"We detected a possible relationship issue in the Family Tree" message - is this new?
@Paul W writes:
illustrates what I am seeing every time I try to attach a source to a Robert Wrightson, who is shown as the father of Frances Jane Wrightson on the Tree. I have just worked out the problem here: she is also shown as the daughter of a THOMAS Wrightson.
I can carry on attaching the source(s) after clicking on the "proceed to attach" link, but am not happy that a bot appears to be dictating my priorities - i.e., I need to give attention to this "relationship issue" before proceeding with any other work. (The sources I am attaching do not relate to Frances Jane at all).
Surely, such matters should be highlighted against the profile(s) in question, not when trying to attach a source that has no direct bearing on my attaching sources to one of Frances’ "suggested fathers"?
In summary, it appears a user has attached Frances to two sets of parents, without reason. I will remove the incorrect relationship (to Thomas Wrightson) later, but am retaining my post in a hope of responses about the “warning” message appearing at this stage, and whether this is a new feature, etc.
UPDATE - Just noticed that Thomas appears to be Frances Jane's grandfather and that she has been accidentally added as both his daughter and (correctly) as that of his son, Robert.
You can see the rest of the conversation here:
Respostas
-
I've found that when a daughter is named after her mother (given names and father's surname) documents under the mother's married surname sometimes get attached to the daughter born with that surname.
Because some people don't pay attention to women being properly profiled under their maiden surname rather than a spouse's surname, and don't pay attention to birth dates across generations.
0 -
It's my day to get the same message, but I haven't been able to find the cause so far. There are multiple records for each child in this family because New Jersey RC baptisms were indexed many times, and each instance created a set of parents and child. I've merged this family multiple times over the years, and I'm back at it again this week. The message on this one is a bit odd, in my opinion.
2 -
What a strange message. It reinforces my gut feeling that there are a number of circumstances that might give rise to it, which are next to impossible to describe in a general form of words.
I did have a thought, by the way, that this message is being displayed in the wrong place from a user procedural viewpoint. Surely a better place would be to put it in the Research Helps on the individual's Profile?
It might be that the Source Linker happens to be a convenient place to pull all the relationships together but, as Paul said, it's incredibly disruptive to my workflow - especially considering that my "unlikely relationships" were very much the truth - while @Áine Ní Donnghaile couldn't see her issue!
3 -
The baffling point with my experience has been why the problem with Frances Jane Wrightson (LWB4-9RR) is highlighted when I attempt to attach any source to the individual currently (and incorrectly) shown as her sibling - Robert Wrightson (L6PK-4JM) - but I do not get the warning when attaching sources to the incorrect father to whom she is currently attached - Thomas Wrightson (G2KM-2LW).
Ah, I think I have probably worked out "why for Robert". As things stand, Robert Wrightson is shown as both a sibling of and (correctly as) the father of Frances Jane, whereas - as has been pointed out earlier - it is quite okay to add two fathers to an individual (albeit only one should be shown as Biological).
The query remains is why is an issue (not very well "explained" in the message) only appearing when using the (new) source linker? That is, there is nothing on Frances Jane's profile page to warn of a possible, incorrect relationship - which is where one would expect it far more likely for the issue to be flagged. In other words, how is the NSL picking up on an issue that is not being recognised on the profile pages?
1 -
(Test screenshot - one at above post not sticking)
0 -
Used exactly the same process, so wonder why the screenshot did not stick in my earlier post? (Still has the hourglass some two hours on.)
1 -
@Paul W Yes, the image attachment process is still a bit wonky. I haven't found a pattern to why/when it works/fails.
I never found the issue it supposedly called out on John Reilly. I opened the profiles, to review the relationships, and the warning has not reappeared. I worked on that family almost all of yesterday.
0 -
@Paul W suggested "… I think I have probably worked out "why for Robert". As things stand, Robert Wrightson is shown as both a sibling of and (correctly as) the father of Frances Jane…"
I'd agree with that suggestion. It sounds like my Beta Site scenario - the same Emily Cadman is both mother and sibling of Edith Cooper. And, I would remind people, this is correct data - Edith was in the earlier (pedigree wise) family by adoption, so Emily Cadman was the biological mother and adoptive sister of Edith.
"… how is the [New Source Linker] picking up on an issue that is not being recognised on the profile pages? …"
I'd take a guess that it's simply not been coded on the Profile Page (which is where, like you, I believe that the check should be made) for reasons of coding convenience - perhaps the Source Linker has everything available to do this sort of check but the Profile page doesn't. As I said above, I believe that the check should appear in the Research Helps on the individual's Profile. Sorry, but it's really disruptive where it is.
3 -
I am still to detach the direct relationship - with the grandfather - that appears to be creating this issue in my example. Almost certainly this will cease after I detach Frances Jane from Thomas. However, the page will still keep coming up in cases like Adrian's (where the two relationships are correct) every time a source is added. I've carried on adding newly found sources to Robert Wrightson today, and am still getting the above page displayed on every occasion I go to use the (new) source linker. True, it soon goes away when (on each occasion) I click on the "proceed to attach" link, but - like Adrian - I do find it disruptive to my work.
4 -
I had another instance last night. The same error page popped up as I prepared to attach my father's Navy discharge papers after WWII.
The papers do not reference any other members of the family, but the error message was that my GRANDFATHER was missing a child. My father only had one sibling, a younger brother, and Uncle Paul is most definitely in my tree and doesn't appear in those documents.
1 -
I get the feeling that the error message would appear no matter what you did to your father's profile. Certainly with my example, my intended attachment would only have affected the child's profile - it's as if constructing the Source Linker rendering of the family generates a check across the board.
But what on earth might generate a missing child message, I can't begin to guess.
Wild guess anyway - are there perhaps some unfinished attachments relating to your GF that Source Linker is looking at? Or GM? (It shouldn't have that affect, even if there are unfinished attachments, but who knows? 🤷♂️)
0 -
No visible unfinished attachments, no.
0 -
So if it can't be actioned, it's a fairly pointless error message. Sigh… And someone's paid for this…
1 -
FYI - I brought it up over in the CET conversation since it showed up there, too.
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/169616/we-detected-a-possible-relationship-issue-in-the-family-tree#latest
3 -
And, I've now received a reply about this new feature in my thread in the CET Beta project. @Paul W and @Adrian Bruce1 FYI
1 -
Yes - thanks for pushing it!
As we've already said, a clearer set of error messages would be helpful, especially when the "historical record was incorrectly transcribed" has never yet been proven to be true!
4 -
I'll keep trying.
1 -
Meanwhile, every time there is a new comment on this thread, I get a notification that takes me to "Comment Not Found." Annoying.
1 -
FYI
1
