attaching sources
OK, I am frustrated. I just get used to doing things one way, then you change everything. I can usually keep up, but this latest way of attaching sources just doesn't work for me. Before, I could spend hours attaching sources and felt like I was accomplishing something. Now I am ready to find another hobby. This latest change actually makes it harder. Sorry
Answers
-
Can you clarify what you mean? The source linker looks exactly the same as it always has, and the "Add Source" button also worked as normal. I can find nothing in the FamilySearch blog about any changes, and I can locate no announcement. Are you sure you didn't just stumble into an already existing page you've never seen before?
2 -
There is a planned change to the Source Linker, but it is in the Beta site only for now.
0 -
I suspect that @Joan McFarland Hales has encountered a census or other record in the new "edit any field" format. Joan, if that is the case, you can shorten the URL so the record has the appearance you are accustomed to seeing. For example - this is a 1950 census in the "edit any field" format.
And this is how you were expecting it to look
To make it look the way shown in the lower screenshot, just edit the URL, deleting everything from the question mark to the end.
3 -
Wow what very useful information. I have to admit that the new change was a frustration for me as well. I don't know why companies and organizations feel the need to complicate the layout of their interface. Just keep it clean and simple and stick to the same. At minimum offer the original layout as an option. Anyways, I'm grateful to FamilySearch so I've never formally complained. I just used the website less but now that you have offered this work around it's given me a way to visit the original site that I enjoyed. Thank you for that.
0 -
@ValentinKortrightPerezGuzman, note that the new "edit anything" view of images is very much not just a cosmetic change. Quite the opposite: while the new editor still needs work (it keeps coming up with creative new ways to cause errors), it is an order of magnitude more capable than the old one. Because of this greatly increased functionality, we really cannot expect its appearance to even vaguely approximate the old view.
I do wish, however, that the editor view would only come up if you actually clicked "edit" on an index entry. Otherwise, all image links should go to the straight viewer, not the editor. The most glaring reason for this is that the new editor uses the "Images" section's vastly inferior data for image labeling, from which one cannot determine things like exact place, denomination, or date range.
1
