Disambiguating terms: Group Details, Group Participants, (Family Group) Tree Persons

Bill Kaczmarek

A couple of suggestions aimed at making terms more intuitive.

Please change the label on the link from "Edit Group" to "Edit Group Details" instead. (See yellow screenshot below). As is, I keep wanting to use it to edit the group MEMBERS, based on the wording.

Btw some confusion arises with Family Group Tree Members (190 of them) vs (Family Group Tree) Group Members (3 of them).

Also, now I see the link below the yellow one below, ie "Message Group". That would be better as "Message the Group Members", to be consistent; or, even better, perhaps, Message the Group Participants. As is, it implies that it will message all of the Family Group Tree Members (190) rather than only the Family Group Tree, Group Members (3)

Maybe better to use consistently the terms "tree persons" and "group participants" (see 2nd screen shot, for the term "participants" as used in chat.) Never use the ambiguous term Group Members.

Or maybe use the terms "Tree Members" and "Tree Participants" (for each Family Group Tree)

FYI the Screenshot is from this URL: https://www.familysearch.org/groups/family/9MMS-9V5

MarlenePitman

Agree. The terminology is going to get confusing unless there is a very clear differentiation.

I like the distinction of Edit Group Details and Message Group Members. The Group clearly has a Members List and the tree has a Person List so those seem to be the preferred terms.

The chat session has participants, which is, I think, consistent with general chat terminology. Those participants are, of course, the members :-)

AnneLoForteWillson

Thank you for your thoughts on terminology. You will note that the Group Details page has changed significantly due to updates to this tool over the past few months. We have more consistently used the terms Tree Person vs Group Member to make these distinctions more clear. If you have further thoughts on this subject, please start a new post.