What difference do you see? I've noticed others requesting a "go back" to old version, but I've not seen a difference, so wondering.
Family Search's source entry page lays out the elements of a source/citation. If one is not well versed how citing sources as per the Genealogical Proof Standard, the FS source page gives explanation for each element. The "form" also allows for evidence analysis -- which means giving your reason why this source is relative to the person or persons or event you are entering in the tree.
Alert! one source alone is not proof....one should gather several proof sources (2-3 at least). This is part of the analysis, building your case so to speak. Example: A record stating a name and birth in a British record does not automatically relate to your relative of same name and birth date range of your relative! You need a trail of evidence to PROVE they are the same person. That is part of analyzing and proving.
Mr. Thomas, in the image you attached you show a census for a woman named Cox. You likely have a good idea of the woman in the census is the same Martha Jane Cox of your family? That is, you have other evidence...other census, birth record, obituary, family associations, connection to place, etc. Those are all part of your evidence and analysis.
But still, I'd like to see what you are referring to in the source pages. Thanks
Please refer to https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/83998/old-layout-for-sources-is-much-better-then-the-new-layout-for-sources#latest, which illustrates (with screenshots) the "old and new" versions of the pages being referred to.
I personally dislike the change. Maybe I'm blind or just spent too many hours trying to navigate this new look, but I can't seem to find the link to the individuals tree and/or sources.
I don't see this:
The source IS the census: 1910 U.S. census, Warren County, Kentucky, population schedule, Stallard Springs, page_, Enumeration District #__; citing NARA (series no), roll no.
The citation is Mothey J. Cox, family no. ___
You must look at the original image for the page no, ED no, family no and details of each family member. The image of the original census will often hold more details than the index as you show above. And you may discover relatives on the page as well.
I agree, this "new" page with the huge black banner at the top and many different type fonts/sizes is visually overwhelming and cluttered. FT user interface designers please read Edward Tufte's books.
For a census record I want to see the person of interest in the household list as before, not pulled out of the list. Say the household has 9 members including 3 John Smiths: grandfather, father, son. I want the "old" page showing everyone in a table with columns: name, age, birthplace. That way I can see at a glance which is which. On this new page design I cannot make out heads or tails; it gets very confusing.
I kind of appreciate the list of similar records showing what profiles each is attached to, but really the old way was better. I could see at a glance that a record was or was not already attached. If I want to check what profile it is attached to, then I would peek, but usually I do not want to peek.
Finally, this new page is a disaster on the phone app. It is just much too big and much too complicated.
I absolutely love the look of the new source pages, with the exception of the black banner of the person's name and some information in it. But, I always loved the information that was made available about the actual documents too. I have noticed that information is no longer available. I don't know if there is a reason, but I loved knowing exactly where I could find the actual record such as the FHL Film Number, Reference ID, etc.
Source Details *****
Digital Folder Number *********
Microfilm Number *******
Image Number ****
Indexing Batch *****- * ( Not so necessary)
Is there anyway that FamilySearch would consider putting that information back on the source pages again? It is Very helpful to us.😌
What year was this discussion implemente? Current year, 2021, the search format seems to have changed again. It is almost unusable.