Attach to Family Tree Makes Separate Sources for One Image (This is Not Good)

Jordi Kloosterboer

Usually when I am in the catalog image viewer and I use the attach to family tree to attach a source to multiple people, it creates one source for all of them. Then when I add a date or change the notes within, it changes it for all those people (which is nice). Added tags are just for the person the tags are added (which is good).

However, today I noticed that the newer image viewer makes separate sources for each person. When I added the date to one of the sources, it does not change it for the other sources, neither when I change the notes (this is not good).

Please make it so that when I attach a source using the newer image viewer, the source is one source for multiple people, like in the older catalog image viewer.

In case someone does not understand the differences between these two, here are the links for the same image using the different viewers:

Newer Image Viewer view:

https://www.familysearch.org/records/images/image-details?page=1&place=1820087&endDate=1769&startDate=1769&lifeEvent=102243&rmsId=TH-1961-32992-4536-25&imageIndex=83&singleView=true

Older Catalog Image Viewer View:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89WK-G7X9?from=lynx1UIV8&treeref=LZ2H-T5P&i=83

Paul W

Jordi

I try to avoid links from the Images section as far as possible, getting to the source either via the Catalog section or - if possible - through the collection itself (i.e. via "Search / Records". "Images" has too many flaws. Firstly, it is generally much more difficult to find a specific image by going along this route. Secondly, the "default" headings are often extremely long and inapplicable to the image you are trying to attach, so need to be revised substantially.

Whilst there is nothing wrong with your actual request, the whole of the section needs to be reworked by the developers before anyone will be comfortable in using it. If there is an alternative (which in most cases means going via the Catalog) I wouldn't bother to use it for now.

Adrian Bruce1

I'm with Paul on this. I don't have a problem with Jordi's suggestion but it's like putting lipstick on a pig (if that's not speciesist!)

When I first tried to use the new viewer, it was evident that films with multiple parts (e.g. several parishes on one film) could be completely fouled up when presented for our use, with the assigned parish in the sub-titles (for want of a better term) bearing no relationship to the image.

Since there were virtually no cases that I ran into, where the new viewer revealed stuff that wasn't accessible through the catalog (which I think can happen), I immediately stopped using the new viewer and reverted to viewing via the catalog.

Caveats

There may be plenty of instances where the new viewer works perfectly, but since it didn't appear to add anything...

The new viewer may have been fixed for all I know but since no-one's told me...

JeffWiseman

I've got even a bigger issue related to the URLs being attached to the FamilyTree records. In Jordi's example above, the URL from the "Older Catalog Image Viewer" is an ark type persistent URL which is used for digital libraries. Theoretically, 25 years from now, you should be able to use that same URL and get to the same documents. That's what persistent URLs in digital libraries is for.

But the URL from the "Newer Image Viewer" example is *NOT* a persistent URL. It is just a plain URL that can change from time to time as the website is rearranged. The first time it changes, that source which you've attached to a FamilyTree record will break.

I haven't looked at the details here, but it is important to remember that a reference to an image file (such as a census page) is applicable to all names on that image. But if the source being references is an index of an image, it will only be for one specific person in that image. Note that the URL in the Newer Image Viewer example above actually has Index information in it (i.e., &imageindex=83). It would seem that the search criteria may be using Index information--and therefor a single person is being referenced.

Again, I'm not real familiar with that viewer yet, but these are just things that immediately come to mind when looking at the examples.

Jordi Kloosterboer

• The newer viewer loads faster and can be easily navigated with right left arrows etc; i like the actual viewer better.
• The newer viewer uses the ARK URL for the reference (when you click on the URL on the source, it takes you to the older viewer). I assume in the future the ARK URL images will be shown with the newer image viewer navigator. (the image won't change, just how you view it.)
• Catalog waypoints are sometimes incorrect/incomplete and I cannot find a record via that; however, I usually go here first to look for a particular record.
• I agree that they need to simplify the naming when searching via the new image viewer.