family Tree to record not only vitals (and other statistics) but to add notes that might be useful to others. I find it of great use to go to the Collaboration section when I revisit an ID (especially after a period of working on unrelated branches) to see what I still need to do, then recheck FMP, etc. to see if they have acquired additional records that might help me add the detail previously not found or unavailable.
In summary - and I don't think my use of Family Tree is unique in this respect - I use FT to suit my own ends, whilst keeping as closely as possible to its ethos: excluding "sacred duties", of course, in my position as a "secular genealogist"!
I used to make notes against the vitals (these can even be added against blank fields in the Death section) but Julia advised me these were items that were too easy for other users to delete. Hence, until FamilySearch does choose to implement something along the lines of Gayle's suggestion - and I am unwilling to keep notes on thousands of relatives elsewhere - I will stick to my present practice. This continues to prove helpful to me and - as I have been advised in their internal messages to me - to other users, who have chosen to read my Collaboration notes and to have made good use of them.
0 -
After re-reading Gayle's comments, I am now wondering if she is referring specifically to ordinance work, rather than just handling a general tracking procedure with regard to their vitals and confirming all the children in a family are positioned correctly (in FT) under their relevant set of parents.
0 -
Paul,
Sorry if my tone came across as critical as it was really not intended that way.
My main focus had to do with the type of notes being recorded by a person for their own (frequently including their own personal short hand or custom "coding") use that no-one else would understand or find significant value in. Those types of notes would tend to encourage their own deletion.
Again though, FS has not provided an effective way to record personal research notes in a way that they can be linked to person records in the tree but kept in the researcher’s private space. In the absence of such a feature it becomes like the wild west. Everyone looks to repurpose anything they can in order to get around the absence of some useful features. So it is what it is.
But you said “…but to add notes that might be useful to others…” which is a different thing. Those would obviously be of a collaborative nature when it is useful to others.
BTW, instead of using two tools (e.g., AQ and RM), have you considered just using AQ and have two separate AQ databases (i.e., one for your straight ancestral lines and the other for your extended relationships)? AQ will even allow you to have both of those files open at the same time. Furthermore, it will let you compare different databases easily. I’ve found these capabilities really useful.
“I used to make notes against the vitals…but Julia advised me these were items that were too easy for other users to delete”
If you are talking about notes that are valuable in tracking your personal progress towards those conclusions (i.e., vital values), then I would certainly agree. However, if a note made against a vital simply contains the logic describing the interpretations of the sources tagged to that vital by which the vital was concluded, then that note really does need to exist. It should be possible to tag it to the conclusion in the exact same way the sources are, but FS has yet to provide such a useful function.
Also, since temple ordinance statuses are already visible on a per PID basis, Gayle’s suggestion was likely not specific to ordinance work.
0
