"Source" Format Has Changed
Why has the "source" format in the 'Indexed Information" changed from the old format (that was an exact copy of the title) to the new format that includes a category word and a "•"
Example:
Old format: Title and Indexed Information "Ruth L. Roberts, "Michigan Marriages, 1868-1925"
New Format: Title (same as above),
Indexed Information: "Ruth L. Roberts, Marriage • Michigan Marriages, 1868-1925"
I prefer to copy the indexed source and paste it into the Reason Box. I can't copy the title, so I'm forced to copy the indexed info. source and delete the category word and dot after I add it to the Reason Box. Please remove the category word.
項留言
-
I have nothing to contribute about the source format change, but I've got to ask: what purpose does it serve to put the name and collection title in the reason box? Wouldn't simply tagging the source be more useful?
0 -
What is tagging the source. how is this done?
0 -
Here is a better example: I can't copy the top two source lines, but I can copy the source under "Indexed Information" which contains "Death •" The source in the Indexed Information use to be exactly the same as the source next to the tree icon.
0 -
Tagging creates a connection between an attached source and a conclusion, and you can establish such a link from either end. The "Add Tag" link is after the existing tags (if any), above the source date, when you click a source's title to open it.
"Tag Sources" is at the top right when you click either a conclusion or its edit (pencil) button, in either the Vitals or Other box.
1 -
Julia, The problem I see with your method is that the reason box is left blank and the source is in the right hand column. I prefer to see the source in both places. Sometimes there are many sources in the right column but only one works best in the reason box, such as a persons full name or sex.
0 -
I routinely leave most reason boxes empty, because most of the time, I don't see a point to them. If the sources for the conclusion are attached, and their interpretation is straightforward, then what should I write as a reason statement? "I've concluded that he died on 5 May 2005 because that's the day he died"? I prefer to just let the source tags speak for themselves -- especially now that we can also tag all of the conclusions in the Other Information box. It's only when the reasoning is not straightforward that I use the reason box: "birthdate estimated based on siblings' birthdates and the order they're listed on all funeral notices", or "date based on Source X, place based on Source Y".
4 -
Everyone is entitled to their opinion about where to use the source in the Indexed Information, but you missed my point. The engineers have altered the only source that a user was able to copy and paste. The altered source can still be copied, but it doesn't match the source in the title of the event.
0 -
We return to my initial query: what purpose does it serve to put the person's name and the collection title for the source into the reason box? What does it tell you or do for you that source tagging doesn't accomplish? How does it block your purpose to have the event type included? (Or, to ask a different way, why is it a problem if what's in the reason box isn't an exact match to the source title? Even before this change, that would've been the case if you edited source titles to be more informative than the name and collection.)
I don't know why source titles are so resistant to copy-and-paste, but I do know that you can click either "View" or "Edit" on a source to bypass that. (View opens a new tab, while Edit opens a popup; either way, the title will be selectable.)
1 -
The source which has the event type does not block my purpose, but it does not match the actual Title.
The engineers have altered the only source that a user was able to copy and paste (in the old version). What is the purpose of the event type?
I prefer to paste the source into the Reason Box to remove all doubt as to where the event information came from (name, date, place, , etc...) There can be multiple tagged sources in the right column and I'm not going to guess which one is correct.
Example: There is 49 sources in the screen-shot, but only 9 have the full name. Any user who sees this page would have to guess which source was used to input the full name. The rest can or should be deleted.
0 -
Moderator note - For ease in reading, several duplicate comments were merged into one.
0 -
The name in the Vitals box often ends up tagged with nearly every source that's added to a profile, since the name is generally the primary impetus for attaching the sources in the first place. If there's a lot of variation, I like your idea of identifying in the reason box which source(s) (if any!) have that exact form/spelling -- but I'm not sure that the auto-generated source title is what I'd use for that identification.
In fact, if the mismatch between source titles and index summaries were to be fixed, I'd prefer if it was done "the other way 'round": instead of removing the event type from the summary, add it to the title. (No, I don't expect such a change to be retroactive: already-attached source titles would need to be edited manually.) That way, I wouldn't need to open each source to figure out that the one titled "X Z in entry for Y Z, 'Hungary Civil Registration, 1895-1980'" and dated 1925 is for a marriage, while the one with exactly the same title but dated 1952 is for a death.
1 -
***
"Example: There is 49 sources in the screen-shot, but only 9 have the full name. Any user who sees this page would have to guess which source was used to input the full name. The rest can or should be deleted. "
***
If you delete a source that is a source link to a document in FamilySearch, It will just show up again as a hint.
Every source is important, it may be incomplete but it may have a hint to help you decide if it is the same person or someone with the same name.
The only sources that should be deleted are ones with no valid information. i.e. "Ancestry Family Tree" with no URL to the record in the tree.
0 -
For the engineers: I repeat my question, what is the purpose for the "category word and dot"? I don't see any reason for it.
Example: "Ruth L. Roberts, Marriage • Michigan Marriages, 1868-1925"
Why is "Marriage •" added to the source title?
0 -
I am not an engineer and cannot answer your "why". It appears the source is in the format "Person's Name, Record Type • "Collection Name, Date Range" and I guess that having the record type is helpful when a collection name is more vague or in another language. The • is just a separator between the record type and the collection name. It is used all over the site.
You can copy the source name from the title but it takes some precision. You need to not trigger the dropdown box. (when you are too close the box turns gray.) I started on the light gray strip to the left of the source (where the yellow spot is). Even in my example, you would have to remove the year.
If you feel there are sources that do not prove a fact, you may untag them.
0
