Order Sources by DATE ATTACHED (Pleeeeeease.)
I gather that the ability to sort sources is relatively new. My experience with it hasn't been that great.
When I find a person with hundreds of sources and probably that many mistakes, I like to start with the earliest sources and then systematically check to see when and where it started to diverge. This is difficult because the sources are not ordered in chronological order (of when the record was attached). Many are, but I'm assuming if people start messing around with the sources they can change order.
I'm sure the chronological (by record/event year) would be useful with records with no errors, but it's a mess for trying to fix.
We REALLY need an option to order sources by date added. I tried the drag and drop method and it was clumsy and glitchy. Basically useless in records with more than twenty sources attached.
Please consider adding this feature. I'm sure it would be a lot easier to accomplish than the order-by-record-date option.
Comments
-
You can already sort sources by Chronological order. You go to the Sources tab, then select Options, and the set it to Chronological order. Then any person you view in the FamilySearch Family Tree will have this Chronological order setting.
0 -
Ryan
.
As 'Amy' has already proffered, there is ALREADY an "Option" in the "Sources" 'Tab' of an individual/person, to sort "Chronologically", if you so desire.
.
Further to what 'Amy' has proffered ...
.
Here is a "Knowledge Article" in 'FamilySearch'
.
Either, "Chronologically"; or; 'Custom"
.
How do I organize my ancestor's sources in Family Tree?
.
But ...
That said ...
.
Please be aware of a few of things ...
.
[ 1 ] To be able to "Chronologically" sort a (ie. any) "Source", there must be a 'Date', in the "Event Date" field, of that "Source".
.
.
[ 2 ]
.
That "Chronological" Sort Order, sorts the "Sources" ONLY with the EARLIEST 'Dated' "Source" at the TOP of the "Sources" 'Tab' page/screen.
.
There is NO option to "Change" that.
.
[ 3 ]
.
I like the "Sources" to be sorted "Chronologically"; but, I DO NOT like them sorted with the EARLIEST 'Dated' "Source" at the TOP of the "Sources" 'Tab' page/screen.
.
I prefer that the "Sources" to be sorted "Chronologically"; but, with the EARLIEST 'Dated' "Source" at the BOTTOM of the "Sources" 'Tab' page/screen.
.
As, I cannot have it appear like I prefer, with the "Chronological" Sort Order, I use the "Custom" Sort Order; so that, I can have it in the way I prefer.
.
I have many, many, Ancestors/Relatives, with 70+ "Sources".
.
I find it 'Time Consuming"; but, 'never the less', despite the extra use of 'valuable' 'Time', I use the "Custom" Sort Order; and, sort the "Sources" in "Chronologically" order, that way.
.
[ 4 ] "Caveat".
.
But ...
All that said ...
.
Be warned ...
.
As far as I am aware ... unless something has changed ...
.
No matter how YOU (Personally) "Sort" (either, "Chronologically"; or, "Custom") the "Sources" in the "Sources" 'Tab' of a individual/person, ANOTHER User/Patron can (just as easily) come along and "Change" that (what you have done) to their own personal 'preference' (eg. sometimes in 'Groups', separated by a 'Spacer' "Source", that is NOT an actual "Source"; but, a 'Line' (ie. Delineator = Dots, Dashes; Equals Signs; etc ) .
.
That is WHY I ALWAYS "Watch" (ie. Sorry, now known as "Follow") ALL my IMPORTANT Ancestors/Relatives, just is case another User/Patron comes a long; and, changes something or messes things up.
.
I hope this helps.
.
Brett
.
0 -
You could always try reviewing the recent change log, it would show you when sources are attached by date added. There is even a filter to just see sources. Check out that area, it appears to me that is what you are asking for and it exists just in another area.
Cindy
0 -
I believe Cindy has understood what you are requesting and provides a good response.
I would agree the drag and drop feature is pretty awful. I find it particularly difficult dragging a source to the top of the page, or even dropping it in the correct spot.
This is an area to which the engineers should certainly focus their attention. Fortunately, the sources attached to the IDs in which I have an interest are generally relatively low - I would dread to be in your position and have so many to rearrange - into whatever order.
0 -
Yeah I think the change-log is a good option here for right now. However, the sources do not open out and show the same information as in the sources tab. Also, it should not be hard to program in what you want for the sources to be sorted by date added.
0 -
When FS first added the Chronological Ordering option, several people requested that it be set as the DEFAULT value for new FS account members. Apparently this was not ever implemented. If it had been, then the OP's question would never have been asked and they likely would not have messed up someone else's work (see below).
Another reason for setting the Chronological Ordering option as the initial default is that the original drag and drop mechanism (i.e., now named the Custom ordering option) is far more usable for the categorical ordering of sources. When you have dozens and dozens of sources, it is far easier to find specific information in sources when they have been grouped categorically. Unfortunately, when a person new to the system that doesn't know there is an automatic chronological ordering mechanism already available starts doing drag and drop while in the improperly defaulted Custom Ordering, they start trashing all of the work someone else has done setting up categorical groupings for those sources.
If the initial setting of this option for new users was the Chronological Order option as had been requested way back at the time FS introduced the chronological sort feature, it would have significantly mitigated this frustrating problem.
0 -
I think if I were needing to review stuff in order (no, not "if", but "when"!) then I've always used the Change Log - not least because the crucial stuff is what's in the events and attributes, which might be altered without any reference to new or existing sources.
My concern with the idea as proposed is that it doesn't answer how to do it when profiles have been merged. The thing that has gone wrong might be on the merge-deleted profile - but by this time, I suspect that those corresponding events on the merged profile are dated only by the merge date. Tricky to know how to display that. (Not that looking at the Change Log will help much either, mind!)
0
